L-2010-123, Substantial NPDES Permit Revision St. Lucie Plant Response to FDEP RFI 1

Substantial NPDES Permit Revision St. Lucie Plant Response to FDEP RFI #1

ML101930526
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/08/2010
From:	Golder Associates
To:	Florida Power & Light Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2010-123 09387687
Download: ML101930526 (268)

Text

I I SUBSTANTIAL NPDES PERMIT REVISION ST. LUCIE PLANT I RESPONSE TO FDEP RFI #1 I Florida Power & Light Company I

i Submitted To: Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.

3730 Chamblee Tucker Road I _

Atlanta, Georgia 30341 I

I Distribution:

12 Copies - Florida Power & Light Company 6 Copies - Golder Associates Inc.

i * ' June 8, 2010 09387687 Golder 101 Associates

June 2010 09387687 June 2010 09387687 Table of Contents RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RFI #1)

List of Tables Table 2-1 Maximum Intake Water Temperatures Table 2-2 Predicted Discharge Water Temperature and Temperature Rise Above Ambient Table 2-3 Requested Water Discharge Temperature & Temperature Rise Above Ambient Monthly Limits Table 5-e-1 Model Runs in OLER Section 5.1 Table 5-e-2 Cases Identified by FPL to Analyze Table 5-e-3 Model Results from Section 5.1 for 20F Surface Isotherm Table 5-e-4 Model results from Section 5.1 for 50 F Surface Isotherm Table 5.1-3 Frequency Distribution of Longshore Current Speed and Direction at the St. Lucie Site List of Figures Figure 5-b-1 Intake Temperature Figure 5-c-1 Discharge Temperature Figure 5-d-1 Temperature Difference between Intake and Discharge Figure 5-e-1 Surface Areas Enclosed by the Two Degree Isotherm Figure 5-e-2 Surface Areas Enclosed by the Five Degree Isotherm 5 3 Figure .17 Surface Isotherms for St. Lucie Unit 2 Southward Current Figure 5.1-4 Surface Isotherms for St. Lucie Unit 2 Northward Current Figure 5.1-5 Surface Isotherms for St. Lucie Unit 1 Slack Water Conditions Figure 5.1-6 Surface Isotherms for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Slack Water Conditions Figure 5-e-3 Surface Isotherms under Southward Currents Figure 5-e-4 Surface Isotherms under Northward Currents Figure 5-e-5 Surface Isotherms under Slack Water Conditions Figure 5.1-14 Predicted Surface Water Temperature Rises for Units 1 and 2 during Maximum Observed Southerly Currents of 1.3 fps Figure 5.1-15 Predicted Surface Water Temperature Rises for Units 1 and 2 during Maximum Observed Northerly Currents of 0.7 fps Figure 5.1-16 Predicted Surface Water Temperature Rises During Slack Water for Units 1 and 2 Figure 6-1 Probability That Water Temperature Will Be Exceeded List of Attachments Attachment A 5a.Form 2CS Part III Attachment B Section 5.1, St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License Environmental Report Attachment C Section 2.4, St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License Environmental Report Attachment D Revised Thermal Discharge Study Attachment E UESI Estimate Attachment F Excel Spreadsheet RFI-1-5 (9. Golder 100607 09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final.docx '4. Aissociates

June 2010 ii 09387687 List of Calculations Calculation 25 Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Calculation 26 Waste Heat Discharged for Existing Units Calculation 27 Specific Heat of Sea Water at Varying Temperatures Calculation 28 MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 123 0F Discharge Temperature - Case 2 Calculation 29 MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 11 80 F Discharge Temperature - Case 1 Calculation 30 MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 11 90 F Discharge Temperature - Case 3 Calculation 31 MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 120°F DischargeTemperature - Case 4 Calculation 32 Mixing Zone Volumes for Cases 1 through 4 Calculation 33- Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Runs

.9

(.Golder 100607 09387687 fdep st lucie plant report-final.docx ~Associates

June 2010 I 09387687 FDEP NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION PROJECT (NPDES)

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RFI #1)

Substantial Permit Revision Request - St. Lucie Plant Comment 1: As the responses to the request below require engineering review and calculations, please submit the responses under the seal of Florida Power and Light's Engineer of Record for this project in accordance with Chapter 471 (P.E.),

Florida Statutes.

Response 1: These responses are submitted under the seal of FPL's Engineer of Record, Harold A.

Frediani, Jr., P.E, including the attached Calculations 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

Comment 2: It was unclear from the application whether the requested revisions to the discharge temperature limitations in the existing permit were for an entire calendar year or for certain months in the year. Please clarify the request.

Response 2: FPL requests the following maximum instantaneous discharge temperature limits, with the cooler months defined as December through May, and the warmer months defined as June through November:

REQUESTED TEMPERATURE LIMITS NORMAL OPERATIONS Cooler Months Warmer Months Discharge Temperature 117 0 F 119OF Based on the Department's Comment 7, FPL understands FDEP's position on this matter that water quality standards for temperature must be applied based on instantaneous maximum levels; therefore, with this document, FPL revises its request that the discharge temperature and temperature rise limits be based on averages. Accordingly, in order to develop proposed instantaneous temperature limits, FPL has performed statistical analysis on recorded intake temperatures for two annual periods, the cooler months of December through May, and the warmer months of June through November, for the period of record August 2005 through May, 2010 (the POR). The maximum intake water temperature during the cooler months was 82.21F, during the warmer months the maximum intake water temperature was 88.4 0 F. The response to Comment 4 below describes four operating cases that FPL has analyzed to determine the maximum instantaneous discharge temperatures and temperature rise values for both periods.

Case 1, which involves both units operating normally at full load with all eight Circulating Water (CW) pumps operating, can occur during any time of year, and results in a post-uprate discharge temperature rise of 281F (see Response to Comment 4 below). Based Golder 100609_09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-Ml.docx 'Associates

June 2010 2 09387687 on that temperature rise, the maximum discharge temperature based on the POR for the cooler months would be 11 0.2 0 F (assuming an intake temperature of 82.20 F), and for the warmer months would be 116.40F (assuming an intake temperature of 88.4 0 F).

Case 2, which involves both units operating normally at full load with only six CW pumps (three per unit) operating, is expected to occur primarily during the cooler months, and results in a post-uprate discharge temperature rise of 32.1 OF (see Response to Comment 4 below). However, based on the cooler values of intake temperatures recorded, 6-pump operation could occur during any time of year. Based on the 32.1 F temperature rise, the maximum discharge temperature based on the POR for the cooler months would be 114.3 0 F (assuming an intake temperature of 82.2 0F).

Case 3, involving the normal operation of only one unit with its four CW pumps energized, results in a post-uprate discharge temperature rise of 28.4 0 F (see Response to Comment 4 below); therefore Case 3 results in maximum discharge temperatures of 110.6 0 F during the cooler months (assuming an intake temperature of 82.2 0 F), and 116.81F during the warmer months (assuming an intake temperature of 88.40 F).

Case 4 is the maintenance case, involving the operation of both units at full load, with 4 CW pumps energized for one unit and 3 CW pumps energized for the other unit. This operating scenario produces a discharge temperature rise of 29.21F (see Response to Comment 4 below). That results in a maximum discharge temperature of 111.41F for the cooler months (assuming an intake temperature of 82.20 F) and 117.6°F for the warmer months (assuming an intake temperature of 88.40 F).

In summary, the maximum discharge temperatures for each case are predicted, based on the POR, to be as follows:

PREDICTED DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES BASED ON POR Case No. Cooler Months Warmer Months 0

Case 1 110.2 F 116.4 0 F Case 2 114.3 0 F N/A Case 3 110.6 0 F 116.8 0 F Case 4 111.4 0 F 117.6 0 F In developing instantaneous temperature limits, FPL proposes that it is reasonable to take into account that the POR is less than 5 years, the plant is licensed by the .NRC to operate another 40 years, and the historical record indicates ambient water temperatures in the past have exceeded those in the POR (see Response 6 below) by as much as 100609_09387687 fdep st lude plant report-final-rl1.docx GIA isociates

June 2010 3 09387687 1.61F. Accordingly, in proposing temperature limits, FPL has added a safety factor of 1.6°F to the expected intake water temperatures, and rounded the result up to whole numbers. Additionally, as described in Comment 4 below, FPL believes it is appropriate to add a safety factor to the expected temperature rise of an additional 1°F during cooler months, based on historical data. The results after adding these safety factors are the following requested temperature limits:

REQUESTED TEMPERATURE LIMITS NORMAL OPERATIONS Cooler Months Warmer Months Discharge Temperature 117 0 F 119 0 F The normal operation maximum discharge temperatures are greater than or equal to the maintenance discharge temperatures; therefore, FPL no longer requests separate limits for discharge temperature during maintenance operations.

Comment 3: FPL claims in its application that the cooling water discharge temperature is approaching the permit limitation of 113*F at the point of discharge due to rising temperatures at the intake to the nuclear units during normal operations, maintenance activities, or both. The existing permit contains two temperature 0

limitations: 113 F for normal operations and 117 0 F for maintenance activities, which includes chlorination of the cooling water system. The monthly temperature data submitted to the Department does not separate the discharge temperature data for normal operations from that associated with maintenance activities.

Please provide discharge temperature data for the past five years that shows the maximum instantaneous and monthly average temperatures for both normal operation and maintenance activities for each month. If maintenance activities were not conducted in a given month, please indicate that in the submittal.

Response 3: As a point of clarification, FPL's request for an increased discharge temperature limit was precipitated by a combination of higher Atlantic Ocean temperatures observed in the latter part of the summer of 2007 and 2009, combined with the approximately 30 F increase in discharge temperature from the EPU. These higher temperatures are within the expected range of ambient water temperatures, but were significantly more frequent than in 2005 and 2006 (the years used as the basis for the previous minor permit revision request). Under these 2007 and 2009 conditions, and conservatively projecting them as probable scenarios in the future, the units likely would have to be down-rated to meet the 11 30 F discharge limit more often than previously expected.

FGolder 100609_09387687 fdep st lucie plant report-final-rlldocx 4~Associates

June 2010 4 09387687 FPL does not track and separate discharge temperature observations during maintenance activities from observations during normal periods of operation unless the discharge temperature exceeds 113 0 F. This condition, exceeding 113 0 F discharge temperature, has not occurred during the past permit cycle so FPL has no "separated" temperature information to provide. That being said, the available discharge temperatures have been provided in the response to Comment 5.c. below.

The specific condition setting a 117 0 F discharge temperature limit applicable during maintenance activities has been present in all St. Lucie NPDES permits issued since the early 1980s. Since that time, certain chlorination and maintenance procedures at the plant have changed, which may now warrant a different permitting approach. Below is a summary and "current situation" for the chlorination and maintenance activities as requested in an email from Marc Harris requesting clarification on this issue:

" What is the frequency of chlorine addition?

The main turbine condensers are chlorinated daily using sodium hypochlorite for less than 100 minutes per unit.

" What is the frequency of throttling of circulating water pumps?

Circulating water pump discharge valves are throttled very infrequently. This could occur on a very short term basis during a unit shut down or to mitigate the potential effects of unusual operating events such as a clogged circulating water filter screen, or to minimize chlorine usage.

" How often does the once-through cooling water system become biofouled?

Subsequent to installing the Taprogge Debris Filter and Condenser Tube Cleaning Systems (CTCS), biofouling of the tubes is uncommon. Use of the CTCS minimizes tube fouling, which increases turbine performance, thus reducing the amount of heat rejected to the circulating water system. The CTCS normally operates continuously to maintain optimum turbine efficiency.

" Is there a different chlorination practice used when the condenser becomes fouled?

No.

Comment 4: In the application FPL requested that the statistical basis for the temperature rise limitation across the main condensers during normal plant operations be changed from instantaneous maximum to monthly average. Based on this request it would appear that FPL anticipates the temperature rise to exceed the permit limitation 30°F for normal plant operations after the uprate of Units 1 and 2. However, FPL Golder 100609 09387687 fdep st lucie plantreport-final-rll.docx W Aisociates

June 2010 5 09387687 indicated that the worst-case instantaneous maximum temperature rise would be 28.85 0 F. Please provide engineering calculations for heat transfer between the steam system and once-through cooling water system, including the calculated worst-case temperature rise across the once-through cooling water system, for both pre- and post-uprate of Units 1 and 2 during both normal plant operations and maintenance activities. Please indicate the instantaneous maximum and monthly average being requested for normal plant operations and maintenance activities.

In addition, please provide the rationale for the request if greater than the calculated temperature rises for post uprate of Units 1 and 2.

Response 4: As discussed in Response 2 above, FPL has revised it's request for thermal limits based on average temperatures. FPL requests the following instantaneous maximum discharge temperature rise above ambient limits:

Discharge TemperatureRise 330 F The attached Calculation 25 derives the expected temperature rises for four different post-uprate cases, defined as follows:

" Case 1. Maximum discharge temperature during normal summertime full load operation of both units (eight Circulating Water (CW) pumps running);

" Case 2. Maximum discharge temperature rise over ambient during normal wintertime full load operation of both units (six CW pumps running);

" Case 3. Maximum discharge temperature during normal summertime full load operation of one unit (four CW pumps running); and

" Case 4. Maximum discharge temperature and discharge temperature rise above ambient during transient full load conditions with both units operating (seven CW pumps running).

The post-uprate results are summarized on page 5 of Calculation 25, and are as follows:

POST-UPRATE RESULTS Post-Uprate Tern perature Case Rise (OF) 1 27.99 2 32.08 3 28.36 4 29.2 0~j~Golder

~Associates 100609..09387687 fdep stlucde plant report-flnal-ril.docx

June 2010 6 09387687 Similarly, Calculation 26 derives the expected temperature rises for the same four different cases for the pre-uprate condition. The results are summarized on page 5 of Calculation 26, and are as follows:

PRE-UPRATE RESULTS Pre-Uprate Case Temperature Rise (OF) 1 25.45 2 29.16 3 25.74 4 26.46 Cases 1, 2, and 3 are all normal operating scenarios while Case 4 is the maintenance scenario. Examination of the historical data provided in the Response to Comment 5.d.

(see Figure 5-d-1 below) indicates that actual recorded temperature differences have been as high as 29.6°F on August 19, 2005, when the plant was presumably operating in Case 1. Because this temperature rise exceeds that predicted above by about 1.6°F, FPL believes it is appropriate to add a safety factor of 1IF to the requested limits. The resulting requested limits are summarized below:

Cooler Months Warmer Months Normal OperationsDischarge 33 0 F 33 0F Temperature Rise Maintenance Discharge 33OF 33 0F Temperature Rise Because the normal operation maximum discharge temperatures rises are as great as the maintenance discharge temperature rises, FPL no longer requests separate limits for discharge temperature rise during maintenance operations.

Comment 5: Insufficient information has been received to initiate the review process for thermal mixing zone request. Below is a list of items, at minimum, that are required before the review process can begin. Additional information and materials may be requested after the initial review.

a) Complete Part III Receiving Water Information on page 2CS-17 of the permit application. Provide any supplemental documents as needed for a mixing zone request.

b) Provide all temperature monitoring data for sample point, INT-1, since the current permit issuance.

Golder 100609..09387687fdep st lucie plant report-final-rll.docx (3Asociates

June 2010 7 09387687 c) Provide all temperature monitoring data from sample point, EFF-2, since the current permit issuance.

d) Provide the calculated temperature difference between EFF-2 and INT-1 for the same period of record.

e) Expand the thermal discharge study to include far-field analysis of the predicted maximum surface temperature rise above ambient and the location of the isotherms (10 F to 50 F) under slack and bi-directional velocities (10th and 90th percentiles).

Response 5: a. The completed Part III is attached as Attachment 5a.

b. The temperature monitoring data is provided electronically as worksheet INT-1 in Excel spreadsheet RFI-1-5. These temperatures have been plotted as Figure 5-b-1.

c. The temperature monitoring data is provided electronically as worksheet EFF-2 in Excel spreadsheet RFI-1-5. These temperatures have been plotted as Figure 5-c-1.

d. The calculated temperature difference between EFF-2 and INT-1 is provided electronically as worksheet Delta T in Excel spreadsheet RFI-1-5. These temperatures have been plotted as Figure 5-d-1.

e. The Operating License Environmental Report for Unit 2 (SL2-ER-OL) includes numerous "tests" that were run to document the expected thermal discharge impacts of operating St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. FPL commissioned field surveys, hydraulic model simulations, and mathematical modeling efforts to produce these tests. For a full description, see Section 5.1 of the SL2-ER-OL (Section 5.1, attached). The hydraulic model studies not only simulated the two different diffusers, but also the site-specific morphometry of the ocean bottom and the shoreline. This response demonstrates which test results are applicable to the proposed uprated units, and what the results from those tests were.

Section 5.1 describes 21 different modeling analyses (tests) for both near and far field which were performed during the permitting of Unit 2. In the interest of conservatism, some of these runs were performed for a heat rejection rate significantly larger than what was expected from the units at full load at that time. Although the heat rejection rate was nominally set at 7 billion Btu per hour per unit for full load conditions, the actual heat rejection rates modeled varied above that due to conservative rounding of input numbers.

Table 5-e-1 tabulates the salient characteristics of the model runs (identified as tests) reported in Section 5.1, including actual modeled heat rejection rates.

Tests 1 through 7 were performed to simulate Unit 2 operating alone. Tests 8 through 14 were performed to simulate Unit 1 operating alone. These tests were performed to 100609_09387687 fdep st lucie plant report-final-rll.docx 9 Associates

June 2010 8 09387687 simulate the near-field conditions. The hydraulic model studies demonstrated that in the near field, the thermal plumes from the Y-port and the multiport diffusers never interfere with each other (Section 5.1.2.2.2.2 a); therefore, they could be modeled separately and the resultant estimated individual unit volumes enclosed by each isotherm could then be added together to obtain the two-unit volumes. The mathematical model used was the Koh and Fan model, with coefficients calibrated from the hydraulic model studies (Reference 16, Section 5.1).

The hydraulic model studies also demonstrated that the far-field thermal plumes from Units 1 and 2 do not interfere with each other during the nearshore current patterns of flow along the shore, which have a prevailing northward direction and a secondary mode to the south (Section 5.1.2.2.1.2 c). Those current conditions, representing 84% of the measurements taken (Table 5.1-3), were modeled assuming the most frequent current velocities of 0.85 feet per second northward alongshore and 0.85 feet per second southward alongshore (Table 5.1.3). The results from the PDS runs for each unit were then superimposed for those non-slack cases. Slack tide conditions, estimated to occur about 8% of the time (Section 2.4.2.3 of SL2-ERE-OL, attached) were also modeled and shown to be the worst case both for near and far field with respect to the volumetric size of the isotherms. Slack tide was found to be the only condition under which the Unit 1 and Unit 2 far fields interfered with each other. The Prych-Davis-Shirazi model (PDS, reference 18 in Section 5.1) was calibrated with the hydraulic model study data and used to simulate the far-field conditions. Under the two longshore current conditions modeled, the PDS runs were done separately and predicted no interference between each other. For the slack tide case, the PDS model was run to the point where the two plumes intersected; at that point a new source was formulated with its characteristics determined by conserving or combining the total heat, volume, and momentum flux of both discharges, and the modeling was continued for that combined source.

FPL has identified two full-load normal operating scenarios that will determine the maximum expected discharge temperature and the maximum expected discharge temperature rise from the facility. These two cases will bound the expected size of the mixing zone. The maximum discharge temperature, which has been identified as Case 1, is expected to occur when the units are both operating at full load with all eight Circulating Water (CW) pumps energized and the maximum intake water temperature (CW intake temperature or CWIT). Based on the intake water temperature analysis described in Response to Comment 6, FPL estimates that the maximum expected CWIT is 90 degrees F. The maximum discharge temperature rise, which has been identified as Case 2, is expected to take place during wintertime, when the units are both operating at full load, with only six CW pumps energized, three per unit. FPL has identified the 90%

100609_09387687_fdep St lud~e plant report-final-dll.docx* (D* F3Golder

'ASSOCiates

June 2010 9 09387687 June 2010 9 09387687 intake water temperature (that temperature equaled or exceeded 90% of the time) as 70OF to be used with Case 2.

FPL has identified two other cases to be examined. Case 3 is when only Unit 1 is operating, and its discharge is leaving via both diffusers. Because the resultant CW flow rate is approximately half that of Case 1, the jet discharge velocity from all diffuser ports is lower in Case 3. Therefore, FPL has determined that Case 3 is the worst case with respect to the 97 0 F limit on the water surface. Case 4 is a maintenance case, which assumes Unit 1 is operating at full load with four CW pumps energized and Unit 2 is operating at full load with three CW pumps energized; with the fourth CW pump out of service for maintenance.

Table 5-e-2 tabulates the salient features of the four cases FPL has identified. FPL submits that a comparison of Table 5-e-2 with Table 5-e-1 demonstrates that the following tests from Section 5.1 adequately address the conditions for modeling the designated cases:

1. Test 19 is a valid simulation for Case 1. They have the following characteristics:

Heat Rejection Temperature CW Flow Rate Rate (Btu per hour) I Rise (OF) (cfs)

CASE 1 14.2 billion 27.99 2,301 TEST 19 14.2 billion 28 2,290 Although the ambient water temperature and discharge water temperature in Test 19 are 30F lower than those in Case 1, ifthe model results are expressed in terms of temperature rise above ambient, the plume configuration will be nearly identical, as demonstrated in Section 3.1 of the Thermal Discharge Study submitted with the original application for permit modification.

2. Test 15 is a valid simulation for Case 2. They have the following characteristics:

Heat Rejection Temperature CW Flow Rate Rate (Btu per hour) Rise (OF) (cfs)

CASE 2 14.3 billion 32.08 2,014 TEST 15 14.2 billion 32 2,003

3. Test 12 is a valid simulation for Case 3. They have the following characteristics:

Heat Rejection Temperature CW Flow Rate Rate (Btu per hour) Rise (OF) (cfs)

CASE 3 7.2 billion 28.4 1,143 TEST 12 7.1 billion 28 1,145 100609 09387687.fdp st lucie plant report-final-ril.docx

. Golder Aisociates

June 2010 10 09387687 There are no good matches among the tests for Case 4. However, the Case 4 far field results are expected to lie between those of Cases 1 and 2, since all three cases have the same approximate heat rejection rate. Therefore, Case 4 will not be a worst case.

In order to determine which of the tests, or Cases, is the worst case with respect to far-field surface isotherms, the areal extent of the 20 F and 50F surface isotherms have been tabulated in Tables 5-e-3 and 5-e-4, respectively. In the north and south longshore tests (or Cases), the areas for each unit are tabulated separately and added together to find the total combined areas for both units. In the stagnant (or slack) condition, the combined units' operation has been estimated with the PDS model as described above.

The information from Tables 5-e-3 and 5-e-4 has been plotted in Figures 5-e-1 and 5-e-2, respectively.

Based on the results shown in Tables 5-e-3 and 5-e-4, and Figures 5-e-1 and 5-e-2, it is concluded that the largest far-field thermal plumes, with respect to the size of the surface isotherms, occur during Case 2. This was expected because Case 2 has a higher AT and lower CW flow rate than the other cases. Because of the lower flow rate, the discharge velocity at the diffuser ports is lower; therefore, the offshore component of the plume's velocity is smaller. Because Case 2 produces the largest thermal plume, and the thermal plume with the least offshore penetration, the SL2-ER-OL provided surface isotherm plots only for that Case. Further, because the results of Unit 1 hydraulic model studies indicate the Unit 1 thermal plume configuration is independent of the current conditions (see Section 5.1.2.3.2.1), the SL2-ER-OL only presented surface isotherms for the Unit 1 thermal plume under slack tide conditions. For that reason, Section 5.1 of the SL2-ER-OL included Unit 1 effects only in the plots of estimated surface isotherms for the slack tide conditions.

FPL has used the SL2-ER-OL thermal plume isotherm maps to prepare composite thermal plume maps of the combined plume for both units under worst-case conditions based on the thermal plume maps provided in the SL2-ER-OL. Figures 5.1-3 (Unit 2 isotherms for southward current) and Figure 5.1-5 (Unit 1 surface isotherms) have been combined to produce Figure 5-e-3 Combined Surface Isotherms for Units 1 and 2 under Southward Current Conditions. Figures 5.1-4 (Unit 2 isotherms for northward current) and Figure 5.1-5 (Unit 1 surface isotherms) have been combined to produce Figure 5-e-4 Combined Surface Isotherms for Units 1 and 2 under Northward Current Conditions.

Figure 5.1-6 has been reproduced as Figure 5-e-5 Combined Surface Isotherms for Units 1 and 2 under Slack Current Conditions.

Examination of Figures 5-e-3, 5-e-4, and 5-e-5 leads to the following observations:

09rAsGOlder 100609_09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-ril1.docxi-o a e

June 2010 11 09387687

1. The surface thermal plume is influenced by the ambient current direction, bending to the north during northward currents, to the south during southward currents, and moving directly offshore during slack current.

2. The surface thermal plumes in all 3 current conditions that were modeled are entirely seaward of the 18-foot contour, which crosses the seaward end of the Y-nozzle diffuser.

3. The only 50F surface thermal contour is produced by the Unit I discharge, and encompasses less than 5 acres for Cases 1 and 3, and less than 15 acres for Case 2 (see Table 5-e-4).

Based on these observations, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Because the 18-foot depth contour defines the landward extent of Open Waters (see FAC 62-302.520(3)(f), and the thermal plumes are all seaward of that 18-foot contour, the thermal plume does not enter the coastal waters; therefore, coastal waters thermal limits do not apply to the St. Lucie Plant thermal discharge.

2. Because the thermal criteria for open waters limits water temperatures to 170 F above ambient, outside of any mixing zone, the mixing zone needed for the St.

Lucie Plant is smaller than the 50 F isotherm shown on Figure 5-e-3.

3. Outside of the designated mixing zone, water quality standards for open waters will be met; therefore, it can be presumed that far field effects on biota will not be adverse.

However, Comment 5.e. specifically asked for the location of the 1IF to 50 F isotherms under slack and bidirectional currents. Although such isotherms were not produced for the SL2-ER-OL, they were produced for the earlier Unit 2 Construction Permit Environmental Report (SL-2), and the construction permit for Unit 2 was granted based on the environmental impacts described in that document. The analysis performed was identified as conservative, in that isotherm sizes resulting from the modeling were understood to be much larger than those which would occur in the real world. They are more conservative than known at that time because the multiport diffuser modeled in SL2 assumed discharge ports perpendicular to the main diffuser axis (i.e., with no offshore velocity component). These isotherm maps are presented in response to this comment with the understanding that they are conservative, including Figure 5.1-14 for southward currents, Figure 5.1-15 for northward currents, and Figure 5.1-16 for slack conditions.

It is valuable to repeat the conclusions reached by the agency in charge of the permitting of St Lucie at the time of the Environmental Reports that have been referenced above. In the Unit 2 FES, April, 1982, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated, "Heated 1 8 urAGolder

.doitx 10009_09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-d~o S l

June 2010 12 09387687 June 2010 12 09387687 water will slightly increase the water temperature of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the discharge, but the effects on marine biota will be minimal."

Comment 6: FPL noted an increased rise in ambient temperature at sampling point INT-1 and attributes the rise to increased Atlantic Ocean temperatures. According to Rule 62-302.520(3)(a), F.A.C., ambient temperature of a receiving body of water is determined at a location unaffected by manmade thermal discharges and at the same depth and exposure to winds and currents as the most stable portions of the receiving body of water. No :persuasive data have been submitted to demonstrate that INT-1 monitoring data are representative of ambient conditions. For instance, analyses of global surface temperature change are routinely carried out by several groups including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Research Council (NRC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The analyses encompass global climate data, decades of long-term measurements and modeling simulations to determine changes in surface temperature. Similar efforts by FPL will be necessary to supplant its case that INT-1 is representative of ambient Atlantic Ocean temperatures at the ocean intake structure and that the change in ocean temperatures is significantly higher than that claimed by the organizations mentioned above.

Response 6: FPL is not asserting that there has been an increased rise in ocean ambient temperatures as a general matter, but that it is appropriate to account for temperature extremes that will be faced by a facility expected to operate for the next 40 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that "Sea water temperatures on the Atlantic Ocean offshore of the site were found to range from about 150 C (59 0 F) to 32 0C (901F) between 1971 and 1978." (Section 4.3.3 of the Unit 2 Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2, Docket No. 50-389, USNRC, April, 1982). Based on that evidence, FPL has assumed a design maximum intake water temperature of 90°F is appropriate.

With respect to FPL's assumption that the intake water temperature is a reasonable surrogate for the ambient water temperature, FPL has analyzed the frequency distribution of water temperatures at the St. Lucie intake and at two National Data Buoy Center Stations, Station 41114 off Fort Pierce, Florida, and Station 41009, off Cape Canaveral.

Both measure sea surface water temperatures at a depth of about 1 meter. The frequency distributions for the three sampling locations are shown on Figure 6-1. The frequency distributions indicate the following:

G~oIder 100609_09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-dl~docx WAiskociates

June 2010 13 09387687 June 2010130877

" The St Lucie intake water temperatures are less than or equal to the Buoy 41114 water temperatures about 94% of the time, for all temperature less than or equal to 84 0 F.

" Both the St Lucie intake water temperatures and the 41114 buoy water temperatures are generally about 21F lower than the Canaveral Buoy water temperatures at any given frequency of occurrence.

Based on these data, it is concluded that the St. Lucie intake water temperature is an excellent surrogate for the ambient water temperature.

Comment 7: In the application FPIL requested that the temperature limitation for normal plant operations be raised from 113 0 F to 115 0 F at the point of discharge and that the statistical basis be changed from instantaneous maximum to monthly average.

Temperature limits as set forth in Rule 62-302.520(5)(b), F.A.C., are based on maximums not on monthly averages.

The application included a thermal discharge study report in which modeling was conducted to assess the thermal plume impacts associated with an instantaneous maximum discharge of 115 0 F. Based on the request to change the statistical basis, it would appear that FPL anticipates exceeding a discharge temperature of 115 0 F. Using the results of the calculations from item 4 and ambient Atlantic Ocean temperature from item 6 above, please provide the following:

a. calculations for the instantaneous maximum at the point of discharge pre and post uprate of Units 1 and 2 during both- normal plant operations and maintenance activities;

b. the instantaneous maximum and monthly average being requested for normal plant operations and maintenance activities, as well as the rationale of greater than the calculated temperatures for post uprate of Unit 1 and 2;

c. a revised thermal discharge study report using the absolute instantaneous maximum temperatures and maximum temperature differences between the effluent and ambient conditions; and

d. the revised thermal discharge study report must also demonstrate whether the thermal discharge plume is entrained back into the plant; taking into account the approach velocities at the Atlantic Ocean intake structures.

Response 7: a. The attached Calculation 25 derives the expected temperature rises for four different post-uprate cases, as described in Response 4 above. Similarly, Calculation 26 100609_09387687_fdep st lude plant report-final-ril.docx A isOCiates

June 2010 14 09387687 derives the expected temperature rises for the same four different cases, for the pre-uprate condition. Cases 1, 2, and 3 are normal operation cases and Case4 is the maintenance case.

b. As indicated above, FPL has revised its request for any average temperature limits, and now requests only instantaneous limits.

FPL requests the maximum instantaneous temperature limitations described in Response to Comments 2 and 4 above, as follows:

REQUESTED TEMPERATURE LIMITS NORMAL OPERATIONS Cooler Months Warmer Months 117 0F 119 00 F F

I Discharge Temperature I DischargeTemperature Rise 0

33 F t 33 F Because the normal operation maximum discharge temperatures and temperature rises are as great as the maintenance discharge temperatures and discharge temperature rises (see responses to Comments 2 and 4 above), FPL no longer requests separate limits for discharge temperature and temperature rise during maintenance operations.

c. FPL has revised and attached the Revised Thermal Discharge Study to address the absolute instantaneous maximum temperatures and maximum temperature differences between the effluent and ambient conditions.

d. FPL provided a detailed explanation of the process in which a small portion of the thermal discharge can be recirculated into the intake during the final permitting of Unit 2. This discussion is in Section 5.1.2.3.3 of the SL2-ER-OL (attached) and concludes that recirculation can only occur during southward currents, and that it would amount to a maximum increase of 1.20 F in magnitude. Based on the response to Comment 6 above, recirculation actually measured appears to be minimal.

Comment 8: The Department considers the proposed discharge to be an expanded discharge and thereby subject to anti-degradation requirements in Rules 62-4.242 and 62-302.300, F.A.C. As part of the anti-degradation demonstration, please provide an evaluation of the feasibility of other options in addition to those proposed in the submitted analysis. The options evaluation should include extending the multiport and "Y" port discharge pipes to eliminate any entrainment of heated discharge at the Atlantic Ocean intake structure, converting the "Y" port into a multi-port diffuser, as well as options for additional heat removal at the primary, secondary 100609.09387687fdep st lucie plant report-final-ril.docx

(*-Golder

~Aisociates

June 2010 15 09387687 and tertiary cooling systems. Please note that FPL may need to conduct modeling for some of these options to demonstrate whether changes to the thermal plume are significant.

Response 8: FPL provided antidegradation analysis in its application for permit revision. As requested, FPL additionally has evaluated the costs and benefits of the following options (see Attachment 8-1):

1. Extending the y-port diffuser.

This option would result in removing the existing y-port diffuser and rebuilding it 2,600 feet further seaward to eliminate all possibilities for recirculation. Further modeling (including physical modeling) would be required to determine an exact location. This is the same for each of the options. Costs could be less if less piping is required and more if more piping is required.. The total cost was conservatively estimated at $40 MM. The environmental impacts of this option, mainly associated with dredging to install new pipe, would be significant, but temporary.

2. Extending the multi-port diffuser.

This option would include capping the existing multi-port diffuser, extending the pipe 700 feet seaward and construction of a new, identical multiport diffuser. The total cost is conservatively estimated at $26 MM. The environmental impacts of this option, mainly associated with dredging to install new pipe, would be significant, but temporary.

3. Replacing the current y-port diffuser with a new multi-port diffuser 4,100 feet seaward of the dune line.

This option would require construction of 4,100 feet of a new 16-foot pipe and a new multi-port diffuser at the end. The total cost is conservatively estimated at $43 MM.

The environmental impacts of this option, mainly associated with dredging to install new pipe, would be significant, but temporary.

Completely eliminating recirculation would require a combination of either Option 1 and 2, or Option 2 and 3. The first combination would have a total cost of $66 MM, while the second would have a total cost of $69 MM. These values represent approximately 8% of the total cost of the EPU.

Please note that, based on modeling conducted as part of the facility's Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License Application (Section 5.1.2.3.3, which is attached), the current configuration of y-port, multi-port and intakes result in recirculation 100609_09387687..fdep st lucde plant report-final-ril.docx A ss ociates

June 2010 16 09387687 during some southerly currents with a very conservatively estimated maximum increase in intake temperature of 1.20F. As demonstrated in FPL's response to Comment 6, which compared St. Lucie Plant intake temperatures to the National Data Buoy Center Station 41114, off of Ft. Pierce, Florida, the recirculation actually measured is minimal, as the plant intake temperatures are less than or equal to the 41114 buoy water temperatures about 94% of the time, and for all temperatures less than 84 0 F.

Furthermore, if FPL makes any of the physical modifications presented above, it will not remove the need for utilizing one of the options presented in the original application (listed below) so the facility will be able to meet the current 11 31F discharge limit.

In the original substantial revision application, FPL explored several options as part of the anti-degradation determination. As requested by FDEP, FPL is amending that application to present the percentage of the estimated total cost of the EPU project associated with each of the options previously presented:

Option Percent of Total Estimated Total Cost Increase Intake Flow 10- 14% $80 - 120 Million Helper Cooling Towers 11% $95 Million Reducing Power When $6 Million/year - O&M Only DischargeLimit is Exceeded I $

Note: FPL has not evaluated "additional heat removal at the primary, secondary and tertiary cooling systems" for the following reasons: The Intake Cooling Water (ICW) System provides cooling for various plant primary, secondary and tertiary cooling systems. This system shares the ocean intake and discharge tunnels with the Circulating Water (CW) System. The total ICW System flow from both Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 58,000 gpm, which is quite small compared to the total flow of 974,600 gpm form the CW System. The heat rejected by the ICW System is approximately 390 million Btu/hr, which is only 2.8% of the approximately 13,800 million BTU/hr from the CW System.

As such, the contribution of additional heated water flow to the Discharge Tunnels is insignificant.

Miscellaneous effluent discharge flows into the discharge flumes are significantly less than Intake Cooling Water and are of no significance in the total flow discharged to the Atlantic Ocean. As any changes to the primary, secondary and tertiary cooling systems are regulated by the NRC, they would be extremely costly to make such changes at this point of the project, and would result in little or no reduction to the ocean discharge temperature.

Comment 9: Please note that the application was insufficient to begin a review of whether the proposed increase in discharge temperature affects the extent of the thermal plume under certain oceanic conditions and ultimately the indigenous population of flora and fauna in and on the receiving water body. Hence, there may be additional questions from Department's Biology Section and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission after FPL submits the requested information and modeling for the thermal plume.

Golder 100609_09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-all.docx Associates

June 2010 17 09387687 June 2010 17 09387687 Response 9: The response to Comment 5e describes in detail the multiple thermal modeling analyses for both near and far field which were performed by FPL during permitting for Unit 2.

Please refer to that response for a detailed description of the extent of the thermal plume under the most likely oceanic conditions. The current conditions used for this modeling effort were based on actual current measurements taken during a 12-month period in 1974 - 1975. These current measurements demonstrate that nearshore currents generally flow parallel to the shoreline, with a prevailing northward direction and a secondary mode to the south. The oceanic conditions modeled were current patterns of flow along the shore (representing 84 percent of the time), and slack tide conditions (representing about 8 percent of the time).

As presented in the Revised Thermal Discharge Study (June 2010) the difference in the extent and volume of the thermal plume attributable to the increase in discharge temperature from 113 to 119 degrees F is relatively small. For the Y-nozzle diffuser, the increase in size for the 17 degree F isotherm is about 6,858 cubic feet (from about 2,439 cubic feet to 9,297 cubic feet). The 17-degree F isotherm increase for the multiport diffuser is negligible (from 614 to 652 cubic feet).

The increase in size of the 17-degree F thermal plume in the Atlantic Ocean is about the size of a cube, 19-feet on each side. Heated water exiting the diffusers at 119 degrees F would be cooled down to 97 degrees F within about 25 seconds. The proposed change in the thermal discharge will increase the temperature of a small volume of the Atlantic Ocean water column in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant discharge. The proposed thermal discharge is expected to quickly mix with the Ocean waters and is not expected to interact with benthic organisms (see Section 5 of the original Thermal Discharge Study).

The plume is expected to float as it mixes, thus water column organisms may interact with the surfacing heated plume. It is important to note that the water is discharged from the diffusers at high velocity and thus in effect will displace ambient water as it mixes.

This is important in regards to the interaction of planktonic organisms such phytoplankton (algae), zooplankton (floating early life stages of invertebrates), and ichthyoplankton (early life stages of fish). These free-floating organisms can't avoid a thermal plume, but due to the initial exit velocity they would be expected to be pushed away from the diffuser by the turbulent diffusing thermal plume and are less likely to be entrained in the higher temperature plume. Fish and other swimming organisms, such as sea turtles, have been shown to avoid high temperature areas by simply swimming away from the source.

The Operating License Environmental Report for Unit 2 (SL2-ER-OL) includes a thorough discussion of the effects of the Plant operation on the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the (JGolder 100609._09387687_fdep st lucie plant report-final-fltdocx '~.Associates

June 2010 18 09387687 St. Lucie Plant. This thermal literature review and conclusions remain relevant to the operation of the Plant. For a full description, see Section 5.1.3.2 of the SL2-ER-OL, attached. The ABI 1980 report entitled "Effects of Increased Water Temperature on the Marine Biota of the St. Lucie Plant Area" cited in this section was previously submitted to the FDEP and it includes the detailed thermal review.

The following are some of the report conclusions:

" Fish: fishes are highly mobile and will avoid unfavorable thermal regimes near the discharge;

" Sea Turtles: Adult marine turtles are mobile and will avoid unfavorable thermal regimes. Based on studies of swimming speed of sea turtle hatchlings in, response to thermal increases, it is anticipated that the few turtles that might encounter these higher water temperatures would resume normal swimming speed after leaving the exposure area. No effects on distribution, nesting, egg development, or survival are expected;

" Benthic Macroinvertebrates: no impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community is anticipated;

" Phytoplankton: impact on phytoplankton should be insignificant and rapid turnover rates in the community would compensate for this reduction; and

• Ichthyoplankton, zooplankton: some temperature effects can be expected on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton being entrained in the heated plume.

Comment 10: The industrial wastewater NPDES permit for the St. Lucie power plant expires on January 19, 2011. In accordance with federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.5(a), the Department is unable to finalize a revision to an industrial wastewater NPDES permit once the permit has expired; even when the permit is administratively continued. If the revision is not finalized prior to permit expiration, the requested revision can either be finalized once the permit is renewed or, at the request of the permittee, included as part of the permit renewal. Note, the thermal plume modeling requested in this letter is a completeness requirement for this revision application and the upcoming permit renewal application. Please account for this regulation when scheduling information gathering and modeling activities to provide a complete application and to meet FPL's own timeframes for completing the uprate project.

Response 10: No response required.

Golder S'mi'ssociates 100609_09387687 fdep st lucie plant report-final-rl .docx

TABLES M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m June 2010 09387687 TABLE 5-e-1 MODEL RUNS IN OLER SECTION 5.1.

Tests from U2-OLER (Table 5.1-7)

Heat Units CW CW Flow CW Flow Heat Rejection Rejection Test Operating pumps CW Flo Rat - Btion Rate - CWIT CWOT AT (at full load) operating gpm ds Rate - Btu/hour Billion Btu per Hour 1 2 4 449,473 1001.5 7,088,504,832 7.09 87 119 32, 2 2 4 426,809 951 6,731,071,488 6.73 87 119 32 3 2 3 489,192 1090 7,714,897,920 7.71 87 119 32 4 2 3 375,197 836 5,917,114,368 5.92 87 119 32 5 2 4 513,876 1145 7,091,159,040 7.09 87 115 28 Conversion Factor 6 2 4 630,115 1404 8,695,185,408 8.70 87 115 28 221,1841 7 2 4 482,460 1075 6,657,638,400 6.66 87 115 28 8 1 449,473 1001.5 7,088,504,832 7.09 87 119 32 9 1 472,138 1052 7,445,938,176 7.45 87 119 32 10 1 305,184 680 4,812,963,840 4.81 87 119 32 11 1 419,179 934 6,610,747,392 6.61 87 119 32 12 1 4 513,876 1145 7,091,159,040 7.09 87 115 28 13 1 397,637 886 5,487,132,672 5.49 87 115 28 14 1 545,292 1215 7,524,679,680 7.52 87 115 28 15 1 &2 898,946 2003 14,177,009,664 14.18 87 119 32 16 1 &2 898,946 2003 14,177,009,664 14.18 87 119 32 17 1 &2 794,376 1770 12,527,861,760 12.53 87 119 32 18 1 &2 794,376 1770 12,527,861,760 12.53 87 119 32 19 1 &2 8 1,027,752 2290 14,182,318,080 14.18 87 115 28 201 1 &2 8 1,027,752 2290 14,182,318,080 14.18 87 115 28 21 1&2 8 1,027,752 2290 14,182,318,080 14.18 87 115 281 XA\Cients\:Fonda Power and Light\O9387687\200_Reports\100602kTabtes and Figures'Final Tables\

Tables 5-e-lthru 5-e4.xtsx (VAXýsw

MM MM MM MM M M-MM M=M M June 2010 09387687 TABLE 5-e-2.

CASES IDENTIFIED BY FPL TO ANALYZE Cases from Calc 25 Units CW CW Flow CW Flow Heat Rejection Heat Rejection Case Operating pumps Rate - Billion Btu CWIT CWOT AT (at full load) operating gpm cfs Rate - Btu/hour per Hour 1 1 &2 8 1,032,600 2,301 14,199,110,000 14.20 90 118.0 27.99 2 1 &2 6 904,000 2,014 14,298,000,000 14.30 70 102.1 32.08 3 1 4 513,000 1,143 7,148,350,000 7.15 90 118.4 28.36 4 1 &2 7 993,000 2,213 14,246,990,000 14.25 90 119.2 29.20 I

X:\Clients\Flonda Power and Light\09387687\200_Reports\100602\Tables and Figures\Final Tables\

Tables 5-e-1_thru 5-e-4.xdsx SGol4er W1"Ociates

m m--m mm m mm m m mnmm m m m June 2010 09387867 TABLE 5-e-3.

MODEL RESULTS FROM SECTION 5.1 FOR 2 DEGREE F. SURFACE ISOTHERM Test Associated Area enclosed by 2 degree Isotherm Number Case Stagnant Southward Northward 19(1) 1 Unit 1 (b) 173 173 173 Unit 2 (a) 172 175 28 Units 1 & 2 (c) 345 348 405 15 (2) 2 Unit 1 (b) 270 270 270 Unit 2 (a) 285 872 589 Units 1 & 2 (c) 555 1142 644 12 3 Unit 1 (b) 173 173 173 Unit 2 Units 1 & 2 173 173 173

( Test 19 = Test 5 plus Test 12 (2) Test 15 Test 1 plus Test 8 (a)from Table 5.1-7 (b) from Table 5.1-12 (c)from table 5.1-13, stagnant conditions only, by superposition for northward and southward X:\Clients\Florida Power and Light\09387687\200_Reports\100602\Tables and Figures\Final Tables\

Tables 5-e-lthru 5-e-4.xlsx CGo4er AssOcxates

m m m m mI m - --I- m m m m m m June 2010 09387867 TABLE 5-e-4.

MODEL RESULTS FROM SECTION 5.1 FOR 5 DEGREE F. SURFACE ISOTHERM Test Associated Area enclosed by 5 degree Isotherm Number Case Stagnant Southward Northward 1901) 1 Unit 1 (b) 4.9 4.9 4.9 Unit 2 (a) 0 0 0 Units 1 & 2 (c) 4.9 4.9 4.9 15 (2) 2 Unit 1 (b) 14.6 14.6 14.6 Unit 2 (a) 0 0 0 Units 1 & 2(c) 14.6 14.6 14.6 12 3 Unit 1 (b) 4.9 4.9 4.9 Unit 2 Units 1 & 2 4.9 4.9 4.9

("Test 19 = Test 5 plus Test 12 (2) Test 15 = Test 1 plus Test 8 (a)from Table 5.1-7 (b)from Table 5.1-12 (c)from table 5.1-13, stagnant conditions only, by superposition for northward and southward X:\Clients\Florida Power and Light\O9387687\200_Reports\1OO602\Tables and Figures'inal Tables\

Tables 5-e-1 thru 5-e-4.xdsx @VAssoca~tes

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LONGSHORE CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION AT THE ST LUCIE SITE Current Speed Southward Quadrant Northward Quadrant Group (ft/sec) Frequency (%) Cumulative Frequency (%) Cumulative 0.0 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.39 0.52 0.96 0,2 0.3 0.76 1.15 0.F2 .1,78 0.3 0.4 0.97 2.12 0.97 2.75 0.4 0.5 3.27 5.39 3.92 6.67 0.5 0,6 3.25 8.64 3.68 10.35 0.6 0.7 4.11 12.75 5.57 15.92 0.7 0.8 4.28 17.03 6.49 22.41 0.8 0.9 5.65 22.68 8.65 31.06 0.9 1.0 3.27 25.95 5.61 36.67 1.0 1.1 3.66 29.61 4.99 41.66 1.1 1.2 2.22 31.83 3.48 45.14 1.2 ,1.3 .1.19 33.02 1.69 46.83 1 .3 1 .4 0.58 33.60 1.05 47,88 1.4 1.5 0,36 33.96 0.48 48.36 1.5 1 .6 0.20 34. 16 0.27 48.63 1.6 1.7 0.12 34.28 0.24 48.87 1 .7 1.8 0.17 34.45 0.20 49.07 1.8 1.9 0.03 34.48 0.14 49.21 1 .9 2.0 0.08 34.56 0.19 49,40

FIGURES m- mm mmm mmmmm m m= - m= m

= = m = = - * -M m m m = mm - m m ,

mm -

m m m - m m m m m m mmm =

= m m= - m - = - m=m m = m m m- m M m m m M M M M M M M m M m m M m M m Figure 5-e-2. Surface Areas Enclosed by the Five Degree Isotherm 16 14 Current Conditions 0 itagnant U Southward U Northward 12 10 8

6 4 4-I--

2 1-0 4-Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case Number I

TITLE Surface Areas Enclosed

-Golder by the Five Degree Isotherm

~Associates Atlanta, CLIENT/PROJECT FPL/St. Lucie Plant/FL

(26 4"n e. II KI N 39 9,39"."-39 33 2722 30OCEAN DOISCHARGECURRENT SPEED TEMPERATURE 0.85FPS(SOUTHERLY) 119 F 1,23 132 -. IgI S. DISCHARGE FLOW 1001.6CF$ (UNIT 2) 31P* 38 40 -1: 32 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

15 .25 0 . 726 ?F 825 jACRES) 31 40 * /22 2 7 23 9 3 06  ? " IL SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES 39Io, ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 8 J 30. SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW 2'3? WATE A 40 32 38 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR UNIT I SS\ 39 40 36 DISCHARGING 1001.5 CFS AT 1191F

\, 9\314 3- ARE NOT SHOWN 3! 3 3 33-91413 36 as - 38 OJE.,.

23 31

/i e4 4- 41 :4 I 33 DISCHARGE 43 3 2 \ 1 1E No.1 \ \' "o 37 49 47 221 37 29 37 54

,' C 346 SIE333 37 1 INC0 0 30 2000 4000 50 I  :'.::.':'<*'* * *:33' I FORIDA POWER &LIGHT COMPANY

, '.'.:%  :,::"* N'*¢ca."*

". f*:* *. ","FL [ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT2 v * .',*.*

... I "*.k~z"\*\,,*ST LUCIE UNIT 2 Iv -,,.SOUTHWARD CURRENT 0.85 FPS

-3*,b* 4\FIGURE 5.1-3 I souce S:t.LcieUnit Oprtn Lies Enirnena Reor

• Golder jTT~uaeIsotherms for St Lucie Unit 2

,A,,-;,r, Southward Current

4 1 0

AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 871 1 N 37 OCEAN CURRENT SPEED DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 0.85 FPS(NORTHERLY) 119°F At 37 DISCHARGE FLOW PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

2oF 1001.5CFS [UNIT 2)

.528 1 ACRESl 39 SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES 40 ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 42 36 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW

• WATER 40 38 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR UNIT I 39 DISCHARGING 1001.0 CFS AT iI9F ARE NOT SHOWN 3'

39 41 3:,

38 *33 30 SSA 7 6 41 38 36 35 0

2 F 4341 67 35 46 36 32 / S' I * . :9 Sh 3 31 3107 4 4

, 3 3i 43 32J so 32 t:5 42 33 4389 43 34 *4 34 44 4 39 39 68 38

.34 42 43

,, 5 45 1 ,* 7I 2\ 41 43 0 1000 2000 30 00- --

0r" 000

• 5000 41, Sh 4M I I I +

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST, LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 I

SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNIT 2 NORTHWARD CURRENT 0.85 FPS FIGURE 5.1-4 Source: St. Lucie Unit 2 operating License Environmental Report TITLE GolderNorthward Surface Isotherms forCurrent St. Lucie Unit 2 Associates Atlanta, Georgia CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN DATE JOB NO.

MAT 6/1/2010 09387687 FPL/St. Lucie PlantFl CHECKED SHISCALE NTS DWG. NO. REV. NO.

REVIEWED FILE NO. SUBTITLE FIGURE NO.

GP 09387687 Figure 5.1-4 1 5.1-4

43 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 0 87 F N OCEAN CURRENT SPEED OFP$(STAGNANT)

A k 38 OISCIHARGE OISCHARGE FLOW TEMPERATURE PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY 119OF IO01.5CFS (UNIT I) 0 2 F 270 (ACRES) 5°F 18 (ACRES)

SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 30 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR UNIT 2 DIBCHARGING 1001.5 CFS AT 119 0 F

33) ARE NOT SHOWN 4!

33 33 38 SSA

/1 35 36 3 36 3B 41 1 33 1

SCHARGE j 4 30 -

4

.INE No.1 3 2,Sh 35 F  :* a n-

• 3i8 l

37 3? 3121 37 4 47 3 37 F 33-*- (5-

' 51l 20 40 20 ) 42 *25 33 38k. 40

4) 4 5 34 cZ38 IV BIRGE S39 No.2335 39 42 45 3b A5 30 4i $1, 40 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 m I I I I SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNIT I 34 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1.5 Source: St. Lucie Unit 2 Operatinq License Environmental Report TITLE Golder SurfaceSlack Isotherms Waterfor St. Lucie Unit 1 Conditions pmhl.Golder*

Associates Atlanta, Georgia CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN DATE JOB NO.

MAT1 6/1/2010 09387687 SHISCALE NTS DNo.. REV.NO FPL/St. Lucie Plant/FL CHECKED REVIEWED FILE NO . SUBTITLE FIURE NO.

IGP 09387687 Figure 5.1-5 15.1-5

43 AMBIENT 0 TEMPERATURE 87 F N OCEAN CURRENT SPEED OFPS(STAGNANTJ AL DISCHARGE DISCHARE TEMPERATURE FLOWIOOI.CFS(UNIT 119*F 1001.5 CFS (UNIT i) 21 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

2OF 644 (ACRES) 5°F 151ACRES)

SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 38 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER 31 33 41 36 33 38 S0 7 7 48 5S 3b5 -.

33 48 47 35 34 4b 36 21 44 44 3 31 2. 37.5 31 34 5 3 a CO £4 4 42 32 J34 36  %

A-. 44 45 1 ty 39 39 45 34 35 45 41 S4 40 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNITS I AND 2 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1-6 Source: St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License Environmental Report TITLE Surface Isotherms for St. Lucie Golder Unit 1 and 2 Associates Atlanta, Georgia Slack Water Conditions CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN A DATE JOB NO.

M 6/1/2010 09387687 FPL/St. Lucie Plant/FL CHECKED SHSCALE NTS DWG. NO. REVNO.

REVIEWED FILE NO. SUBTITLE FIGURE NO.

GP 0938 7 6 8 7 Figure 5.1-6 5.1-6

N 6k Combined Surface Isotherms

.Golder Under Northward Currents Associates

43 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 671F 40 OCEAN CURRENT SPEED OFPS(STAGNANT) 39 DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 119 F R F1001.5 CFS (UNIT I) 3 DISCHARGE FLOW IOOI.CFS (UNIT 2) 37 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

loF 644 (ACRES)

$°F 16(ACRES)

SURFACE0 ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES ARE IN F ABOVE AMBIENT 42 36 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER 40 36 31 33 39 36 33 39 SSA 31 35 34 J7&~

35 41 31 43 44 33 47 1 35 34 36 44 39 4

37 41 (/

20

£444 32 50 42 S 36f 43 43 3' 54 36 4S 40 45 3.

36 46 2Vj to- s --

36 45 62 42 31 43 5 E221/ 41 4 541 45 3?7 0 I000 000 3O*)6 o00 5000 4'I %

scale In Yards 40 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNITS I AND 2 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1-6 tal Report- Modified by Golder Combined Surface Isotherms Under Slack Water Conditions

TEMPdERATURES ARE IN.

OF ABOVE AMBIENT DEPTHS ARE IN FEET ii lo I .

'N1 13 SCALE SNAUTiCAL MILES FPL Source: St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License Environmental Report TT I L'P red icted Surface Water Temperature Golder Rises for Units 1 and 2 During Maximum Associates Atlanta, Georgia Observed Southerly Currents of 1.3 fps

[ENT/PROJECT DRAWN DATE JOB NO.

MAT 6/1/2010 09387687 FPL/St. Lucie Plant Units/FL SH NTS REVIEWED FILE NO SUBTITLE FIGURE NO.

MA'I 093E87687 Figure 5.1-14 6//2019GP

N Source: St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License Environmental Report T

" "'LPredicted Surface Water Temperature Golder Rises During Slack Water Associates Atlanta, Georgia for Units 1 and 2 CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN DATE JOB NO.

MAT 6/1/2010 09387687 FPL/St. Lucie PlantFL CHECKED SHISCALE NTS DWG NO. REV. NO.

REVIEWED FILE NO. SUBTITLE FIGURE NO.

GP 09387687 Figure 5.1-16 5.1-16

= m - m m m m m - = m m= m -

Figure 6-1. Probability That Water Temperature Will Be Exceeded Intake Water Temperature -Buoy 41114 Water Temperature -Buoy 41009 Water Temperature 100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

s.,N 50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

559.0 61.0 63.0 65.0 67.0 69.0 71.0 73.0 75.0 77.0 79.0 81.0 83.0 85.0 87.0 89.0 Water Temperature- Degrees F.

TITLE Probability That Water Golder Temperature Will Be Exceeded G Associates Atlanta, Georgia CLIENT/PROJFCT DRAWN M DATE 6/1/10 MAT JOBNO 61/1009387687 FPL/St. Lucie Plant/FL CHECKED SH SCALE NTS DWG NO REV NO REVIEWED Gp FILE NO SUBTITLE FIO*URENO 6N1 1 09387687 Fiure 6-1

ATTACHMENT A Facility I.D. Number: FL 0002208 III RECEIVING WATER INFORMATION For each surface water that will receive effluent, supply the following information:

A. Name of Receiving Water. B. Check One C. D. Type of Classification Receiving Water Fresh Salt or Brackish (See Ch.62-302, F.A.C.) (canal, river, lake, etc.)

Atlantic Ocean llI-Marine Open Waters ElE E. Minimum 7-day 10-year low flow of the receiving water at each outfall (if appropriate).

Not Applicable F. Identify and describe the flow of effluent from each outfall to a major body of water. A suitably marked map or aerial photograph may be used.

See Attachment IlI-F G. Do you request a mixing zone under Rule 62-4.244, F.A.C.? If yes, for what parameters or pollutants?

Yes, for Water Temperature IV FLOWS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION, AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES A. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, and treatment units labeled to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g., for certain mining activities), provide a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any sources of water and any collection or treatment measures.

B. For each outfall, provide a description of:

I. All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent; including process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water, and stormwater runoff;

2. The average flow contributed by each operation; and

3. The treatment received by the wastewater.

Use the space on the next page. Continue on additional sheets, if necessary.

DEP Form 62-6260.90(5) 2CS-17 Effective November 29, 1994

Attachment III-F December 2007 2-23 0738-7685 PSL 2.3.4.2 Atlantic Ocean The continental shelf water mass includes an inner shelf between the beach and the 120-ft isobath approximately 12 miles east of the'St. Lucie Plant, and an outer shelf from the 120-fl contour to the 600-ft isobath approximately 8 miles further offshore. Continental shelf waters adjacent to Hutchinson Island originate north of Cape Canaveral, especially during the winter. Additional contributions are derived locally from the Indian River and the Florida Current systems. The northern water mass flows southward as a wind-driven coastal counter-current.

Worth and Hollinger reported salinities of 33 to 38 ppt for inner shelf Hutchinson Island waters less than 33 ft deep. Highest salinities occur in the summer, when southeasterly winds tend to minimize the inflow from the north. The reverse occurs during winter. The water temperature range is greatest near shore and diminishes with increasing depth to the shelf break (about 20 miles off-shore).

Anderson, et at. (1960), reported that the shelf waters off Hutchinson Island ranged from a winter low of 68.0°F to a summer high of 84.2'F.

The Florida Current is a major component of the Gulf Stream. It flows northward at a velocity of 4 to 6 fps in a narrow channel between the continental U.S. on the west and the Bahamian-Caribbean Archipelago on the east. The western wall of the Florida Current is usually near the 600-fl isobath some 20 miles seaward of the St. Lucie Plant. Water temperatures in the western portion of the Florida Current ranged from a winter low of 78.87F to a summer high of 86.0°F, while salinities ranged between 36.0 and 36.1 ppt (Wennekens, 1959).

Intake water temperatures measured hourly at the plant for the period from August 2005 through September 2007 are presented in Figure 2.3.4-1. These temperatures ranged between a low of 59,8'F and a high of 88.4°F.

2.3.4.3 Existing St Lucie PlantEffects The effects of the existing St. Lucie Plant on surface waters occur exclusively within the inner continental shelf water mass. These effects are a result of the St. Lucie Plant's Heat Dissipation System including the CWS, which provides once-through non-contact condenser cooling water, and the AECWS, which provides once-through non-contact cooling water for auxiliary equipment (Figure 2.3.4-2).

FPL

December 2007 2-24 0738-7685 PSL Each plant intake structure consists of four bays, each containing one coarse screen, one traveling screen, and one CWS pump. Each of these structures also contains three AECWS (ICWS) pumps, two of which are normally operated and one is a spare. Water is pumped from these intake structures through the unit's condensers and auxiliary equipment heat exchangers to the discharge canal.

The design flow rates for each unit are calculated as follows:

Unit I Unit 2 (gpmn) (p)

Flow rate for each CWS pump 121,000 122,650 Flow rate for each AECWS (ICWS) pump 14,500 14,500 Flow rate for 4 CWS pumps 484,000 490,600 Flow rate for 2 AECWS (ICWS) Pumps 29,000 29,000 Total flow rate 513,000 519,600 LTotal 2-unit flow rate = 1,032,600 gpm = 1,487 MGD = 2,301 cubic feet per second (cfs).

The discharge canal ends in two headwall structures, each of which connects to a discharge pipeline.

Each discharge pipeline connects to a submerged diffuser.

The northernmost discharge pipeline is a 12-fl-diameter pipeline that extends offshore to an ocean discharge structure consisting of a short transition section and a Y-type 45-degree two-port diffuser discharging horizontally (see Figures 2.3.4-3 and 2.3.4-4). Each port has a diameter of 7.5 ft.

Although the ocean depth at the discharge structure location was originally about 18 ft below mean low water,\ the area has been excavated to a depth of 40 ft below mean. low water so that the centerline of the discharge port is at an elevation of 34 ft below mean low water. At the design discharge flow rate, the exit velocity from each port is about 13 fps, resulting in a predicted mixing zone (defined by 170 F above ambient isotherm) extending approximately 63 ft horizontally from each port, and approximately 0.8 ft vertically (see Figures 2.3.4-5 and 2.3.4-6). Details of the mathematical thermal discharge modeling performed to estimate the size of the existing thermal plume are presented in Appendix 10.6.

The second (southernmost) discharge line extends offshore approximately 1,959 ft to the first of 58 ports (see Figure 2.3.4-7). The multiport section is approximately 1,368 ft long, so that the furthest port is approximately 3,327 ft offshore. Each port is mounted in a 14-ft-high vertical riser FPL

December 2007 2-25 0738-7685 PSL with a 4-ft-inside diameter (see Figure 2.3.4-8). The ports have a 17 %A-inch(1.48 ft) inside diameter and are oriented in an offshore direction at a horizontal angle alternating 25 degrees left and right from the long axis of the diffuser. Therefore, ports discharging water to the same side of the diffuser are 48 ft apart and direct the flow of the jet away from the shore. Jet velocity exiting each port is about 11.5 fps, resulting in a mixing zone (defined by the 17'F above ambient isotherm) extending about 12.4 ft horizontally from each port and essentially horizontal (see Figures 2.3.4-9 and 2.3.4-10). Details of the mathematical thermal discharge modeling performed to estimate the size of the existing thermal plume are presented in Appendix 10.6.

FptL

Sm m m - m m m m m m - - m December 2007 0738-7685 r rg VI/

I iI S ~ ~

1 fern,0 ~ .3 Boj N

N.

iI 1%~~

Figure 2.3.4w2 Circulating Water System Plan (View 1) at the St. Lucie Plant Vt Source: Golder, 2007. FPLw,

December 2007 073.8-7685 II - is 12

'11.

0 0J L

(a I __ __

I, I.

~

-- I~e. -

-1

• • ~~U-flJ~ ~ *0 F P.

.1 '. ~ .~. '

P L P~N -. .-

0

/

I.

I. -r___

.01 Figure 2.3.4-3 Figure 2.3.4-3 .

Circulating Water System Discharge Plan (View 2) at the St. Lucie Plant Source: Golder, 2007. FPL,-

M M M M M M M M M M m m m m m

. December 2007 0738-7685 1408 CW. OISCH LINE

~

nfl ~~

."L. ~tWt V~a lS i4 .6*s TT ... ICftIb3II~

-- g- a 1ýc nqý.- ( , 144 R C W IMlAKEl LIND,*

Figure 2.3.4-4 Circulating Water System Y-Port Profile at St. Lucie Plant (Intake also shown.)

Source: Golder, 2007. PL,

ATTACHMENT B SL2-ER-OL 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 1

5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS St Lucie Unit 2 is an existing unit pursuant to the Clean Water Act, because FP&L incurred substantial obligation and costs on or before March 4, 1974 for the purchase of facilities and/or equipment for St Lucie Unit

2. Federal thermal effluent limitations for existing electric generating facilities, as specified in 40CFR423, are currently being reviewed by EPA.

State of Florida rules and regulations pertaining to Water Quality Stan-dards, Ch. 17-3 Florida Administrative Code (FAC), establish specific standards for thermal discharges into state waters (s. 17-3.05, Thermal Surface Water Criteria). Upon application on a case-by-case basis, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (now the Department of Environmen-tal Regulation (DER) can establish a zone of mixing beyond the point of dis-charge to afford a reasonable opportunity for dilution and mixture of heated water discharges with the receiving water body.

The discharge from St Lucie Unit 2 will not affect the quality of the water of any other State.

5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS 5.1.2.1 Introduiction This section describes the characteristics of the St Lucie Unit 2 thermal plume, including the effects of the St Lucie Unit I thermal plume, when the two plumes interact. Thermal plume analyses for St Lucie Unit 2 were included in the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Construction Permit.

Since that document, the Tsiyts of several studies have permitted optimi-zation of diffuser design . In addition, analyses oV8 S6)Lucie Unit I discharge characteristics have been performed since 1973 FP&L has also undertaken two bathymetric surveys: one by Continental Shelf Associates in 1972 and the other by Envirosphere in 1977 to define the bathymetry in the vicinity of St Lucie Units I and 2 discharges.

The original "alternating" St Lucie Unit 2 diffuser, details of which were presented in the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Constýc$on Permit, was optimized based on the thermal-hydraulic model studies" -*.

The St Lucie Unit 2 diffuser is designed with 58 jet ports, each 16 inches in diameter. The length of the diffuser is 1368 ft, and the port spacing is 24 ft. The 16 ft diameter diffuser manifold was optimized with ports alternating on each side with each port orilented in an offshore direction at an angle of 25 degrees from the manifold centerline.

Results of recent studies at MIT(] 0 ), Alden Resear9h laboratories!])

Acres Laboratory, (1)Argonne National Laborator Caltech and Iowa Institute of Hydrauilic Research (II HR) show that such "off-shore angled" or "staged diffusers" are state-of-the-art and provide the 5.1-1

SL2-ER-OL most efficient means of dispersing heated water in semi-infinite coastal bodies of water. These studies show that such diffusers perform better under all current situations, unlike 90 degree "alternating" diffusers c, ,3how "good" performance only under high currents. Recent studies also conclude that "offshore angled" or "staged" diffusers with net offshore momentum perform better than either alternating, coflowing, tee or oblique diffusers under different current situations. Table 5.1-1 summarizes the qualitative performance of various submerged diffusers in semi-infinite bodies of shallow water. St Lucie Units 1 and 2 discharge structures are described in Section 3.4.

5.1 .2.2 Methodology This section discusses the methodology used to select the appropriate modeling approach, describes the models utilized and presents predicted thermal plumes for St Lucie Unit 2 and the combined St Lucie Units 1 and 2 discharges.

5.1.2.2.1 Data Requirements To predict thermal plume configurations resulting from the operation of St Lucie plant, both plant operating data and ambient oceanographic data are required.

5.1.2.2.1.1 Plant Operating Data a) Plant Discharge Flow and Temperature Rise The discharge flow consists primarily of condenser cooling water and intake cooling water flow. At 100 percent power output, the heat rejection rate of each unit is 6.4 x 10 Btu/hr; the 0 rated dis-charge flow and condenser rise are 1160 cfs and 25 F respectively.

However to ensure operating flexibility, dischorge flows were com-puted assuming a heat rejection rate of 7 x 10 Btu/hr/unit for eight pump operation and discharge temperature rises of 320 F and 28 F. Plume computations were performed for seven different cases shown in Table 5.1-2 that envelope different flows, temperatures and heat discharge rates.

b) Discharge Canal Temperature Discharge canal temperature, for the purpose of thermal plume evaluation, is obtained by adding the ambient ocean temperature to the temperature rise within the plant. In order to maximize the thermal plume characteristics (such that the impact can be assessel 1mnservatively), the September maximum ocean temperature of 87° F was used in all. cases. Resulting discharge canal temperature would either be 119 F or 115°F, reflecting a plant temperature rise of either 32 F or 28 F.

5.1-2

SL2-ER-OL 5.1.2.2.1.2 Oceanographic Data a) Temperature and Salinity Ocean temperature data were obtained from National Ocean Survey "SurfSI Water Temperature and Density" Publication 31-1, March 19 7 3 ' Monthly mean and maximum temperature data for the 1946-1962 period of record at Canova Beach, Florida, are used to represent ambient conditions at the St Lucie site. The monthly 0

maximum temperature of 87 F for September is used for thermal plume analysis. Ocean salinity is specified as 35 ppt.

b) Ocean Bathymetry For each case, an ocean depth corresponding to mean low water (MLW) was used for purposes of determining initial dilution.

Based on the data available, an ocean depth of 23 ft at the St Lucie Unit I discharge and an average ocean depth of 35 ft at St Lucie Unit 2 discharge is used.

c) Currents Current data used to determine surface plume temperatures and frequencies of occurrence of plume configurnations are based on site spec M c measurements made during a 12 month period in 1974-1975 . These data were subsequently analyzed for joint-frequency distribution of current speed and direction as shown in Table 5.1-3.

Curr 5 measurem nts5 take.n at the St Lucie site during 197.4-1975 and 1977 demonstrate that nearshore currents general-ly flow parallel to the shoreline, with a prevailing northward direction and a secondary mode to the south (see Section 2.4).

Based on an analysis of current measurements, plume computations are performed for stagnant ocean conditions and for most frequent cur-rent in northward (0.85 fps) and southward (0.85 fps) directions.

5.1.2.2.2 Predictive Techniques Total cooling water flow from both units is discharged into the common discharge canal and carried into the ocean through two buried pipelines.

The combined flow is distributed between the existing 12 ft diameter

'St Lucie Unit I ocean discharge pipeline and the 16 ft diameter St Lucie Unit 2 ocean discharge pipeline as noted in Table 5.1-2.

5.1.2.2.2.1 St Lucie Unit 2 Thermal Plume Wann water discharged as a high velocity jet has both inertial and buoyant forces acting on it. Jet 'temperature, as the plume rises toward the sur-face, decreases steadily due to turbulent mixing and entrainment. This region of the jet, where conditions at the discharge point influence jet temperature distribution, is designated the near-field. Once the submerged jet reaches the surface, the jet "boils" up at the surface and' spreads into a stable layer over the surface. The jet still has momentum when it 5.1-3

SL2-ER-OL reaches the surface and moves horizontally in a manner similar to a surface jet discharge. The plume spreads over the ocean surface and decreases in temperature due to turbulent mixing and other factors. The surface jet, as it travels away from the boil area, reaches a zone where temperature distribution is no longer influenced by the effects of dis-charge conditions. That zone, where ambient ocean conditions dominate temperature decay is called the far-field.

With the present "offshore angle" diffuser, diluting ocean water comes primarily from the plume sides and the bottom. For the ports located near the inshore end of the diffuser manifold, the diluent comes from around the individual jets, while for ports located near the offshore end, diluent water comes primarily from both sides of the diffuser. The offshore jets entrain part of the thermal plumes fromn jets located immediately inshore of them.' As a result of this partial re-entrainment of warm water (for jets located towards the offshore end), the temperature near that end will be slightly higher, than that at the inshore end. Thus, the net volume of ocean water entrained decreases towards the offshore end, resulting in a lesser temperature decrease. This difference, however, is compensated for by the increase of mixing depth with distance offshore.

a) Near-field (Subsurface) Thermal Plume Characteristics of St Lucie Unit 2 Discharge.

For modeling discharges from the "off ljgsje angle" diffuser, a calibrated Koh-Fan mathematical model was utilized to describe the near-field or submerged jet region. Koh-Fan model computer runs were made with known plant conditions as used in the physical model studies. The entrainment coefficient was varied until the predicted (from Koh-Fan model) and the maximum observed surface temperature rises (from physical model studies) matched.

The resulting entrainment\coefficients are respectively 0.023, 0.050 and 0.057 for stagnant, southward and northward currents conditions. The calibrated Koh-Fan model was utilized to establish

,near-field jet characteristics for all other discharge and ambient conditions.

Recently USNRC(17) utilized the Koh-Fan model to analyze the near-field performance of the "offshore angle" diffuser for a once-through cooling system (located near Block Island Sound in Charlestown, RI).

NRC concluded that the results from Koh-Fan model were similar, to those determined in the physical model studies.

b) Far-Field (Surface) Thermal Plume Characteristics of Unit 2 Discharges The thermal plume from the St Lucie Unit 2 "offshore angle" dif-fuser, when it reaches the surface, interacts with ambient ocean and moves away from the diffuser due to residual momentum. The resulting thermal plume does not lend itself to exact analysis by available state-of-the- W models. For modeling surface plumes, the calibrated PDS model was adopted. From the results of the calibrated near-field Koh-Fan model (Section 5.1.2.2.2.1a),

maximum temperature rise at the surface and corresponding surface 5.1-4

SL2-ER-.U'L velocity was obtained fcr each r.n se of interestL. Frot the results of the physical mrodel studies, te depth of [ he thermal 1.yer. was determinoed to be 5.4 feet. Wiv" these ,aram"LersIovon, the w-dth of the surface layer was dtCerin~ned, The surface jet sourc-e was asstimed o b-e lo...ted at the o U*hore end of the dLff ,1 er fo1C stagr-nation o i and along Di sr for sout ward and northward cur*rentLs.

.orn

... , tne PUS model was ca &Lorate-for the resu Lts of the physic al 'oodl studies for stagnation, southward and northward cur rIn .. The valuC.s o o, (.i~ entrE ,;-

menC Coeffi ient), KC (spread r'R cos-fficient; er (horizontal turbu~lent< d~if1uion,,iechangE- to .f cient) and R mntnon oro Lo Cl RIchardson n(Imbe-1 e ) r s .t-n1 ion Casp are respectively 0.05, 5.0, 0G and 0.05. Simi:lar va'Iues or sut:hward and northward nur-rent oases are respectively 0,0: n, 0 and 0.00" and 0.05, 70. 0 and 0.00. The S model was Lo o-t,-i nsurface plun- ol -

a.ils for al eaes o I te-I- srt,-

. .2.2.2.2 St Lucie - Ur, units an , rmoa. Pl,.tme UrtJdr Co0abined a) Nar-.ield (Sibsurface) Thermat rb'lCi Charact.Erxstics Uitder Cýr-hined Str Lucie Units I anid 2 "peraci LW Results obtained froxr the phy.5LC.l.ndei studies d, e s on ,.,c:eha t the des ng and separarion diS Lane between the two discharge _iLues r;a111 ý',s in negligiILe in.t.er fer=vn. etween the thermal dis.nha,- e<

fror S t L, ýr- Uii-. .1 and 2. The results of n-sr-fi I.d analysis 0 St ,Dic! Uri", and for St Lr:ie-~Unit 2 (Sec- .*. *. ,

• la idivida'y. L.SO appropr-, q-. coMbined omoraton The Kon-uan oii- I used t.o decrribre sub inrged near-fId 1C t tEmff altFres res "e tt tI)ng"\foo S .,:ie Unit CIiSCa b ar-F imd (S'r Pcee)Thermal. a lume- C rIaacaeris13s oIf St Luie 1*-..* ...-.  :.

For iiyd ing surface plumes the a ibrat.d "Prch -Da.'s Sh.zi (uS) model was adopted. Fr he results of the near-Fie Ld Ko[,-Fan modeI (S ection 5] .2.22. ) the.

c jet velocIaty and ternperai-cre rise at the s;uvface ws oi-.; nd for each case. The resl s of tLie Koh-Fan movdýI. arc used ias ori re initial inp- p conrit ons

£or modid Fhoin mn..a_ -reienLs and St Luc' i e Uni'

• physical model stud ies. he locatan of the '[Piannio- of toe surface

..aver and an initial s.,urfa4cn laye -daptri of .19 .ee ss abtished Wit'h known va',,ts of' Lhe aim,:nt of heat di chIi17ir g '-riace tmratandwelIn ty e 4. surface laye=r, the wid-fah of the s5r Lace layer i- Ita-,n ,.etabsishe

'(h P)5 mdp caiba 1. rLte d w~ e Fu I s fr om t he ph.si>. oA

• tudies 'The val us of lie -a- ibri. n coe fficients for scagn*ation conditios are- = (iotrai"mment CoefricienCts) =

!5. i-5

SL2-ER-OL; 0.05; B (horizontal turbulent dif-usion/exchange coefficient) .

0.00004; XK (spreading coe'fficien: )= 4.5; RF (a 1unction of local Richardson Number) = 0.003-. Corresponding*;values for south-ward current conditions are 0.05i ýv0, 45 and 0.021, For northward current conditions, calibration vfues are 0.05, 0.00006, 45 amd 0.0031, respectively.

The calibrated PDS model also vep:fi;es St Lucie U'ii:t I discharge results obtained during the March 1977 survey -when ,"St Lucie Unit I was operating at 99 percent power.. (utput.. The PDS~ model predicted areas are 27 acres and .401 acres-Tvri 3 and 1.5 F,.r:espectively. The corresponding prototype measureaments are 11 acres and 27TR acres, establishing the applicability of, 'DS model. The :ý,califbrated PDS model was utilized to obtain surface plume details for 4,11l test cases.

c) Far-Field (Surface) Thermal- .Plume XCharacteristics. Under Combined St Lucie Units I and 2 Operation".:

W£hen St Lucie Units 1 and 2 are irn operation, the'.,following procedure is used to estimate plu.me ,area. Details:`of the surface plume resulting from the St Lucie, '¶ni.t 1 discharg eI under stagnation conditions, were computed utilizing. the calibratedPDS P model. Plume computation:s were carried out to 'adistance where,' interact.ion wi th the St Lucie Unit 2 discharge occurs4..,: At that point, waý.new source is formulated and its characteristics t(such as width,, Velocity, tempera-ture, depth.) are determined :by corn1erving or combigý.ng the total ieat.,

volume and momentum flux of both kRcharges. Withidetails of the -new source known, the PDS model is agoih, applied to de'termine the details of the combined plumes under stagnant conditions.

.Based on tests conducted on St Ltiutig Unit I and on ,combined St Luci-r Units 1 and :2 discharges, IIHR cotBded that "th'prne .is almost no interference between Units 1,& 2. " Essentially -this means that,"

under both southward (0.85 fps) an.*northward currents (0.95 fps),:

even though the individual plumes' from St Lucie U6:its I and 2 are oriented in the direction of the 'Czrent, the areas of an isotherm (such as 2 0 F)., under combined opera~tion will equal the sum of thep.

areas of isotherms from the indiviemal units.

5.1.2.3 Results In this section, results of the thermal f.*me analyses arte' discussed.

Discharge plumes from St Lucie Unit 2 ark discussed for stagnation, sout4Tr.

ward and northward currents. Discussion*, .f' plumes resulting from the coiu--

biued operation of St Lucie Units I and .:..s restricted to only those 0

(stagnant) cases where the individual plum:s from both units (of 2 F) interfere.

Mhe results described ýelow are conservatorve, and retlect tfe assumed heat*

rejection rate of 7x10 .Btu/hr/unit., Re, ol.s presented herein for St Lucie Units 1 and .2 do not reflect norm -peratingconditions, due to the above assumption.

5.1-6

SL2-ER)L 5.1.2.3.1 St Lucie Unit 2 Therma.1:Plume 5.1.2.3.1.1 Near-Field (Subsurfazc&) Plume Charactie'ristics For St Lucie Unit .2 discharges, the res.ulting maximum", urface temperatures are st:rongly dependent on ocean 2 urreliz.ý.conditions. Re~sults of the St Lucie Unit 2 physical model studies shha`e.d that surface,, temperatures are:

highest for stagnant situations and dt rease as ambient current speed in-creases. This largely reflects the a11-abllty of add.*tional ambient: water for. mixing and dilution, whenever thet -is a cross current.

The subsurface plume temperature distribution, volumes-of isotherms and times of travel for St Lucie Unit 2 discharges are developed utilizing the Koh-Fan model. Table 5.1-4 presents t h-eV! results of the. -analyses, and Figure 5.1-1 shows a typical example of"the plume in vhe.ý subsurface region.

In this analysis., the jet centerline temperature rise at. 5/6 the oceaný oepth over the nozzle is 2 asumed to be the maximum surface temperature.

Cther investigators of jets have shown that at-this depth (i.e.,

the top 1/6 depth of the ocean)., temperature decay is si3gnificantly less thai that in the remainder of the water co'jt-, Further, this assumption adds

.conservatism to the analysis.

For seven pump operation with a AT of,2 0 F, the predicted AT is 0h pr0ce A max i 4.9 F for a discharge flow of 836 cfs `and 4.3 F for a discharge of 1090 cfs. However, for eight pump operaticrhwith a AT of 32 0 F, the pre-00 0 dicted ýT is 4.4 0 F for a flow of 1)041.5 cfs and 4.6 F for a flow max o of 951 cfs. For the same eight pump o*mration, when AT. is 2B F, the predicted AT is 3.6 F for a biow of 1075 cfs A~d 3.1 F when the flow is 1404 a" The AT discussed above occur during*-*tagnant or slacik water ocean conditions. When other factors which -~fluence temperature decay are held constant, the ambient current will increase mixing.: and dilution, resulting in a. lower surf-ace temperatu47l-::rise. This is' shown by a review of the results presented in Table 5..A-.. The AT varies from 1.9"F to 3.2OF, and surface temperature rise4':re abouta 0 to' 30 percent lower than corresponding temperatures during*stagnation conditions. Further,;j all the temperatures presented in Table-11.1-4 are the resulting temperature rises at the offshore end of the St Lucifei Unit 2 "offshore angled" diffuser.

As discussed in Section 5.1.2.2.2.1 andoi;seen from the results of the physical model studies, AT values vary alonk-,the diffuser. At the inshore end, estimated AT values are one-half tei-vne-third of those presented inv Table 5.1-4. 'M this analysis, only cha;acteristics of the offshore jet are considered, to provide conservative es'timates of areas and volumes affected by elevated temperatures, Predicted length of the jet trajectory'.I(Table 5.1-4) varies between 81 and 130 ft, depending upon initial jet condt*tions. The predictions presented here are average lengths. However, undew actual ocean conditions (ocean currents, stratification, etc) and fromý.mo-t Lucie Unit 1 opera[*g ex-perience and observations made'during MRrch 1977 field survey , it is,,

expected that the trajectory length woujd .be longer, by as much as 50 percent of the predicted values.

5.1-7

SL2-ER-OL The jet surface velocity is q{*rVticted with the Koh-Fan model. Predicted velocities vary from 2.7 fpsir',er stagnant conditions to 2.0 to 1.7 fps under southwaH or northward:-o-ean currents.

Time of travel ýTable 5.1-5] of-a plume-entrained organism through the 20 F, 10°F and.5 F isotherms-ýere pred~icted. From the discharge 0 0 "0 point, the maximum tirke requiiirt to traverse the 20 F, 10 F and 5 F isotherms are about 2 secs, 7 secs and 21 secs, respectively.

Volumes enclosed by 200F, 10 y5 °F and 2 F isotherms for all test cases are shown in Table 5.l-*"* The largest volumes of 200F, 10 F and are found to be. r.espective.1_ 0.02 ac-ft, 0.19 ac-ft and 1.51 ac-ft; this occurs when the dischargel'flow is 1090 cfs and A.T is 32-F.F Volume enveloped by each succiýlve isotherm increases as the. plume is diluted.'

5.1.2.3.1.2 Far-Field (S-uIace) Plume Characteristics The maximum surface temperatuic 'rise (AT ) velocity, width and depth max of the jet impingement zone for.eý the primary input data for computation of the far-field or surface plum6 rmperature' distribution. Initial thermal layeý2 Iepth at the offshore en, of the diffuser is estimated to be 15.4 feet The width is calculatA from the heat rejection rate, depth of the thermal layer and the ný.r-field analysis. Predicted plume widths for September vary between app.#iimately 140-and 760 feet, depending upon discharge temperature, discharg *f low and ambient, current conditions, Utilizing the calibrated PDS MNdQ`el (Section 5.1.2.2.2.1b), volumes, areas and travel times up to 2°F thro_4ýh the surface plume are computed for stagnation, southward and nort,`!ird currents. The predicted results are presented in Tables 5.1-5 C.through 5.1-7. Figures 5,1-2 through 5.1-4 show examples of. surface .isotheuss. for a flow of 1001.5 cfs and AT of 32 F for stagnation, southward: and northward currents,, respectively.

Por stagnation conditions, the -ume is oriented, in the offshore direction while for other current conditionS_, surface plume orientation and shape is uetermined by ambient current direction and speed.

Table 5.1-7 and Figures 5.1-3 ard-V5.1-4 show that the isotherm shape for southward currients is similar an6 areas are of the same order of mag-nitude as that for northward currents. These similarities ia the gross characteristics of the shape and size of the isotherms are explained by the approximate symmetry of the diiffuser'with respect to the currents.

Differences in plume area are attributed to the nature of thf,-. shore.. The Sdepths plume in the southward direction r-s more likely to encounter shallow within a zone where compazatively smaller amounts of ocean water are aývailable for dilution, while thp.reverse is true for a northward plume.

This, in general, results in a ýdiminished ability for the southward plume tro entrain water, which results *i slightly higher temperatures and larger areas of isotherms for southwarO.e, currents.

Maximum surface areas generally tccur with southward current conditions and minimum areas .under either varthward current or stagnaticn condi-tions Maximum area of the 2°F jabthermn is-963 acres, and results from at--southward cz~rnt when the diSCharge flow is 836 cfs andAT is

SL2W LOL 32 0 F. Volume of the 2Z0F isotherm (Wj'e 5.1-6) under this conditio& is 629 ac-ft.

In one case (discharge flow of 1404ýcf-s, ,AT of 2. F8) the AT will reach 1.9 F, therefore no 2 0 face sotherms ll occur.

age depth of the 2 F isotherm var lF a htween maxstwL25`f tax under stagnation situations to almokt'-tero under oth-eii current (discarge flow of 1404 cfs and AT of 28°F wiith. a northward cu'rr'rnt) situatiog.

0 Travel times of a surface plume ent'rained organism t~rough 2 0 are presented in Table 5.1-5. Travel t, s vary from a maximum of A69.44 mn-utiA (flow is 336 cfs and AT is 32 .F:) to a minimum 6*f less than a muinute (flow is 1404 cfs and AT is 2M-F).

0 5.1.2.3.2 St Lucie Units I and*.'Therial Plume 414er Stagnant Ocean Conditions 5.1.2.3.2.1 Near-Field (SubsurfwEo- Plume Characteristics Table 5.1-8 presents subsurface jet '-acteristics f6r the St LuciedUnit Tale5.-.p.snt sbsrfc 1' Y-nozzle discharge. Unlike the resting maximum surface temperatures from St Lucie Unit 2, the physical mJIV, studies showed that the tcmp.,ratures foStLucie Unit ,hw from St Lucie Unit 2 *emain j essentiatlIM unaltered und. r different oct.7an current conditions. This is becau-eý.of the high r!esidual momentum6, of the St Lucie Unit I jets through 41%0 water column ýantd at the surface in couparison to the momentum of the ot*an currents. _iThe plume would tra-verse an estimated horizontal distan .,-of less than 15;0 feet, when iti.sur-faces. Given that the separation dictatce between thi.St Lucie Unit'A Y-nozzle and the St Lucie Unit 2 difUser is about 45Q. ,feet; and the St Lucie Unit 2 diffuser ports are oriented offshore, for all practical purposes the St Lucie Unit I and St Lucie Unit..2 subsur~Se plumes do not influence each other in any way. Physical mode&itudies" alsb~show that the design and separation distance of the two d**.*ijarge lines isisuch that the sub-surface or near-field plumes from St &ibie Units I an4,z2 do not interact.

Predicted travel times and volumes for,.@tagnant ocean conditions are shown in Tables 5.1-9 and 5. 1-10 respective),. "?

Results shown in Table 5.1-4 for St Lucie Unit 2 (Tes'Cases 1 throughý 7) and Table 5.1-8 for St Lucie Unit 1 C1%st Cases 3 thrc!Ggh 14), individually,.

would thus hold good for combined oper;ý,ion of St Luc4i-Units I and 2 (Test Cases 15 through 21) also. Thus, whe'u the St Lucie pl-Ant is under seven pump operation, discharging a comhbiner pow of 1770 c0at a AT of 32 F, the resultant AT from the Y444zle is predict; tg be 9.7 F and AC fron the difu¶ser will rang*..,Vetween 2.6 ands;4.9 F, depend-ing upon plant and ambient current coq"tions. For ei`6ht pump operation, AT" with a combined flow of 2003 cfs at a-3' of 32°F, reslting fruin the Y-nozzle is pred iced to be $ F and the ATm* from t~a dif-fuser between 2.7 F and 4.6 F. Howev",4 under the samea .eight pump operation, with a combined flow of 2290.cfs at a AT o.-,28 F, predicted AT frum the Y-nuzzle is 7.3 0 F andAT*'.*-from the dFFr-s'er 0 e ranges Mx0 0 IMi K between 1.9 F and 3.6 F, depending upc,,plant and ambetr current con-.

ditiuns. -

SL2-ER-OL' Volumes enclosed by the 20°F and 10°F isi.4thfrms for combir'd plant operation under stagnant ocean conditionix'. re obtained byiadding the individual volumes for St Lucie Unit 1 (TahPe 5.1-10) andSt Lucie Unit 2 (Table 5.1-6). Results are. presented in iTable 5.1-11. MKa"imum volumes of 200F and 100F isotherms are 0.14 ac-ft and 0.70 ac-ft respe.ctively.

The volumes of 5°F and 2°F isotherms, und-r combined operation, require surface plume analysis and are discussed:in.Section 5.1.2..3.2.2. Other characteristics (such as jet trajectory l'ti-gth, times of travel, and velocity at the surface) of -the Y-nozzle (Tables 5.1-8 and5.1-9 and diffuser (Tables 5.1-4 and 5.1-5) that ai#,resented "ndiv-dually, would hold good for combined operation also.

5.1.2.3.2.2 Far-Field (Surface) Plum -Characteristics.

Methodology for the computation of surface. areas, volumes.' and times of travel, when both units ýare in operation a&' under stagnanftiocean condi-tions is explained in Section 5.1.2.2.2.2.. The surface areas of 5°F and 2°F isotherms resulting from St Lucie Unit I discharges ardl. presented in Table 5.1-12. Figure 5.1-5 shows the 20 Fia41d 50 F surface sotherms when St Lucie Unit 1 is operating alone discharging 1001.5 .fs ar a AT

. a of 32 UF.

Input data for the conbined plume analyseos obtained fr computations performed for St Lucie Unit I plume and Sýicie Unilt 2 plume individually.

Figure 5. 1-6 shows the 20F and 50 F surface'.Isotherms when fth units are operating, discharging 2003 cfs at a &Z :*f 32 F.

00' Volumes of the 5 F isotherms presented infrle 5.1-11 are.&-imari.ly the result of St Lucie Unit I discharges. Maxim&m= volume of th4,5 F isotherm is about 25 ac-ft and occurs when the plaor.*s discharging-903 cfs at a AT of' 32°F. r 00 Volumes of 2 F, however, reflect cgntributiX6s from both St Lucie Units I and 2 discharges. The volume of 2 F, undev:dbmbined unit ooeratlon is greater than the sum of the individual vol*met of St Lucie4it I and Unit

2. In some cases, the 20 F volume under co&xned operation ' almost 70 percent larger than the sum of the 2 F vol'mC fgund when t06 units are operating individually. The maximum volumeý4f 2 F is 1889 v-ft and occurs-:

when plant discharge flow is 2003 cfs and *Eis 32°F. Th0inimum volume of 2°F is 373"ac-ft S0 and occurs whenwf 6w is 2290 cfss.-nd AT 0 . is 28°F. Average depths of 5 F and 2 F isothein under combin&%. operation are about 2 ft and 3 ft,. respectively.. - ,

Surface art-as of 5 F isotherms presented in T~able 5.1-13 arena result of 00 St Lucie Unit I discharges'.

this results The maximum ar..of'5 F is 2 .F. icre-8 and uhien plant flow is 1770 cfs and -.T is 32°F. Nfier 0

0 stagnant conditions the 2 F isotherms from *hounits interne and the art-as in Table 5.1-13 are a result of the cqktribution of di&harges from both units.

Combined or total areas of 20 F, similar to ,."-Tumes, are greaIr than the suw of the individual areas generated by S~iLýcie Unit 1 and-ot Lucie Unit

2. In' some cases (Table 5.1-13), the 2°F iknithertn areas frqt combined

5. 1-10

0 in.-MV,77 U L.

percent fi: than sum og %Ie areas Loun when operation are almost 25 individu Thp maxim4M,4rface area .677 the units are operating ac es; this occurs when discharg, A F is 1770 cOnd aT is 32 F'.

The ,itmnimum area o .2°F isatherinZ53r acres, restim when how, is"4290o cEfs and AT is 2807.

0 Tite of travel for an entrained isIR to reacA.NF, presented h.

T*ble 5.1-14 result from St Luci' it 1 dischargft Maximum tra.,l T

time is 9.5 minutes and occurs C-4t-he plant flqW.,s 1770 cEs a' is.32 F. A minimum travel time 8E)~ minutes o ~~when the EIf4 is 2290 cfs and AT is 280F. Trav wmes to reacbtie ) F isother however, are the result of both c.i.Acie Unit 1 :'q'2 discharges,. :-The travel time to reach 20 F isother4..-der combine merations is *ater than the sum of individual St Lu* Unit 1 and U 2 travel time. In soine cases, the travel times und umbinpd opereaon is almost -percent t " times foundi men the units -e longer tian the. sum of the 2oF operating individually. The max travel time!R* reach 2 F ,so

-Iý r is 193 minutes, this occurs isi1*c whend tdthe is F.ph gAT The r.inimum travel time is 95 win "s and this o§ is -when ow .n 290 ctFs and 6T is 28 F.

the discussion From a.ncdpei0er an presented hrfr abo nsfor a1770 stagan n case,2 0 Fenraz X sur-the1surroundn Face areas, volumes and travel t whEýrn both are in oper' honare oreater than for either individ "Iait. Thisran cts the fpl, hen innoa; when individual plumes ino2 to fno f single plumTh ith re-d.sucd periphdry and thprefore a nished abili o entrain su-ounding Water. The combined plume will a great,bprse -.itance, thov ing a

&sreater aro a entrain sufficie" to thater to redu -lump tem rat2 to F above ambient.

'2.;

The discussion presented above o sto stagnance yean conditinf, St Lucie Unit Ieand 2 plumes intera During baata uthward and t hward ocean current conditions, bcra. when current"ult is 5hy5ica, the individual discharge plumes of 2 o not i*ter it is concluded that the thermal e s (of 2F) & ibuted by Stioucip Unit 2 when both units are in op ion, will be' same as pthe e rmal Uffects obtained whon St Lucie U' c2 alone i oon Ttin&, when afciont northward or southward currents 5 fps) oc ur .

5.1.2.3.3 Recirculation Estimates of surface temperatureAVA the intake,-Xl1er St Lucie Afnit 2,or

ýornbined unit operation are, compll ated, since t%&.YqteMs dealt $with do not lend themselves to exact wnatRftatical analys~ Consequentlfý re-circuýWion estima~tes are based norghe. results ojHR physical radel study and the calibrated PDS jw Physical inodel studies have sho jat there is - ecirculatio f St Lucie thermal plumes for Pith -ndividuk1 or" ~nt unit oper i ion under stagnation and northward Mnt conditio '~The recirculdl`ion tern-

ýPratux-ps dicsse blwrer suthward cur-tS disussd blowr fr "WE' I

SL2 - L Physical model studies snowed that tL.St Ludie Unit 2 plume would be diluted at least 20G times with a fl&94'aof I1156 cfs and AT of 260 F.

For Teit Gases I rhreG 7the cali'tted ?9"' model shows tha't maximum temperkture rise neathe intake woWAe about 0..5 . at the surface and almosz'amnbient at :he#Itottom. This K.&*Oid produce a recircultition temper.ture of no hi' .trthan 0.2 F.

Under canibined opera 6 n, with -t6AT 6 06F a-nd discharge, flow of 1150 C4s fro each 3"t, the physicid*fsbrvdel studies showed tha't near ttie intake., the surface temperature rise "id bO about 20 F and near the bottom it would be about 0.2#,F. This UCsul.*rifln a-recirculation tC4perature of ab0outL .8 F or a min 9iin dilution o .ftbout 3'. The calibrated PDS model shous surface and boEtbm temperature'S.f 0.8'3 and 0.1 F resf.cct.ve ,y.0 T!,.is s!hould resjlt in a recirculatioti .emperature of no high& than 1.2 F.

The recircula "iont et 0 a.ture...s p r sh re heip,0.2 . 0 F due to -St Lucie Jnlit 2, and 1_2 F frq combined uni t* ratirnf, are based on..conservative assump.tions. These &&moerature riset.Wite smasll compared to natural ambient Ctinper:ature variatioýVand should not' -"p0 e siK-n-iicant problem' Cot plant operatIion ."

5.L2..3/4 P unle Ptq e ny An.a..

Be y*n,.: the region of[ gh jet veloci1ý". plume orientation anA shape is determined by ambienwl~urrent direct'i14 and' -speed. Since the-plume ii con-trollid by nea4 ore flow, thvtkquency of occurrence,of plume orientdtiof will be the same as that,,.T thF&..Lcal current. nFigure 2.4-5 presents a current rose.

Fo r r's,. nearshore re on at St LucieBjjjequtV*y distribution, of current di'e-, :tor is bimodal,*.wirh the primau4aode"in the northward direction.

Wi Ihin this 300-030 degree quadrant, .**Ae fz..ý4tency of current direction and plume Orientation is ,.9 percent. F$'the .Q"posite quadrant (120-2i0 degreets)' it decrease tto 34 percent. " ngs6hore flow within both quadrants accounts for plume ot-*nt.nation 83 pt t q:..the time.

An onshiore current viijhin 210-300 de't`s occurs at a freouency of almost nmLe p:ercent, which i-71 slightly glea g .re the ..the six percent occurrence in he offshore di.rect I MA. The lower .i. en*. 1 oF onshore plume orientation in C son to longshoIe diretions s-.iue pr* the deformation of onshore flows by thd shoreline boundary.

MeI dLa long shore currnt speed is been 0'.8 and 0.9 feet per second kLC'-) i6 e tither direcJ :on; ten percr*vStof the, flow is less than 0.5 fps.

At n,:h current speed; ten percent o$it4orthward flow occurs at 1.4 pos acd 1 1* fps `or south ard flow. At 1o' current speeds, plume shape will U,'*.,1 i ' sp:ead Mure forly' i thi e ck..fow, whereas at high current

,"dd t.."he. plume wil¶ tend to streai thte. current, 5.* I-1Z.

SL2-ER-OL 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 OPERATION 5.1.3.1 Intake Effects The flow through the St Lucie intake lines from the Atlantic Ocean will be approximately 2,320 cfs when St Lucie Unit 2 goes on-line. This represents a doubling of the present capacity (St Lucie Unit 1) and will result in a doubling of' velocities through the system. This' increased flow will in-crease the rate that biota are removed from the offshore environment, Whether this increase will result in a doubling in the number of plankton and fish entrained through the system is. unknown. However, such an assump-tion is an appropriate boundary condition for the following discussion.

The planktonic conmunity, comprised of phytoplankton, zooplankton and ich-thyoplankton, is passively conducted through the circulating water system with the flow of water and returned to the ocean. In contrast, fish en-trained from the ocean into the intake canal are removed from the offshore environment and not returned to the ocean. However, not all fish in a given volume of water are entrained into the intake pipeline, because they exhibit species and/or size-specific susceptibility to such entrainment.

Estimates of possible entrainment and impingement impacts by St Lucie Unit 2 are discussed below.

5.1.3.1.1 Planktonic Organisms Plantonic organisms should be entrained into the St Lucie Unit 2 circula-ting water system in a nonselective manner. The impact of entrainment on the waterbody is then computed on the basis of intake water flow relative to the source water volume (and planktonic community) available to entrain-ment over a reasonable amount of time.

Applied Biology Inc. (ABI) has previously computed entrainment rates for St Lucie Unit 1 based on a mathematical model and a source water volume defined as that circumscribed by the array of sampling stations. Their results indicated that entrainment would be 1.8 percent of this near-field commutity based on the assumption of 100 percent mortality of organisms through the system, and stagnant (worst case) ocean conditions (Table 5.1-15).

St Lucie Unit 2 will double the flow, or entr 6m 9 t 2j1te at the station.

Using the source water volume computed by ABI Y , this results in a doubling of the estimated portion of the near-field plankton community affected. A worst case entrainment rate of 3.6 percent of the near-field plankton community present offshore of St Lucie Unit 2 should not consti-tute a significant impact.

5.1.3.1.2 Active Swimmers Impingment data collected during the three years of operational monitoring at St Lucie Unit 1 are summarized in Table 5,1-16. Figures 5.1-7 through 5.1-14 represent time series of total numbers and weight of Einfish and shellfish impinged on the traveling sceens over that period.

5.1-1,3

SL2-ER-OL The dominant species impinged at St Lucie are: anchovy, gruntjack, croaker and mojarra (numerically) and jack, mojarra and grunt (gravime-trically). The length distribution of impinged organisms coll'ected in 1978 indicates that samples are dominated by small organisms. Over 80 percent of the impinged fish were less than or equal to S cm in length, and almost 100 percent of the impinged shrimp were 4 cm in length or less.

The number of impinged species which are commercially important is low (Table 5.1-16). Although the fish impinged are primarily forage species or species of minor commercial importance, comparison of St Lucie plant annual impingement with the commercial catch illustrates the insignificance of impingement at this station. The total weight of fish impinged in any year (conservatively assuming 365 days operation of St Lucie Unit 1) is less tan 0.04 percent of the commercial landings docked in either St. Lucie or Martin counties. The shrimps and blue crabs impinged represent or-ganisms of commercial value; however, the biomass of impinged shellfish is less than 0.005 percent of commercial shellfish landed in either St Lucie or Martin Counties.

Current impingement rates, assuming plant operation during 365 days per year ranged from approximately 34,000 (1978) to 131,000 (1976) finfish and from' 26,000 (1976) to 37,000 (1978) shellfish.

Addition of St Lucie Unit 2 capacity to the total station circulating cooling water capacity is expected to increase the impingement rate at the station. When a fish or group of fish encounters the intake, as velocity increases, the probability of impingement should also increase.

However, most species will have a finite probability of encountering the intake and of those, some of the more important species appear capable of avoiding entrainment (e.g., Spanish mackerel, bluefish). As an upper (conservative) boundary, impingement at St Lucie Units 1 and 2 is esti-mated at approximately 160,000 fish per year and 60,000 shellfish per year.

These numbers represent twice the mean annual impingement estimates calcu-lated from three years of St Lucie Unit 1 impingement data. These are re-latively low impingement rates for a power plant, and should not produce significant ecological impacts.

5.1.3.1.3 Marine Turtles Marine turtles presently enter the intake canal through the intake pipe-line. Current research is examining whether turtles are being drawn into the intake pipe as they move through the area or if they actively swim into the structure in search of food or shelter. The increase in volume of water from 1160 cfs to 2320 cfs when St Lucie Unit 2 becomes operational will increase water velocity at the perimeter of the velocity cap from 0.5 to 1.0 fps. This increase will not appreciably enlarge the area from.which turtles are unable to escape the intake velocity. Hence, no increase in the number of turtles entering the intake canal is expected due to velo-city.

Even if current research demonstrates that turtles are deliberately enter-ing the intake pipeline, no increase in the number of turtles in the intake canal is expected since the offshore configuration of the intake structure will not be changed.

5.1-14

SL2-ER-OL Water in the intake pipelines will travel at a speed of 10 ft per second.

This velocity will carry turtles from the intake structure to the intake canal in less than two minutes. There is no evidence that this activity is harmful to the animals. Turtles entering the canal are generally re-stricted from access to the entire canal by a block net at the AIA bridge.

Turtles are captured and removed from the canal by netting and -are released into the ocean. Additional studies on the behavior of turtles, physical characteristics of captured turtles and tagging and recapture studies are being conducted in cooperation with federal and state agencies.

5.1.3.2 Discharge Effects An ABI report entitled "Effects of Incresed Water Temperature on the Marine Biota of the St Lucie Plant Area" 2 addressed the impact of the St Lucie Unit I wye-port diffuser and a 32°F plant temperature rise on Atlantic Ocean biota. This report incorporated results of thermal plume modeling conducted by Envirosphere Company, ecological monitoring performed by ABI and results of thermal bioassays reported in the literature. Be-cause the St Lucie Unit 2 multiport diffuser will provide greater dilution of the thermal plume than does the St Lucie Unit I wye-port diffuser, ABI's conclusions are considered conservative as applied to St Lucie Unit 2 im-pacts.

A summary of thermal bioassay, preference' and avoidance work applicable to St Lucie Unit 2 impact assessment is given in Table 5.1-17. Thermal tests conducted in laboratory facilities establish specific organism temperature tolerances. However, these tests generally record tolerance to increased temperatures for extended periods (e.g. 24, 48, or 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> exposure) and, generally, preclude avoidance behavior. As such, these reported temperature tolerances do not reflect exposure regimes that en-trained organisms would encounter in the St Lucie Unit 2 plume.

In the case of St Lucie Unit 2, physical modeling indicates that an or-ganism entrained into the thermal plume during September (worst case conditions) at the point of discharge would be exposed to a cumulative exposure of two seconds at 107'F; 7 seconds at 97 F; 21 seconds at 92 F and 85 minutes at 89°F (travel time along the plume center line, Table 5.1-5) before reaching water ambient ocean temperatures ( 8 7 0F).

Therefore exposure to potentially stressful temperatures lasts for less than one minute. Similarly, exposure duration along the plume center-lines from St Lucie Unit I through Unit 2, to the 2 F isotherm, would be 188 minutes (from Table 5.1-14, 6 seconds at 107F; 15 seconds at 97 F; 7.7 minutes at 92 F). Thus, thermal bioassay data may overesti- 2 mate impact. Also, exposure to water 20F above average ambient tempera-ture is within theomalm of natural temperature variation offshore of Hutchinson Island.

5.1.3.2.1 Effects on Benthos, Plankton and Fish The thermal plume from St Lucie Unit 2 rises rapidly from the discharge diffuser, resulting in little plume contact or scouring of the benthic substrate (Figure 5.1-1). Therefore, it is assumed that the plume will not affect the benthic biota.

5.1-.15 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

ML2-ER-OL Thermal tolerances of plankton species resident in the St Lucie area which are available in the literature (Table 5.1-17) suggest that the brief ex-posures (less than 8 minutes) to increased temperatures will result in negligible effects. The temperatures inducing optimum growth and abundance for phytndigenus to the St Lucie area range from 770 F to 95 F coinciding with temperatures which occur during periods of observ 6 5 aximum cell density and productivity (Table 2.2-7). Work by Ukeles indicates that temperatures exceedinf 3 2 ).

102 F completely inhibit growth of marine diatoms. Saks and Lee found that chronic exposure to temperatures of 102 F resulted in zero-percent survival of 12 species of salt marsh epiphytes. Recorded upper lethal temperatres fo 2 everal diat~oi 9 were: 94.2 F (Chaetoceros laciniosus)  ; 93.2 and 9S 3 ,)F (Skeletonema costatum) and 95 F (Nitzscia acicularis) . No instantaneous thermal maxima are available for phytoplankton species found in the St Lucie area. How-ever results for other tropical species, exposure duration models for St Lucie plumes, and empircal results suggest that impact on phytoplankton should be insignificant.

Studies conducted at utility sites in Florida suggest that zooplankton are comparatively tolerM)to thermal stress resulting from plume entrain-ment. Reeve and Casper showed that at ambient temperatures of 95°F Acartia tonsa exhibited less th 83 5 percent mortality following a six hour exposure to 96.8 0 F. Adlen noted that mortality of virtually all species tested from the Crystal 0 River Estuary increased significantly at temperatures in excess of 95 F. Thermal tolerance data for some shrimp species which have meroplanktonic (larval) life stages (Penaeus -

aztecus and P. setiferus) also indicate that brief exposure to tempera-tures above 95 should not cause significant mortality. For example, 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> LT50's for P. aztecus post larvae ranged from 97.3 to 100.9 0 F, N5 tiding on acclimation temperature in studies conducted by Wiesepape Observed thermal tolerance ranges from ichthyoplankton found off Hutchinson Island are quite variable (Table 5.1-17). Also, due to seasonal spawning and developmental patterns, some ichthyoplankton species will not encounter worst case conditions in which ambient ocean temperatures-of 37 °F and maximum plume temperature of 105 F occur.

Temperature ranges of ichthyoplankton observed empirically at St Lucie range from 320 F (menhaden larvae) to 95 F (silverside prejunvenilesO.

The lowest 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> LT50 reported for a St Lucie area species was 79.5°F (mullet embryo). The highest thermal tolerance reported for a 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> LT50 was 97.20F (pompano juveniles). Very short-term thermal maxima data which would be applicable to plume entrainment exposure durations at St Lucie are apparently not available for the species concerned.

• Some ichthyoplankton mortality will occur as a.result of this additional stress in the fishes early life history, but it is unlikely that this stress will be significant in relation to other sources of mortality.

Operation of St Lucie Unit 2 should not have a significant impact on fish.

A number of studies have suggested that adult fish teloi) areas where water temperatures ach lethal temperatures Callaway and Strawn, a78,7 or observed avoidance behavior of gulf menhaden 5.1-16

SL2-ER-OL and bay anchovy within a temperature range of 86 to 91 0 F. It is expected that most of the fish offshore St Lucie would avoid the plume during the warmest months of the year. For the situation studied in this report, some 25.5 acre-feet could be so affected by the interaction of St Lucie Units I and 2 plumes if fish avoid temperatures exceeding 92 F (sum of volumes at 20 F, 10 F, and 5 F on line 4 of Table 5.1-11). Attraction of fish during other seasons should not present a potential for cold shock if both generating units shut down (unlikely),, nor should the area 'affected by the plumes be considered to represent a significant influence with re-spect to fish behavior or life functions dependent on such behavior.

5.1.3.2.2 Effects on Marine Turtles Variations in ambient water temperatures have been associated with changes in the timing of sea turtle nesting activity and nesting rates. During all four study years, the nesting season began when maximum ocean temperatures ranged between 71.6 and 76.1 F (Figure 5.1-17). A positive relationship between rising water temperatures and increased nesting activity was ob-served at the onset of each nesting season at Hutchinson Island (Figure 5.1-17). Nesting and nesting crawl activity levels increased until June or July and then declined, despite generally rising water temperatures, through the remainder of the nesting season. In 1973, cooler ocean tem-peratures may have partially inhibited nesting until July, when the waters warmed and a great influx of nesting females was observed. In contrast, increased nesting activity was observed during the early nesting season periods of 1975 and 1977, when ambient ocean temperatures were warmer than those in the other years of observation.

i4hile the peak period of nesting appears to be related to temperature, there is no evidence, that higher temperatures caused by the operation of St Lucie Unit I has caused premature nesting. Many reptiles require interaction between photoperiod and temperature which may preclude nesting until minimal requirements of both factors are present.

The volume of St Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 discharge plumes that will exceed 2 0 F in I-larch and April immediately prior to normal nesting will not ex-ceed 1900 acre-ft. This water mass will be located primarily in the water column immediately above the point of discharge and will have a velocity of about 14 ft/sec coming from the multiport diffusers. These conditions are not expected to influence the onset of turtle nesting or nesting be-havior. Turtles encountering the thermal plume wouldmove to waters of ambient temperatures for feeding. Hatchling turtles leaving the beach in the vicinity of the thermal plume may be exposed to elevated temperatures but the combination of currents and swimming activity should enable them to leave the plume area without excessive stress.

The discharge pipe will be buried below the sea floor, and will not impede turtle movement since they will be able to swim between the vertical risers and discharge jets.

5.1-17

SL2-ER-OL 5.1.4 OTHER EFFECTS OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Re-evaluation of potential fogging ove.r the St Lucie Plant discharge canal, based on a condenser. rise of 32 F, site specific meteorological data (Dec 1976 to Nov 1977) and actual intake water temperatures (Dec IM, to Nov 1977), has shown a low occurrence of fogging for all months However, the probability of St Lucie Unit 2 operation at 320F during these months is extremely low.

Ten hours of fog, which produced visibility of less than 50 m, were predicted for the entire year. Seven hours were predicted for January 1977 and three hours were predicted for December 1976. No cases of natural fog were predicted during these occasions.

Because of the low incidence of fog predicted over the discharge canal, the occurrence of fog in the Atlantic Ocean, resulting from the operation of St Lucie Unit 2, is considered to be very low. This reflects the much lower surface water temperatures produced by discharge from the St Lucie Unit 2 nultiport diffuser.

5.1-18

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES

1. Coastal and Oceanographic-Engineering Laboratory, Buoyant Jet Discharge Model Studies For St Lucie Power Plant, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,.June 1973.

2. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Cooling Water Discharge Thermal - Hydraulic Characteristics Model of the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, The University of Iowa, Iowa.City, Iowa, July, 1975.

3. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Cooling Water Discharge Thermal - Hydraulic Characteristics Model of the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Progress Report No. 1, March, 1974.

4. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Cooling Water Discharge Thermal-Hydraulic Characteristics Model of the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Progress Report No. 2, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, June, 1974.

5. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Cooling Water Discharge Thermal-Hydraulic Characteristics Model of the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Progress Report No. 3, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, June, 1974.

6. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Cooling Water Discharge Thermal-Hydraulic Characteristics Model of the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Progress Report No. 4, The Universityof Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, December, 1974.

7. Envirosphere Company, A Division of Ebasco Services, Inc. St Lucie Plant Site Ocean Current Analysis, New York, N.Y., May, 1976.

8. Nagel, H.A., Shashidhara, N.S., Shin, J.J., and Verma, A.P.

Thermal Evaluation Study, St Lucie Unit I Ocean Diffuser. For Florida Power and Light Company, Envirosphere Company, New York, N.Y. July, 1977.

9. Nagel, H.A., Shashidhara, N.S., Shin, J.J. Predicted Thermal Plumes For Elevated Discharge Temperatures, St Lucie Unit I. For Florida Power and Light Company, Envirosphere Company, New York, N.Y.

10. Almquist C. W., and Stolzenbach, K. D. Staged Diffusers in Shallow Water, Report No. 213, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976.

11. Brocard, D.N. Hydrothermal Studies of Staged Diffuser Discharge in the Coastal Environment: Charlestown Site, Alden Research Lab.,

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Holden, Mass. Sept 1977.

12. Acres American Inc. Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Thermal Hydraulic Model Study of Cooling Water Discharge. Buffalo, New York, 1974.

5.1-19

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

13. Paddock, R.A., Ditmars, John D. Assessment of Once Through Cooling Water Control Technology. Paper presented at U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, Washington, D.C. November 28-30, 1978.

14. Koh, R.C.Y., Brooks, N.H., List, E.J., and Wolenski, E.J. Hydraulic Modeling of Thermal Outfall Diffusers for the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. W.M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources, Report No. KH-R-30. California Institute of Technology Pasadena, Calif. January 1974.

15. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Survey. Surface Water Temperature and Density, Atlantic Coast, North and South America.

Publication 31-1, Fourth Edition 1972.

16. Koh R.C.Y., and Fan, L.N. Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Temperatures Distribution Resulting from the Discharge of Heated Water Into Large Bodies of Water. Environmental Protection Agency.

Water Pollution Control Series 16/30 DWD 10/70. 1970.

17. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Draft Environmental Statement Related to Construction of New England Power Units 1 and 2. NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-568 and STN 50-569. May 1979.

18. Shirazi, M.A., and Davis, L.R. Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction.

Vol. 2, Surface Discharge. National Environmental Research Center.

Corvallis, Oregon. May 1974.

19. Jirka, G.H., Abraham, G. and Harleman, D.R.F. An Assessment of Techniques for Hydrothermal Prediction. Ralph M Parsons Laboratory.

Report No. 203. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Mass. July 1975.

20. Shin, J.J. Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer Around and Stagnation Region of a Surfacing Plume. PhD Dissertation, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, The University of Delaware.

June 1974.

21. Applied Biology Inc. 1979. Florida Power & Light Company, St Lucie Plant, Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report.

Florida 1978.

22. Applied Biology Inc. 1978. Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power

& Light Company, St Lucie Plant. Annual Report, 1977.

23. Applied Biology Inc. 1977. Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power

& Light Company, St Lucie Plant. Annual Report, 1976.

24. Applied Biology Inc. 1978. Effects of Increased Water Temperature on the Marine Biota of the St Lucie Plant Area. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Company.

5.1-20

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

25. Envirosphere Company, 1977. Thermal Evaluation Study, St Lucie Unit I Ocean Diffuser. For Florida Power & Light Company. 27 pp.

26. Admiral, W, 1977. Influence of light and temperature on the rate of estuarine benthic diatoms in culture. Mar. Biol. 39:1-9.

27. Crippen, R W, 1979. Some thermal effects of a simulated entrainment regime on marine phytoplankton. PhD Thesis, University of Maine.

)13 pp. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan (75-12, 414)..

28. Grailt, J R, 1972. Spring bloom of the diatom Rhiz6solenia delicatula near Roscoff. Mar. Biol. 16:41-48.

29. Hirayama, K and R Hirano, 1970. Influences of high temperature and residual, chlorine on marine phytoplankton. Mar. Biol. 7:205-2.13.

30. Naylor, E, 1965. Effects of heated effluents upon marine and estuarine organisms. Adv. Mar. Biol. 3:63-103.

31. Patrick, R, 1969. Some effects of temperature on freshwater algae.

in P A Krenkel and F L Parker, Eds., Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution. Vanderbilt University Press. Nashville, Tenn. pp. 161-185.

32. Saks, N M and J J Lee, 1972. The differential sensitivity of various species of salt marsh epiphytic algae to ionizing radiation and thermal, stress. COO-3254-8-CONF-720708-]. Symp. on the Interaction of Radioactive Contaminants With the Constituents of the Marine Environment. Seattle, Washington. 9 pp.

33. Saks, N M, J J Lee, W A Muller and J H Tietjen, 1974. Growth of salt marsh microcosms subjected to thermal stress. in: J W Gibbons and R R Sharitz, Eds., Thermal Ecology. NTIS No. CONF-730505. Oak Ridge, Tenn. pp. 391-398.

34. Thomas, W H, A N Dodson and C A Linden, 1973. Optimum light and temperature requirements for G ymnodinum splendens, larval food organism. Fish. Bull. 71(2):599-601

35. Ukeles, R, 1961. The effect of temperature on the growth and survival of several marine algae species. Biol. Bull. 120(2):255-264.

36. Uye, S and A Fleminger, 1976. Effects of various environmental factors on egg development of several species of Acartia in southern California. Mar. Biol. (W. Ger.) 38:253-262.

37. Reeve, M R and E Cosper, 1972. Acute effects of heated effluents on the copepod, Acartia tonsa, from a sub-tropical bay and some problems of assessment. in: N Ruivo, Ed., Marine Pollution and Sea Life.

pp. 250-257.

5,1-21

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

38. Alden, R W III, 1976. Growth, reproduction and survival of some marine copepods subjected to thermal and mechanical stress. PhD.

Thesis, University of Florida.

39. Wiesepape, L M, 1974. Thermal resistance and acclimation rate in young white and brown shrimp, Penaeus setiferus Linn. and P. aztecus Ives. PhD Thesis, Texas A & M University. 313 pp.

40. Temple, R F, 1973. Shrimp research at the Galveston Laboratory of the Gulf Coastal Fisheries Center. Marine Fish Res. 35(3-4):16-20.

41. Kolehmainen, S E, F D Martin and P B Schroeder, 1975. Thermal studies on tropical marine ecosystems in Puerto Rico. in: Environmental Effects of Cooling Systems at Nuclear Power Plants. 1AEA-SM-187/]4; pp. 409-422.

42. Virnstein, R W, 1972. Effects of heated effluent on density and diversity of benthic infauna at Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida. MA Thesis, University of S. Florida. Tampa, Fla. 60 pp.

43. Roessler, M A and D C Tabb, 1974. Studies of the effects of thermal pollution in Biscayne Bay, Florida. EPA-660/3-74-014; 145 pp.

44. Eckelbarger, K J 1976. Larval development and population aspects of the reef-buLilding Polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa from the east coast of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(2):117-132.

45. Singeltary, R I, 1971. Thermal tolerance of ten shallow-water ophiuroids in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 21(4):938-943.

46. Rasquin, P, 1958. Ovarian morpology and early embryology of the pediculate fishes Antennarius and Histrio. ,Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat.

Hist. 114(4):327-372.

47. Reynolds, W W and D A Thomson, 1974. Temperature and salinity tolerances of young Gulf of California grunion Leuresthes sardina (Atheriniformes, Atherinidae). J. Mar. Res. 32(1):37-45.

48. 1974. Responses of young gulf grunion Leuresthessardetogradients of temperature, light, turbulence and oxygen. Copein 1974(3):747-758,

49. Hildebrand, S F, 1924. Notes on habits and development of eggs and larvae of the silversides Menidia menidia and Menidia beryllina.

Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 38 (1921 1922):113-120.

/

50. Ciechomski, J D D, J972. Embryonic and larval development of Austroatherina tncisa. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina.

.]93(5-6):273-281 5.1-22

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

51. Hoff, F, C Rowell and T Pulver, 1972. Artificially induced spawning of the Florida pompano under controlled conditions. Proc. Third Annual Workshop World Mariculture Society. pp. 53-64.

52. Kendall, A W Jr. and J W Reintjes, 1975. Geographic and hydrographic distribution of Atlantic menhaden eggs and larvae along the middle Atlantic coast from R V Dolphin Cruises, 1965-66. Fish. Bull.

73:312-335.

53. Saksena, V P, C Steinmetz Jr, and E D Roude,, 1972. Effects of tem-perature on growth and survival of laboratory-reared larvae of the scaled sardine, Harengula pensacolae Goode add Bean. Trans. Amer.

Fish. Soc. 101(4):691-695.

54. Harrington, R W Jr and E S Harrington, 1961. Food selection among fishes invading a high subtropical salt marsh from onset of flooding through the progress of a mosquito brood. Ecology 42:646-666.

55. Eldred, B, 1967. Larval tarpon, Megalops atlanticus Valenciennes, (Megalopidae) in Florida waters. Fla. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab., Leaf.

Ser. IC, Pt, 1, No. 4. 9 pp.

56. 1972. Note on larval tarpon, Megalops atlanticus (Megalopidae), in the Florida Straits, Fla. Dept. Nat. Res.

Mar. Res. Lab., Leaf. Ser. IV, Pt. 1, No. 22. 6 pp.

57. de Sylva, D P, 1969. Theoretical considerations of the effects of heated effluents on marine fishes, in: P A Krenkel and F L Parker, Ed. Biological Aspects of Thermal Po-lution. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. pp. 229-293.

58. Martin, R A, and C L Martin. 1970. Reproduction of the clingfish "Gdbiesox strumosus. Quart. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci. 33:275-278.

59. Valenti, R J, 1972. The embryology of the neon goby, Gobiosoma oceanops. Copeia 1972:477-482.

60. Springer, V G and A J McErlean, 1961. Spawning seasons and growth of the code goby, Gobiosoma robustum (Pisces: Gobiidae), in the Tampa Bay area. Tolane Stud. Zool. 9:87-98.

61. Sylvester, J R and C E'Nash, 1975. Thermal tolerance of eggs and larvae of Hawaiian striped mullet, Mugil cephalus. L. Trans. Am.

Fish Soc. 104(l):144-147.

62. Eldred, B, 1966. The early development of the spotted worm eel, Myrophis punctatus Lutken (Ophichthidae). Fla. Bd. Conserv. Mar.

Lab., Leaf. Ser. IV, Pt. 1, No. 1. 13 pp.

5.1-23

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

63. Sylvester, J R, 1973. A note on the upper lethal temperature of juvenile Haemulon flavonlineatum from the Virgin Islands. J. Fish.

Biol. 5(3):305-307.

64. Hettler, W F Jr, 1971. Effects of increased temperature on post-larval and juvenile estuarine fish. Proc. 25th Ann. Conf. S.E.

Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners. pp. 635-642.

65. May, R C, 1972. Effect of temperature and salinity on eggs and early larvae of the sciaenid fish, Bairdiella icista (Jordan and Gilbert).

PhD Thesis, U. of California, 281 pp.

66. Hoss, D E, L C Coston and W F Hettler Jr, 1972. Effects of increased temperature on post larval and juvenile estuarine fish. Proc. 25th Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. pp. 635-642.

67. Starck, .W A, 1970. Biology of the'gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus) in the Florida Keys. Stud. Trop. Oceanog. Miami 10:1-150.

68. Parker, J C, 1971. The biology of the spot, Leiostomus xanthurus (Lacepede) and Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus (Linnaeus), in two Gulf of Mexico Nursery Areas. PhD Thesis, Texas A & MU, 230 pp.

69. Garside, E T and Z K Chin-Yuen-Kee, 1972. Influence of osmotic stress on upper lethal temperatures in the cyprinodontid fish Fundulus heteroclitus. Can. J. Zool. 50:787-791.

70. Jean, R and E T Garside, 1974. Selective elevation of the upper lethal temperature of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus (L.)

(Cyprirodontidae), with a statement of its application in fish culture. Can. J. Zool. 52:433-435.

71. Courtenay, W R Jr and M H Roberts, 1973. Environmental effects of toxaphene toxicity to selected fishes and crustaceans. EPA-R3-73-035; 73 pp.

72. Young, J S, 1974. Menhaden and power plants: a growing concern.

Har. Fish. Rev. 36:19-23 (MFR Paper 1094).

73. Springer, V G and K 0 Woodburn, 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Fla. St. Bd. Conserv. Proj. Pap. Ser.

No. 1. 104 pp.

74. Delmonte, P J, 1968. Laboratory rearing through metamorphosis of some Panamanian gobies. Copeia 1968:411-412.

75. Olla, B and A L Studholme, 1978. Comparative aspects of 'the activity rhythms of tautog, Tautoga oritis, bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix and Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, as related to their life habits.

in: J E Thorpe, Ed. Rhythmic Activity of Fishes. Academic Press.

NY. pp. 131-152.

5.1-24

SL2-ER-OL SECTION 5.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd)

76. Bush, R M, E B Welch and B W Mar, 1974. Potential effects of thermal discharges on aquatic systems. Env. Sci. Tech. 8(6):56]-568.

77. Wurtz, C B and C E Renn, 1965. Water temperatures and aquatic life.

The Johns Hopkins U. Cooling Water Studies for Edison Electric Institute. RT-49, Report No. .1.. 99 pp.

78. Gallaway, B J and K Strawn, 1974. Seasonal abundance and distribution of marine fishes at a hot-water discharge in Galveston Bay, Texas.

Contrib. Mar. Sci. 18:71-137.

79. 1975. Seasonal and areal com-parisons of fish diversity indices at a hot-water discharge in Galveston Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 19:79-89.

80. Berrien, P and D Finan, 1977. -Biological and fisheries data on king mackerel, Scomberomortis cavalla (Cuirier). Tech. Ser. Report No. 8.

Sandy Hook Laboratory Northeast Fisheries Center NMFS/NOAA/Highlands, NJ. 40 pp.

81. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorous maculatus (Mitchill). Tech. Ser.

Report No. 9. Sandy Hook Laboratory Northeast Fisheries Center NMFS/

NOAA/Righlands, NJ. 56 pp.

82. Wilk, S J, 1977. Biological and fisheries data on bluefish, Pomatonus saltatrux (Linnaeus). Tech. Ser. Report No. )). Sandy Hook Labora-tory Northeast Fisheries Center NMFS/NOAA/Highlands, NJ. 56 pp.

83. Dames & Moore, 1980, Results of a fogging analysis for the discharge canal at the St Licie Plant - Unit 2. For Florida Power & Light Company.

5.1-25

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-1 QUALITATIVE PERFORMANCE OF SUBMERGED DIFFUSERS IN SEMI-INFINITE SHALLOW WATER*

TYPE OF (a) b (c) (d) (e)

.DIFFUSER ALTERNATING COFLOWING TEE OBLIQUE STAGED**

Receivi ng Water 1 Current-

+V Net Offshore No No Yet Yes Yes Mome n tumr Low Speed Poor Good Good Good Fair Node rat e kUI g Speed Poor Good Fair Good Good T41 S"' Ili gh Speed Fair Good Poor Fair Good U Speed Poor Fair Good Fair Fair al

.oderate t Speed Poor Poor Fair Poor Good

,,o I l i gh

- Speed Fair Poor Poor Poor Good From Reference 10.

Staged or off-shore angled diffuser.

m m m mn m m m m m m m m - m m m L m SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-2 OCEAN DISCHARGE PIPELINE FLOW DISTRIBUTION Deischarge 0i*7h-r He-t Di-- - Unit I* Unit 2* Flow##

F10*4 Temp Rise zhkrge U--:

UCharge Flgw Vslocicy Fri=cion Discharge Flow Velocity Friction Head++ Variation (Cfs) (I/) (Bz/X1t (cfO) (fps) faczor (cfs) (fps) factor (ft) (percent) 2003 32 14 941 10.65 0.015 3062 13.11 0.015 4.4 18.9 to 8.4 2003 32 14 836 9.46 0.030 1167 14.40 0.015 5.1 27.9 to 0.6 2003, 32 14 766 8.67 0.045 1237 15.27 0.015 5.7 34 to 6.6 2003 32 14 1001.5 11 .33 0.0)5 1001.5 12.36 0.030 5.0 13.7 2003+ 32 14 1052 11.90 0.015 95' 11.74 0.045 5.5 9.3 to 18

) 770" 32 12.25 830 9.39 0.015 940 11.60 0.015 5.5 9.3 to 18 17704 32 12.25 745 R.43 0.030 1025 12.65 0.015 4.0 35.8 to 11.6 1770#' 32 12.25 680 7.7 0.045 1090 13.45 0.015 4.5 41.4 to 6.0 1770Q- 32 12.25 880 9.96 0.015 890 10.99 0.030 3.8 24.1 to 23.2 1770#+ 32 12.25 934 10.57 0.015 836 10.32 0.045 4.3 19.5 to 27.9 2290 28 14 1065 12.05 0.015 1225 15.12 0.015 5.7 12 8.2 to 5.6 22904 28 14 956 10.82 0.030 1334 16.47 0.015 15 6.7 17.6 to 2290 28 14 886 10.02 0.045 1404 17-33 0.015 7.5 23.6 to 21.0 2290' 28 14 1145 12.95 0.015 1145 14.13 0.030 6.6 1.3 2290÷ 28 14 1215 13.75 0.015 1075 13.27 0.045 7.3 4.7 to 7.3 a*12' Diameter 16' Diameter 0 Refers to 7-pump operation (one waterbox out of service).

h# With respect to a base flow of 1160 cfs per unit.

Test cases for plume evaluation.

• levation difference between ocean and.discharge canal.

E 0

0.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LONGSHORE CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION AT THE ST LUCIE SITE Current Speed Southward Quadrant Northward Quadrant Group (ft/8ec) Frequency (%) Cumulative Frequency (%) Cumulative 0.0 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.1 0.2 0.33 0,39 0,52 0.96 0.2 0.3 0.76 1.15 0.82 1.78 0.3 0,4 0.97 2.12 0.97 2.75 0.4 0.5 3.27 5,39 3.92 6.67 0.5 0.6 3.25 8.64 3.68 10.35 0.6 0.7 4.]l 12.75 5.57 15.92 0.7 0.8 4.28 17.03 6.49 22.41 0.8 0.9 5.65 22.68 8.65 31.06 0.9 1.0 3.27 25.95 5.61 36.67 1.0 1.1 3.66 29.61 4.99 41.66 1.1 1 .2 2.22 31 .83 3.48 45.14 1.2 .1.3 1.19 33.02 1.69 46.83 1.3 1.4 0.58 33.60 1.05 47.88 1.4 1.5 0.36 33.96 0.48 48,36 1.5 1.6 0.20 34. 16 0.27 48.63 1.6 1.7 0'. 12 34.28 0.24 48.87 1.7 1.8 0.17 34.45 0.20 49.07 1.8 1.9 0.03 34.48 0.14 49.21 1.9 2.0 0.08 34.56 0.19 49.40

mm m m m m m m - m mm m m m -

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-4 ST LUCIE UNIT 2: SUBSURFACE JET CHARACTERISTICS Max Surface Ave Distance to Reach Jet Trajectory Jet Velocity at

+

17 F Above Ambient (ft) 0 Discharge Discharge TempRise (OF) Length.(ft) the Surface (fps)

Test Flow Temp Rise Southward Northward Southward Northward Southward Northward Southward Northward No. (cfs) (OF) Stagnant Current Current Stagnant Current Current 'Stagnant Current Current Stagnant Current Current 1001.5 32 4.4 2.9 2.7 15.6 13.4 13.2 101 91 87 2.7 1.9 1.8 I

2 951 32 4-6 3.0 2.7 15.6 13.4 13.2 98 88 86 2.6 1.9 1.8 3 1090 32 4.3 2.8 2.6 15.6 13.4 13.2 106 95 93 2.7 2.0 1.8 4 836 32 4.9 3.2 2.9 15.6. 13.4 13.2 91 83 81 2.6 1.9 1.8 5 1145 28 3.5 2.3 2.1 13.5 12.0 12.0 114 100 96 2.6 1.9 1.7 6 1404 28 3.1 2.1 1.9 13.5 12.0 12.0 130 109 105 2.7 1.9 1.8 7 1075 28 3.6 2.4 2.2 13.5 12.0 12.0 "110 98 93 2.5 1.8 1.7 0

(1) Ambient ocean temperature - 87 F.

(2) Jet characteristics shown are for the offshore port only.

+-

Distance computed along centerline of discharge, which is oriented 250 from the diffuser centerline. To determine the distance to the 17°F isotherm normal to the diffuser centerline, multiply the distance given by sin 250.

mm m m m mmmmm m m m m m m m m SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-5 ST LUCIE UNIT 2: TRAVEL TIME ALONG PLUME CENTER LINE Plume Travel Time

- Stagnant Southward Current Northward Current Discharge Discharge Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 0

Test Flow Temp Rise 20°F 100F 50 2(F 200F 10 F 50F 20F 20 F 100F 50 F 2'F 5sF (s°F 5(F No. (cfs) (0) (see) (see) (see) (min) (sec) (see) (sec) (min) (sec) (see) (sec) (min) 1 1001.5 32 2 6 19 70.5 2 .4 12 1263 2 4 ii 137.8 2 951 .32 2 6 20 .74.1 2 4 13 132.8 2 4 149.3 3 1090 32 2 5 18 66.2 2 4 11 115.3 I 3 10 118.0 4 836 32 2 2 4 2 7 21 85.1 14 147.5 4 13 169.4 5 1145 28 1 4 14 42.0. I 3 9 55.5 1 3 8 28.1 6 1404 28 1 3 12 32.5 I 2 7 18.4 1 2 6 0.5 7 1075 28 1 4 15 43.0 i 3 9 66.9 I 3 8 40.8

m mm m m m m - m -mm m m-m m m mm SL2-ER-0L TABLE 5.1-6 ST LUCIE UNIT 2: VOLUME ENCLOSED BY ISOTHERMS Volume (acre-ft) Enclosed bX Isotherms, and Max Temp Rises Discharge Discharge Stagnant Southward Current Northward Current Test Flow Temp Rise AT* AT* aT*

No. (cfs) (OF) Max 20°F 10°F 5°F 20 F Max 20°F 10°F 5°F 2°F Max 20°F 10 0 F 50 F 2'F 1 1001.5 32 4.4 0.02 0.19 1.48 584 2.9 0.02 0.12 0.88 599 2.7 0.02 0.10 0.78 500 2 951 32 4.6 0.02 0.19 1.47 536 3.0 0.02 0.12 0.88 621 2.7 0.02 0.10 0.78 534 3 1090 32 4.3 0.02 0.19 1.51 590 2.8 0.02 0.12 0.89 567 2.6 0.02 0.10 0.79 435 4 836 32 4.9 0.02 0.19 1.41 588 3.2 0.02 0.12 0.86 629 2.9 0.02 0.10 0.77 582 5 1145 28 3.5 0.02 0.12 1.04 314 2.3 0.02 0.08 0.60 170 2-1 0.02 0.07 0.53 85 6 1404 28 3.1 0.02 0.12 1.05 290 2.1 0.02 0.08 0.61 86 1.9 0.02 0.07 0.53 8 7 1075 28 3.6 0.02 0.12 1.03 250 2.4 0.02 0.08 0.60 201 2.2 0.02 0.07 0.53 100

-Maximum surface temperature rise.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-7 ST LUCIE UNIT 2: AREA OF ISOTHERMS Area (acres) Enclosed by 20 F Isotherms and Max Surface Temp Rises Discharge Discharge Southward Northward Test Flow Temg Rise Stag*nant Current Current No. (cfs) ( F) AT* Max Area AT* Max Area AT* Max Area 1 1001..5 32 4.4 273 2.9 825 2-7 528 951 32 4.6 285 3.0 872 2.7 589 2

3 1090 32 4.3 258 2.8 739 2.6 427 4 836 32 4.9 294 3.2 963 2.9 720 5 1145 28 3.5 172 2.3 175 2.1 28 6 1404 28 3.1 133 2.1 21 1..9 0 7 1075 28 3.6 192 2.4 226 2.2 53

• Maximum surface temperature rise.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-8 ST LUCIE UNIT 1: SUBSURFACE JET CHARACTERISTICS Jet Max Jet Velocity Discharge Discharge Surface Trajectory at Test Flow Temg Rise Temp Rise Length the Surface No. (cfs) ( F) ( F) (ft) (fps) 8 1001.5 32 8.1 130 3.9 9 1052 32 7.9 134 4.0 10 680 32 9.7 110 3.5 11 934 32 8.4 126 3.8 12 1145 28 6.4 144 3.9 13 886 28 7.3 127 3.6 14 1215 28 6.2 149 3.9 Notes: (1) Ambient ocean temperature = 07°F.

(2) Subsurface jet characteristics remain essentially unaltered under stagnant, southward and northward ocean current con-ditions.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-9 ST LUCIE UNIT 1: TRAVEL TIME ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDITIONS Plume Travel Time Max Discharge Discharge Surface Up to Up to Up to Up to Test Flow Temp Rise Temg Rise 20°F 100F 50 2°F 5°F (min) (rai)

No. (cfs) ( 0) ("F) (sec) (sec) 8 1001.5 32 8.1 6 14 7.3 51.2 9 1052 32 7.9 6 13 7.0 56.2 10 680 32 9.7 8 19 9.5 75.9 11 934 32 9.4 6 15 7.7 61.5 12 1145 28 6.4 5 10 4.2 39.1 13 886 28 7.3 6 11 5.8 48.1 14 1215 28 6.2 4 10 3.8 37.3

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-10 ST LUCIE UNIT 1: VOLUME ENCLOSED BY ISOTHERMS UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDITIONS Volume (acre-ft) Enclosed by Isotherms Max Sur-Discharge Discharge face Test Flow Temp Rise Temp Rise 0 10°F 2 0F No. (cfs) ( F) ( F) 20 F 50 F 8 1001 .5 32 8.1 0.12 0.51 23.1 542 9 1052 32 7.9 0.12 0.51 22.8 550 10 680 32 9.7 0.12 0.49 22.6 469 11 934 32 8.4 0.12 0.51 23.3 531 12 1145 28 6.4 0.09 0.37 10.9 369 13 886 28 7.3 0.09 0.37 13.0 345 14 1215 28 6.2 0.09 0.37 10.2 372

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-11 ST LUCIE UNITS I and 2: VOLUME ENCLOSED BY ISOTHERMS UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDTTIONS Volume (acre-ft) Enclosed by Isotherms Discharge Discharge Test Flow Temp Rise No. (cfs) (OF) 20 0 F 100 F 50 F 20 F 15 2003 32 0.14 0.70 24.6 1701 16 2003 32 0.14 0.70 24.3 1889 17 1770 :32 0.14 0.68 24.1 1673 18 1770 32 0.14 0.70 24.7 1721 19 2290 28 0.11 0.50 11,9 963 20 2290 28 0.11 0.50 14.1 873 21 2290 23 0.11 0.50 11.2 932

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-12 ST LUCIE UNIT 1: AREA OF ISOTHERMS UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDITIONS Area (acres) Enclosed by Isotherms Discharge Discharge Max Surface Test Flow Temp Rise Temp Rise No. (cfs) ( 0 F) (OF) 5°F 20F 8 1001.5 32 8.1 14.6 270 9 1052 32 7.9 14.0 268 I0 680 32 9.7 18.3 284 11 934 32 8.4 15.8 274 12 1145 28 6.4 4.9 173 13 886 28 7.3 8.2 188 14 1215 28 6.2 4.1 171

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-13 ST LUCIE UNITS I and 2: AR1EA OF ISOTHERMS UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDITIONS Areas (acres) Enclosed by Isotherms Discharge Discharge Test Flow Temp Rise No. (cfs) (OF) 5°F 20F 15 2003 32 14.6 644 16 2003 32 14.0 605 17 1770 32 18.3 677 18 1770 32 15.6 660 19 2290 28 4.9 405 20 2290 28 8.2 353 21 2290 28 4.1 422

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-14 ST LUCIE UNITS I AN D 2: TRAVEL TIME ALONG THE PLUME CENTER LINES UNDER STAGNANT OCEAN CONDITIONS Travel Time Discharge Disc harge Up to Up 0 to Ug to ug to Test Flow Temg Rise 20°F 10JF 5 F 2-F No. (cfs) ( F) (sec) (sec) (min) (min) 15 2003 32 6 14 7.3 165 16 2003 32 6 13 7.0 172 17 1770 32 8 19 9.5 193 18 1770 32 6 15 7.7 188 19 2290 28 5 10 4.2 104 20 2290 28 6 13 5.8 98 21 2290 28 4 10 3.8 95

- mnmrrn -nu-rn--r n n- -- m - n--m r SL2-ER--OL TABLE 5.1-15 PERCENTAGE LOSS ESTIMATES OF FISH LARVAL ENTRAINMENT BASED ON PLANT OPERATING AND ICRTHYOPLANKTON SAMPLING STATISTICS ST LUCIE PLANT 1976, 1977 AND 197?

Variables(a) Percentage loss (mean depth-9.2m) Percentage loss (mean

... depth-3.0m)

Year Category Cr Cp V Qr p m mCp C mop mCp mcp C C C r r r r 1976 eggs 3.848 1.259 5474[1785] 32.36 1.0 0.19 0.59 0159 1.81 larvae 0.205 0.041 5474[1785] 32.36 1.0 1.07 0.59 3.29 1.81 1977 eggs 0.429 0.366 5474(17851 32.36 1.0 0.50 0.59 1.55 1.81 larvae 1.345 0.028 5474[1785] 32.36 1.0 0.01 0.59 0.04 1.81 1978(b) eggs 2.709 1.503 5474(1785] 32.36 1.0 0.40 0.59 1.23 1.81 larvae 0.421 0.087 5474(1785] 32.36 1.0 0.15 0.59 0.47 1.81 aC = Geometric mean concentration of organisms per m3 (based on surface tows only) in offshore areas (Stations 0 through 5).

r C m3 in* the intake water (Station 11).

Geometric mean concentration of organisms per p

3 2 Flow in m per second past the ýlant, based on a cross-sectional area of 32,200m ; numbers in brackets are based on a cross-sectional area of 10,500m 3

Qp = Water flow in m per second through the plant intake, based on maximum recorded daily value.

m = Mortality rate of entrained organisms (assumed to be 100%, making m = 1.0).

3 b = Mean numbers of eggs or larvae per m are calculated from data collected from 14 December 1977 through 28 November 1978.

m m mm mnmm m m m m mm mm mnm m SL.2-ER.-OL TABLE 5.1-16 Sheer I of 2

SUMMARY

OF ST LUCIE UNIT I IMPINGEMENT SAMPLING (MARCH 1976 - DECEMBER 1978)(3) 1976 1977 1978 Days Sampled/Days on-line (%) 45/192 (23.4%) 97/339 (28.6%) 84/297 (28.3%)

FINFISH (2)

Mean Number Impinged/24 hours 351 223 92 Mean Weight (kg) Impinged/

2 2.7 1.2 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />( )

Species' Relative Abundance (W) Anchovy: 54.4 Grunt: 50.3 Anchovy: 18.2 Jack: 30.8 Anchovy: 28.0 Jack: 15.0 Remaining: <2.8* Mojarra: 6.7 Croaker: 14.5 Jack: 4.7 Mojarra: 12.5 Remaining: <2.9 Herring: 9.9 Grunt: 7.2 Remaining: <3.8 Species' Representative Weight (1) Anchovy: 22.9 Jack: 40.9 Jack: 20.7 Jack: 12.2 Grunt: 31.1 Mojarra: 9.0 Grunt: 10.7 Mojarra: 3.7 Herring: 6.1 Remaining: <5.8 Croaker: 3.6 Croaker: 5.0 Filefish: 3.4 Anchovy: 1.7 Anchovyt 3.1 Remaining: <4.8 Remaining: <1 .5 Peak Sampling Period October August December Number Commercially-Important Organisms Impinged (Annual Total) 10 76 37 SHELLFISH '2)

Mean Number Impinged/24 hours 72 72 101 Mean Weigh 2 kg) Impinged/

24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 0.8 0.3 0.5 Species' Relative Abundance (M) Shrimp: 78.2 Shrimp: 88.7 Shrimp: 84.1 Blue Crab: 21.4 Blue Crab: J0.1 Blue Crab: 15.6 Remaining: <0.4 Remaining: 0.8 Remaining: 0.2 Species' Representative Weight (%) Blue Crab 75.3 Blue Crab 54.9 Shrimp: 53.3 Shrimp: 23.9 Shrimp: 42.1 Blue Crabi 44.8 Remaining: <0. 7 Remaining: <2.3 Remaining: <1.7

m m m- m m m n, m m - m m m m - m -

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-16 Sheet 2 of 2 1976 1977 1978 Peak Sampling Period November August December (1) Summarized from Annual Monitoring Reports, Applied Biology, Inc, 1977-]979.

(2) Means for 1976/1977 data are arithmetic means; 1978 means are geometric.

• Each remaining taxon comprised no more of the sample than the percentage shown.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-17 S1ieet I of 5 THERMAL TOLERANCE DATA: ORGANISMS INDIGENOUS TO HUTCHINSON ISLAND OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT Physiological Organism Response Temperature (OF) Reference PHYTOPLANKTON Nitzschia Optimal growth 77 26 Chaetoceros laciniosus Upper lethal 84.2 27 Skeletonema Upper lethal costatum (68 0 F acclimation) 93,2 27 Rhizosolenia delicatula Optimal growth 55.4 28 Skeletonema costatum Upper lethal 98.6 29 Nitzschia filiformiq Optimal growth 78 30 various marine diatoms Optimal abundance 87.8 - 95.0 31 12 spp salt Chronic exposure:

marsh epi- 0% survival 102.2 32 phytes Nitzschia Optimal growth 77 33 acicularis Depressed growth 91.4 Upper lethal 95 Gymnodinium simplex Optimal growth 73.4 - 82A4 34 Prorocentrum Optimal growth 77 34 various marine diatoms No growth >102 35 ZOOPLANKTON Acartia Normal nauplii tonsa development 41 - 77 36 Acartia tonsa <25% mortality 96.8 (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />) 37

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-17 Sheet 2 of 5 Physi ologi cal OrRanism Response Temperature (OF) Reference Crystal River estuary spp Increased mortality 95 38 Penaeus LT50 (10,000 minutes) 95 - 96.8 39 aztecus LT50 (24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> acclimation 97.3, 99.5, 100.9 T = 75.2, 84.2, 93,2oF)

P. setiferus LT50 (10,000 minutes; 96.8, 98.6 39.

acclimation T=84,2, 93.2 0 F)

LT50 (24 hourlacclimation 100.9, 102.2 T=84.2, 93.2 F)

P. setiferus Good growth 89.6 40 P. aztecus No growth 95 40 MACROINVERTEBRATES Puerto Rico Decreased species diversity 95 41 benthic fauna Decreased biomass Tampa Bay Restrictive to benthic 89.6-91.4 42 fauna fauna Biscayne Bay Optimal temperature 78.8-82.4 43 fauna 50% reduction in 95-102.2 A43 representative species Phragmatopoma Optimal larval develop- 75,2-78.8 44 lapidosa ment (to age 48 hrs)

LT50 (48 hr exposure 85.1 from fertilization)

No embryonic development 95 Biscayne Bay Upper instantaneous 99.5-104.9 45 ophiuroids lethal temperatures ICHTHYOPLANKTON Frog fish em- Observed temperature 70-81 46 bryo, larvae range Silverside Thermal tolerance 46-95 47,48 prejuvinelB range Silverside em- Incipient lethal 82.4 49,50 bryos, larvae (upper)

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5.1-17 Sheet 3 of 5 Physiological Organism Response Temperature ( 0 F) Reference Jacks embryo Observed range 82.4 51 larvae Menhaden larvae Observed range 32-77 52 Sardine larvae Thermal tolerance 79-92 53 range Sheepshead Observed range 109.4 54 minnow juvenile Tarpon larvae Observed range 68-90 55,56 Bay anchovy Incipient lethal 82 53 larvae, embryo Striped anchovy Incipient lethal 69.8 57 embryo Cli ngfish Optimal temperature 75 58 embryo Neon goby Observed range 82.4 59 embryo Code goby Observed range 59.9-87.8 60 embryo Striped mullet Thermal range "45.9-87.1 61 embryo, larvae Striped mullet Incipient lethal 89,6 57 larvae Speckled worm Observed range 64.4-75.2 62 eel larvae French grunt Critical thermal max 96.8-1 00.4 63 Juven i les Spot post Critical thermal max 88 64 larvae-juveni les Pinfish post Critical thermal max 87A8 64 larvae juveniles

I SL2-ER-OL I TABLE 5.]-17 Sheet 4 of 5 I Organism -

Physiological Response Temperature (OF) Reference Drum larvae Optimal larval develop- 76 65 I Menhaden 24-hour LT50 Critical thermal maximun3 82-90 85 66 Critical thermal maximu. 1 I

Spot 88 Pinf ish Critical thermal maximun1 88 FISH - SHELLFISH I Gray snapper Lower tolerance limit 52-57 34-96 67 Spot Observed range 68 I Atlantic croaker Observed range 32-96 Mumin, chog Upper lethal (10,000 97,4 69 I minutes)

Incipient lethal 99.5 70 Mu I let 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> TL50 98 71 I Pompano Blue crab 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> TL50 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> TLS0 97 98 71 I Menhaden Incipient lethal 91.4 72 Bay anchovy Observed ranged 47-9] 73 I Clingfish Incipient lethal 88 58 N Crested goby Atlantic Observed range 6J-190% increase in 81-82 increases over ambient 74 75 mackerel swim .speed I Bluefish Tautog Tropical marine Observed range 88-90 57 U fishes Maximum survival temper ature 95 Boney fishes Upper lethal 100 76 Sharks/rays Upper lethal 86 I Marine fishes No large or diverse populations

>95 77 I Galveston Bay fi shes Observed range Decreased 8pp diversity 91-95

>95 78,79 I

I I

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 5,1-17 Sheet 5 of 5 Physiologi cal Organism Response Temperature (OF) Re ferenc e Atlantic Occurrence. 99 croaker, Sea

• cat fish Striped mullet Occurrence 104 78,79 Gulf menhaden, Avoidance behavior 86-91 78,79 Bay anchovy Sea catfish Occasional mortality. 78,79 Gulf menhaden King mackerel Minimum of range 68 80 Spanish Ripening of gonads 72 81 mackerel Spawning 78 Bluefish Preferred thermal range 66-72 82 Increased swimming speed >s 5

DISCHARGE EXIT VELOCITY 12.4 FPS DISCHARGE FLOW RATE AT DIFFUSER OUTLET 1001.5 6FS DISCHARGE EXIT TEMPERATURE 119.00F AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 87.00F OCEAN CURRENT SPEED OFPS DETENTION TIME TO REACH SURFACE 26 SECS 40 TER LINE U-2OF 30 x

Ii) cn 20-0 0 101-tL 0 1-z IOOF 11.--

-201--

-3 0 1 II IIIIIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER EXIT IN FT.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SUBSURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNIT 2 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1-1

38 ,4 40 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 43* 870 F 4

37 39 39 OCEAN CURRENT SPEED 0 FPS (STAGNANT).

39 DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 39 38 1190F "k39 38 DISCHARGE FLOW 10 01.5 CFS(UNIT 2) 36 40 37 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

40 2°F 2 73 (ACRES) 40 35 39 SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES 40 39 ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 42 35 38 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW 36 WATER 40 39 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR UNIT I 36 39 DISCHARGING 1001.5 CFS AT 119OF 40 ARE NOT SHOWN 31 33 39 41 36 33 3B ssh 47 41 35 35 52--

36 r/ 6.c 31 4, 43 44 33 34 47 135 45 36 No.1 32 sh 37 7 44 39 37 37

_9 2oF 4S5 41 54 37 44 50 SA 38k. 49 54 36

~44 45 0

39 (b~ 51 39 42 46 45 39 34 39 14 4 62 441 42 31 41 55 45 25 45 41 45 37 500 2000 306 000 41 Sh 40 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNIT 2 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1.2

SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUJCIE UNIT 2 SOUTHWARD CURRENT 0.85 FPS FIGURE 5.1.3

38 43 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 870 F 36 40 37 .39 39 OCEAN CURRENT SPEED 0.85 FPS(NORTHERLY) 39 38 DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE F19 OF 39 12 "39

• A S, DISCHARGE FLOW 1001.5CFS (UNIT 2) 37 38 40 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

2OF 528 ACRES) 37 40 39 35 SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES 40 39 ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 42 35 38 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW 39 WATER 40 38 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR UNIT I 39 DISCHARGING 1001.5 CFS AT 119°F 40 ARE NOT SHOWN 31 33 39 41 33 38 SSA 47 41 35 35 36 41 6.,

4' -.

2O F 43 44 3r 47 35 36 34

.DISCHARGE 45 54 35 44 41 39 -4 41 3 45 41 20 45,. 51 37 44 32 50 Sh 42 38tk 49 34 54 36 45 0

40

• 39 51 39 42 461 45 39 34 39 " . 4 5 62 42 41 43 55 45 (27 /

35 41 7*

45

)00 2000 30~5 41 $4 40 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 36 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNIT 2 NORTHWARD CURRENT 0.85 FPS FIGURE 5.1.4

43 0 16 40 40 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 87 F 39 39 OCEAN CURRENT SPEED OFPS(STAGNANT) 37 39 , 39 DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 119OF DISCHARGE FLOW 1001.5 CFS (UNIT I) 37 38 1001.5CFS (UNIT 2)

V 40 PREDICTED AREA ENCLOSED BY:

40 2°F 644 ( ACRES) 37 40 50 F 15(ACRES) 39 35 SURFACE ISOTHERM TEMPERATURES 40 39 ARE IN OF ABOVE AMBIENT 42 38 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW 38 WAT ER 40 38 39 40 31 33 39 36 33 3X 38 SSh 47 35 35 36 35 42 31 43 44 33 34 47 135 45

.36 IE No.1 32 35 37 39 9S 44 37 41 45-! 20 37 5'4 432 Sh 42 386 49 43 34 5f 36

' 44 45 39 39 45 39 34 62 44 42 43 55 45 35 41 45 45 41 SA 40 4

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SURFACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2 SLACK WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 5.1-6

- n-m m - m m i-- m -i m mn m - - - m mu 245 I

66 800 50

-700

-600 40 500 "

0 400 Lu -300 -1 CA-30 U..

cn S202 L Lu

-. o- -n Z S100 ozo m

-n m0 ca rn .f"

- ,IIII

• pAPR

o-_. MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN 11r- (A

~m  :> 1976

• * .4 oMONTH

'1l~i 110

m U um m nn m - in n ton- m m -

m m m m m 330 j197 166

-800 100,

-700

-600 80 -500

-200 100 0E 40 -0 co'

-n r-I =-

T 0_ U.20-

-flr-10 C* >~

--3:0 0 IIin mM r- Oo go APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN o = -,- !E 1976

' - i MONTH

-,-4 z-V 0

< 1 Ub -<o i

m, mm -m m m -mmm m m

- m m m -. m m m m LEGEND:

-SHRIMP 531 11

>- 0 D

-j

,< LL z1=

0 2

0 z -n LU c 0 z

0 uit:

r Mr-r APR JAN 1976

%0Z MONTH

.-o

-800

-700

- 500 10,000- 500 82.A% 99.3% TOMTATE 5,000 ANCHOVY -400 0

-300 -jU.

.. 92.8% 2,0000 -200

• ANCHOVY xI 1,000-- 0 85.0% TOMTATE -100 00 500-Lu rCo L. 200 -

I-J Lu 100-z 50--

00 z

-n -10 -

>i0 ,, JUL I AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

-nJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

=r > MONTH 0

m z

mi m -l -- m - m - ml m -! - m' - mi - m m -

-800 Ll -700 600 1005-

-400 99.4% TOMTATE 20-

-200 99.8% CREVALLE JACK 101 I A 5-1 61.5% TOMTATE u.-1.0

-0

-TI-S . I 0.5 r - -,I 0

ITI; -- oV ' :; In17JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC l-:

-- MONTH

• m o

zm M 0n

mI ml m m m m m m m m mI m m m- m m m m m 2,000- LEGEND:

SHRIMP 1,000 BLUE CRAB

• STONE CRAB 500 A SPINY LOBSTER o 200-C) 100 -

wu, 50  :

I'

-J I"I u- 20 -

it II I 'I  %,III 1 I

'I AIIt V-V~v I t '

01 2 19711701; 1 Al 1 1 I i it I~~~ I~I rI II ii . e 0 *2 * * *~ I

• 1> I v

n-i ~ seA* AOA, to ýAIAOA

.- 1 A..

o c~

0 A

• IoemL.A A

A o A

-n m~ C JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 5 a mM 1977

a rn-n -vMONTH

>r- ---

q m 0 z

m mm m m m m m m m m m= = m m = m 10000 LEGEND:

WEIGHT (9)

NUMBER 1000 /' I I

<2 0

A I D a 100 - U U I gi rA T , I~a g

a I, f gi I V; Lj z 'I I'

i-il'

~iu

~13:: 0

-o 2:]

I I I I I  !

0 AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

>CAM JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY 3: 1978 MONTH "0

.-4 Iz

mm m mmmm m m m mmmm m m -m m m m m 10000 LEGEND:

- SHRIMP BLUE CRAB A STONE CRAB 1000 0 SPINY LOBSTER

-J M

100 z

0 u,.I 10 z I A

1

-0 mz 0

I I I I I I ý I I I 3V-- III SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG mm 1978

-u c MONTH

-zlX-CA)

>4 z

0 z

I-"-.'

m m m IM m m m m m - - m m m m m 6.0 r- LEGEND: A A = 1 OBSERVATION D

) f%- r I r B

o -~ I-.A'JD~nvi~ I~I~,~ B 5.4 I- B A

4.8 ý AA 4.2k U.

U.

0 I 3.6 -

w no z 3.0 H AA A

x A A 2.4H 0 A

-j

-n 1.8 -

r-n A

r-v

> 1.2 k- A

-n ;uo

-<M 1 3ý' A m

o il- Co 0.6 rn -q iI 0 448 464 480 496 512 528 544 560 576 592 608 624 640 656 672 688 704 720 736 752 m

Ln r- FLOW (MGD) mz X -1 0

-n CO C) z

-ýE

m mnnnunn m mm m mnm m m mmmm m m m- n A

A 6.6- LEGEND:

A = 1 OBSERVATION A B 2 OBSERVATION, ETC. A 6.0- A A B

D A

5.4- A B C

A D SA A "1" A A A D

4.6-A A B U- pr 0 A cc 4.2 A

~3.6 .. +~ AA A

+C "a

+ 3.0- A A A

______CD A A C 9

- 2.4 -A rý 0 z -- 1.8 -

• m* m1.2" z5

<~n 443 464 480 496 512 528 544 560 576 592 608 624 640 656 672 688 704 720 736 752 M

• ' m. aC)

_ .. FLOW (MGD) m R -4. E5 c0 -- >

0r- -

30 29 28 po

° o° ",. ...--. ,,. .

w 27 u-c.

26 25 cc 24 23 22 21 C,<

20 LEGEND:

R1084

-. - 1971 1973 LU 1975

'p _..1977

/

300 /

700 I I

1 cc 00 0 I I

cc~ I I

I co I LL.

0 I cc Iui I 1

z I I

Ii a0{

I-

-MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MONTH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE -PLANT UNIT 2 COMPARISON OF MARINE TURTLE NESTING ACTIVITY TO OCEAN WATER TEMPS. BY MO. & YR, HUTCHINSON ISLAND FIGURE 5.1-17

ATTACHMENT C SL2-ER-OL 2.4 HYDROLOGY 2.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The Atlantic Ocean, to the east of the site (Figure 2.1-1), will provide most of the water required for plant operation. In addition, the St Lucie plant dissipates waste heat and discharges liquid wastes, after treatment, to that body of water (see Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7). This section describes surface water hydrology, ground water hydrology and surface water quality characteristics.

2.4.2 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.4.2.1 Bathymetry As shown in Figure 2.1-1, the Hutchinson Island shoreline and nearshore bathymetry to -30 ft Mean Low Water (MLW) are oriented along a NNW-SSE (340 - 1600) line. The nearshore ocean bottom slopes at a one on 80 gradient to about -35 ft MLW for approximately 0.5 miles before rising to Pierce Shoal (-21 ft MLW).

A slight trough with depths of nearly -50 ft MLW separates Pierce Shoal from the northward extension of St Lucie Shoal, which is five miles seaward of the coastline. Across the coastal shelf to the -120 HLW contour, the overall slope is gentle, approximately one on 600. At about 12 miles off-snore, the sea floor slope increases to one to 100, reaching the -600 ft MLW contour approximately 18 miles east of Hutchinson Island. Bathymetric profiles across the coastal shelf off Hutchinson Island are shown in Figure 2.4-1.

2.4.2.2 Ocean Tides Tidal analyses by the National Ocean Survey for several locations near the St Lucie plant are referenced to the "arest primary control station which is Miami, Florida. Published datums are referred to local Mean Low Water (MLW), although all datums can be reduced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum which is accepted as Mean Sea Level (MSL). A time series of semi-diurnal high and low tides is shown in Figure 2.4-2.

At Miami Beach, the mean range between high and low tides is 2.5 feet, and the spring range (average semi-monthly new and full moon tide) is 3.0 feet.

Tide ranges increase northward to 2.8 and 3.?,jeet, respectively, at Palm Beach and 3.5 and 4.1 feet at Cape Canavarel For tides monitored at Vero Beach (the temporary subordinate station nearest the St Lucie site), mean tidal range is 3.4 feet. A short interval record for October, 1972, indicates that the mean range is 3.0 feet at Seminole Shores, about 11 miles south of the plant site (unpublished records of the National Ocean Survey). The largest astronomical tide range should be approximately 5.0 feet ba* on maximum-mean ratio of solar and lunar tractive forces of 13 to nine".

2.4-1

SL2-ER- OL A tide monitoring program was undertaken at the site by Florida Power &

Light Company from May 1976 to May 1977. For the full year of measure-ments, a mean tidal range of 3.28 feet was determined. A comparison of these site specific measurements to corresponding predicted tides resulted in a standard deviation between 0.3 and 0.4 feet, This difference in tidal range reflects meteorological factors.

2.4.2.3 Surface Currents Surface water circulation in the nearshore region of the St Lucie site is of the combined wind'driven and rotary tidal current type. The Florida Current, a branch of the Gulf Stream System, is found offshore, beyond the 300 foot contour . The rotary tidal current continuously changes direc-tion through 360 degrees during a 12.4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> cycle. However, near a shoreline boundary the rotary characteristic is deformed into an elliptical pattern with an ebb and flood flow alongshore.

Wind driven currents are directly related to wind direction and intensity, although near the shoreline the surface current is deflected into a long-shore direction depending on the angle of the wind to the shoreline. Be-cause-of the variability of local winds at the site, current patterns will change frequently with changes in weather patterns.

To describe currents at the St Lucie site, a monitoring program was conducted from September, 1973 to May 1975 (See Section 6.1.1). Current speed and direction were measured in 32 feet of water about 2000 feet from shore in the area of the discharge location. Current data weft)analyzed for the frequency distribution of current speed and direction Directional frequency distribution of the nearshore current shows a bimodal annual distribution with a prevailing flow oriented 335 degrees and a secondary flow toward 165 degrees. These directions are nearly parallel to the coastline. As shown in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2, respec-tively, the prevailing direction is within the 300-360 degree sector about 49 percent of the time at the surface and 32 percent near the bottom. In the secondary 120-180 degree sector, the respective occurrence frequencies are nearly 23 and 24 percent. Onshore flow within the 210-270 degree sec-tor occurs less than eight percent of the time. Seasonal differences in the bimodal distribution of current direction are represented by the July and October profiles -shown as Figure 2.4-3.

Average current speed is 0.74 fps near the surface and decreases to 0.54 fps close to the bottom. About 33 percent of bottom currents are less than 0.4 .fps, which is the upper limit for tidal currents in open waters off Florida (Tables 2.4-3 and 2.4-4). The 50th percentile speed near the bottom is 0.4 fps, which suggests that at least half of all nearshore flows are caused by wind driven currents. Current speed ranged from near zero to more than 1.6 fps. Approximately ten percent of all current speeds measured exceeded 1.0 fps at the surface and less than three percent exceeded 1.6 fps.

2.4-2

SL2-ER-OL Summertime flow appears to be weaker than during other seasons as indicated by the modal frequency of lower current speed during July, in comparison to October (Figure 2.4-4). When wind speed is light, the wind driven current becomes negligible, and the semidiurnal tidal current becomes more apparent.

Additional current data acquired at the St Lucie site in March - April, 1977, confirmed the prevailing longshore flow that was recognized in the earlier monitoring program. However, lower current speeds for onshore flow indicate that the earlier measurements may include a wave motion component.

The current rose in Figure 2.4-5 shows current direction and speed distri-bution monitored for ten days in 1977.

2.4.3 GROUNDWATER The groundwater regime of the St Lucie site and surrounding region has been described in Section 2.5 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report -

Construction Permit. The Final Environmental Statement Related to Con-struction of St Lucie Plant Unit 2 discusses groundwater at the site.

2.4.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY Worth and Hollinger( 5 ), and Applied Biology Inc,(6,7 8) have reported surface water quality data from the St Lucie site. The majority of the data presented are from Atlantic Ocean coastal waters off Hutchinson Island, near the St Lucie site. Details of the water quality sampling pro-grams are noted in Section 6.1.4. Figure 2.4-6 shows the locations of water quality sampling Stations 0 through 5.

A number of physical and chemical parameters are reported, including temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and dissolved inorganic nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon). The physical and chemical data obtained in then *ties from the six offshore stations sampled by Applied Biology ,,, are summarized in Table 2.4-5. The ranges of concentrations of several water quality parameters investigated for the Indian River in the summer of 1974 are presented in Table 2.4-6.

2.4.4.1 Temperature Sea water temperatures reported in these studies range from about 15 to 32 0 C. The mean temperature for all stations and depths reported is about 25 0 C. Figure 2.4-7 illustrates the seasonal variation in temperature from September, 1971 through 1978, at Station 2 which is representative of the offshore stations. Additional daily monitoring of temperature at a loca-tion near Station 1 has been performed 6 by 8FP&L, and is reported by Worth and Hollinger and Applied Biology( '7' )

2.4.4.2 Salinity The average salinity of the Atlantic Ocean off Hutchinson Island is about 35.5 par~g~per thousand(ppt). A range from 33.0 to 38.5 ppt has been reported  ; however, most values fall between 34.0 and 36.0 ppt. In general, salinity is low during fall and winter, and increases to a seasonal 2.4-3

SL2- ER- OL maximum during the summer. Data reported by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey_

for the ALlantic Ocean at Canova Beach, Florida, 50 miles north of the plant site, indicated that mean salinity values are highest in May at 36.6 ppt, andW lowest in November at 35.4 ppt. The wider range in values observed at the plant site are probably due to the effects of the Fort Pierce and St Lucie Inlets, intBIions of Gulf Stream water, and current effects created by the Gulf Stream 2.4.4.3 Dissolved Oxygen Typical dissolved oxygen levels in the area range between five and eight mg/l. Almost all observations fall in the range of four to eight mg/l, although extremes of 3.2 and 10.3 mg/l have been observed. Table 2.4-7 illustrates the distribution of dissolved oxygen values for the six off-shore stations. About 50 percent of the values observed range between six and seven mg/1. Of all values reported, 5.9 percent were below five mg/l, and 1.7 percent were above eight mg/l. The mean seasonal distribution of dissolved oxygen for all stations is presented in Figure 2.4-8. The monthly means vary from 5.9 mg/l in August, to 6.9 mg/i in February. All months, with the exception of August, have mean dissolved oxygen levels in excess of six mg/I.

The very low dissolved oxygen concentrations (less than four mg/I) observed in July, August and September 1972 coincided with decreased water temper-ature, increased phosphate levels and low phytoplankton density. These phenomena are characteristic of an upwelling of deep waters, which are typically relatively cool, nutrient rich, and oxygen depleted (see Section 2.7 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Construction Permit).

2.4.4.4 Nutrients Nutrient levels are generally low. Total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (the sum of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia) averages from about 0.03 to 0.1 mg/I as N. Dissolved silica averages 0.2 to 0.3 mg/I as Si. The values reported for dissolved phosphat T 5 how considerable disparity.

Values reported by Worth and Hollinger for the period 1971-1?137,8) average about 0.15 mg/I as P. However, in the more recent data '

for 1976, 1977 and 1978, phosphate levels rarely exceed 0.01 mg/I as P (Table 2.4-5).

Nutrient concentrations measured at the St Lucie site show no clear seasonal patterns. Nitrate and nitrite tend to peak in spring and'fall.

Ammonia peaks occur in summer or fall. Silica levels tend to peak in summer. No seasonal trends in phosphate levels are apparent. In general, no statistically significant variation between stations was observed for the chemical parameters measured, indicating that the coastal area investigated is well mixed.

Significant temporal variation was observed. Worth and Hollinger(5) attribute this variation to the tidal exchange between the estuarine, nutrient rich water of the Indian River and the generally low nutrient coastal water. Intrusion of Gulf Stream water was also observed during summer months. *-

2.4-4

SL2-ER- OL 2.4.4.5 Conclusions The water quality of the nearshore coastal environment at the plant site reflects the interrelation of physical, chemical, and biological effects. Water circulation patterns, including tidal effects, rainfall, flows from the St Lucie and Fort Pierce inlets, upwellings, and possible Gulf Stream intrusions, appear to have a dominant effect on water quality at the St Lucie site.

Nutrient concentrations in coastal environments show considerable variation from site to site. Table 2.4-8 illustrates the range in nutrent values for cwal waters in ([veys reported by Riley and Skirrow , Sverdrup, et al

• and Raymont ... . With the exception of the 1ý'h phosphorus levels (-'0.15 mg P/1) reported by Worth andilollinger for the period 1971-73, the nutrient values typically observed at the site are generally low and are well within the ranges reported for coastal oceans (see Table 2.4-5). Atypically high nutrient values were observed in isolated instan-ces.

2.4-5

SL2-ER-,OL SECTION 2.4: REFERENCES

1. National Ocean Survey, 1977. Tide Tables, East Coast of North and South America. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Neumann, G and W J Pierson, Jr, 1966. Principles of Physical Oceanography. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. pp. 545.

3. National Ocean Survey, 1975. Tidal Current Tables, Atlantic Coast of North America. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

4. Envirosphere Company, 1976, St Lucie Plant Site Ocean Current Analysis For Florida Power & Light Company.

5. Worth, D F and M L Hollinger, 1977. Nearshore Marine Ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974 III, Physical and Chemical Environment. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 23. Florida Dept. of Natural Resources. St. Petersburg, Fla.

6. Applied Biology Inc. 1977, Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power and Light Co. St. Lucie Plant. Annual Report 1976, Vol. 1 and 2. Florida Power & Light Co., Miami, Fla.

7. Applied Biology Inc, 1978. Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power and Light Co. St. Lucie Plant. Annual Report 1977, Vol. 1 and 2. Florida Power & Light Co., Miami, Fla.

8. Applied Biology Inc, 1979. Florida Power and Light Co. St Lucie Plant. Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, 1978.

Florida Power & Light Co., Miami, Fla.

9; Riley, J P and G Skirrow, 1965. Chemical Oceanography, Vol 1.

Academic Press, London and New York. 712 pp.

10. Sverdrup, H U, M W Johnson, and R H Fleming, 1942. The Oceans, Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1087 pp.

11. Raymont, J E G, 1963, Plankton and Productivity in the Oceans.

Pergamon Press, Oxford, London. 660 pp.

2.4-6

m- m m m m - m m m m m m m m m SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE CURRENT DIRECTION MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGES WITHIN 30 DEGREE SECTORS (PERCENT)

Month -

1974 000-030 030-060 060-090 090-120 120-150 150-180 160-210 210-240 240-270 270-300 300-330 330-360 Jan 12.6 6.2 3.4 4.2 0.9 3.0 4.5 2.2 4.0 5.7 18.5 32.7 Feb 1.7 1.3 1.2 2.6 6.0 11.1 4.7 1.9 1.7 6.1 27.8 33.8 Mar 3.9 1.6 1.5 4.0 10.6 16.8 9.6 2.2 0.9 3.4 12.4 33.1 Apr 3.7 1.0 1.3 2.2 9.0 15.0 5.5 1.8 2.1 7.4 24.7 26.4 May 4.7 1.5 1.4 1.1 5.1 7.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 7.5 27.8 37.9 Jun -Data Missing-Jul 4.1 0.6 0.9 3.9 8.3 13.2 4.4 0.8 1.1 5.3 17.8 39.5 Aug 5.4 2.0 1.5 5.8 16.9 14.0 5.1 2.1 2.1 4.0 19.0 21.7 Sep 5.7 2.6 2.0 4.2 12.8 20.8 5.8 3.6 3.0 4.8 12.3 22.6 Oct 4.3 3.4 3.1 6.6 16.7 22.8 10.5 6.4 6.0 5.4 8.1 6.5 Nov 4.2 3-3 1-8 2.7 11.4 18.1 7.9 3.4 2.4 3.3 14.3 27.4 Dec 4.3 2.3 1.5 2.2 8.8 19.2 15.2 3.4 0.6 4.3 11.5 26.6 Annual Average 5.0 2.2 1.9 3.3 9.0 13.9 6.5 2.3 2.0 5.2 18.6 30.2 Annual average based on ten months data. *1973 measurements not included in annual average.

- m mL m -m n m m m m - - m m m TABLE 2.4-2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BOTTOM CURRENT DIRECTION MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGES WITHIN 30 DEGREE SECTORS (PERCENT)

Month -

1974 000-030 030-060 060-090 090-120 120-150 150-180 180-210 210-240 240-270 270-300 300-330 330-360 Jan 4.8 1.7 2.4 5.0 2.6 2.6 6.4 2.6 7.2 16.9 30.1 17 .- 8 Feb J4-0 3.2 1.2 1.3 2.2 1.7 33-1 1.7 1.3 2.2 4.3 29.9 Mar 3.0 6.0 1.6 7.2 8.3 9.O 6.6 4.0 4.9 10.2 1-8.2 21.0 Apr 5.3 2.8 1.6 4.7 7.4 14.3 11.0 3.0 1..4 7.9 16.5 23.5 Rav 3.8 2.0 2.9 8.2 14.0 11.1 7.1 5.5 6.1 16.8 17.0 5.5 Jun -Dat a Mis sing-Jul 5.9 3.0 2.8 3.4 5.4 6.7 8-1 2.5 4.9 16.9 19.6 20.9 Aug 2.9 5.6 7.3 10.8 11.4 11.2 10.0 6.3 6.6 8.9 8.9 10.2 Sep .2.5 3.6 2.8 6.0. 9.8 18.3 9.8 5.8 6.8 7.4 15.1 12.1 Oct 2.3 1-7 2.4 5.3 15.6 21.2 10.8 3.0 3.1 7.6 16.5 10.4 Nov 3.1 2.0 3.0. 5.2 15.4 21.2 5.2 2.9 1.5 4.1 14.3 22.1 Dec 10.9 3.3 3.6 6.3 9.2 20.5 18.2 1.1 1.0 3.0 7.0 16.1 Annual Average 4.5 3.8 3.0 6.2 9.9 13.7 9.3 3.. 7 4.4 . 10.0 16.3 16.0 Annual average based on ten months data. *1975 measurements not included in annual average.

---

I - m m - -m m m - - -

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE CURRENT SPEED MONTHLY ANID ANNUAL AVERAGES WITHIN 0.1 FPS INCREMENTS (PERCENT)

Month 1974 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0 .5-0.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.8-0.9 0.9 -1.0 1.0-1.1 1.1i-1.2 1.2-1.3 1-3-1.4 1.4-1.5 1.5-1.6 1.6 Jan 0. 1 0.7 2.8 4.4 13.8 9.9 15.7 16.6 14.3 6 .9 7.7 4.0 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.9 Feb 0.4 1.4 1.7 3.3 12.3 6.9 13.5 16.3 12.9 11 .0 10.4 5.3 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.15 1.4 Mar 0.4 1.1 0.8 3.3 11.0 8.8 14.7 12.1 13.3 7 .3 10.7 6.7 3.3 2.3 U.8 0.7 2.5 Apr 0.2 2.5 2.1 1.3 8.0 7.3 11.7 12.5 13.6 11 .8 9.2 7.4 3.0 3.1 1.4 0.6 4.3 Hay 0.6 1.4 2.3 2.3 4.8 7.5 7.2 9.5 21.0 12 .3 6.3 8.0 4.9 2.5 1.8 0.5 4.7 Jun - D a ta mi ss ing -

Jul 1.7 1.3 5.1 4.0 11.3 8.4 11.4 14.2 14.9 8 .8 7.4 5.5 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.3 Aug 1.7 1.4 3.7 4.5 9.7 13.0 14.1 13.5 10.8 9 .4 6.7 4.8 2.8 1.7 1.5 0.6 1.3 Sep 0.2 1.6 3.0 3.3 4.5 13.7 11.4 17.3 13.6 10 .7 8.4 5.1 3.4 0.8 1.1 0.4 1.4 Oct - D a ta Mi ss ing -

Nov 1.1 3.4 4.2 3.6 11.8 9.8 11.1 6.2 18.6 7 .6 8.3 6.0 3.6 1.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 Dec 0.0 1.5 1.8 3.1 13.2 7.7 14.7 10.7 23.3 5 .1 9.0 3.5 1.4 1.8 0.7 0.5 2-0 Annual Ave rage 0.64 1.63 2.87 3.31 10.04 9.3 12.55 12.89 15.63 9.09 8.63 5.63 2.74 1.7 0.97 0.52 2.3

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BOTTOM CURRENT SPEED MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGES WITHIN 0.1 FPS INCREMENTS (PERCENT)

Month 1974 -0.1-0.1 -0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.8-0.9 0.9-1.0 1.0-1.1 1.1-1.2 1.2-1.3 1.3-1.4 1.4-1.5 1.5-1.6 1.6 Jan 2.7 3.2 10.1 9.9 26.4 19.5 15.4 9.4 2.5 0.7 0.4 Feb -Dat a Missing -

mar 0.9 5.0 4.1 10.5 20.7 9.0 19.5 11.5 9.7 4.1 3.9 1.-i 0.1 Apr 3.7 12.3 12.0 7.7 19.4 16.1 13.9 7.7 3.3 1-9 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 May 0.5 14.8 15.7 4.2 4.6 25.0 6.5 18.1 6.9 3.7 Jun - D a ta Nissing.-

Jul 9.3 14.1 21.0 13.4 16.7 10.7 6.2 4.6 2.8 0 .8 0.6 Aug 3.8 3.3 24.6 13.6 22.2 18.0 7.7 3.6 1.4 1 .0 0.4 0.3 0.08 0.08 Sep 0.2 7'.3 26.4 11.9 27.8 13.4 6.5 5.2 0.9 0 .7 Oct 0.7 4.0 11.4 8.4 19.0 12.0 12.8 7.6 12.2 4 .6 2.6 3.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 Nov 0.1 1.3 11.4 9.2 25.7 11.6 13.9 5.0 13.6 4 .6 2.1 1.2 0.1 Dec 0.1 0.4 5.6 8.9 34.6 12.4 18.7 10.5 6.0 1 .7 0.7 0.5 Annual Ave rage 2.2 6.6 14.2 9-8 21.7 14.8 12.1 13.3 5.9 2.5 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.05 0.5

SL2-ER- OL TABLE 2.4-5 ST. LUCIE PLANT SITE - WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA Worth and Hollinger-(5) Applied Biology Inc(6,7,8)#

1971- 1974 1976 - 1978 Surface Bottom Range Reported Surface Mid-Depth Bottom Range Reported Parameter N -ean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean Temperature, 0C 199 25.5 199 24.9 19-32 204 24.3 144 23.7 204 23.8 14.6-30.8 Salinity, ppt 193 35.6 193 35.8 33.0-38.5 199 35.6 135 35.8 198 35.8 33.0-36.6 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 184 6.4 182 6.2 3.2-10.3 198 6.5 144 6.6 198 6.4 4.4-8.6.

NO3 -N, mg/l as N 96* 0.018* 97- 0.013" <.O1-.651 126 0.013 126 0.013 126 0.014' <0.001-0.28 NH3 -N, mg/l as N 91-k 0-013* 91* 0.013* <.o0-.121 204 0.064 203 0.067 204 0.067 <0.01-0.57 NO -N, mg/l as N 96* 0-002* 97* 0. 008* (.001-.060 204 0.001 203 0.001 204 0.001 <0.001-0.007 PO4-P, mg/l as P 156 0.117 158 0.111 <.Ol-.186 174 <0.01 174 <0.01 174 0.01 <0.01-0.17 SiO 2-Si, mg/I as Si 156 0.203 159 0.204 <.05-0.91 174 0.19 174 0.19 174 0.21 <0.02-0-99 Total Particulate, mg/l 176 6.65 176 10.17 0.2-69.0 Total Organic Carbon, mg/l 204 6.5 204 5.8 204 6.7 0.6-35.5 Turbidity, FTU 144 - 144 144 - 0.0-26.8

• September, 1971 to August, 1973 only

1. During the course of the monitoring program conducted by Applied Biology,. Inc, methods of analysis for NO3 ,

P0 4 , and SiO2 were modified. Data reported here include only data obtained using the more sensitive and accurate methods incorporated for NO3 in April, 1977, and for P04 and SiO2 in August, 1976.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-6 1974(5)

INDIAN RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA-SUMMER, A. Nutrients, Range of Values Reported St. Lucie Inlet Link Port to Jensen Beach NH 3-N, mg/i as N ND - 0.221 ND - 0. A46 NO -N, mg/l as N ND - 0.154 0.001 - 0. 270 P04 -P, mg/i as P 0 .046 - 0.329 0.050 - 0.]198 SiO2 -Si, mg/l as Si 0 .003 - 7.28 0.255 - 6. 78 B. Salinity, Range in 0/00 Ebb Tide Flood Tide Surface 2m Depth Surface 2m Depth Indian R. - North 20-32 20-35 15-33 22-35 Indian R. - South 24-35 27-35 24-35 24-35 Taylor Creek 3-12 24-33 7-14 26-31 Fort Pierce Inlet 22-36 25-36 24-36 26-36

• ND = not detectable

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-7 DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA(5,6,7,8)

No. Values Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l Station Reported <5 5-6 6-7 7-8 >8 0 87 3.4% 24.1% 46.0% 26.4% -

1 181 4.4% 29.3% 45.3% 20.4% 0.5%

2 182 3.3% 25.8% 49.4% 20.9% 0.5%

3 177 4.0% 19.2% 53.6% 21.5% 1.7%

4* 130 6.1% 20.0% 44.6% 25.4% 3.8%

5* 127 6.3% 20.5% 43.3% 27.6% 2.4%

Total 884 4.5% 23.4% 47.5% 23.1% 1.5%

• No values reported for these stations September, 1973 to August, 1974.

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.4-8 REPORTED RANGES OF NUTRIENT IN COASTAL OCEAN AREAS Riley and Sverdrup, Raym9,ji Skirrow, 1965(9) 'et al., 1942(10) 1963' P0 4-P, mg/l as P 0-0.035 0.0015-0.062 0-0.060 NO3-N, mg/l as N 0.070-0.350 0.007-0.378 <0.005-0.300 NH3-N, mg/i as N 0-0.055 0.031 0.007-0.200 NO2 -N, mg/l as N -*'0-0.011 0-0.015 Sio 2 -Si, mg/l as Si 0.010-1.68 0.014-1.68 0.010-1.50

ORIENTATION FROM SHORLINE IS 0700 5

N I0

-3 w 20 PLANT SITE 0

• 25 I 30

" 3 20 1000 1500 2000 2500 5000 40 DISTANC E IN FEET 60 80 0oo 120 w

140 CL 160 0.

180 200 220 240 260 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12. 13 14 15 16 17 DISTANCE(IN NAUTICAL MILES)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 BATHYMETRIC PROFILES OFFSHORE HUTCHINSON ISLAND FIGURE 2.4-1

=m - m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m NEW MOON FIRST QUARTER THIRD APOGEE SPRING NEAP QUARTER z

I~J3

-J Z LJ <

0 F.c Xo W 14 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 2 1:3 14 15 APRIL MA Y

-1 r-0 LEGEND:

HIGH-LOW TIDE ELEVATIONS MEASURED AT ST LUCIE SITE 14 APRIL - 15MAY, 1977.

Co ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO PLANT C= m m DATUM 4

r1 r-zZ-0 0

z z

I U

I I 30 X ANNUAL AVERAGE I

25 U OFFSHORE I

SOUTH LONGSHORE I ONSHORE I

NORTH I

LONGSHORE z

U w 20 z / %OCTOBER 0JULY I (Ii

/

I, U 0 15-I x I\

U z Lix I i X\

0 - / xx\

U U 0 I ,, \

A, I

I

/

I 5 /

/ I

/

/

I - I ~ I I --I I I I I I I I __

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 DIRECTION S (DEGREES)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE OF NEARSHORE CURRENT DIRECTION FIGURE 2.4-3

Y A~JPJIJAI kVFR A ~ F z

w

0. x LUS 20 - JULY "OCTOBER z I tu 15 -

U- x z IrI LU I 0 Zv \ /

"\ Ix 5 / V 0o /I IV x It

/ x 0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 CURRENT SPEED (FPS)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE OF NEARSHORE CURRENT SPEED FIGURE 2.4-4

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 CURRENT ROSE - ALL MEASUREMENTS SOUNOINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER MARCH 25 - APRIL 4, 1977 FIGURE 2.4-5

37

'A

-A 0

St. u.*

3ýa3, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY YARDS KILOMETERS ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 20)00 1000 0 1 2 3 LOCATION oF OFFSHORE SCALE SAMPLING STATIONS FIGURE 2.4.6

ATTACHMENT D I

I REVISED THERMAL DISCHARGE STUDY I In Support of RFI #1 Substantial NPDES Permit Revision I Florida Power & Light St. Lucie Plant NPDES Permit No. FL0002208 I

I Submitted To: Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 I .

Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.

6026 NW 1st Place Gainesville, Florida 32607 I

I I

I I Distribution:

12 Copies - Florida Power & Light Company 6 Copies - Golder Associates Inc.

I June 8, 2010 09387687 I

• Golder Aissociates

June 2010 09387687 Table of Contents 1.0 INT R O DUC T ION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DETERMINATION OF INSTANTANEOUS MAXIMUM DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE AND DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE RISE ......................................................................................... 2 3.0 MODELING METHODS .......................................................................................................... 4 4 .0 MO D E L R E S ULT S ............................. . ........................................................................................... 5 4 .1 T e m p e ra tu re .................................................................................................................................. 5 4 .2 T im e /Te m p e ra tu re ......................................................................................................................... 6 4 .3 D isso lve d Ox yg e n .......................................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Therm al Plum e V ertical Profile ............................................................................................... 6 5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 8 List of Tables Table 1 Results of Modeling for Y-Nozzle Diffuser Case 1 Table 2 Results of Modeling for Y-Nozzle Diffuser Case 2 Table 3 Results of Modeling for Y-Nozzle Diffuser Case 3 Table 4 Results of Modeling for Y-Nozzle Diffuser Case 4 Table 5 Calculations of Volume of 17-Degree F Isotherm for Y-Nozzle Diffuser for Each Case Table 6 Results of Modeling Multiport Diffuser Case 2 List of Figures Figure 1 Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance -Y-Nozzle Diffuser - Case 1 Figure 2 Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance -Y-Nozzle Diffuser - Case 2 Figure 3 Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance -Y-Nozzle Diffuser - Case 3 Figure 4 Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance -Y-Nozzle Diffuser - Case 4 Figure 5 Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance -Multiport Diffuser - Case 2 Figure 6 Time/Temperature Relationship for Y-Nozzle Diffuser During Case 2 Figure 7 Thermal Plume Vertical Profile for Y-Nozzle Diffuser - 97°F isotherm - Case 2 with Intake Water at 89.5 0 F Figure 8 Thermal Plume Vertical Profile for Multiport Diffuser - 97°F isotherm - Case 2 with Intake Water at 89.5 0 F 1Goald.er 100607-report-psl-revisedtherma Idischargestud y-h a f.docx A s ca e

June 2010 1 093-87687

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted a request to modify the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie Plant); specifically to increase the maximum heated water temperature at the point of discharge for Outfall D-001 from 113 degrees Fahrenheit ('F) to 11 5°F. FDEP issued a Request for Additional Information (RFI #1) requesting that FPL revise the Thermal Discharge Study using the absolute instantaneous maximum discharge temperatures and temperature differences between the effluent and ambient conditions, and to demonstrate whether the thermal discharge plume is entrained back into the plant. Golder Associates Inc.

(Golder) has performed modeling to address the former concern, and provided a copy of previous work done during the initial licensing of Unit 2 to address the latter.

10060 7-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf .docx (iV=%jGolder

'~Associates

June 2010 2 093-87687 2.0 DETERMINATION OF INSTANTANEOUS MAXIMUM DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE AND'DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE RISE FPL has analyzed four different cases to determine which would produce the maximum instantaneous discharge temperature and discharge temperature rise. The calculations presented in this report that perform that determination are:

N 25. Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases E 26. Waste Heat Discharged for Existing Units

• 27. Specific Heat of Sea Water at Varying Temperatures

• 32. Mixing Zone Volumes for Cases 1 through 4 Case 1 is the normal full load operation of both units with all 8 Circulating Water (CW) pumps operating.

This case was expected to produce the highest discharge temperature. Based on analysis of plant intake water temperatures (see response to RFI#1 Comment 6), the design peak intake water temperature was set at 90 0 F. Based on the analysis in Calculation 25, the resultant discharge temperature is 117.81 0 F, with a temperature rise of about 28°F.

Case 2 assumes that only 3 CW pumps are operating for each unit. This mode of operation is feasible when the intake water temperature is low enough so that 3-pump operation does not result in excessive back-pressure penalties on the steam turbines. This case was expected to produce the maximum discharge temperature rise. Based on analysis of plant intake water temperatures (see response to RFI#1 Comment 6), the typical intake water temperature selected for Case 2 was 70°F , which temperature is equaled or exceeded 90% of the time. Based on the analysis in Calculation 25, the resultant discharge temperature is 102.1'F, with a temperature rise of about 32.1°F.

Case 3 was investigated because it was felt that a separate case, in which only one of the units was operating would produce a higher surface water temperature than when both units were operating. This is because the reduced CW flow rate (only 4 CW pumps operating) results in a reduced discharge velocity from the diffusers' ports, which in turn results in less turbulent mixing before the thermal plume intersects the water surface. If the surface water temperature is predicted to exceed 97 0 F, then a mixing zone on thewater surface would be required. Maximum discharge temperature with only Unit 1 operating at full load on 4 CW pumps is estimated in Calc 25 to be about 118.4 0 F, with a temperature rise of about 28.4'F. Unit 1 was selected to be the operating unit in Case 3 because it produces a slightly higher temperature rise than Unit 2, due to a slight difference in CW pump flow rates.

Case 4 was investigated to determine whether a separate limit on discharge temperature and discharge temperature rise is needed for maintenance activities. It was assumed that the maximum flow reduction during the maintenance load would be when one unit was operating on 4 CW pumps and the other on 3.

Unit 2 was selected to be the unit on 3 CW pumps because the Unit 2 CW pumps are each rated to produce a slightly higher flow rate than each Unit 1 CW pump, at the same pumping head. Therefore, 100607-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf.docx G 'Associates

June 2010 3 093-87687 shutting down a Unit 2 CW pump would result in a slightly higher discharge temperature than would shutting down one of the Unit 1 CW pumps. Maximum discharge temperature with Unit 1 operating on 4 CW pumps and Unit 2 operating on 3 CW pumps is calculated in Calculation 25 to be 119.2°F, at a temperature rise of about 29.2°F.

(PnsAGolder 100607-report-psl-revisedthermalIdischargestudy-haf.docx ~Associates

June 2010 4 093-87687 3.0 MODELING METHODS It is not obvious which of the four cases would result in the largest mixing zone. Therefore, FPL has performed near-field modeling for all four cases. The details of that modeling are provided in the following Calculations:

0 28. MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 123 0 F Discharge Temperature - Case 2 0 29. MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 118 0 F Discharge Temperature - Case 1 E 30. MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 119'F Discharge Temperature - Case 3 E 31. MULDIF Run - Y-Nozzle with 120'F Discharge Temperature - Case 4 0 33. Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Run In order to maintain conservatism in the modeling, Case 2 was run with the same assumed ambient water temperature of 90'F as the other cases, although it is unlikely such a condition would actually occur.

The St. Lucie thermal discharge is into open waters, as defined by FAC 62-302.520(3)(f). The thermal standard for open waters is defined in FAC 62-302.520(4)(c) and is three-pronged:

1. Heated water up to 17 0F above ambient may be discharged to open waters without a mixing zone;

2. The surface temperature of the RBW shall not be raised above 97°F ; and

3. The POD must be sufficient distance offshore to ensure that adjacent coastal waters are not heated beyond the temperatures permitted in such waters.(Limits on coastal waters are codified in 62-302.520(4)(b) and are no more than 2°F higher than ambient during June, July, August, and September, or 40 F higher during the remainder of the year).

The response to RFI # 1, Comment 5.e, demonstrates that the 20F isotherm is seaward of the 18-foot depth contour; therefore, Item 3 above is met. As a result, only near-field modeling is needed to determine the extent of the 170 F isotherm for each case, and the maximum surface water temperature.

The model used was MULDIF, which is the Envirosphere version of the near-field Koh and Fan model.

Appendix 10.6 of the St. Lucie Plant Uprate Site Certification Application (SCA) includes a listing of the program and previous calculations, as well as a discussion of the historical verification of the model.

The Koh and Fan near-field model is a submerged jet model consisting of a set of seven simultaneous differential equations. They include equations of conservation of mass, horizontal momentum flux, vertical momentum flux, density deficiency flux, thermal energy flux, and two equations of horizontal and vertical distance. The solution of these equations provides jet width, dilution, temperature, density, jet trajectory, and temperature rise as a function of position. The Koh and Fan model was calibrated with physical model studies and used during the initial permitting of the St. Lucie units.

100607-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf.docx Gl.[ssociates

June 2010 5 093-87687 4.0 MODEL RESULTS 4.1 Temperature Case 1 was modeled using the temperatures derived in Section 2.0 above, rounded to whole numbers.

Assuming an ambient water temperature of 90'F and a temperature rise across the plant of 28°F, the discharge temperature is 118'F. Details of the modeling are described in Calculation 29, and the resultant model output is shown in Table 1. The water temperature along the 'plume centerline is plotted on Figure

1. The centerline temperature drops to 107 0 F (17 0 F above ambient) within about 65 feet, and the maximum surface temperature is 96.6°F.

Case 2 was modeled using the temperatures derived in Section 2.0 above, rounded up to whole numbers.

Based on minimum intake water temperature analysis described in RFI # 1 Response 2, intake water temperatures are cool enough to implement case 2 (3 CW pumps operating per unit) during all months.

As an upper bound to Case 2 discharge temperatures, an ambient water temperature of 90'F was assumed. Coupled with the temperature rise across the plant rounded up to 33'F (for conservatism), the discharge temperature is 123 0 F. Details of the modeling are described in Calculation 28, and the resultant model output is shown in Table 2. The water temperature along the plume centerline is plotted on Figure

2. The centerline temperature drops to 107'F (17'F above ambient) within about 72 feet, and the maximum surface temperature is 97.4°F. In order to meet the surface water temperature limit of 97°F, FPL will take a permit limit to not operate Case 2 whenever the intake water temperature exceeds 89.5'F.

The resultant thermal plume for Case 2 with an intake temperature of 89.5°F has been assumed to be the same as shown in Table 2 for the 90°F intake temperature, except that the plume temperature and temperature rise above 'ambient are 1/2 OF lower.

Case 3 was modeled using the temperatures derived in Section 2.0 above, rounded to whole numbers.

Assuming an ambient water temperature of 90'F and a temperature rise across the plant of 29°F, the discharge temperature is 119 0 F. Details of the modeling are described in Calculation 30, and the resultant model output is shown in Table 3. The water temperature along the plume centerline is plotted on Figure

3. The centerline temperature drops to 107'F (17*F above ambient) within about 66 feet, and the maximum surface temperature is 98.4°F. FPL will take a permit limit to not operate Case 2 whenever the intake water temperature exceeds 88.5 0 F in order to avoid exceeding the 97°F surface temperature limit.

The resultant thermal plume for Case 3 with an intake temperature of 88.5°F has been assumed to be the same as shown in Table 3 for the 90°F intake temperature; except that the plume temperature and temperature rise above ambient are 11/2 °F lower.

Case 4 was modeled using the temperatures derived in Section 2.0 above, rounded up to whole numbers.

Assuming an ambient water temperature of 90 0 F, and a temperature rise across the plant of 30'F, the discharge temperature is 120'F. Details of the modeling are described in Calculation 31, and the resultant model output is shown in Table 4. The water temperature along the plume centerline is plotted on Figure 100607-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf.docx 'Ass ociates

June 2010 6 093-87687

4. The centerline temperature drops to 107'F (17'F above ambient) within about 68 feet, and the maximum surface temperature is 96.0°F.

Based on the plume trajectories from Tables 1 through 4, the volume enclosed within the 17'F isotherm for each case has been determined in Calculation 32. The results are shown in Table 5. Based on those results, Case 2 produces the largest mixing zone.

In order to determine the maximum mixing zone size, the thermal plume for the multiport diffuser has been modeled for Case 2 conditions, and the volume associated with the 17'F above ambient isotherm from the multiport diffuser (652 cubic feet) has been added to that from the Y-nozzle diffuser (8,937 cubic feet) to obtain the maximum total volume of the 17'F isotherm of 9,589 cubic feet. The details of that model run and the associated determination of maximum volume of the mixing zone are provided in Calculation 33. The resultant model output is shown on Table 6, and the water temperature along the plume centerline has been plotted in Figure 5. The resultant maximum mixing zone size for both diffusers is thus 9,589 cubic feet.

4.2 Time/Temperature Because the time/temperature 'relationship is similar for both diffusers, only the Y-nozzle diffuser has been analyzed. The time/temperature relationship is shown in Figure 6. If a particle of water were entrained into the center of the plume at the hottest temperature of 122.5°F, it would be cooled down to 97°F within about 25 seconds. The relationship for the multiport diffuser would be of the same magnitude, i.e., measured in seconds.

4.3 Dissolved Oxygen Although the solubility of oxygen in water decreases slightly as the water temperature is increased, that effect is more than compensated for by the effects of Henry's Law, which states that the solubility of a gas in water is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the water. Because the St. Lucie discharges are released at depth, the pressure to keep the dissolved oxygen (DO) in solution is a function of the depth. At 24 feet depth, the extra water pressure is 10.4 psi; When added to the atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this results in a pressure increase at the discharge depth of about 71%. At this pressure, DO will not come out of solution, even at the expected elevated temperature. As the thermal plume rises and the pressure lessens, mixing also causes the water temperature to drop, and the saturated DO value to rise again. Therefore, no adverse impacts to DO are expected.

4.4 Thermal Plume Vertical Profile Figure 7 illustrates the thermal plume vertical profile for the Y-nozzle diffuser. This diffuser discharges in an area where the sea bottom was excavated to about 6 feet below natural sea bottom. As shown in Figure 7, the model predicts that the 97 0 F isotherm will not come in contact with the sea bottom. Figure 8 100607-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf.docx Asso d tes

June 2010 7 093-87687 illustrates the vertical profile of the thermal plume for the multiport diffuser. As shown, the multiport diffuser is located about 8 feet above sea bottom. The thermal discharge dissipates in the water column and does not come in contact with benthic organisms in the sea bottom.

der GOlfb 100607-report-psl-revisedtherma Idischargestudy-haf~docx ~Associates

June 2010 8 093-87687 5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS The difference in the extent of the thermal plume attributable to the increase in discharge temperature from 113'F to 119'F is relatively small. For the Y-nozzle diffuser, the increase in size of the 17-Degree F.

isotherm is about 6,858 cubic feet, from about 2,439 cubic feet to about 9,297 cubic feet. For the multiport diffuser, the volume of the 17-degree F. isotherm increases from about 614 to about 652 cubic feet. The combined volume of the 17-degree F. isotherm from both diffusers is thus about 9,949 cubic feet for the 119'F discharge. Heated water exiting the diffusers at 119'F would be cooled down to 97'F within about 25 seconds. There is no potential decrease in dissolved oxygen concentration due to the discharge at depth; the increase in pressure more than compensated for any temperature effect.

The proposed change'in the thermal discharge will increase the temperature of a small volume of the Atlantic Ocean water column in the near vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant discharge. The proposed thermal discharge is expected to quickly mix with the Ocean waters and is expected to interact with the bottom sedimentsin a similar manner as the currently permitted discharge; the heated water will float as it mixes.

10060 7-report-psl-revisedthermaldischargestudy-haf~docx SAO Ider

~Assoiates

TABLES mmmm m m - m m mm m - m m m m - m_

June 2010 09387687 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF MODELING CASE 1 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED AA= 115.00 FEET 1 ------ AA ------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET

• --A--*

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 13.02 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 118.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.016065 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 7.5 118 28 46.84 0.00016 15.15771 1:01051 114.1504 1.01695 1.0225 90 24.15036 17 76.69405 1.67631 28.94036 1.93676 102.6006 1.0196 1.0225 90 12.60056, 17 91.44384 4.14679 35.63834 2.40262 100.1573 1.02017 1.0225 90 10.15735 17 105.8959 7.9878 42.05587 2.87322 98.49369 1.02055 1.0225 90 8.49369 17 119.8729 13.30134 48.07619 3.35172 97.28113 1.02083 1.0225 90 7.28112 17 133.2027 20.07683 53.63039 3.84166 96.35253 1.02104 1.0225 90 6.35253 17 145.7549 28.20403 58.72078 4.34653 95.61466 1.02121 1.0225 90 5.61466 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE Calc 29 X:\Clients\Florida Power and Light\09387687200.Reports\100602\Attachments\Revised Thermal Discharge Study\FINAL Tables\

F!ýGolder Table1.xlsx WAssociatts

e m m m m mn m m3m 7 m June 2010 09387687 TABLE 2 RESULTS OF MODELING CASE 2 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED AA= 115.00 FEET 1 ------ AA------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET

• -A- *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 11.40 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 123.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.014705 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 01 0 123 90 46.84J 0.00026 15.1577 1.01051 118.4629 1.01578 1.0225 90 28.46292 17 76.597641 2.63063 28.80174 1.93823 104.8394 1.01899 1.0225 90 14.83941 17 91.056571 6.4-2867 35.18377 2.4087 101.941 1.01968 1.0225 90 11.94097 17 104.8715 12.13786 41.02435 2.88996 99.95247 1.02015 1.0225 90 9.95247 17 117.7805 19.67609 46.25394 3.38778 98.48999 1.02049 1.0225 90 8.48999 17 129.63081 28.79219 50.94408 3.90735 97.36105 1.02076 1.0225 90 7.36105 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 51.56 0.417418 107 90 17 Calc 28 _

X:\Clients\Florida Power and Light\09387687-200 Reports\100602Attachments\Revised Thermal Discharge Study\FINAL Tables\

Table2.xlsx O Golder U*~Asociates

m m m m m m - - m m m - m June 2010 09387687 TABLE 3 RESULTS OF MODELING CASE 3 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA ------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 6.47 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 119.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015798 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET 9387687 X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 119 90 29 46.84 0.00069 15.15765 1.01051 115.0129 1.01672 1.0225 90 25.01287 17 75.73824 6.59876 27.65854 1.95197 102.9489 1.01951 1.02251 90 12.94889 17 88.19025 14.83348 32.35958 2.45883 100.2796 1.02012 1.0225 90 10.27962 17 98.78712 25.36724 36.36976 3.0083 98.40205 1.02056 1.0225 90 8.40205 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE Calc 30 1 L X:\Clients\Florida Power and Light\O9387687\200_Reports\100602\Attachments\Revised Thermal Discharge Study\FINAL Tables\

Table3.xtsx * ,ssoiates

M IM =

m iM m m m M m m M m m =

m mM June 2010 09387687 TABLE 4 RESULTS OF MODELING CASE 4 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA ------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET 1

• --A--*

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 12.52 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 120.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015529 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOW'T 0 0 120 90 46.84 0.00019 15.15771 1.01051 115.8754 1.01649 1.0225 90 25.87539 17 76.66982 1.96048 28.90529 1.93713 103.498 1.01936 1.0225 90 13.49804 17 91.3447 4.83454 35.51991 2.40416 100.8759 1.01997 1.0225 90 10.87591 17 105.626 9.26266 41.77459 2.87754 99.08672 1.02039 1.0225 90 9.08672 17 119.3012 15.30707 47.55079 3.36126 97.77905 1.02069 1.0225 90 7.77905 17 132.1881 22.88941 52.81058 3.85953 96.77477 1.02093 1.0225 90 6.77477 17 144.1751 31.82872 57.6038 4.37615 95.97499 1.02111 1.0225 90 5.97499 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE Calc 31 XAClients\Florida Power and Light\09387687\200_Reports\100602\Attachments\Revised Thermal Discharge Study\FINAL Tables\ (ipFGolder Table4.xlsx ,*Associates

- - -n-- nn - m enm m m m June 2010 09387687 TABLE 5 Calculation of Volume of 17-Degree F Isotherm for Each Case Uprate as Site-Certified with Present 113 deg F Permit Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Discharge*

Case 1 X at start first time step 0 0 0 0 Y at start first time step 0 0 0 0 X at end first time step 46.84 46.84 46.84 46.84 y at end first time step 0.00016 0.00026 0.00069 0.00019 S for first time step 46.840 46.840 46.840 46.840 jet diameter start of first time step 7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 jet diameter end of first time step 15.158 15.158 15.158 15.158 centerline delta T at start first step 28.000 33.000 29.000 30.000 centerline delta T at end of first step 24.150 28.463 25.013 25.875 ratio of 17 deg to centerline delta T 0.863 0.863 0.863 0.863 from normal distribution, # of SDs 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540 17 deg jet diameter end of first step 2.046 2.046 2.046 2.046 17 deg volume of first step - cu ft 4,303 4,303 4,303 4,303 x at end second time step 65.322 71.878 66.034 68.230 y at end second time step 1.0378 2.2135 4.3831 1.4058 S for second time step 18.511 25.136 19.688 21.436 jet diameter end second time step 23.690 26.638 23.461 25.016 centerline delta T at end second step 17 17 17 17 17-degree volume of second step 122 165 129 141 Total volume 17-degree isotherm per port 4,425 4,468 4,433 4,444 for two ports (cubic feet) .8,850 8,937 8,865 8,888 2,676 12,367,168

• From Calculation 18 (original Thermal Discharge Study)

Calc 32 X:\Clients\Flonda Power and Light\09387687\200 Reports\100602,Attachments\Revised Thermal Discharge Study\FINAL Tables\

Table5.xlsx ~'Assodates

FIGURES N

m m = m m m m m m m m m =m mm m m m m = M = m m m - m m m m M m - =

125 120 115 110

• 100 95 90 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Horizontal Distance In Feet

_-Glde TITLE 4_ -TITLE Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Golder Center-Line Distance Y-Nozzle Diffuser- Case 2 w Associates Atlanta, Georgia 123 deg F Discharge Temperature CLIENT/PROJECT CLETRJ*MAT DRAWN I M TDATE 6/1/106//0 JOB NO. 09387687 0378 FPL/St. Lucie Revised Thermal Discharge Study/FL CHECKED SH SCALE NTS DWG NO. REVýNO.

REVIEWED GP FILE NO SUBTITLE FIGURE NO.2 TMS Fiure 2 2

M =--- M M M M M M M M M 125

-40JETTEM AMBTEM 120 115 U- 98.4 deg F at free surface 0 110

'105

• ,100 E

95 90

• I I 4 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Horizontal Distance in Feet TITLE PPL U,

Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance Y-Nozzle Diffuser- Case 3

~Assocates Atlanta, Georgia 119 deg F Discharge Temperature CLIENT/PROJECT FPL/St. Lucie Revised Thermal Dischar(

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M = = = =

125 Mw 00-M AMBTEM 120 1 115 L-

, 110 4) 10o 96.0 deg F at Free Surface 0100 E

95 90

_ i _ 1 i II. 0.-a-..- 4--a 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0rl>- Horizontal Distance in Feet t4oP*ML TITLE Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Golder AAtlanta, Georgia Center-Line Distance Y-Nozzle Diffuser- Case 4 120 deg F Discharge Temperature CLIENT/PROJECT DR MAT 6/1/10 JOBNO09387687 FPL/St. Lucie Revised Thermal Discharge Study/FL CHECKED SH SCALTNTS DWGNO. NO.8EV.

REVIEWED GP FILE NO SUBTITLE FIGURE NO .4 1 ~ThSF2g:e6 ý

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm mm m - - n- - - -m - -m - m m m- -n

- Plume Water Temperature (degrees F) - Ambient Water Temperature 127.0 122.0 L17.0 Elapsed Plume Water Ambient Time Temperature Water ' .12.0 (seconds) (degrees F) Temperature 0 0.0 122.5 89.5 0 4.4 118.0 89.5 .07.0 8.4 104.3 89.5 11.6 101.4 89.5 E 99.5 89.5 .02.0 15.3 19.7 98.0 89.5 24.6 96.9 89.5 97.0 92.0 87.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Elapsed Time in Seconds PWIL U

I TITLE Time/Temperature Relationship for G~oker Y-Nozzle Diffuser During Case 2 ociates Atlanta, Geor CLIENT/PROJECT 09387687 FPL/St. Lucie Revised Ther

m m M = m m = = = = = M M M m m = = =

40 35 30 S

£ 25 0

U o 20 0,

0 a* 10 0

.0 4

-. 15-5 S

tLA

-5

-10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal Distance from Discharge Port - Feet FPL TITLE Thermal Plume Vertical Profile for Golder Y-Nozzle Diffuser - 97 deg F isotherm W Associates Atlanta, Georgia Case 2 with Intake Water at 89.5 deg F CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN M DATE6/1/10 NO.09387687 FPL/St. Lucie Revised Thermal Discharge Study/FL CHECKED SH SCALE NTS DWGNO. IREV. NO.

REVIEWED GP FILE NO. SUBTITLE FIGURE NO. 7 GP TDS Figure 71

m - m mmnmiI m Im m m iim m 30 25 C

10 0

Plume Centerline Top of Plume Bottom of Plume i Sea Bottom MLW at Shallow End U

> 15 0

0 u.

L0 ____..__..__.__

-5

-10 0 3 6 9 12 15 1.8 21 24 27 Horizontal Distance from Discharge Port - Feet TITLE Thermal Plume Vertical Profile for Golder Multiport Diffuser - 97 deg F isotherm Case 2 with Intake Water at 89.5 deg F Atlanta, Georgia Atlanta, Georgia I Associates CLIENT/PROJECT 09387687 I REV. NO.

I

ATTACHMENT E Underwater Engineering Services, Inc.

June 2, 2010 Florida Power & Light Environmental Services Attn: Ron Hix

Subject:

Budgetary Estimate for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Offshore Work Underwater Engineering Services, Inc. (UESI) is pleased to provide the following budgetary estimate for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Offshore Work.

1) Remove existing Y - port diffuser and replace 2600 feet seaward - $40,453,641.00 Includes - Engineering up front administrative - $ 512,966.00 Field Mobilization (includes trestle) $20,646,815.00 Materials $ 9,389.750.00 Labor $ 8,874,180.00 Trestle (assumes '/2 cost) $12,500,000.00

2) Extend the multi port diffuser - Extend the multiport 700' seaward-$26,105,236.00 Includes - Engineering up front administrative - $ 512,966.00 Field mobilization (includes trestle) $20,646,815.00 Materials $ 2,435,125.00 Labor $ 1,540,700.00 Trestle (assumes V2 cost) $12,500,000.00

3) Replace Y Port diffuser - $43,157,480.00 Includes - Engineering up front administrative - $ 512,966.00 Materials $ 9,389.750.00 Labor $ 8,874,180.00 Trestle (assumes 1/2/cost) $12,500,000.00 This is a budgetary estimate only based on numerous assumptions including that work will be done to both discharge pipes. Actual costs will be based on conditions, drawings, specifications.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (772) 337-3116.

Sincerely, Jo e Digitally signed by Joe Frederickson DN: cn=Joe Frederickson, o=UESI, ou=Construction, F rederickson Frederckson email=jfrederickson@UESI.com, c=US Date: 2010.06.02 17:13:19 -04'00' Joe Frederickson VP of Construction Operations L065A 3306 Enterprise Road, Ste. 103 0 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone: 772-337-3116 0 Fax: 772-337-0294

ATTACHMENT F CALCULATION 25 Golder SUBJECT Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Job No. 09387687 IMade By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Associates Ref. FPL PSL Checked Sheet 1 of NPDES Mod, Calc 25 Reviewed In response to FDEP's first request for additional information associated with the NPDES Permit FL0002208 Modification Request to increase the permit limit for discharge temperature at Outfall D-001, it was decided to model four cases:

Case 1. Maximum discharge temperature, both units operating at full load on 4 CW pumps each.

Case 2. Maximum discharge temperature rise, both units operating at full load on 3 CW pumps each.

Case 3. Maximum discharge temperature, one unit operating at full load on 4 cW pumps.

Case 4. Maximum discharge temperature, maintenance mode, Unit 1 operating at full load on 4 CW pumps and Unit 2 operating at full load on 3 CW pumps.

Based on the intake temperature frequency distribution developed in Calculation 20, the highest intake temperature seen in the Period of Record August 2005 through October 2009 was 88.4 deg F. The 90th percentile intake temperature was 70 deg F. In the Unit 2 Final Environmental Statement (FES), it was stated that the maximum ambient water temperature between 1971 and 1978 was 90 deg F. (Unit 2 FES, Page 4-19). Assume the worst-case discharge temperature will occur when the CW Inlet Temperature (CWIT) is at 90 deg F.

Case 1: Normally, four CW pumps operate per unit as follows (see the attached response to FDEP's RFI #1 dated March 5, 2008, for a previous NPDES permit modification, for flow derivation):

unit 1 CW pumps, four pumps at 121,000 gpm each = 484,000 gpm Unit 1 also has 2 AECW pumps at 14,500 gprn each = 29,000 gpm (AECW = ICW) total Unit 1 = 513,000 gpm Unit 2 has four CW pumps at 122,650 gpm each = 490,609 gpm Unit 2 has two AECW pumps at14,500 gpm each = 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 519,600 gpm From PEPSE Heat Balances summarized in FPL's e-mail of 5/14/2010, the heat rejected for each unit with operating and 90 deg F Circulating Water Inlet Temperature (CWIT) is:

Unit 1 = 6952.35 Million Btu per hour Unit 2 = 6854.76 Million Btu per hour aT is calculated as follows: AT = heat rejected /(CW flow times specific heat), where CW flow is in lbs per hour Based on Calculation 27, the specific heat of sea water in the expected range of temperatures is about 0.96 Btu per lb per degree F.

Use the density of sea water relationship developed in Calc 7 and detailed in spreadsheet "Bookl.xlsx to determine the density of sea water at the desired temperatures.

SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Golder Job No. 09387687 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked Sheet 2 of 5 Associates NPDES Mod, Calc 25 Reviewed In order to obtain the discharge temperature rise, we need to add in the heat load from the ICW systems. Per the FPL e-mail of 5/7/2010, Table 4.1.4-1 applies for Unit 1 :

Table 4.1 A-1 -Unt 1 EPU Noem I a o Minimum Components Flowrate Heat Load ICW Outlet Temp

[gpm) (Mbtu) ('F)

CCW HX A 4.395 26.06 ¶06.6 CCW HX B 4,395 26.06 106.6 TCW HX A 1.716 26.4 12S TCW HX B 3.119 48.0 125 OBCS HX A 2,248 34.6 125 OBCS HX 8 . 2,248 34.6 125 TOTAL 18,121 1 lOW Heat Rate = 26.06 + 26.06 + 26.4 + 48 +34.6 +34.6 = 196 million Btu/hour = 196,000,000 Btu/hour This is the Unit 1 value, assume the Unit 2 value is the same.

For Case 1:

Assume that the maximum discharge temperature case (Case 1) occurs with 4 CW pumps operating per unit, and with an inlet CW temperature (CWIT) of 90 deg F. For Unit 1, the 4-pump flow (Case 1):

aT1 = (6,952,350,000 + 196,000,000)Btu/hour/((513,000 gpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft)

• p *Cp* 60 min/hr) at CWIT of 90 deg F, p = 63.8 pcf.

AT1 = (6,952,350,000+196,000,000)/(513,000 /7.48*63.8".96"60) 28.36 deg F.

For Unit 2, Case 1:

AT 2= (196,000,000 +6,854,760,000)/((519,600/7.48)

• 63.8 *.96 *60) = 27.62 deg F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATcombined = (AT 1* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (Q1 + Q2) = 27.81 deg F.

For Case 2 Assume the maximum AT occurs when only 3 CW pumps are operating for each unit. Based on the attached document from FPL entitled "Determination of Flow Through CW System with 6 CW Pumps Operating.doc", the CW flows through each unit are as follows: Unit 1 Unit 2 423,886 gpm 422,114 gpm

SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked Sheet Associates 3 of 5 NPDES Mod, Calc 25 Reviewed I Adding in the ICW flow rates, assumed unchanged from Case 1:

Unit 1 CW pumps, three pumps 422,114 gpm Unit 1 still has 2 AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 1 = 451,114 gpm Unit 2 has 3 CW pumps = 423,886 gpm Unit 2 still has two AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 452,886 gpm Assume 3-pump per unit operation can only occur at lower CWIT; otherwise, the units would suffer a backpressure penalty and have to derate. Use the 90% temperature for CWIT of 70 degrees F. From PEPSE Heat Balances summarized in FPL's e-mail of 5/14/2010, the heat rejected for each unit with 6 pumps operating and 90 deg F. Circulating Water Inlet Temperature (CWIT) is:

Unit 1 = 7003.36 Million Btu per hour Unit 2 = 6902.64 Million Btu per hour assume these values are still good for the 70 degree F CWIT case.

For Unit 1, Case 2:

AT, = (7,003,360,000 + 196,000,000)Btu/hour/((451,114 gpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft) * *Cp 60 min/hr) at CWIT of 70 degF, p = 64.02 pcf.

AT 1 = (7,003,360,000+196,000,000)/(451,114 /7.48"64.02*.96"60) 32.37 deg F.

For Unit 2, Case 2:

AT2= (196,000,000 +6,902,640,000)/((452,886/7.48)

• 64.02 *.96 *60) 31.79 deg F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATcombined = (AT,* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (Q1 + Q2) = 32.08 deg F.

SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Associates Checked Sheet 4 of 5 NPDES Mod, Calc 25 Reviewed For Case 3:

For Case 3, which assumes only one unit operating, the highest discharge temperature is expected with a CWIT of 90 deg F and only Unit 1 operating. The parameters for this case have already been established as part of Case 1:

AT = 28.36 deg F CW flow,= 513,000 gpm CWIT = 90 deg F.

CWOT (CW Outlet Temperature, or discharge temperature) = 118.36 deg F.

For Case 4:

For case 4, we assume a Unit 2 CW pump has tripped off, and full load is maintained on both Units. FPL has provided an analysis of the resultant 7-pump flow (see attached document "Determination of Flow Through CW System with 7 CW Pumps Operating") and concludes that the unit flow rates would be as follows:

Unit 1 - 532,663 gpm Unit 2 - 402,337 gpm Adding in the ICW flow rates, assumed unchanged from Case 1:

Unit 1 CW pumps four pumps = 532,663 gpm Unit 1 still has 2 AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 1 = 561,663 gpm Unit 2 has 3 CW pumps = 402,337 gpm Unit 2 still has two AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 431,337 gpm Using the Unit 1 heat rejection rate from Case 1, Unit 1 = 7,148,350,000 Btu/hour Using the Unit 2 heat rejection rate from Case 2, Unit 2 = 7,098,640,000 Btu/hour AT, = (7,003,360,000 + 196,000,000)Btu/hour/((451,114 gpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft)

• p *Cp *60 min/hr) at CWIT of 90 deg F, p = 63.8 pcf.

AT, = (7,148,350,000)/(561,663 /7.48*63.8*.96*60) 25.91 degrees F.

ISUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases II Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked Sheet Associates NPDES Mod, Calc 25 lReviewed 5 of 5 I

I For Case 4, Uit 2:

AT 2= (7,098,640,000)/((431,337/7.48)

• 63.8 -.96 *60) = 33.5 degrees F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATcombined (AT,* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (01 + Q2) = 29.2 degrees F.

In Summary:

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 CWIT- deg F. 90 70 90 90 AT - deg F 27.81 32.08 28.36 29.20 CWOT - deg F. 117.81 102.08 118.36 119.20 CW Flow - gpm 1,032,600 904,000 513,000 993,000

m Fgm Probabil m m m mpem m m m m m m Figure 2. Probability That Water Temperature Will Be Exceeded Intake Water Temperature - Buoy 41114 Water Temperature 100%

95%

"i I '-.- " * - " - - ,_ _ _ T -

85% __ J 80%/

75%

I _____ __ _ __ii -

._171! I~

70A ,_.. . ._I_... ._ . ._;. . ......I.... . . ._ __ ________I_ __ __i_/ _t_

65% L 1.

[I- V.. .

600A _ -- _I- -- . . _i _ _ _* . . . .__ -

55%

50%

45%

.IN 40% 9 6 . . . ._*_ -______

i .0-...

... _ -.... . *F. ,,.

. . .5 .- .

M 35%

_Wtii Iemperatu 7_ i*.. _ .. r_. -. Degries_

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

117L___

3MA _- . .

25%

_ ____ ___ _ L___ _ *_ I _* 1 .. __* __

20%

15% 9. 10 630 6. 67. 69. 71. 730 7. 0 7. 10 8. 50 8. 9 10o/0  ! !i  : 1  ; " Te pr----- - Dg-r e F. . . .i - *

! -~~~~ate -t - . . . .. .*. . . .-

5%

0%

5 .0 4/27/2010 7:16 PM Ca1c-18.x1sx Figure 2

Golder Associates Inc. .*tGolder 3730 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA USA 30341 Telephone (770) 496-1893 Fox (770) 934-9476

'J'Associates FINAL REPORT ON FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT MINOR NPDES PERMIT REVISION RESPONSE TO FDEP RFI # 1 Submitted to:

FloridaPower & Light Company 700 UniverseBoulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Submitted by:

GolderAssociates Inc.

o3730 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, Georgia 30341 Certificate ofAuthorization Number: 1670 Harold A. Frediani,,Jr., P.E. 36394 Distribution:

Florida Power & Light Company - 8 Copies Golder Associates Inc. - 3 Copies March 5, 2008 07387685 OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA

Florida Power & Light Company March 5, 2008 TOC-1 07387685 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.......................................................................... I........

2.0 BACKGROUND

1 3.0 DESIGN FLOW RATE ............................................................................. I 4.0 TIDAL EFFECTS....... ........ ...I.... .......... ..........-............................ -2 5.0 EFFECTS OF CLEANLINESS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE PIPING ................3

6.0 CONCLUSION

S .................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Unit I Circulating Water Pumnp Curves FIGURE 2 Unit I AECW Pump Curves FIGURE 3 Unit 2 Circulating Water Pump Curves FIGURE 4 Cooling Water Intake and Discharge System FIGURE 5 St. Lucie Plant Circulating Water System Flows, Case I - Intake and Discharge Pipes both Fouled FIGURE 6 St. Lucie Plant Circulating Water System Flows, Case 2 - Intake and Discharge Pipes Clean, Discharge Pipes Fouled FIGURE 7 Simulated Pumped Flow with Varying Intake Piping Cleanliness FIGURE 8 Simulated Discharge Flow with Varying Intake Piping Cleanliness Golder Associates

Florida Power & Light Company March 5, 2008 07387685

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report provides information to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),

Industrial Wastewater Section in response to their Request for Information (RFI) letter of January 18, 2008 (DEP File No. FL0002208-008-IWBIMR), relative to FPL's application for a minor permit revision to the St. Lucie Plant NPDES Permit No. FL0002208. The information provided herein has been compiled to comply with the clarifications obtained during a telephone conversation on January 30, 2008, between FPL and FDEP.

2.0 BACKGROUND

During the preparation of the Site Certification Application for the St. Lucie Uprate Project, it was discovered that an approximation had been made in calculating the design system discharge flow rate when both units are operating. In order to correct that approximation, FPL requested a minor revision to the facility's NPDES permit. The permit reviewer raised questions about the relationship between the design flow rate and the actual flow rates as influenced by tidal stages and the cleanliness of the intake and discharge piping as well as the plant facilities, primarily the condensers.

3.0 DESIGN FLOW RATE Initially, the design flow rate was calculated for Unit 1. The discharge flow is primarily composed of two components, circulating water (CW) which is pumped through the condenser, and, auxiliary equipment water (AECW, also known as Intake Cooling Water (ICW)). Figure 1 is a copy of the pump curves for Unit 1 CW, showing a design flow rate of 121,000 gpm per pump at a system head of 40 feet. Figure 2 is a copy of the pump curves for Unit I AECW, showing a design flow rate of 14,500 gpm at a system head of 130 feet. During normal operation of Unit 1, there are 4 CW pumps and 2 AECW pumps running, giving a total flow rate of:

4 CW Pumps @ 121,000 gpm = 484,000 gpm 2 AECW Pumps @ 14,500 gpm = 29.000 Som Total = 513,000gpm = 1143 cfs =739MGD When Unit 2 was added, the additional flow was estimated to be the same as Unit 1, thus the total flow rate was estimated at:

2 units @ 739 MGD = 1478 MGD However, the actual Unit 2 CW pumps that were purchased delivered slightly more flow than the Unit I CW pumps. Figure 3 is a copy of the Unit 2 CW pump curves, showing a design flow rate of 122,650 gpm at a system head of 40 feet. The Unit 2 AECW pumps are the same design as those of Unit 1. During normal operation of Unit 2, there are 4 CW pumps and 2 AECW pumps running, giving a total flow rate of:

4 CW Pumps @ 122,650 gpm = 490,600 gpm 2 AECW Pumps @ 14,500 gpm = 29.000 enm Total =519,600gpm =l158cfs =748MGD Golder Associates

Florida Power & Light Company March 5, 2008 07387685 Thus Unit 2 actually has a design flow rate 9 MGD higher than Unit 1, an increase of about 1%.

Therefore, the actual design flow rate for both units combined is:

739 MGD + 748 MGD = 1487 MGD = 2,301 cfs The St. Lucie Uprate scope does not address a change to the design flow rate; therefore, the correct design flow rate will remain at 1487 MGD, since Unit 2 came on line in 1983.

4.0 TIDAL EFFECTS The configuration of the St. Lucie cooling water system includes intake pipes with entrance velocity cap structures, an intake canal from which the CW and AECW pumps take suction, a discharge canal, and discharge pipes terminating in subsurface diffusers (see PSL Uprate SCA Figure 2.1.2-1).

The CW pumps and AECW pumps remove water and pump it through the condensers and auxiliary equipment heat exchangers and into the discharge canal. The intake canal level drops below the ocean level causing water to flow from the ocean into the intake canal through the velocity cap structures/intake pipes to replace the water withdrawn by the CW and AECW pumps. The discharge canal level rises above the ocean level causing water to flow through the discharge pipes/subsurface diffusers back to the ocean. As the cooling water flow remains virtually constant, the canal systems reach quasi-equilibrium with the flow entering the intake canal essentially at the same rate as the flow leaving the discharge canal, each being about the same as the flow through the CW/AECW pumps.

During a rising tide, the elevation difference between the ocean and intake canal water levels increase resulting in more flow into the intake canal than is being pumped out causing the intake canal water level to rise. During the same rising tide, the difference between the ocean and discharge canal water levels decreases resulting in less flow out of the discharge canal than is ýbeing pumped in causing the discharge canal water level to rise. When the tide ebbs, ocean level decreases and the process reverses.

FPL has simulated the above flow scenario with a mathematical model -for various conditions of fouling within the intake and discharge pipes. Figure 5 depicts the results of one such simulation, assuming both the intake and discharge pipes are fouled. The simulated CW pump flow holds very constant near the design rate, while the accompanying discharge flow rate follows a sinusoidal curve, increasing on the ebbing tide and decreasing on the flood tide. The magnitude of the increase or decrease relative to the pump flow rate is dependent on the magnitude of the tidal change. The tidal range simulated in Figure 5 varied between 4.2 and 4.9 feet.

Golder Associates

Florida Power & Light Company March 5, 2008

-I 07387685 5.0 EFFECTS OF CLEANLINESS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE PIPING Although normal operation of the St. Lucie Plant has been with intake and discharge piping in the fouled condition, as simulated on Figure 5, FPL has also performed a simulation assuming the intake piping was cleaned, but the discharge piping was not. The results are shown on Figure 6. The patterns are similar to those on Figure 5, except the flow magnitudes are all slightly higher. For instance, Figure 7 shows the simulated pumped flow rates for both conditions. Although the pumped flow is slightly higher with the cleaned intake pipes, the change is relatively small. Similarly, Figure 8 shows the simulated discharge flows for both conditions. Again, the flows with cleaned intake pipes are greater, the increase is not significant.

6.0. CONCLUSIONS The. discharge flow varies over time as the tidal phase changes; however, the long-term average of the discharge flow is virtually the same as the long-term average of the pumped flow..

I I Golder Associates I

mmmmmm m m- m m m m-- m m m m==

I

m - -- m m m m I m m m m m -mi m m I""' "...... ~ ~ .... :2T ~ JI t'-[ " ~.

"I .... ""

t7 P- I .. . .... q 7 r. I

,-,' -,, .. * " ':, '- " "I . ..., s . .. '. . . . . ' ,-, .. . ... h :

• -'a .

A, * ' 7 C c t Wae S*.*. Flo aAr*-*t.e.-

, :. Figure." 2d; Unit-* I-..; AECW"Pu

• .:.*.* . p .'";:",. 1! ':

Curve .... ... :

:-:--.-----'".'**,I;..",,i-:*-';.>. .... -'"* .

REFERENCE:

.,I.

.L 1. 2008

__________________________________-___________ :1 P,20

-fL Uni I AE PmpCuve

(.*:.*,*!i e.r*""' ],G.,o;:..*C / + : "':::"d  :. '*'+.  ; I'.:AECW Unit-:'" Pump Curves C L-V M.C Atlantai

" G-+o :-.a ___,_"_;___"_____."__.___-.____'"______...__.__".'__:_____.__"_,*( ,

-*+*:., ,..-:;.*;-:,

"- '*; : ... ,._ *. ' " ' -'-,'.., .- -- R-'.:;N : A DAT.E 'J:B; DI W A E 3 2 08 J RNO.:

N . 07387685l 0 3 7 8 Foid Po e-n 'N- l,Lihft; *.*:.:":

-+ . ,",:-!;* :L "; cePatCHCE

" .. . . * '* .. . . .... i , I ... . AT:

m SAEsShw 3-2-..08.

4 * ., h l; . , WNO RV.

Foida Power"'*'+I:"

and Light..t.,Lu.ie....n...

,*  : ' 7 V "";:: .. SM SAL Shown ,

-DW'::(:, N".o , E. O Ci rculatingr W ater..System ... Flows.. - '". *-, ' . ... a .. .am,,---

-- III-III- - - - - -II -II- - -II II J1*

IT I;

4i hr~

!ii I..0 ii IiHIM III~

1111 I LI

- m m m m m m m - -* m m m - m - -

agomuo

/

/

~ ,r n..~o,'r CAflfl

/ ,- U(TAK~ANAI.

a.?M~4WYILt

/ I/--.---------------------

I -~

"A 4.'Cs I-. n51~

~

I4~~CA tOUWtA t~APO-f ~

-- C'--..

- -. 5' 0

x STATEWICtO Ala 2:4

'.5 2

3/4' -

4' E[71-EV CO.AttO'i ON"

- - ATLANTMIC & N-- PMIK'AA-.V~'4'L4

REFERENCE:

1. FPL, 2001 I

TITLE e'?) Cooling Water Intake and Discharge System

(# As ' tes Atlanta, Georgia CL*I",T/PRO,3ECTJ Florida Power and LightlSt. Lucie PlantI Circulating Water System Flows

-Bmmm° mmmm mm *U nm m -

m - -- m

m m m m m m m m M m mM M m M Figure 6. St. Lucie Plant Circulating Water System Flows Case 2; Intake Pipes Clean, Discharge Pipes Fouled 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,000

- 1,500 1.500 1,000 1,000 500 Soo 0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Elapsed Time -Hours

REFERENCE:

1. FPL, 2007; Golder, 2008 V

TtILu Case 2; Intake Pipes Clean, Discharge Pipes. Fouled GAsso aes Afatita, Georg' FF'L CLMWrUPROIECT I

Florida Power and Light/St. Lucie Plant/

Circulating Water System Flows

m m m m m m m m m m m - m m m Figure7. Simulated Pumped Flow with Varying IntakePiping Cleanliness 3,000 3,000 2,500 -- 2,500 2,000 - 2,000

- - -- Pumped Flow - clean Intake piping - Pumped Flow - fouled intake piping

_______________ _____ _______________ I

- 1,500 4 1,500

-1 1,000 1,000

__________________________________________________________________________ - - ------ ii.

4 500 500

{ __________ _______ ___________ *1I 0 _____________________ 0

.,-~----.

0 4 8 12 1i 20 24 28 32 36 Elapsed Time -Hours

REFERENCE:

1. FPL, 2007; Golder, 2008 TrML1 Simulated Pumped Flow

• GoM~ with Varying Intake Piping Cleanliness A Qq~j Atlanta '~e~rura r-PL CLJIET/PROJECT Florida Power and Light/St. Lucie Plant/

Circulating Water System Flows

mm m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m Figure 8. Simulated Discharge Flow with Varying Intake Piping Cleanliness 3,000 2,500 2,000

- - - Discharge Flow - clean Intake piping - Discharge Flow - fouled intake piping 500 0 I I I I 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Elapsed Time - Hours

REFERENCE:

1. FPL, 2007; Golder, 2008 U

TMLE Simulated Discharge Flow with Varying Intake Piping Cleanliness PPL I -

CLIMJTPFOJECT DRAWN MAT 1' 3-2-08 I

Florida Power and LightlSt. Lucie Plant/

CHECME SM ISCAU As Circulating Water System Flows REVIEWED H FLE NO.

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 7 T - Rho(actual) Rho(est) 30 64.25 64.2420 40 64.20 64.2090 50 64.17 64.1600 60 64.10 64,0950 70

... 64.02 64.0140 80 63.95 63.9170 90 63.80 63.8040 91 ____ 63.7918 r 92 63.7795 963.7670 94 ______63.7543 95 63.7415 96 63.7285 97 63.7154 98 63.7021 99 63.6886 100 63.70 . 63.6750 101 63.6612 1021 63.6473 103 63.6332 104 63.6189 105' 63.6045 i06 63.5899 107 63.5752 108 63.5603

.. . 109 .. - . - .. ..- .. 63.5452 110 63.5300 111 63.5146 1 __63.4991 113 1 63.4834 114; 63.4675 115[ _- 63.4515 3-116 63.4353 117 63.4190 118. . 63.4025 119 63.3858 12___0_ 63.3690 5117/2010 9:09 AM Book1 .xIs Interpolate

Harold Frediani From: Frediani, Harold [HaroldFrediani@golder.com]

Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:32 PM To: Hal Frediani

Subject:

FW: Simplified Delta-T Calculation - Calc 24A Attachments: Calc-24A-Writeup-lan.xls Regards-

-Hal Harold A. Frediani, Jr.

(semi-retired, part-time)

Golder Associates, Inc.

3730 Chamblee Tucker Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30341 Phone: 770-992-2533 Fax: 770-934-9476 From: Watters, Ian [1]

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:01 PM To: Frediani, Harold Cc: Abbatiello, Tom; Hix, Ron

Subject:

Simplified Delta-T Calculation - Calc 24A Hal The Table below shows the heat rejected to the Condenser for 8 CW Pumps operating and 6 CW Pumps operating, pre and post EPU from the PEPSE data files.

I have used this total heat rejected for each Unit in Calc 24A. The revised spreadsheet is attached. I don't think that we need the 3050 MWt case since we will never operate at that power due to the licensed power limit.

Let me know if this approach is acceptable.

Results: Pre-EPU EPU Increase deg F deg F deg F 8 CW Pumps 25.50 28.12 2.62 6 CW Pumps 31.33 34.57 3.24 Heat Rejected to Condenser Based on PEPSE Heat Balances Case: EPU - 8 CW Pumps in Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser I

CWIT Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Total 90 6.29069E+09 6.22784E+09 1,25185E+10 6.95235E+09 6.85476E+09 1.38071E+10 Case: EPU - 6 CW Pumps In Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser CWIT Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Unit I Unit 2 Total 90 6.33420E+09 6.26982E+09 1.26040E+10 7.00336E+09 6.90264E+09 1.39060E+10 2

SUBJECT:

Heat Rates, CW Flows, and ATs for Modeling for RFI #1 Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Fredlani Date 517/2010 Associates FPL Uprate PSL Ref. 24A Checked Sheet 1 of 3 Calc IReviewecI Look at two cases: pre-uprate and post-uprate, for both units combined, assuming 8-pump flow:

pre-uprate post-uprate NSSS thermal power - MWt: 5410.0 6068.0 gross generation- MWe@90*CWIT 1793.0 1969.6 waste heat - MWt @900 CWIT 3617.0 4098.4 4-pump flow rate - gpm 1,032,600 1,032,600 1,032,600 specific heat of fresh water @ 900 0.998 0.998 density of water @ 90. - lbs/cu ft 62.105 62.105 (fresh water) mass flow rate - Ibs per hour 513,782,080 513,782,080 499.926 lb/hr per gpm (fresh water) waste heat - Btu per hour 12,518,500,000 13,807,100,000 AT fresh water- 0 F 24.41 26.93 for sea water specific heat (Btu/lb) 0.930 0.930 density 63.8 63.8 63.8 mass flow rate - Ib/hr 527,804,471 527,804,471 0.13368 AT sea water - ' F 25.50 28.12 2.62

SUBJECT:

Heat Rates, CW Flows, and ATs for Modeling for RFI #1 Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/7/2010 Ref. FPL Uprate PSL Checked Sheet 2 of 3 Calc 24A Reviewec Look at two cases: pre-uprate and post-uprate, for both units combined, assuming 6-pump flow:

pre-uprate post-uprate NSSS thermal power - MWt: 5410.0 6068.0 0

gross generation- MWe@9 0CWIT 1793.0 1969.6 0

waste heat - MWt @9 0 CWIT 3617.0 4098.4 3-pump flow rate - gpm 846,000 846,000 specific heat of fresh water @ 900 0.998 0.998 density of water @ 900 - lbs/cu ft 62.105 62.105 (fresh water) mass flow rate - lbs per hour 420,937,090 420,93*7,090 (fresh water) waste heat - Btu per hour 12,604,000,000 13,906,000,000 AT fresh water-

• F 30.00 33.10 for sea water specific heat (Btu/lb) 0.930 0.930 density 63.8 63.8 mass flow rate - lb/hr 432,425,511 432,425,511 AT sea water - 0 F 31.33 34.57 3.24

SUBJECT:

Heat Rates, CW Flows, and ATs for Modeling for RFI #1 Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/712010 Associates Ref. FPL Uprate PSL Calc 24A Checked Reviewec

\ Sheet 3 of 3 Look at two cases: pre-uprate and post-uprate, for both units combined, assuming 8-pump flow and 3050 MWt for uprate:

pre-uprate post-uprate NSSS thermal power- MWt: 5410.0 6100.0 0

gross generation- MWe@90 CWIT 1793.0 1969.6 0

Waste heat - MWt @9 "CWIT 3617.0 4130.4 4-pump flow rate - gpm 10,32,600 1,032,600 specific heat of fresh water @ 900 0.998 0.998 density of water @ 900 - Ibs/cu ft 1 62.105 62.105 (fresh water) mass flow rate - lbs per hour 513,782,080 513,782,080 (fresh water) waste heat - Biu per hour 4 44,093,607,4,- No PEPSE Data 0

AT fresh water- F 24.07 27.49 for sea water specific heat (Btu/lb) 0.930 0.930 density 63.8 63.8 mass flow rate - lb/hr 528,411,538 528,411,538 AT sea water - o F 25.11 28.67

m - m m m m m t m Heat Rejected to Condenser Based on PEPSE Heat Balances Case: EPU - 8 CW Pumps in Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser CWIT Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Total 90 6.29069E+09 6.22784E+09 1.25185E+10 6.95235E+09 6.85476E+09 1.38071E+10 Case: EPU - 6 CW Pumps in Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser CWIT Unit I Unit 2 Total Unit I Unit 2 Total 90 6.33420E+09 6.26982E+09 1.26040E+10 7.00336E+09 6.90264E+09 1.39060E+10

Harold Frediani From: Frediani, Harold [HaroldFrediani@golder.com]

Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:47 PM To:

• Harold Frediani

Subject:

FW: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Cooling Attachments: U1 ER Sections 4.1.4 &4.1.6 RO (FINAL) - ICW &UHS.pdf Regards-

-Hal Harold A. Frediani, Jr.

(semi-retired, part-time)

Golder Associates, Inc.

3730 Chamblee Tucker Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30341 Phone: 770-992-2533 Fax: 770-934-9476 From: Watters, Ian [2]

Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 8:35 AM To: Frediani, Harold; Hix, Ron; Harold Frediani Cc: Abbatiello, Tom

Subject:

RE: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Cooling Hal This is an excerpt from the Shaw Evaluation of the ICW System for EPU. The complete Evaluation is attached for your information.

1

3.0 EVALUATIONS 3.1 ICW-1 ICW Flow and Heat Removal Capability Two l*-AiW prmips operate dunna normal full load power and cookdvn The desg capacty and head of e'ach IOW pump~is 14..0 gpi at 130 ft TDH (References 7 and 8) The evaluations of the corrponents suppled with intake cooling water detemined the mrvninim required tCW fkov rates to confrin1 thoir capabfrh! is sUffcip't for EPU coibons. The resiits of the evalwtuions ind,cate that ICW outlet tenVerature renains bounded by the s: ter = lure at EPU condxiers dunng norniat, cooldown or accident conditions Theo EPU eval-vat~ons of ICW system capability under nomii operation, accident, and normal Cc0d0cM' conditions ire Summ*n3zed as foFo'is.

Ur,xie' irno.t plant opei.tiaon. the ICW syste*i pro,,,ides cooling wvter to the Corponent Coco i-)q "Craer' (CC'W). Turb*ne Cooling Water (TCW) and Open Bv,%doinn Coohng System (05CS) heat exchangers Reference 23 calculated the nmitnxmi required f4ow rates for each of the heat exchangers co,1.4-_d by lOW. based on their EPU hoat loads. to nanitarn a bounding outle temperature of 125-F. ;,,th the exception of the 0GW heat exchangers which were set to the kxo ifkoy alarm

-,etpynt Of 4,39%gpm An ICW inlet temperature of 95'F was assumed for these calculations baseod upron the current pre-EPU maxrrinuni IM' inlet temperature contained in References 7 a.id 8 The fcov,?rng tabLe qvves the calculated nunirtsum required ICW flow rates for the Unit 1 CO,, TCW ariK OBCS heat exchangers for normal operabon.

T13)le& I J. I t I EPQ oe Oea Conipornnt¶ Flowr,,ate Hemt Load ICW Outlet Temp

(_pm_........) (MbtuW ('F) cc¢,, 4 A,A .39S 26.06 106.6 CC WHX ER 4.W39 2 6.M 1%66

-tC'.-$, H' 1.7,6 26 4 125 TC'*..: 4B 3 119 4f0 125 OC-!CS 4. A 2,2N6 _ 4_ :25 1

O.CS H1. a 'As 346 12.

TOTAL 18.121 1 The rjvn:mrwn required flor'a shomn in the above table is well below the contmned design flow U rate of 29.000 gim for two lCOW punps, such that the heat exchangers wilt remove the EPU heat lads It is noted the TCW heat exchangers are being replaced at EPU. though the I calculat.d tubie ssdo differental pressure ol:,, tncrevses from 1 7 psed (Reference 32. Art B., pg

1) to 2 YT3 ps'1 (Reference 33. Att B. Pg 2) such that the defleence is 0.66 psid at the design fi.is4 v:ch -,,l1 havei negql,3b4e intact on the ICVW iow supply The cuffenf design of the Unit 1 ICW system ,- accepttable to perform its design basus functirons for EPU normal operation m The Unmt 2 evaluation will L?-performned upon issue of Reference 26 5 19 /-

I E From: Frediani, Harold (mailto:HaroldFrediani@golder.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:30 PM To: Hix, Ron; Harold Frediani Cc: Abbatiello, Tom; Watters, Ian

Subject:

RE: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Cooling These are flow rates, can we put a heat load onto the ICW discharge.

I Regards-2

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with 2 CW Pumps (1 in each Unit) Out of Service Determination of Flow Through CW System with 6 CW Pumps Operating CW Pump Curves:

The Certified Pump Test Curves provide the CW Pump performance head vs. flow characteristic. Curve number N-3429 was used for Unit 1, and Curve number N-3672 for Unit 2. Table 1 shows the pump flows and corresponding heads in the flow range of interest, based on the Certified Pump Test Curves.

Table 1 Unit I Unit 2 Pump Flow Pump Head Pump Head 100,000 gpm 50 ft 50ft 110,000 gpm 46 ft 46.5 ft 120,000 gpm 41 ft 41.5 ft 130,000 gpm 35 ft 35.5 ft 140,000 gpm 27.5 ft 28 ft 145,000 gpm 22 ft 23ft Combined Pump Curve:

A combined pump curve can be established by adding pump flows at a series of points with the same heads for each pump. Since the Unit 2 CW Pump performance is slightly better than Unitl, the rated flow of the Unit 2 pump at the same head as the Unit 1 pump must be calculated. Table 2 shows the pump heads for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 pumps at the same pump heads.

Table 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Pump Head Pump Flow Pump Flow 50 ft 100,000 gpm 100,660 gpm 46 ft 110,000 gpm 110,273 gpm 41 ft 120,000 gpm 120,783 gpm 35 ft 130,000 gpm 131,182 gpm 27.5 ft 140,000 gpm 140,789 gpm 22 ft 145,000 gpm 145,438 gpm

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with 2 CW Pumps (I In each Unit) Out of Service The combined pump curve for 3 Unit I CW Pumps and 3 Unit 2 CW pumps is determined by multiplying the flow for each pump by 3, and then adding these flows to obtain the curve for 6 pumps, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit I & 2 Pump Head 3 Pump Flow 3 Pump Flow 6 Pump Flow 50 ft 300,000 301,980 601,980 46 ft 330,000 330,820 660,820 41 ft 360,000 362,348 722,348 35 ft 390,000 393,546 783,546 27.5 ft 420,000

• 422,366 842,366 22 ft 435,000 436,314 871,314 CW System Friction Head Loss:

Table 4 is based on the CW System Hydraulic Gradient calculation performed by Ebasco.

(Ref. Engineering Evaluation PSL-ENG-SECS-06-040, Rev. 0, Attach. 2, page 4)

Table 4 Intake Loss 6.48 ft Discharge Loss 6.82 ft Total Common Loss 13.3 ft Total System Loss 37 ft Piping Loss 23.7 ft Common Flow 2344 cu ft/sec 1,052,058 gpm ICW Flow 58,000 gpm Plant CW Piping Flow 994,058 gpm Piping friction losses are proportional to the square of the flow. Using the friction losses in Table 4, and dividing by the square of the corresponding flow, the following friction loss factors were determined.

Common Friction Loss Factor (Intake and Discharge) 1.20164E-11 ft/gpm 2 Plant CW Friction Loss Factor 2 (Piping between Intake and Discharge) 2.39842E-11 ft/gpm Determine CW System Operating Point With 6 CW Pumps in Service Based on the friction loss factors determined above, the total CW System friction loss was calculated for a range of CW Pump flows. The results are shown in Table 5 below.

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with 2 CW Pumps (1 in each Unit) Out of Service Total Plant CW Plant Piping Common Total System Flow (gpm) Head Loss (ft) Head Loss (ft) Head Loss (ft) 300,000 2.2 1.5 3.7 350,000 2.9 2.0 4.9 400,000 3.8 2.5 6.4 450,000 4.9 3.1 8.0 500,000 6.0 3.7 9.7 550,000 7.3 4.4 11.7 600,000 8.6 5.2 13.8 650,000 10.1 6.0 16.2 700,000 11.8 6.9 18.7 750,000 13.5 7.8 21.3 800,000 15.3 8.8 24.2 850,000 17.3 9.9 27.2 900,000 19.4 11.0 30.5 950,000 21.6 12.2 33.9 1,000,000 24.0 13.5 37.4 1,050,000 26.4 14.8 41.2 1,100,000 29.0 16.1 45.1 Figure I shows the plot of the combined 6 CW Pump curve and the CW System friction loss curve. The intersection of these two curves is the operating point. At this point the total CW pump flow is 846,000 gpm with a head of 27 ft.

PTN CW System Operation with 6 CW Pumps In Service Fig. I 40.0 35.0 Combined 6 Pump---'

Performance Curve 30.0 25.0 20.0 CW System Fric&onI 15.0 10.0 5.0 rnn , - 1 0 100,000 200.000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700.000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 Flow (gpm)

The individual Unit flows are 422,114 gpm in Unit 1, and 423,886 gpm in Unit 2.

I I Harold Frediani From: Watters, Ian [lan.C.Watters@fpl.com]

• Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:18 PM To:. 'Frediani, Harold'; Hix, Ron Cc: Abbatiello, Tom; Harold Frediani S

Subject:

7 CW Pump Case for Saint Lucie Calc 25 Attachments: Determination of Flow Through CW System with 7 CW Pumps Operating.doc I' Hal As discussed, see attached for 7 CW Pump Case.

The total CW pump flow is 935,000 gpm with a head of 33 ft.

I The individual Unit flows are 532,663 gpm in Unit 1, and 402,337 gpm in Unit 2.

PTN CW Syverr Opertlohn vAth 7 CN Furrps n zerv ce 3 Fig. 2

-" L.........-----------

................... t...........4.......

I 3 ..

Pu'~,

T...-

t, ia . "

-..*....... .. ;....4.............. t - . . .

,D........ ..- - . ... ....... .. . ..

. . . 1.. .. o. . .. . ... T . ........... i...............-4---... ..

3 n na 4O.]o6ODD noww znD mom (gpm) i *nO, I From: Frediani, Harold [3]

Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:23 AM To.- Hix, Ron; Watters, Ian Cc: Abbatiello, Tom; Harold Fredianl

Subject:

RE: Saint Lucie Calc 25 3 Sorry, bad night. Wasn't up at 10:30 Normal conditions for 2 units, I see a 28 deg delta T and 118 deg CWOT in summer, and 33 deg delta T and 103 deg

• CWOT in winter.

1

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with I CW Pump Out of Service Determination of Flow Through CW System with 7 CW Pumps Operating CW Pump Curves:

The Certified Pump Test Curves provide the CW Pump performance head vs. flow characteristic. Curve number N-3429 was used for Unit 1, and Curve number N-3672 for Unit 2. Table I shows the pump flows and corresponding heads in the flow range of interest, based on the Certified Pump Test Curves.

Table I Unit I Unit 2 Pump Flow Pump Head Pump Head 100,000 gpm 50 ft 50 ft 110,000 gpm 46 ft 46.5 ft 120,000 gpm 41 ft 41.5 ft 130,000 gpm 35 ft 35.5 ft 140,000 gpm 27.5 ft 28 ft 145,000 gpm 22 ft 23 ft Combined Pump Curve:

A combined pump curve can be established by adding pump flows at a series of points with the same heads for each pump. Since the Unit 2 CW Pump performance is slightly better than Unitl, the rated flow of the Unit 2 pump at the same head as the Unit 1 pump must be calculated. Table 2 shows the pump heads for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 pumps at the same pump heads.

Table 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Pump Head Pump Flow Pump Flow 50 ft 100,000 gpm 100,660 gpm 46 ft 110,000 gpm 110,273 gpm 41 ft 120,000 gpm 120,783 gpm 35 ft 130,000 gpm 131,182 gpm 27.5 ft 140,000 gpm 140,789 gpm 22 ft 145,000 gpm 145,438 gpm

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with 1 CW Pump Out of Service The combined pump curve for 4 Unit 1 CW Pumps and 3 Unit 2 CW pumps is determined by multiplying the flow for each pump by the number of operating pumps, and then adding these flows to obtain the curve for 6 pumps, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit I &2 Pump Head 4 Pump Flow 3 Pump Flow 6 Pump Flow 50 ft 400,000 301,980 701,980 46 ft 440,000 330,820 770,820 41 ft 480,000 362,348 842,348 35 ft 520,000 393,546 913,546 27.5 ft 560,000 422,366 982,366 22 ft 580,000 436,314 1,016,314 CW System Friction Head Loss:

Table 4 is based on the CW System Hydraulic Gradient calculation performed by Ebasco.

(Ref. Engineering Evaluation PSL-ENG-SECS-06-040, Rev. 0, Attach. 2, page 4)

Table 4 Intake Loss 6.48 ft Discharge Loss 6.82 ft Total Common Loss 13.3 ft Total System Loss 37 ft Piping Loss 23.7 ft Common Flow 2344 cu ft/sec 1,052,058 gpm ICW Flow 58,000 gpm Plant CW Piping Flow 994,058 gpm Piping friction losses are proportional to the square of the flow. Using the friction losses in Table 4, and dividing by the square of the corresponding flow, the following friction loss factors were determined.

Common Friction Loss Factor (Intake and Discharge) 1.20164E-11 ftlgpm 2 Plant CW Friction Loss Factor 2 (Piping between Intake and Discharge) 2.39842E-1 I ft/gpm Determine CW System Operating Point With 7 CW Pumps in Service Based on the friction loss factors determined above, the total CW System friction loss was calculated for a range of CW Pump flows. The results are shown in Table 5 below.

St. Lucie Circulating Water System Flow with 1 CW Pump Out of Service Total Plant CW Plant Piping Common Total System Flow (gpm) Head Loss (ft) Head Loss (ft) Head Loss (ft) 300,000 2.2 1.5 3.7 350,000 2.9 2.0 4.9 400,000 3.8 2.5 6.4 450,000 4.9 3.1 8.0 500,000 6.0 3.7 9.7 550,000 7.3 4.4 11.7 600,000 8.6 5.2 13.8 650,000 10.1 6.0 16.2 700,000 11.8 6.9 18.7 750,000 13.5 7.8 21.3 800,000 15.3 8.8 24.2 850,000 17.3 9.9 27.2 900,000 19.4 11.0 30.5 950,000 21.6 12.2 33.9 1,000,000 24.0 13.5 37.4 1,050,000 26.4 14.8 41.2 1,100,000 29.0 16.1 45.1 Figure I shows the plot of the combined 7 CW Pump curve and the CW System friction loss curve. The intersection of these two curves is the operating point. At this point the total CW pump flow is 935,000 gpm with a head of 33 ft.

PTN CW System Operation with 7 CW Pumps InService Fig. 2 50.0 45.0 Performlance Curie 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 CW System Fnction Resistance 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.00 0 20D,00 400,000 600,000 800,000 1.000,000 Flow (gpm)

The individual Unit flows are 532,663 gpm in Unit 1, and 402,337 gpm in Unit 2.

CALCULATION 26 SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Existing Units Golder Job No. 09387687 Made By: H. Frediani JDate 5/27/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked: S. Hoschek Sheet 1 of 5 Associates NPDES Mod, Calc 26 Reviewed: G. Powell In response to FDEP's first request for additional information associated with the NPDES Permit FL0002208 Modification Request to increase the permit limit for discharge temperature at Outfall D-001, it is necessary to calculate theT for the existing pre-uprate Units. Based on Cafc 25, the following cases are addressed; Case 1. Maximum discharge temperature, both units operating at full load on 4 CW pumps each.

Case 2. Maximum discharge temperature rise, both units operating at full load on 3 CW pumps each.

Case 3. Maximum discharge temperature, one unit operating at full load on 4 CW pumps.

Case 4. Maximum discharge temperature, maintenance mode, Unit 1 operating at full load on 4 CW pumps and Unit 2 operating at full load on 3 CW pumps.

Based on the intake temperature frequency distribution developed in Calculation 20, the highest intake temperature seen in the Period of Record August 2005 through October 2009 was 88.4 deg F. The 90th percentile intake temperature was 70 deg F. In the Unit 2 Final Environmental Statement (FES), it was stated that the maximum ambient water temperature between 1971 and 1978 was 90 deg F. (Unit 2 FES, Page 4-19). Assume the worst-case discharge temperature will occur when the CW Inlet Temperature (CWIT) is at 90 deg F.

Case 1: Normally, four CW pumps operate per unit as follows (see the attached response to FDEP's RFI #1 dated March 5, 2008, for a previous NPDES permit modification, for flow derivation):

Unit 1 CW pumps, four pumps at 121,000 gpm each = 484,000 gpm Unit 1 also has 2 AECW pumps at 14,500 gpm each = 29,000 gpm (AECW = ICW) total Unit 1 = 513,000 gpm Unit 2 has four CW pumps at 122,650 gpm each = 490,600 gpm Unit 2 has two AECW pumps atl4,500 gpm each = 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 519,600 gpm From PEPSE Heat Balances summarized in FPL's e-mail of 5/12/2010, the heat rejected for each unit with 8 pumps operating and 90 deg F Circulating Water Inlet Temperature (CWIT) for the pre-uprated plant is:

Unit 1 = 6290.69 million Btu per hour Unit 2 = 6227.84 million Btu per hour AT is calculated as follows: AT = heat rejected /(CW flow times specific heat), where CW flow is in lbs per hour Based on Calculation 27, the specific heat of sea water in the expected range of temperatures is about 0.96 Btu per lb per degree F.

Use the density of sea water relationship developed in Calc 7 and detailed in spreadsheet "Bookl.xlsx to determine the density of sea water at the desired temperatures.

Golder SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modelln Cases Job No. 09387687 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Sheet 2 of 5 Associates Ref. FPL PSL NPDES Mod, Calc 26 Checked: S. Hoschek Reviewed: G. Powell In order to obtain the discharge temperature rise, we need to add in the heat load from the ICW systems. CaIc 25, Table 4.1.4-1 applies for Unit 1 :

Table 14 t EIPU 91ora.i.

Minimum Components Flowrate Heat Load ICW Outlet Temp (gpm, (Mbtu) (F)

CCW HX A 4,395 26.06 106.6 CCW KX B 4.395 26ý06 106.6 TCW HX A 1,716 26.4 125 TCW HX B 3.119 48.0 125 OBCS HX A 2.248 34.6 125 OBCS HX 8 2.248 34.6 125 TOTAL 16,1211 ICW Heat Rate = 26.06 + 26.06 + 26.4 + 48 +34.6 +34.6 = 196 million Btu/hour = 196,000,000 Btu/hour This is the Unit 1 value, assume the Unit 2 value is the same.

For Case 1:

Assume that the maximum discharge temperature case (Case 1) occurs with 4 CW pumps operating per unit, and with an inlet CWtemperature (CWIT) of 90 deg F. For Unit 1, the 4-pump flow (Case 1):

AT1 = (6,290,690,000 + 196,000,000)Btu/hour/((513,000 gpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft) *p *Cp

• 60 min/hr) at CWIT of 90 deg F, p = 63.8 pcf.

AT, = (6,290,690,000+196,000,000)/(513,000 /7.48*63.8*.96*60) = 25.74 deg F.

For Unit 2, Case 1:

AT 2 = (196,000,000 +6,227,840,000)/((519,600/7.48)

• 63.8 *.96 *60) 25.16 deg F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATcombined = (AT 1* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (Q1 + Q2) = 25.45 deg F.

For Case 2 Assume the maximum AT occurs when only 3 CW pumps are operating for each unit. Based on the attached document from FPL entitled "Determination of Flow Through CW System with 6 CW Pumps Operating.doc", the CW flows through each unit are as follows: Unit 1 Unit 2 422,114 gpm 423,886,gpm

SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modelin Cases Golder Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Job No. 07387685 Ref. FPL PSL Checked: S. Hoschek het 3 of 5 Associates PS Calc 26 Mod, NPDESRefI hckd G.

Reviewed: . Powell ocek3 IP o Adding in the ICW flow rates, assumed unchanged from Case 1:

Unit 1. CW pumps, three pumps = 422,114 gpm Unit 1 still has 2 AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 1 = 451,114 gpm Unit 2 has 3 CW pumps 423,886 gpm Unit 2 still has two AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 452,886 gpm Assume 3-pump per unit operation can only occur at lower CWIT; otherwise, the units would suffer a backpressure penalty and have to derate. Use the 90% temperature for CWOT of 70 degrees F. From PEPSE Heat Balances summarized in FPL's e-mail of 5/12/2010, the heat rejected for each unit with 6 pumps operating and 90 deg F. Circulating Water Inlet Temperature (CWIT) is:

Unit 1 = 6334.20 Million Btu per hour Unit 2 = 6269.82 Million Btu per hour assume these values are still good for the 70 degree F CWIT case.

For Unit 1, Case 2:

8T, = (6,334,200,000 + 196,000,000)Btu/hour/((451,114 gpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft) *p *Cp

• 60 min/hr) at CWIT of 70 deg F, p = 64.02 pcf.

AT, = (6,334,200,000+196,000,000)/(451,114/7.48*64.02".9660) = 29.36 deg F.

For Unit 2, Case 2:

AT 2= (196,000,000 +6,269,820,000)/((452,886/7.48)

• 64.02 *.96 *60) = 28.96 deg F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATCombined = (AT 1* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (Q1 + 02) = 29.16 deg F.

SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/19/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked: S. Hoschek Associates Sheet 4 of 5 NPDES Mod, Calc 26 jReviewed: G. Powell For Case 3:

For Case 3, which assumes only one unit operating, the highest discharge temperature is expected with a CWIT of 90 deg F and only Unit 1 operating. The parameters for this case have already been established as part of Case 1:

AT = 25.74 deg F CWflow = 513,000 gpm CWIT = 90 deg F.

CWOT (CW Outlet Temperature, or discharge temperature) 115.74 deg F.

For Case 4:

For case 4, we assume a Unit 2 CW pump has tripped off, and full load is maintained on both Units. FPL has provided an analysis of the resultant 7-pump flow (see attached document "Determination of Flow Through CW System with 7 CW Pumps Operating") and concludes that the unit flow rates would be as follows:

Unit 1 - 532,663 gpm Unit 2 - 402,337 gpm Adding in the ICW flow rates, assumed unchanged from Case 1:

Unit 1 CW pumps ,four pumps = 532,663 gpm Unit 1 still has 2 AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm = 29,000 gpm total Unit 1 = 561,663 gpm Unit 2 has 3 CW pumps 402,337 gpm Unit 2 still has two AECW pumps at 29,000 gpm 29,000 gpm total Unit 2 = 431,337 gpm Using the Unit 1 heat rejection rate from Case 1, Unit 1 = 6,486,690,000 Btu/hour Using the Unit 2 heat rejection rate from Case 2, Unit 2 = 6,423,840,000 Btu/hour AT, = (6,486,690,000)Btu/hour/((561 663 Qpm / 7.48 gal/cu ft)

• p *Cp

• 60 min/hr) at CWIT of 90 deg F, p = 63.8 pcf.

AT, = (6,486,690,000)/(561,663 /7.48*63.8*.96*60) 23.51 degrees F.

Golder SUBJECT : Waste Heat Discharged for Modeling Cases I Job No. 07387685 Made By: H. Frediani Date 5/1912010 Sheet 5 of 5 Associates Ref. FPL PSL NPDES Mod, Calc 26 Checked: S. Hoschek Reviewed: G. Powell I

For Case 4, Unit 2:

AT 2= (6,423,840,000)/((431,337/7.48)

• 63.8 *.96 *60) = 30.31 degrees F.

For the combined flow of both units:

ATcombine.d = (AT,* Q1 + AT 2

• Q2)/ (Q1 + Q2) = 26.46 degrees F.

In Summary:

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 CWIT- deg F. 90 70 90 90 AT - deg F 25.45 29.16 25.74 26.46 CWOT- deg F. 115.45 99.16 115.74 116.46 CWFIow - gpm 1,032,600 904,000 513,000 993,000

Harold Frediani From: Frediani, Harold [HaroldFrediani@golder.com]

"ent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:05 PM To: Harold Frediani

Subject:

FW: Simplified Delta-T Calculation - Calb 24A Attachments: Calc-24A-Writeup-lan.xls Regards-

-Hal Harold A. Frediani, Jr.

(semi-retired, part-time)

Golder Associates, Inc.

3730 Chamblee Tucker Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30341 Phone: 770-992-2533 Fax: 770-934-9476 From: Watters, Ian [4]

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:01 PM To: Frediani, Harold Cc: Abbatiello, Tom; Hix, Ron

Subject:

Simplified Delta-T Calculation - Calc 24A Hal The Table below shows the heat rejected to the Condenser for 8 CW Pumps operating and 6 CW Pumps operating, pre and post EPU from the PEPSE data files.

I have used this total heat rejected for each Unit in Calc 24A. The revised spreadsheet is attached. I don't think that we need the 3050 MWt case since we will never operate at that power due to the licensed power limit.

Let me know if this approach is acceptable.

Results: Pre-EPU EPU Increase deg F deg F deg F 8 CW Pumps 25.50 28,12 2.62 6 CW Pumps 31.33 34.57 3.24 Heat Rejected to Condenser Based on PEPSE Heat Balances Case: EPU - 8 CW Pumps in Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser 1

CWIT Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Total -

90 6.29069E+09 6.22784E+09 1.25185E+10 6.95235E÷09 6.85476E+09 1.38071E+10 Case: EPU- 6 CW Pumps in Service Current Post-EPU Heat Rejected to Condenser Heat Rejected to Condenser CWIT Unit 1 Unit 2 Total Unit 1 Unit 2 Total 90 6.33420E+09 6.26982E+09 1.26040E+10 7.00336E+09 6.90264E+09 1.39060E+10 2

CALCULATION 27 Golder

SUBJECT:

Calculate Specific Heat of sea water at varying temperatures Job No. 09387687 Made By: H. Frediani Date: 5/16/2010 As ociates Ref: FPL PSL NPDES Checked Sheet 1 of 1 Mod Reviewed In order to calculate the temperature rise across each condenser, based on the heat rejection rates provided by FPL, it is necessary to be able to calculate the specific heat (Cp) of sea water at the varying water temperatures.

From Sharqawy, Lienhard, and Zubair, page 9 of SeawaterPropertyjtables[1].pdf (attached), we can do a table of Cp vs.

water temperature at salinities of 30 and 40 PPT. See C-sub-P.xlsx, worksheet Cp.

From the St Lucie Unit 2 Final Environmental Statement (FES), page 4-19, the average salinity of the Atlantic Ocean off Hutchinson Island is 35.5 PPT. Interpolate linearly for C. at 35.5 PPT on worksheet Cp. Next, convert from metric to useful units as follows:

1 Joule = 0.000948 Btu 1 lb = 0.4535924277 kilograms 1 degK 1.8 degF 1 Joule per kg per deg K (.000948 Btu) per (11.4535924277) lb per (1.8 deg F.)

1 J/kg-degK 0.000238892 Btu/Ib/deg F Add a column of temperatures in degrees F., then plot specific heat as a function of temperature. See worksheet "Plot".

Do a second plot for the temperature range of interest, from 50 to 122 deg F, call it Pilot 2. Add a trend line on Plot2 Linear trend line works, equation is Cp = 0.9514 + .00005

• T (deg F.) and an RA2 of 0.997. Verify the equattion in a table on worksheet "curve fit".

Use this equation in Calc 25 to calculate temperature rises associated with the heat loads to be modeled. Add to worksheet curve fit a table of estimated Cp values from 50 deg F to 130 deg F.

Water Temperature Actual CP Curve-Fit CP

• deg F 50 0.9539 0.9539 68 0.9549 0.9548 86 0.9557 0.9557 104 0.9566 0.9566 122 0.9576 0.9575 Water Water Water Temperature Cp Temperature Cp Temperature Cp deg F deg F deg F 50 0.9539 77 0.9553 104 0.9566 51 0.9540 78 0.9553 105 0.9567, 52 0.9540 79 0.9554 106 0.9567 53 0.9541 80 0.9554 107 0.9568 54 0.9541 81 0.9555 108 0.9568 55 0.9542 82 0.9555 109 0.9569 56 0.9542 83 0.9556 110 0.9569 57 0.9543 84 0.9556 111 0.9570 58 0.9543 85 0.9557 112 0.9570 59 0.9544 86 0.9557 113 0.9571 60 0.9544 87 0.9558 114 0.9571 61 0.9545 88 0.9558 115 0.9572 62 0.9545 89 0.9559 116 0.9572 63 0.9546 90 0.9559 117 0.9573 64 0.9546 91 0.9560 118 0.9573 65 0.9547 92 0.9560 119 0.9574 66 0.9547 93 0.9561 120 0.9574 67 0.9548 94 0.9561 121 0.9575 68 0.9548 95 0.9562 122 0.9575 69 0.9549 96 0.9562 123 0.9576 70 0.9549 97 0.9563 124 0.9576 71 0.9550 98 0.9563 125 0.9577 72 0.9550 99 0.9564 126 0.9577 73 0.9551 100 0.9564 127 0.9578 74 0.9551 101 0.9565 128 0.9578 75 0.9552 102 0.9565 129 0.9579 76 0.9552 103 0.9566 130 0.9579 5/16/2010 6:24 PM C-sub-P.xlsx curve fit

m m m m m m m m m m m Cp as a function of Sea-Water Temperature Btu/Ib-deg F 0.9750 .... "

0.9700 __

Iw2 0,9650-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0.9600

.0A 0.9550 0.9500 r ---- -

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 Degrees F 5/16/2010 3:24 PM C-sub-P.xlsx Plot

Water Temperature deg F Actual Cp Curve-Fit Cp 50 0.9539 0.9539 68 0.9549 0.9548 86 0.9557 0.9557 104 0.9566 0.9566 122 0.9576 0.9575 5/16/2010 3:32 PM C-sub-P.xlsx curve fit

- m m - m - ~ m - m -

Specific heat at constant pressure, JIkq K

_________ Salinity, glkg Temp, *C 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 4206.8 4142.1 4079.9 4020.1 3962.7 3907.8 3855.3 3805.2 3757.6 3712.4 3669.7 3629.3 3591.5 10 4196.7 4136.7 4078.8 4022.8 3968.9 3916.9 3867.1 3819.2 3773.3 3729.5 3687.7 3647.9 3610.1 20 4189.1 4132.8 4078.2 4025.3 3974.1 3924.5 3876.6 3830.4 3785.9 3743.0 3701.8 3662.3 3624.5 30 4183.9 4130.5 4078.5 4027.8 3978.6 3930.8 3884.4 3839.4 3795.8 3753.6 3712.7 3673.3 3635.3 40 4181.0 4129.7 4079.6 4030.7 3982.9 3936.4 3891.0 3846.7 3803.7 3761.8 3721.1 3681.6 3643.2 50 4180.6 4130.8 4081.9 4034.1 3987.3 3941.5 3896.6 3852.9 3810.1 3768.3 3727.5 3687.8 3649.0 60 4182.7 4133.7 4085.5 4038.3 3992.0 3946.5 3902.0 3858.3 3815.5 3773.7 3732.7 3692.6 3653.4 70 4187.1 4138.5 4090.6 4043.6 3997.3 3951.9 3907.4 3863.6 3820.6 3778.5 3737.2 3696.7 3657.0 80 4194.0 4145.3 4097.3 4050.1 4003.7 3958.1 3913.3 3869.2 3825.9 3783.5 3741.7 3700.8 3660.7 90 4203.4 4154.2 4105.9 4058.3 .4011.5 3965.4 3920.2 3875.7 3832.0 3789.1 3746.9 3705.6 3665.0 100 4215.2 4165.4 4116.4 4068.2 4020.9 3974.3 3928.5 3883.6 3839.4 3796.0 3753.5 3711.7 3670.8 110 4229.4 4178.8 4129.1 4080.2 4032.2 3985.1 3938.7 3893.3 3848.6 3804.9 3761.9 3719.9 3678.6 120 4246.1 4194.7 4144.2 4094.6 4045.9 3998.2 3951.3 3905.4 3860.3 3816.2 3773.0 3730.7 3689.4 4300 Accuracy +/-0.28%

0 4200 20 4100 40 2 4000 F60

• 3900 80 Z 3800 0 100 3700-S =120 g9/kg 3600 -

3500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Temperature, OC Mostafa H. Sharqawy, John H. Lienhard V and Syed M. Zubair, Thermophysical Properties of Seawater: A Review of Existing Correlations and Data, Desalination and Water Treatment, 2010 Page 9

157 cms (62 in.). Surface runoff, however, is very small at the site because of high soil permeability and evapotranspiration. There are no freshwater streams in the vicinity of the site.

The nearshore bottom of the Atlantic Ocean off the site slopes at a one on 80 gradient to about -10.7 m (-35 ft) MLW. The ocean bottom maintains this depth for about 800 m (0.5 mi) before rising to Pierce Shoal at about -6.4 m

(-21 ft) MLW. A slight trough 8 kmn (5 mi) wide and approximately 15 m (50 ft) deep separates Pierce Shoal from the northward extension of St. Lucie Shoal.

The ocean bottom then slopes at a gradient of approximately one in 600 for 19 km (12 mi) across the continental shelf, to a depth of 36 m (120 ft). The slope then increases, resulting in a depth of 183 m (600 ft) approximately 29 km (18 ml) east of the Plant site.

A tide monitoring program undertaken by the applicant from May 1976 to May 1977 showed a mean tidal range of 1 m (3.28 ft). This compares favorably with mean tidal ranges determined from established tide gauges at Miami 0.76 m (2.3 ft),

Palm Beach 0.85 m (2.6 ft), and Vero Beach 1.04 m (3.1 ft).

Currents in the nearshore region of the site are affected primarily by winds and tides. The Florida Current, a part of the Gulf stream system, is found farther offshore, beyond the 91 m (300 ft) contour. Ocean currents near the St. Lucie 1 discharge were measured by Continental Shelf Associates (CSA).

Tequesta, Florida, from November 1973 through.May 1975. Average current speed was found to be 22.5 cm/s (0.74 ft/sec) near the surface and 16.4 cm/s (0.54 ft/sec) near the bottom. The prevailing surface current direction is alongshore toward the north and occurs about-49% of the time. Flow toward the south occurs about 35% of the time. Current speeds were found to range from near zero to 48.8 cm/s (1.6 ft/s). Frequency distributions by month for surface and bottom current directions and speed are provided in the applicant's ER-OL. 16 Sea-water temperatures on the Atlantic Ocean offshore of the site wer und to (aange from about 15°C (59°F) to 32 C(90*F) between 197 - The mean tempe-ratu*or*-s and de 1r**- ln the eriodwas 0

(-*Fj._JTfhe average salinity of the Atlantc eanffuc

.. n Is i (about 35.5 parts per thousan_. range o 33.0 ppt to 38.5 ppt has been, reportewi~wTmost values between 34.0 ppt and 36.0 ppt. Salinity is generally lowest during fall and winter and increases to a maximum during the summer.

4.3.4 Ground Water Hydrology Underlying the one to two meters (3 to 6 ft) of surface organic material on Hutchinson Island is the Anastasia Formation. The Anastasia Formation is an unconfined water table aquifer consisting of grey slightly silty fine to medium sand with varying amounts of fragmented shells. The Anastasia Formation extends to a depth of about -41 m (-135 ft) MSL to -47 m (-155 ft) MSL. Below the Anastasia Formation lies the Hawthorne formation. The upper 30 meters of the Hawthorne formation at the site consists of a slightly clayey and silty very fine sand. Below this zone and extending to about -122 m (-400 ft) MSL are sandy clayey silts which form an aquiclude for the underlying Floridian artesian aquifer. The Floridian aquifer, which lies about 210 m below the land surface in St. Lucie County, underlies all of Florida and southern Georgia.

The Floridian aquifer is a highly porous limestone formation with an estimated St. Lucie 2 FES 4-19.

I CALCULATION 28

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 123 0 F dischar In response to the FDEP RFI#l, Comment 7, we will run the MULDIF model for both St Lucie diffusers assuming 6-pump flow and a discharge temperature of 123 0 F. The original calculations for the two diffuser runs in support of the 1/21/10 Thermal Discharge Study included Calc 16 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser. This calculation is a revised version of Calc 16 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser at the discharge temperature of 1230 F, which is derived from Case 2 in Calculation 25, assuming a 90 deg F CW inlet temperature (CWIT).

Reference Drawings are 8770-G-664-1 for discharge diffuser profile, and 8770-G-66303 for plan view, and are attached to calculation 16.

From Calc 16, we see the Y-nozzle is actually a' 450 nozzle with discharge centerline at 34 ft mlw.

From the unit 1 FES (seeCalc 16) we have the ports as 7.5 ft diameter.

From Calc 7, we know that the 7.5 foot diameter is the inside diameter (ID) of each port, thus each port has an area of:

A=7tR2=3.14159*(7.5/2)*(7.5/2) = 44.18 square feet Using two ports at 44.18 sq ft each, assume the flow is evenly split:

From Calc 25, flow is 904,0000 gpm for both Units I and 2; therefore each port has a flow of 904,000/4 226,000 gpm

- 504 cfs Therefore, the discharge velocity = Q/A = 504/44.18 11.40 ft/sec We will use the near-field model of Koh & Fan (MULDIF) for submerged multiport diffusers.

From MULDIF listing ( Attached to Calc 16)

First Data card:

NC = 2 points defining one stratified layer DO=jet ID 7.5 feet UO = 11.40 ft/sec TO is discharge Temp = 123 , from above.

From Calc 7, we have Bookl .xlsx defining a curve fit of density of sea water as a function of temperature.

DEN1 = discharge density in g/cc at 123 deg F, 1.0147048 ThetaO = angle of discharge = 0' DJ = Depth of discharge = 34 ft SPACJ= Jet spacing, call it 115' (because jets are at 450 angle, make them far enough apart so they don't interfere with each other.)

Card 2 and 3: There are 2 cases of ambient depth and density, at the surface and near the bottom.

D = depth = 34 and 0 TA = ambient temperature = 90. degrees F.

Dena = ambient density = 1.02250000 Card 4 GRAVAC = 32.2 BLDR = 50 cfs RIVR = receiving water flow, 0 for slack tide / worst case

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 123 0 F discharge temperature - Case 2 Job No: 09387687 Made by H Frediani Date 5/29/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked S. Hoschek Sheet 2 of 2 PSL Calc 028 Reviewed G. Powell Tabulate in Worksheet "Input Parameters" and also save as "Y123.DAT" as a Notepad txt file.

Create blank output file Y123.OUT Using these inputs and output files, run MULDIF.

Open output files in excel and clean up -save as Y123-OUT.xls and plot centerline temperature vertically.

Plot on axis for each of the Y ports on Attachment I of Calc 7..

See attachment I for results.

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 7 T Rho(actual) Rho(est) g/cc 30 64.25 64.2420 1.029519 32 64.25 64.2367 1.029434 40 64.20 64.2090 1.028990 50 64.17 64.1600 1.028205 60 64.10 64.0950 1.027163 70 64.02 64.0140 1.025865 80 63.95 63.9170 1.024311 86.4 63.8465 1.023181 90 63.80 63.8040 1.022500 91 63.7918 1.022305

-692 --63.7795 1.022107 93 63.7670 1.021907 94 63.7543 1.021704 95 ......

_63.7415 1.021498 96 63.7285 1.021290 97 63.7154 1.021080 98 63.7021 1.020867 99 63.6886 1.020651 100 63.70 63.6750 1.020433 101

.. .. ..... 63.6612 1.020212 102 63.6473 1.019988 103 63.6332 1.019763 104 63.6189 1.019534 105 63.6045 1.019303 106 63.5899 1.019069 107 __63.5752 1.018833 108 63.5603 1.018594 109 63.5452 1.018353 110 63.5300 1.018109

-ill 63.5146 1.017863 112 63.4991 1.017613 113 63.4834 1.017362 114 63.4675 1.017108 115 63,4515 1.016851 116 63.43531 1.016592 117 63.4190 1.0163300 118 63.4025 1.016065 119 .. ..... . . 63.3858 1.015798 120 63.3690 1.015529 121 63.3520 1.015257 122 .. .. .. .. .. 63.3349 1.014982 123 ....... 63.3176 1.014705 5/29/20.10 7:06 PM Bookl .xlsx Interpolate

m -mmmm m m m m m m m- m m - m m MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Input Parameters Parameter Y-Port Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 7,5 Ft Jet diameter Discharge is through UO 11.4 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 123 Deg F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.01470481 g/cm 3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DI 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 115 Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1 jet D 0 and 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 90 DeDF Ambient River temperature Dena 1.0225 g/cm3 Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Sec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 504 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 5/29/2010 2:36 PM Calc-28.xlsx Input Parameters

mmm m m m m mmm m -mm m m mm MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ 1 AA ------ A= 7.50 FEET

• --A--*

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 11.40 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 123.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.014705 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 123 90 46.84 0.00026 15.1577 1.01051 118.4629 1.01578 1.0225 90 28.46292 17 76.59764 2.63063 28.80174 1.93823 104.8394 1.01899 1.0225 90 14.83941 17 91.05657 6.42867 35.18377 2.4087 101.941 1.01968 1.0225 90 11.94097 17 104.8715 12.13786 41.02435 2.88996 99.95247 1.02015 1.0225 90 9.95247 17 117.7805 19.67609 46.25394 3.38778 98.48999 1.02049 1.0225 90 8.48999 17 129.6308 28.79219 50.94408 3.90735 97.36105 1.02076 1.0225 90 7.36105 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 71.881 0.4174181 1 107 1 1 90 171 6/7/2010 2:27 PM Y123-OUT.xlsx Y123

mm - m m m m m m m m m m m m m MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA ------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET

• -- A- * *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE=

.00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 11.40 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ***************** JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 123.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.014705 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMR DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84000 .00026 15.15770 1.01051 118.46290 1.01578 1.02250 90.00000 28.46292 17.00000 76.59764 2.63063 28.80174 1.93823 104.83940 1.01899 1.02250 90.00000 14.83941 17.00000 91.05657 6.42867 35.18377 2.40870 101.94100 1.01968 1.02250 90.00000 11.94097 17.00000 104.87150 12.13786 41.02435 2.88996 99.95247 1.02015 1.02250 90.00000 9.95247 17.00000 117.78050 19.67609 46.25394 3.38778 98.48999 1.02049 1.02250 90.00000 8.48999 17.00000 129.63080 28.79219 50.94408 3.90735 97.36105 1.02076 1.02250 90.00000 7.36105 17.00000 THIS IS FREE SURFACE Y123-out.doex Saturday, May 29,2010

mmM m- m m m m m Catc. 16 Attachment 1

---

17 Degree F. Isotherm - Pre-Uprate Plant 17 Degree F. isotherm -

Uprated Planlt 17 Degree F. Isotherm -

Uprated Plant with 117 Degree F.

Discharge Temperatu

Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance 125

-- JETTEM --U-AMBTEM 120 115 110 105-E S100 95 -- - - - - - - ._ _ _ _ _

i 90 _L 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 S.. Horizontal Distance in Feet- -

5/29/2010 3:16 PM Y123-OUT.xlsx Center-Line Temperature

Caic. 28 Attachment 1

-.... 17 Degree F. Isotherm - Pre-Uprate Plant

-17 Degree F. Isotherm Jpr, ted Plant

~%%..%%

I I

I I

I, I

I I

I CALCULATION 29 I

I I

I i

I I

I I

I

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 118 0 F discharge temperature - Case I Job No: 09387687 Made by H. frediani Date 5/29/2010

• G o~d$~r Ref. FPL PSL Checked S. Hoschek Sheet PSL Calc 029 iReviewed G. Powell 1 of 2 Calc 28 ran the MULDIF model for the St Lucie Y-nozzle diffuser assuming 6-pump flow and a discharge temperature of 123'F.

The results indicated that, although Case 2 has the highest discharge temperature, the predicted mixing zone, which is defined by the 17 degree F isotherm, may not have been the maximum sized mixing zone. This calculation is a revised version of Calc 28 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser based on case 1 as described in Calc 25. Case 1 includes 8 CW pumps operating, a temperature rise of 28 deg F, a CW inlet temperature (CWIT) of 90 deg F., and a CW flow of 1,032,600 gpm. The objective is to determine whether Case 2 or Case 1 results in the larger mixing zone.

Reference Drawings are 8770-G-664-1 for discharge diffuser profile, and 8770-G-66303 for plan view, and are attached to calc. 16.

From Calc 16, we see the Y-nozzle is actually a 450 nozzle with discharge centerline at 34 ft mlw.

From the unit I FES (see Calc 16) we have the ports as 7.5 ft diameter.

From Calc 7, we know that the 7.5 foot diameter is the inside diameter (ID) of each port, thus each port has an area of:

A = t R^ 2 = 3.14159 * (7.5/2) *(7.5/2) 44.18 square feet Using two ports at 44.18 sq ft each, assume the flow is evenly split:

From Calc 25, flow is 1,032,600 gpm for both Units 1 and 2; therefore each port has a flow of 1,032,60(258,150 gpm

= 575 cfs Therefore, the discharge velocity = Q/A = 575/44.18 = 13.02 ft/sec We will use the near-field model of Koh & Fan (MULDIF) for submerged multiport diffusers.

From MULDIF listing ( Attached to Calc 16)

First Data card:

NC = 2 points defining one stratified layer DO=jet ID 7.5 feet UO = 13.02 ft/sec TO is discharge Temp = 118 deg F, from above.

From Calc 7, we have Bookl .xlsx defining a curve fit of density of sea water as a function of temperature.

DEN1 = discharge density in g/cc at 118 degF, 1.016065 ThetaO = angle of discharge = 0' DJ = Depth of discharge = 34 ft SPACJ= Jet spacing, call it 115' (because jets are at 450 angle, make them far enough apart so they don't interfere with each other.)

Card 2 and 3: There are 2 cases of ambient depth and density, at the surface and near the bottom.

D = depth = 34 and 0 TA = ambient temperature = 90. degrees F.

Dena = ambient density = 1.02250000 Card 4 GRAVAC = 32.2 BLDR = 57 cfs RIVR = receiving water flow, = 0 for slack tide / worst case

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 118 0 F discharge temperature - Case I Job No: 09387687 Made by H. Frediani Date 5/29/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked S. Hoschek Sheet PSL Calc 029 Reviewed G. Powell Tabulate in Worksheet "Input Parameters" and also save as "Y1 18.DAT" as a Notepad txt file.

Create blank output file Y1 18.OUT Using these inputs and output files, run MULDIF.

Open output files in excel and clean up -save as Y 118-OUT.xls and plot centerline temperature vertically.

Plot on axis for each of the Y ports on Attachment 1 of Calc 7..

See attachment I for results.

/J

I- - m -1 -I R IIImI - - R -I MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Input Parameters Parameter Y-Port Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 7.5 Ft let diameter Discharge Is through U0 13.02 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per Jet From Calc 6 TO 118 Deg F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DENI 1.01606500 g/cm3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DI 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 115 Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1jet D 0 and 34 Ft Depth of discharge - Depth of discharge TA 90 D"l F I ,Ambient River temperature Dena 102 Am bient River density 1.0225 Ig/c rn tGRAVAC ena 32.2 Ft/Sec2 Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 575 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 5/30/2010 9:18 AM Calc-29.xlsx Input Parameters

mm m i m m m m *- -* m mmm m Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance Case 1 - 118 deg F discharge 125

_ýý, JE*EM JZ, **

120 115 S o95.6 Deg F. at the free surface 105 a,100N 95 90 85 _

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Horizontal Distance in Feet 6/7/2010 2:41 PM Calc 29 Case 1 Y118-Out.xlsx Centerline Temperature

m m m -- m m im mmmm mm mm-MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET F 1 ... ...1 A A= 7.50 FEET_

• --A- *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ (

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ********** ********** -1i

• [ __ .9 JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 13.02 FT/SEC i

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 118.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.016065 GRAM/CC _ _

JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET x Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 _ 0 7.5 118 28.

46.841 0.00016 15.157711 1.01051 114.1504 1.01695 1.0225 _l 90 24.15036W 17 76.69405 1.67631 28.940361 1.93676 102.6006 1,01961 1.0225 90 12.60056i 17 91.44384 4.14679 35.638341 2.40262 100.1573 1.02017' 1.0225 90 10.157351 17 105.89591 7.9878 4 2.0 5 5 8 7 , 2.87322 98. 4 9 3 6 9 1 1.020551 1.0225 90 8.49369 17 119.8729 13.30134 48.07619j 3.35172 97.28113 1.020831 1.0225 90 7.28112 17 133.2027 20.07683 53.630391 3.84166 96.35253 1.02104 1.0225 90 6.352531 17 145.75491 28.204031 58.72078 4.34653 95,61466 1.021211 1.0225 90 5.61466j 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE _______

5/30/2010 9:19 AM Calc 29 Y118-Out.xlsx Y118

CALCULATION 30 SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 119 0 F discharge temperature - Case 3 Job No : 09387687 Made by H. Frediani Date 5/30/2010

• o ldI r Ref. FPL PSL Checked S.Hoschek Sheet PSL Catc 030 Reviewed G. Powell This calculation will run the MULDIF model for the St Lucie Y-nozzle diffuser for Case 3 as described in Calc 25, assuming only one unit operating at full load. This case is expected to produce the highest surface water temperature of the 4 cases. This calculation is a revised version of Calc 28 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser.

Case 3 includes. 4 CW pumps operating for Unit 1 which is at full load, and Unit 2 is shut down. The temperature rise is 29 deg F, rounding up to the next highest whole number. The CW inlet temperature (CWIT) is 90 deg F., and the CW flow is 513,000 gpm.

The objective is to show that Case 3 results in a smaller mixing zone than Case 2 or Case 1, and to determine water temperature at the free surface. Reference Drawings are 8770-G-664-1 for discharge diffuser profile, and 8770-G-66303 for plan view, and are attached to Calc. 16. From Calc 16, we see the Y-nozzle is actually a 450 nozzle with discharge centerline at 34 ft mlw.

From the unit I FES (see Calc 16) we have the ports as 7.5 ft diameter.

From Calc 7, we know that the 7.5 foot diameter is the inside diameter (ID) of each port, thus each port has an area of:

A = 7rR^ 2 = 3.14159 * (7.5/2) * (7.5/2) 44.18 square feet Using two ports at 44.18 sq ft each, assume the flow is evenly split:

From Calc 25, flow is 513,000 gpm for Unit 1; therefore each port has a flow of 513,000/4 = 128,250 gpm

= 286 cfs Therefore, the discharge velocity = Q/A = 575/44.18 6.47 ft/sec We will use the near-field model of Koh & Fan (MULDIF) for submerged multiport diffusers.

From MULDIF listing ( Attached to Calc 16)

First Data card:

NC = 2 points defining one stratified layer DO=jet ID= 7.5 feet UO = 6.47 ft/sec TO is discharge Temp = 119 deg F, from above.

From Calc 7, we have Bookl.xlsx defining a curve fit of density of sea water as a function of temperature.

DEN I discharge density in g/cc at 119 deg F, = 1.015798 ThetaO = angle of discharge = 00 DJ = Depth of discharge = 34 ft SPACJ= Jet spacing, call it 115' (because jets are at 450 angle, make them far enough apart so they don't interfere with each other.)

Card 2 and 3: There are 2 cases of ambient depth and densityi, at the surface and near the bottom.

D = depth = 34 and 0 TA = ambient temperature = 90. degrees F.

Dena = ambient density = 1.02250000 Card 4 GRAVAC = 32.2 BLDR = 286 cfs RIVR = receiving water flow, = 0 for slack tide / worst case

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 119 0 F discharge temperature - Case 3 Job No : 09387687 Made by H. Frediani Date 5/30/2010

• Go ld f Ref. FPL PSL Checked S. Hoschek Sheet Reviewed G. Powell PSL Calc 030 Tabulate in Worksheet "Input Parameters" and also save as "Y1 19.DAT" as a Notepad txt file.

Create blank output file YI 19.OUT Using these inputs and output files, run MULDIF.

Open output files in excel and clean up -save as YI 19-OUT.xls and plot centerline temperature vertically.

MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Input Parameters Parameter Y-Port Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 7.5 Ft 3et diameter Discharge is through UO 6.47 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 119 Deg F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DENI 1.01579800 g/cm3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DJ 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPAC] 115 Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1 iet rD _ 0 and 34 IFt Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 90 DDeg F I Ambient River temperature Dena 1.0225 gfcm I Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Sec: Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 286 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 5130/2010 10:15 AM Calc-30.xlsx Input Parameters

m unn mnn m -u- m nn m -nmm am nm mn -n nn m Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance Case 3 -119 deg F discharge 125

--- JETTEM -- AMB TEM 115 *~ -~ *----- -- ___ - -----.- -- __ -_ _ _--- *-___ , -

98.4 deg F at free surface 105 _ -- ... .. . . . ..

100-__ __ _

i I , '

95, 85 -

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 5/30/2010 10:41 AM Calc 30 Y119-OUT.xlsx Center-Une Temperature

m m mIm m m m m m m m m m- m- m MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT I _ _

AA= 115.00 FEET, 1 ------

AA ------

I A= 7.50 FEET

-A

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .O0DEGREESW/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 6.47 FT/SEC

• JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 119.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015798 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 119 90 29[

46.84 0.00069 15.15765 1.01051 115.0129 1.01672 1.0225 90 25.01287 17 75.73824 6.59876 27.65854 1.95197 102.9489 1.01951 1.0225 90 12.94889 17 88.19025 14.83348 32.35958 2.45883 100.2796 1.02012 1.0225 90 10.27962 17 98.787121 25.36724 36.36976 3.0083 98.40205 1.02056 1.0225 90 8.40205 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE I 1 _ __1 5/30/2010 10:38 AM Calc 30 Y119.OUT Y119

FPL PSL Upratea Calculation 7 T Rho(actual) Rho(est) g/cc 30 64.25 64.2420 1.029519 32 64.25 64.2367 1.029434 40 64.20 64.2090 1.028990 50 64.17 64.1600 1.028205 60 64.10 64.0950 1.027163 70 64.02 64.0140 1.025865 80 63.95 63.9170 1.024311 86.4 63.8465 1.023181 90 63.80 63. 8040 1.02zg§N00 91 63.7918 1.022305 92 63.7795 1.022107 93 63,7670 1.021907 94 63.7543 1.021704 95 63.7415 1.021498 96 63.7285 1.021290 97 63.7154 1.021080 98 63.7021 1.020867 99 63.6886 1.020651 100 63.70 63.6750 1.020433 101 63.6612 1.020212 102 63.6473 1.019988 103 63.6332 1.019763 104 63.6189 1.019534 105 63.6045 1.019303 106 63.5899 1.019069 107 63.5752 1.018833 108 63.5603 1.018594 109 63.5452 1.018353 110 63.5300 1.018109 111 63.5146 1.017863 112 63.4991 1.017613 113 63.4834 1.017362 114 63.4675 1.017108 115 63.4515 1.016851 116 63.4353 1.016592 1171 63.4190 1.016330 118 63.4025 1.016065 119 335 1059 120 633690 1.015529 121 63.3520 1.015257 122 63.3349 1.014982 123 63.3176 1.014705 5/30/2010 10:14 AM Book1 .xlsx Interpolate

CALCULATION 31 fULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 120 0 F discharge temperature Job No: 09387687 Made by HAP Date 5/30/2010 I F oluduc IRA FPL PSL Checked Sheet 1 of 2

( 'A~sOiio tes PSL Calc 031 1Reviewed This calculation will run the MULDIF model for the St Lucie Y-nozzle diffuser for Case 4 as described in CaIc 25, assuming both units operating at full load, but with only 7 CW pumps operating. This is the Maintenance case. This calculation is a revised version of Calc 28 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser.

Case 4 includes. 7 CW pumps operating for Units I and 2, which are both at full load. The temperature rise is 30 deg F, rounding up to the next highest whole number. The CW inlet temperature (CWIT) is 90 deg F., and the CW flow is 993,000 gpm.

The objective is to show that Case 4 results in a smaller mixing zone than Case 2 or Case 1, and to determine water temperature at the free surface. Reference Drawings are 8770-G-664-1 for discharge diffuser profile, and 8770-G-66303 for plan view, and are attached to Calc. 16. From Calc 16, we see the Y-nozzle is actually a 450 nozzle with discharge centerline at 34 ft mlw.

From the unit I FES (see Calc 16) we have the ports as 7.5 ft diameter.

From Calc 7, we know that the 7.5 foot diameter is the inside diameter (ID) of each port, thus each port has an area of; A = n RA 2 = 3.14159 * (7.5/2) * (7.5/2) = 44.18 square feet Using two ports at 44.18 sq ft each, assume the flow is evenly split:

From Calc 25, flow is 993,000 gpm ; therefore each port has a flow of 993,000/4 = 248,250 gpm

= 553 cfs Therefore, the discharge velocity = Q/A = 553/44.18 = 12.52 ft/sec We will use the near-field model of Koh & Fan (MULDIF) for submerged multiport diffusers.

From MULDIF listing ( Attached to Calc 16)

First Data card:

NC = 2 points defining one stratified layer DO=jet ID 7.5 feet UO = 12.52 ft/sec TO is discharge Temp = 120 deg F, from above.

From Calc 7, we have Bookl .xlsx defining a curve fit of density of sea water as a function of temperature.

DEN] = discharge density in glcc at 120 deg F, 1.015529 ThetaO = angle of discharge = 0' DJ = Depth of discharge = 34 fR SPACJ= Jet spacing, call it 115' (because jets are at 450 angle, make them far enough apart so they don't interfere with each other.)

Card 2 and 3: There are 2 cases of ambient depth and density, at the surface and near the bottom.

D = depth = 34 and 0 TA = ambient temperature = 90. degrees F.

Dena = ambient density = 1.02250000 Card 4 GRAVAC = 32.2 BLDR = cfs RIVR = receiving water flow,= 0 for slack tide / worst case

SUBJECT MULDiF Run- Y-Nozzle with 120

• F dischar Tabulate in Worksheet "Input Parameters" and also save as "YI 19.DAT" as a Notepad txt file.

Create blank output file Y120.OUT Using these inputs and output files, run MULDIF.

Open output files in excel and clean up -save as YI20-OUT.xls and plot centerline temperature vertically.

mmmmmmmmmm m m -m m -m mm m- m MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Input Parameters Parameter Y-Port Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 7.5 Ft Jet diameter Discharge Is through UO 12.52 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per let From Calc 6 TO 120 Deg F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix 3

DEN1 1.01552900 g/cm Discharge density Calculated ITHETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DI 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACI 115 Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1 let D 0 and 34 IFt Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 90 IDe F Ambient River temperature Dena 1.0225 g/cml Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Sec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 553 cfS Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 5/30/2010 11:03 AM Calc-31.xlsx Input Parameters

m m - mm m m m - m m mI mm m -

m m MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT _

AA= 115.00 FEET T 1----AA.... - A= 7.50 FEET

• --A--* JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 12.52 FT/SEC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 120.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015529 GRAM/CC .......

JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET x Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 120 90 46.841 0.00019 15.15771 1.01051 115.8754 1.01649 1.0225 90 25.87539 17 76.66982 1.96048 28.90529 1.93713, 103.498 1.01936 1.0225. 90 13.49804 17 91.34471 4.83454 35.51991 2.40416, 100.8759 1.01997 1.0225! 90 10.87591 17 105.626 9.26266 41.77459 2.87754, 99.08672 1.02039 1.0225 90 9.08672 17 119.3012, 15.30707 47.55079 3.36126! 97.77905 1.02069 1.0225; 90 7.77905 17 132.1881 22.88941 52.81058 3.859531 96.77477 1.02093 1.0225! 90 6.77477 17 144.1751 31.82872 57.6038 4.37615 95.97499 1.02111 1.0225 90 5.97499 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE "I I III 5/30/2010 11:21 AM Calc 31 Y120.OUT Y120

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 7 T Rho actual) Rho est) gc 30 64.25 64.2420 1.029519 32 64.25 64.2367 1.029434 40 64.20 64.2090 1.028990 50 64.17 64.1600 1.028205 60 64.10 64.0950 1.027163 70 64,02 64.0140 1.025865 80 63.95 63.9170 1.024311 86.4 63.8465 1.023181 90 63.80.,M 86~84 1.021259.00 91 63.7918 1.022305 92 63.7795 1.022107 93 63.7670 1.021907 94 63.7543 1.021704 95 63.7415 1.021498 96 63.7285 1.021290 97 63.7154 1.021080 98 63.7021 1.020867 99 63.6886 1.020651 100 63.70 63.6750 1.020433 101 63.6612 1.020212 102 63.6473 1.019988 103 63.6332 1.019763 104 63.6189 1.019534 105 63.6045 1.019303 106 63.5899 1.019069 107 63.5752 1.018833 108 63.5603 1.018594 109 63.5452 1.018353 110 63.5300 1.018109 111 63.5146 1.017863 112 63.4991 1.01761.3 113 63.4834 1.017362 114 63.4675 1.017108 115 63.4515 1.016851 116 63.4353 1.016592 117 63.4190 1.016330 118 63.4025 1.016065 119 63.3858 1.015798 120 63:360 -1.010ý5 121 63.35201 1.015257 122 63.33491 1.014982 123 63.3176] 1.014705 5/30/2010 11:04 AM Book1 .xlsx Interpolate

m-m--m m m - mm -m -m m m - m Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance Case 4 - 120 deg F discharge 125 1 .. -

120 .... ____

_,,-U-,JETTEM AMB TEM

) -~

110 ___- _ -- .. .. . .

96.0 deg F at Free Surface

• 105""

E 100 - _ _ _ __ _

95 go . _----------- -I 85-_

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Horizontal Distance in Feet

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 1200 F discharge temperature - Case 4 Job No : 09387687 Made by H. Frediani Date 5/30/2010 Golftr Ref. FPL PSL Checked S.Hoschek Sheet 2 PSL Calc 031 Reviewed G. Powell This calculation will run the MULDIF model for the St Lucie Y-nozzle diffuser for Case 4 as described in Calc 25, assuming both units operating at full load, but with only 7 CW pumps operating. This is the Maintenance case. This calculation is a revised version of Calc 28 for the Y-Nozzle diffuser.

Case 4 includes 7 CW pumps operating for Units I and 2, which are both at full load. The temperature rise is 30 deg F, rounding up to the next highest whole number. The CW inlet temperature (CWIT) is 90 deg F., and the CW flow is 993,000 gpm.

The objective is to show that Case 4 results in a smaller mixing zone than Case 2 or Case 1, and to determine water temperature at the free surface. Reference Drawings are 8770-G-664-1 for discharge diffuser profile, and 8770-G-66303 for plan view, and are attached to Calc. 16. From Calc 16, we see the Y-nozzle is actually a 450 nozzle with discharge centerline at 34 ft mlw.

From the unit I FES (see Calc 16) we have the ports as 7.5 ft diameter.

From Calc 7, we know that the 7.5 foot diameter is the inside diameter (ID) of each port, thus each port has an area of:

A = 1RA 2 = 3.14159 * (7.5/2) * (7.5/2) 44.18 square feet Using two ports at 44.18 sq ft each, assume the flow is evenly split:

From Calc 25, flow is 993,000 gpm ; therefore each port has a flow of 993,000/4 = 248,250 gpm

= 553 cfs Therefore, the discharge velocity = Q/A = 553/44.18 = 12.52 ft/sec We will use the near-field model of Koh & Fan (MULDIF) for submerged multiport diffusers.

From MULDIF listing ( Attached to Calc 16)

First Data card:

NC = 2 points defining one stratified layer DO=jet ID= 7.5 feet UO = 12.52 ft/sec TO is discharge Temp = 120 deg F, from above.

From Calc 7, we have Bookl .xlsx defining a curve fit of density of sea water as a function of temperature.

DENl = discharge density in g/cc at 120 deg F, = 1.015529 ThetaO = angle of discharge = 00 DJ = Depth of discharge = 34 ft SPACJ= Jet spacing, call it 115' (because jets are at 450 angle, make them far enough apart so they don't interfere with each other.)

Card 2 and 3: There are 2 cases of ambient depth and density, at the surface and near the bottom.

D = depth = 34 and 0 TA = ambient temperature = 90. degrees F.

Dena = ambient density = 1.02250000 Card 4 GRAVAC = 32.2 BLDR = 553 cfs RIVR = receiving water flow, = 0 for slack tide / worst case

SUBJECT MULDIF Run- Y-Nozzle with 1200 F discharge temperature - Case 4 Job No: 09387687 Made by H. Frediani Date 5/30/2010 Ref. FPL PSL Checked S. Hoschek Sheet Reviewed G. Powell PSL Calc 031 Tabulate in Worksheet "Input Parameters" and also save as "Y1 19.DAT" as a Notepad txt file.

Create blank output file Y120.OUT Using these inputs and output files, run MULDIF.

Open output files in excel and clean up -save as YI20-OUT.xls and plot centerline temperature vertically.

- m m - m - - m m - m - - -m - m-m - m MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Input Parameters Parameter Y-Port Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 7.5 Ft Jet diameter Discharge is through UO 12.52 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 120 Deg F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DENI 1.01552900 g/cm3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DI 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 115 Ft Spacin' between iet centers Only 1 let D. 0 and 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 90 Deg F I Ambient River temperature Dena 1.0225 *g/cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Secz Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 553 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 51301201-0 6:32 PM Calc-31.xlsx Input Parameters

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 7 f Rho(actual) Rho(est) -- g/cc 30 64.25 64.2420 1.029519 32 64.25 64.2367 1.029434 40 64.20 64.2090 1.028990 50 64.17 64.1600 1.028205 60 64.10 64.0950 1.027163 70 64.02 64.0140 1.025865 80 63.95 63.9170 1.024311 86.4 63.8465 1.023181 90 63.80 63.8040 1.022500 91 63.7918 1.022305 92 63.7795 1.022107 93 63.7670 1.021907 94 63.7543 1.021704

........ 95.. . .63.74151 1.021498 96 63.7285 1.021290 97 63.7154 1.021080 98 9-8 ' 63.7021 1.020867 99 63.6886 1.020651 100 63.70 63.6750 1.020433 101 .........63.66i2 i.020212 102 63.6473 1.019988 103 63.6332 1.019763 1041 63.6189 1.0:19534 1051 63.6045 1.019303 106 107 . 63.5899 1.019069 63.5752 1.0"18833 108 63.5603 1.018594 109 63.5452 1.018353 110 63.5300 1.018109 ill 63.5146 1.017863 112 63.4991H1.017613 113 63.4834 1.017362 114 63.4675 1.017108 115 63.4515 1.016851

.. -1161 . .63.4353 '1.016592 117 63.4190 1.016330 118 63.4025 1.016065 119 63.38581 1.015798 120 63.3690 1.015529 121 63.3520 1.015257 i22. 63.33491 -1.014982 1231 63.3176 1.014705 5/30/2010 6:33 PM Book1 .xlsx Interpolate

m m - m m m - m m m m - m m - - m -

MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT

-. I AA= 115.00 FEET 1----AA------I A= 7.50 FEET _

• -A--* *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ i

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 12.52 FT/SEC

• I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 120.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015529 GRAM/CC __....

JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET ..... __

, i _ _ _ _

x JETWIDTH I DILUTION !JETTEM JETDENS AMB DEN ,AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 120 90 46.84 0.00019 15.15771 1.01051 115.8754 1.01649 1.0225: 90 25.87539 17 76.66982 1.96048 28.90529 1.93713: 103.498 1.01936 1.0225: 90 13.49804 17 91.3447 4.83454 35.51991 2.40416 100.8759 1.01997 1.0225! 90 10.87591 17 105.626 9.26266 41.774591 2.87754! 99.08672 1.02039 1.0225; 90 9.08672 17 119.3012 15.30707 47.55079 3.36126' 97.77905 1.02069 1.0225! 90 7.77905 17 132.1881 22.88941 52.81058 3.85953' 96.774771 1.02093 1.0225: 90 6.77477 17 144.1751 31.82872 57.6038 4.37615, 95.97499 1.02111 1.0225 90 5.97499 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE I_ _ _ _

5/30/2010 6:33 PM Calc 31 Y120-out.xlsx Y120

Water Temperature vs. Horizontal Center-Line Distance Case 4 - 120 deg F discharge 125 10 -I--JETTEM -M,-AMBTEM _

120 _ *=_ . . . . ..

110 96.0 deg F at Free Surface 105

~4.100-._- _ _ ____ _

Cue.

_ _ I l_ _ _ '

1. IJ 0 20 40 60 80 100. 120 140 160 Horizontal Distance in Feet

CALCULATION 32 SUBJECT Mixing Zone Volumes for Cases 1 through 4 Golder I Associates I Job No. 09387687 Ref. St Lucie NPDES Calc : 32 Made By: H. Frediani Checked: S. Hoschek Reviewed: G. Powell Date Sheet 5/30/2010 1 of 1 The MULDIF model has been run for the Y-nozzle diffuser for the four cases identified in Calc 25 and documented in the following calculations: Output file Max temp at free surface Calculation 29 - Case 1 Y-1 18-out 95.6 degrees F Calculation 28 - Case 2 Y-1 23-out 97.4 degrees F Calculation 30 - Case 3 Y-1 19-out 98.4 degrees F Calculation 31 - Case 4 Y-120-out 96.0 degrees F The purpose of this calculation is to calculate the volume enclosed by the 17 deg F above ambient isotherm for each case, because that is the limit of the mixing zone . We will need to determine which of the four cases produces the largest mixing zone.

First, take the tables from the output files from each of Calc 28 through 31 and place as worksheets in Calc32.xlsx The model predicts a plume with circular cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the plume centerline. Calculate the volume within each model step as the product of the average of the cross-sectional areas and the distance along the centerline.

On worksheet5, Calc-32.xlsx, tabulate the x and y coordinates of each time step for each case down to the 17 degree F above ambient temperature at the centerline. Note the 17 degree location along the centerline has been calculated by linear interpolation. Calculate centerline distance S of each time step as square root of sum of squares of X and Y. Tabulate centerline jet delta T at end of step 1. Assume top hat distribution at start of first step; so the 17 degree isotherm is assumed to extend all the way across the discharge port. Next, calculate the jet width to the 17 degree isotherm, first calculate ratio of 17 degrees to delta T at centerline. Then from normal.pdf (normal distribution) calculate corresponding number of standard deviations. (see Calc 18 for an example calc). Next, from the jet width, assuming the full jet is four standard deviations across, multiply by # of SDs divided by 4 to get 17-degree width. Then calculate volume of that step. repeat the proces, at the end of the second step we are at 17 degrees and the area is zero (a point). Add the volumes of the two steps to get the total volume enclosed by the 17 degree isotherm.

Based on the table on sheet 5, the largest 17-degree above ambient isotherm volume is for Case 2, and totals 9,297 cubic feet.

m = m m m - m m m m m m

=

_Case I Case 2 Case 3 1Case 4 Xat start first time step . 0 .0 00 Y at start first time step 0 0 O) O)

Xat end first time step 46.84 46.84 46.84! 46.84; y at end first time step 0.00016 0.00026 0.00069' 0.00019 Sfor first time step 46.840 46.840 46.840 46.840 jet diameter start of first time step 7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500, jet diameter end of first time step 15.1581 15.158 15.158 15.158, centerline delta T at start first step 28.000' 33.000 29.0001 30.000 centerline delta T at end of first step 24.150 28.4631 25.013 25.8751 ratio of 17 deg to centerline delta T 0.863 0.8631 0.863 0.863 from normal distribution, # of SDs 0.540 0.5401 0.540i 0.540:

17 deg jet diameter end of first step 2.046 2.0461 2.046' 2.046ý 17 deg volume of first step - cu ft 4,303 i 4,303 4,303:1 4,3032 _

x at end second time step 65.322 71.878 66.034' 68.230:

y at end second time step 1.0378 2.2135 4.3831! 1.4058 Sfor second time step 18.511 25.136 19.688, 21.436.

jet diameter end second time step 23.690 26.638 23.461! 25.016:

centerline delta T at end second step 17 171 17i 17:

17-degree volume of second step 122 165 1291 1411 Total volume 17-degree isotherm per port 4,4251 4,468 4,4331 4,444!

for two ports (cubic feet): 8,850. 8,937 8,865i 8,888:

6/1/2010 6:44 AM Calc-32.xlsx Sheet5

m m m m m - m m m m m - m - m m MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEtE{-

I I _ _ _ _ _

I I __________

11 1-...AA-... 1A= 7.50 FEET

.00 DEGREES W/HORIZZ_

1* I _

• -A-* *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= _

JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 11.40 FT/SEC _ I _

• • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 123.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.014705 GRAM/CC ___

- -r ______ DEPTH= 34.00 FEET JET DISCHARGE ____

__ _ _ _ _ __ I_ _ _ __

X Y JETWIDTH IDILUTION JET TEM "JET DENS IAMB DEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 _ 123! go! 330 46.84 0.00026, 15.15771., 1.01051 118.46291 1.01578 1.0225 90i 28.46292) 17 71.87829 2.2134721 26.6378941 __ _ 17!

76.59764 2.63063' 28.80174 1.93823 104.8394! 1.01899 1.0225 90i 14.83941i 17 91.05657 6.428671 35.18377 2.4087 101.941: 1.01968, 1.0225 90i 11.940971 17 104.8715 12.13786 41.02435 2.88996 99.95247; 1.020151 1.0225 901 9.952477 17 117.7805 19.67609 46.25394 3.38778 98.48999! 1.02049 1.0225 90 8.48999! 17 129.6308 28.79219 50.94408 3.90735 97.36105: 1.02076 1.0225 901 7.36105: 17 THIS ISFREE SURFACE _ _ _

interpolated linearly for 17 deg _

5/30/2010 7:12 PM Calc-32.xlsx Case 2

m - m m m - m - m - - m m m m m MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT I ......

AA= 115.00 FEET _ _

.... IAAI.....A= 7.50 FEET _ _

• -A-*

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ JE ICA*****tt****VLCT=3.2FSE!

JET IDISCHARGE VELOCITY= 13.02FTSC_____________

• j ..

• • JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 118.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.016065 GRAM/CC __ _

JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET _

x Y JETWIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS ;AM DEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 0 7.5 118  ! 28:

46.84 0.00016 15.15771 1.01051 114.1504 1.01695k 1.02251 90 24.15036t 17 65.32233 1.037847 23.69040401 17j 17 76.69405 1.67631 28.94036 1.93676 102.6006! 1.01961.0225 90 12.600561 17 91.44384 4.14679 35.63834 2.40262 100.1573 1.02017i 1.0225 90 10.15735' 17 105.8959 7.9878 42.05587 2.87322 98.49369 1.020551 1.0225 90 8.49369 17 119.8729 13.30134 48.07619 3.35172 97.28113 1.020831 1.0225 90 7.28112 17 133.2027 20.07683 53.63039 3.84166 96.35253 1.02104 1.0225 90 6.352531 17 145.7549 28.20403j 58.72078 4.34653, 95.61466 1.02121 1.0225 90 5.614661 ...17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE II _ I 5/30/2010 7:13 PM Calc 29 Calc-32.xlsx Case 1

m m - m m m m - m m in in - in in in MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT .... __

AA= 115.00 FEET I _

__________ ________ I1 .........

1---AA-... 1A= 7.50 FEET _ __

• -A- *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ _

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 6.47 FT/SEC JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 119.00 F

........... JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015798 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET __ _ _

X "JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS :AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTAT }ALLOW T 0 0 .. . ........ .... ........... 1 19 __9 0 '29_

46.84 0.00069 15.15765 1.010511 115.01291 1.01672. 1.0225 90 25.01287 17 66.03415 4.383114 23.4607147: _ _17; 75.73824 6.59876 27.65854. 1.95197 102.9489 1.01951:' 1.0225 901 12.948891 17 88.19025 14.833481 32.359581 2.45883 100.2796 1.020121 1.0225 90 10.279621 17 98.78712 25.367241 36.36976, 3.0083 .98.402051 1.020561 1.0225 90 8.402051 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE _ _ __ _

5/30/2010 7:13 PM Calc 30 Calc-32.xlsx Case 3

m m m m m m m m - m m m m m m m m

'MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET _ _......

1 A= 7.50 FEET _ __

--A--*

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 12.52 FT/SEC

• ********************************************* JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 120.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.015529 GRAM/CC ' ' - _

JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET _

x Y IJETWIDTH DILUTION iJETTEM !JETDENS 1AMB"DEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 0 o0 120 90 301 46.84 0.00019 15.15771 1.01051, 115.8754 1.01649 1.0225' 90 25.875391 17 68.22998 1.405849 25.015647 171 76.66982 1.96048 28.90529 1.93713) 103.498 1.01936 1.0225, 90 13 .4 9 8 0 4 17 91.3447 4.83454 35.51991 2.40416 100.8759 1.01997 1.0225, 90 10.87591 17 105.626 9.26266 41.77459 2.877541 99.08672 1.02039 1.02251. 90 9.08672 17 119.3012 15.30707 47.55079 3.361261 97.77905 1.02069 1.02251 90 7.77905 17 132.1881 22.88941 52.81058 3.85953i 96.77477 1.02093 1.0225, 90 6.77477 17 144.1751 31.82872 57.6038 4.37615 95.97499 1.02111 1.0225! 901 5.97499 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE _ I_ .... I. I 5/30/2010 7:13 PM Calc 31 Calc-32.xlsx Case 4

EBASCO SERVICES iNCORPORATED DE PT.*

su~*~c 1~

f C 4-0.0 I, 6o ,93c"$3¶-

o.! .e2* ,'At7 21 '

n, I

• 2Te511 q'I 3,2Ž 0,4 0,5" , 7 *,

45.

.O, c, q-f*z 0,4 .-77 7 '73772 0, 9

.3G'1!55 ,4o-r ' 2 1571 .,2r~IZo zzo075

,52Th't

,5 4(o II Lq gAl

,3eo

• 3q4'. '20127 1, 7,-32

.2 o S"

-.4 *q63~S~

, ?*1o¢e 23575 ,17W7

, MI7 ,412-'

• n0Zi , 5e00

.- , ,OI5*' s 34 z, 4 , *o127

, ~q .05 350

,*1

,04t5+

.G

,2 2:

.oi/*t1.

,032 . 021757 7&

1 7  :; , ¢75"

( - * ,,o-o3

Table 4-1. Requested Instantaneous Maximum Discharge Temperatures and Discharge Temperature Rises Above Ambient Pre-UDrate Post-Uprate Discharge Discharge Discharge eDischarge Temperature Temperature Rise Case

• Dchre Tmeaue Temperature Above Ambient Temperature ** Rise Above **

Ambient ** **

1 116 26 118 28 2 100 30 123 33 3 116 26 119 29 4 117 27 120 30

• Cases 1, 2, and 3 are normal operating cases, Case 4 is the maintenance case.

• • All temperatures are in degrees F.

t;/An/7o1o'.;-n'; PM 'P4A~iAPMRPI-1 rat

-T2hIac-r-fai vlcv TahhIo A-1

CALCULATION 33 I

I I

i I

SUBJECT Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Runs Job No. 09387687 Made By H. Frediani JDate 5/30/2010 Ref. St Lucie NPDES Checked S. Hoschek Sheet 1 of 2 Calc 33 IReviewed: G. Powell Based on Calculation 32, the largest mixing zone for temperature, as defined by the 17-degree F. above ambient isotherm will occur during Case 2 (see calc 25) in which each unit is operating at full load but with only three CW pumps energized. In order to determine the required volume of the total mixing zone, it is necessary to predict its size for the discharge via the multiport diffuser, and then add that volume to the volume calculated in Calculation 32 for the Y-nozzle diffuser.

This calculation follows the procedure used in previous Calculation 13, during the uprate project, to set up and run the computer model MULDIF for the multiport diffuser. The model inputs are tabulated in worksheet "Input" as folllows:

Many of the parameters are the same as was determined in Calc 28, which was the MULDIF run for the Y-nozzle diffuser simulating Case 1.

From Calc 28, the flow rate is 2

• 504 = 1008 cfs Because there are 58 ports, the individual port flow rate is 1008158 = 17.38 cfs.

As described in Calc 13, the ports each have a diameter of 17 3/4 inches; therefore, the discharge velocity is calculated as:

V = Q/A = 17.381(((17.75/12)*(17.75/12))'3.14159/4) = 10.11 feet per second Port spacing is set at 42 feet.

Input data are put into Notepad file called PSL-M.DAT, and a blank output file called PSL-M.POUT was provided to receive the output.

Results are shown in file PSL-M-out.xlsx. The discharge drops to the 17-degree level between the first and second step.

Calculate the volumes in the same manner as Calc 32. Need to determine the ratio of 17 to the centerline temperature at the end of the first step, which is 28.0396 deg F; therefore ratio = 17/28.0396 = 0.6063 From the normal distribution table (attached to Calc 32), the standard deviations at 0.6063 1.00 therefore the jet width to the 17 deg isotherm at the end of the first step = 1/4

• full jet width = 0.25

• 3.03464 = 0.76 feet.

Length of first step = SQRT( ((9.33539*9.33539) + (0.00008*0.00008))) 9.33539 feet Length of second step = SQRT(((14.17385-9.33539)*(14.17385-9.33539))+((0.10856-0.00008)*(0.10856-0.00008)))= 4.8397 feet

SUBJECT Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Runs Golder I

Associates I Job No. 09387687 Ref. St Lucie NPDES Calc 33 Made By H. Frediani Checked S. Hoschek Reviewed: G. Powell Date Sheet 5/30/2010 2 of 2 Volume of first step = (((1.4792*1.4792*3.14159/4)+(0.76*0.76*3.14159/4))/2)*9.33539 = 10.14 cubic feet Volume of second step = ((.76*.76*3.1415914)/2)r4.8397 = 1.10 cubic feet Total volume for one port = 11.24 cubic feet For 58 ports volume = 58

• 11.24 652 cubic feet.

For both diffusers, total volume of 17-degree isotherm = 9,297 + 652 = 9,949 cubic feet

MULDIF- Multiport Diffuser Case 4 Input Parameters Parameter Existing Multiport Units Definition NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density D0 1.4792 Ft let diameter Discharge is throuh. . ...

UO 10.11 FtSec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 2n 12317e41 F Dischare Temperature From Conference call 10/319 with Ron Hix DEN[ 1.01470481 g/cr Discharge density __Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DJ 26.5 _Ft Depth of discharge Deoh of disc harge SPACJ 42 Ft Saacina between iet centers

,D_ 0 34 Ft Depth of water body Depth of water body ITA - -- - 90 ID i .F Ambient River temperature Dena 1.0225 g/cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/ Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 17.38 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 _ _ River flow (0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 5/30/2010 6:48 PM CaIc-33.xIsx Input

Multiport Diffuser Run - Case 2 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 42.00 FEET 1--

.. AA--.1 A= 1.48 FEET

-A- *

• JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

• JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 10.11 FT/SEC S**~****************************************** JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 123.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.014705 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 26.50 FEET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JETTEM JETDENS AMBDEN AMBTEM DELTAT ALLOWT 9.33539 0.00008 3.03464 1.02577 118.0396 1.01588 1.0225 90 28.0396 17 14.17385 0.10856 5.27731 107.000 90 17.00 17 15.08585 0.12901 5.70003 1.92787 104.9191 1.01898 1.0225 90 14.91915 17 18.03765 0.32409 7.06454 2.39223 102.0232 1.01966 1.0225 901 12.02316 17 21.1424 0.65643 8.49367 2.88324 99.97565 1.02014 1.0225 90 9.97565 17 24.06521 1.11191 9.82968 3.34985 98.58611 1,02047 1.0225 90 8.58611 17 26.95967 1.72179 11.13949 3.81871 97.53191 1.02072 1.0225 90 7.53191 17 29.65629 2.45174 12.34392 4.26451 96.744541 1,02091 1.0225 90 6.74454 17 32.45942 3.396 13.57593 4.74087 96.06686 1.02107 1.0225 90 6.06686 17 35.19543 4.51993 14.7561 5.22299 95.50685 1.0212 1.0225 9--905.50685 9- 17 37.85149 5.8159 . 15.8798 5.71226 95.03516 1.02131 1.0225 90 5.03517 17 40.41677 7.29414 16.94586 6.21008 94.63153 1.02141 1.0225 90 4.63153 17 42.88323 8.9269 17.95647 6.71774 94.28152 1.02149 1.0225 90 4.28153 17 45.24585 10.70665 18.91641 7.236411 93.97465, 1.02156, 1.0225 -.- 90 3.97465 ~ 17 47.50258 12.61899 19.83208 7.76708 93.70309 1.02163 1.0225 90 3.70309 17 49.65387 14.6493 20.71054 8.31059 93.46091 1.02168 1.0225 90 3.46091 17 51.70213 16.78358 21.5587 8.8676 93.24352 1.02173 1.0225 90 3.24351 17 53.65114 19.00891 22.38289 9.43861 93.04729 1.02178 1.0225 90 3.04729 17 55.505591 21.31367 23. 18857 10.024 92.86933 1.02182 1.0225 90 2.86933 17 57.27067 23.68763 23.98033 10.62403 92.70728 1.02186 1.0225 90 2.70728 17 58.95172 26.12184 24.76187 11.23888 92.55917 1.0219 1.0225 90 2.55917 THIS IS FREE SURFACE _

5/30/2010 7:17 PM Calc 33 PSL-M-out.xlsx PSL-M