Text

Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation, Enclosure
	ML15042A276
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/03/2015
From:	Sager E, Zell C; GeoSystems Consultants
To:	; Florida Power & Light Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15042A291	List: L-2015-036, Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation, Enclosure; L-2015-036, St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2 - Submittal of Environmental Protection Plan Report - Final Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation; ML15042A275;
References
	L-2015-036, VPPSL050
	Download: ML15042A276 (116)
	v • d • e

L-2015-036 Enclosure Enclosure VPPSL050 Florida Power & Light Company - St. Lucie Power Plants Units I and 2 -

IWW Permit No. FL0002208 AO022TL Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Submitted by Geosyntec Consultants - February 2015 (115 pages)

Submitted to FPLo Florida Power and Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Submitted by Geosyntec '

consultants engineers I scientists I innovators February 2015

Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Geosyntec Consultants 50 South Belcher Road, Suite 116 Clearwater, Florida 33765 V-9 Date: 2/3/15 Eric Sager, P.G.

Date: 2/3/15 Chris Zell, PHWQ

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec l at St. Lucie Plant consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. IN TROD U CTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Facility Location and D escription ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 A pplicable Perm its, Conditions, and Standards ............................................................ 1-3 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................. 1-5

2. METH OD O LO GY .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Travel Tim e ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Bench-Scale D ecay ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Phase 1 Decay M ethods ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Phase 2 Decay M ethods ......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Chlorine D ecay Processes and Data A nalysis ....................................................... 2-3 2.3 Field-Scale D ecay ......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 O utfall D iffuser M odeling ............................................................................................. 2-4

3. RESU LTS AN D D ISCU SSION .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Travel Tim e ................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Full Operating Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Single U nit Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Phase 1 Decay Evaluation ............................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 Dem onstration of Laboratory Capability ............................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Initial Bench-Scale Sam pling and D ecay Series Analysis ..................................... 3-4 3.3. Phase 2 Bench-Scale D ecay .......................................................................................... 3-5 3.4. Field-Scale Verification ................................................................................................ 3-7 3.5. Effluent Toxicity, Diffuser Dilution, and Mixing Considerations ................................ 3-9 3.6. Sum m ary and Recom m endations ................................................................................ 3-12

4. REFEREN CES .................................................................................................................... 4-1 2014-F W2129-PSL TRO Report vI working.docx i 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntect' consultants at St. Lucie Plant LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Golder & Associates Plan of Study dated June 2012 Appendix B Golder & Associates Plume Model, 2007 Appendix C Travel Time Plots Appendix D Phase 1 Decay Data Tables Appendix E Phase 2 Decay Data Tables Appendix F Field Scale Data Appendix G Total Residual Oxidant Recovery Curves Appendix H Discharge Monitoring Report Data LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Plan of Study Components to Estimate Total Residual Oxidant Decay at the St.

Lucie Plant Table 2 Mean Travel Times in the St. Lucie Discharge Canal during Full Operating Conditions measured from January 10, 2013 through January 12, 2013 Table 3 Mean Travel Times in the St. Lucie Discharge Canal during Single Unit Operating Conditions measured from October 14, 2013 through October 18, 2013 Table 4 Results of Laboratory Demonstration Study using HACH AutoCat 9000 Amperometric Titrator Table 5 Summary of Total Residual Oxidant Field-Scale Decay Evaluation in the St.

Lucie Discharge Canal conducted on December 9, 2014 Table 6 Surface Dilution Ratios Predicted by the MULDIF Plume Model for Existing Diffuser Structures at the St. Lucie Plant Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Total Residual Oxidant Concentrations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports and Required Dilution for Diffusers at the St. Lucie Plant 2014-FW2129-PSL I RO Report vI working.docx ii 3-Feb-1 5

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec '

at St. Lucie Plant consultants LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Rhodamine Sensor Locations Figure 3 Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Data and Model Predictions for Phase I Decay Series with Initial Concentration Greater than 100 iig/L (n = 32)

Figure 4 Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Half-Life by Month for Phase 2 Decay Series Conducted from January 28, 2013 through December 10, 2014 (n = 70)

Figure 5 Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Data and Model Predictions for Phase 2 Decay Series for the Period of January 28, 2013 through January 10, 2014 (n =

831) 2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report v I working.docx iii 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec t, at St. Lucie Plant consultants

1. INTRODUCTION Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) prepared this Project Report on behalf of Florida Power

& Light Company (FPL) to document information obtained from Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) degradation studies at the St. Lucie Plant (Plant). FPL retained Geosyntec in November 2012 to implement the TRO Plan of Study (POS) approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Field data collected and modeling analyses evaluated to support this project are described herein.

1.1 Facility Location and Description The St. Lucie Plant is located on the widest section of Hutchison Island in Jensen Beach, St.

Lucie County, Florida (Figure 1). The Plant consists of two nuclear-powered, steam-electric generating units (Unit 1 and Unit 2) with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 megawatts. Generating Units 1 and 2 obtain intake water from the Atlantic Ocean to remove heat from the main condensers via the once-through cooling water (OTCW) and auxiliary equipment cooling water (AECW) systems. Cooling water flows by gravity from the Atlantic Ocean through offshore intake structures into the intake canal. The water is then pumped through the main condensers for each unit. Heated cooling water is released to the discharge canal and back to the Atlantic Ocean through two offshore diffusers.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 1-1 3-Feb- 15

1.

67,000 INote:

33,500 0 Feet II Geosyntec '

consultants Figure

1. 2012 Aerial Photo Source: Florida Department of Transporation 1 Surveyinq and Mappinq Office. Titusville, FL April 2013

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec t, at St. Lucie Plant conltants 1.2 Applicable Permits. Conditions, and Standards The Plant operates under Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit (permit) FL0002208. The permit was issued by FDEP on September 29, 2011 and expires on September 28, 2016. In accordance with the permit, cooling water is discharged to the Atlantic Ocean at a maximum daily flow rate of 1,487 million gallons per day (MGD) and an annual average daily flow of 1,362 MGD.

Cooling water from the OTCW and AECW systems are treated daily using sodium hypochlorite (NaCIO) as an anti-fouling agent. The Plant does not operate a dechlorination system. Chlorine discharged to the canal attenuates through degradation and dispersion processes.

Section I.A.6 of the existing permit specifies that compliance with TRO effluent limitations be monitored at EFF-2. As depicted in Figure 2, EFF-2 is a floating dock situated within the discharge canal. EFF-2 is located approximately 370 feet upgradient of two inlets that conduct canal effluent to diffuser structures located offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. In calculating the existing TRO limit of 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L), FDEP considered literature-based decay processes to account for TRO attenuation between EFF-2 and the Atlantic Ocean. In summary, an effluent concentration of 0.1 mg/L measured at EFF-2 was predicted to achieve the Class III Marine Water Quality Standard (WQS) of 0.01 mg/L prior to discharge from the diffusers into the Atlantic Ocean in the existing permit. The difference between the limit of 0.1 mg/L at EFF-2 and the WQS of 0.01 mg/L represents a decay allowance of 0.09 mg/L or 90% of the concentration value passing EFF-2.

To evaluate the accuracy of this decay allowance, FDEP required that FPL complete a TRO degradation study. According to Section VI.6 of the permit, FPL was required to design and implement a POS to reaffirm that the discharge from the diffusers meets the Class III Marine WQS of 0.01 mg/L. In accordance with this permit requirement, FPL and their contractor prepared an FDEP-approved POS dated June 2012 (Rev 1) (Appendix A). Geosyntec began implementing the TRO POS on January 9, 2013. Data collection was completed on December 9-10, 2014 following conclusion of field-scale decay components of the POS.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report v Iworking.docx 1-3 3-Feb- 15

Rhodamine Sensor Locations Legend The Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 6501 South Ocean Drive FD EEF-2 (floating dock)

Jensen Beach, FL 34987 Extended Discharge Inlet (16' pipe)

Main Discharge Inlet (12' pipe) Geosyntec ' Figure Note: consultants

1. 2012 Aerial Photo Source: Florida Department of Transporation 2 Surveying and Mapping Office. Titusville, FL I April 2013

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec '

consultants at St. Lucie Plant 1.3 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to quantify TRO degradation within canal water. According to the approved POS (Appendix A), the objective of the study was to develop a procedure and collect data to estimate and potentially reaffirm that the discharge from the Plant's diffusers meets the TRO Class III Marine WQS of 0.01 mg/L. To accomplish this objective, the POS included three study components (Table 1). This report contains study data and interprets findings following implementation of the POS.

Table 1. Plan of Study Components to Estimate Total Residual Oxidant Decay at the St. Lucie Plant Study Component Rationale TRO decay processes are time-dependent. Mean Travel Time water velocity at low tide in the canal was measured with one and two units in operation.

Measurement of TRO concentrations over time in a bench top vessel containing a canal water Bench-Scale Decay sample spiked with sodium hypochlorite (antifouling agent). Provides conservative estimate of in-situ decay with greater statistical replication.

Direct measurement of TRO concentrations within the canal following injection of sodium Field-Scale Decay hypochlorite. Provides representative estimate of field-scale decay that accounts for chemical reactions and hydrodynamic dispersion processes that attenuate TRO in-situ.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 1-5 3 -Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntec&

at St. Lucie Plant consultants

2. METHODOLOGY Section 2 describes the methods and materials used during implementation of the approved POS.

In addition, Section 2 includes a brief summary of the model applied by Golder and Associates in 2007 (Appendix B) to predict dilution ratios for existing Y and multiport diffusers.

2.1 Travel Time Mean water velocity and travel time in the canal was measured using dye tracing techniques (Hubbard et al., 1982). The technique used in this study involves short-term (i.e., slug) injection of conservative tracer dye into the water column and recovery (measurement) of the dye cloud downstream of the injection. The elapsed time between the injection and dye cloud centroid represents the mean travel time between the injection point and downstream measurement location(s). Elapsed time between centroids represents the mean travel time between adjacent dye clouds.

The centroid of a dye cloud is the center of mass and is calculated using integral calculus. For a given dye cloud represented by a tracer recovery curve, the centroid is composed of an elapsed time component (x-axis) and concentration component (y-axis). The time of centroid (travel time) is calculated in this study according to Equation 1, from Martin and McCutcheon (1999).

ft/c~t dt Equation 1: tc- f/ct f~fC*dt where tc = travel time, C = Rhodamine WT concentrationat time t, t = elapsed time from injection, dt = elapsed time increment, tf = time when dye cloud passes sampling site, and ti = time when dye cloud arrives at sampling site.

In accordance with the POS, travel time in the canal was measured a total of six times. Three measurements were conducted with two units in operation and an additional three measurements conducted when the Plant was operating only one unit. Tide elevations at the Ft. Pierce Inlet South Jetty gauge were used in identifying injection times coinciding with low-tide. Note that high and low tides at the Plant lag behind those at the Ft. Pierce Inlet South Jetty by approximately 55 minutes (analysis not shown).

Rhodamine WT (RhoWT) is a red conservative tracer dye widely used in travel time studies.

RhoWT was specified for use by the approved POS. Tracer recovery curves and travel times were obtained using YSI Model 6600 Series sondes equipped with flourometers. Sondes were deployed at the following three locations: EFF-2 (floating dock), main discharge inlet (12-foot

[ft] pipe), and extended discharge inlet (16-ft pipe). Slugs of RhoWT were injected at both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report v] working.docx 2-1 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntec O at St. Lucie Plant consultants The POS indicated that RhoWT would be injected to achieve a peak concentration of 100 to 300 micrograms per Liter (gg/L). RhoWT is visible at concentrations as low as 2 to 5 jtg/L, and these low concentration are within the range of the YSI fluorometer probe. Therefore, the maximum targeted RhoWT concentration was decreased to approximately 30 gg/L to address any perceived health and safety issues associated with changes in the color of the discharge water at the Plant.

Figure 2 depicts the location of deployed fluorometers. Travel times calculated during the study are reported in Section 3.

2.2 Bench-Scale Decay Measurement of TRO decay at the bench-scale involved spiking a 4-liter (L) sample of canal water collected at EFF-2 with sodium hypochlorite and subsequently measuring TRO concentrations over time. To estimate decay, each 4 L spiked canal sample was split into 20 separate 250 milliliter beakers. Each pretreated beaker was placed into a water bath having a temperature equivalent to that of the canal. TRO was then measured in each beaker, a process that takes approximately 4 to 6 minutes using titration techniques. Measurement of TRO decay proceeded for a period of approximately 50 to 60 minutes (usually about 10 to 12 beakers). In summary, analysis of the individual subsamples (beakers) provided a series of measured concentrations at a specific elapsed time, which then provided an estimated decay rate for each 4 L sample.

TRO in canal samples were measured using a HACH AutoCat 9000 titrator (AutoCat - HACH, 2007). The AutoCat is an automated chlorine amperometric end point titration instrument that uses a dual platinum electrode (DPE) probe. The concentration of TRO was measured using the forward titration procedure that features a low-level detection limit of 1.2 iig/L. The AutoCat forward titration procedure is equivalent to United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods 330.1 and 330.3, and StandardMethods 4500-Cl D. for wastewater specified by the POS.

2.2.1 Phase 1 Decay Methods The purpose of Phase 1 activities was to develop a reliable and reproducible procedure for generating bench-scale decay data. During Phase 1, Geosyntec demonstrated laboratory capability and collected separate 4 L samples of canal water to identify appropriate spike concentrations of sodium hypochlorite. Phase 1 methods employed were consistent with the approved POS. Results from laboratory demonstration and initial sodium hypochlorite dosing trials are reported in Section 3.

2014-FW2129-PSLTRO Report vI working.docx 2-2 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntect, at St. Lucie Plant consultants 2.2.2 Phase 2 Decay Methods According to the approved POS, the purpose of Phase 2 was to quantify bench-scale decay under naturally variable water characteristics of the cooling water. The second phase consisted of 24 monthly sampling events. For each monthly sampling event, three estimates (replicates) of decay rates and parameters were generated from three separate samples (4 L) of canal water. An initial spiked concentration of approximately 100 and 200 pg/L TRO was targeted for each sample.

Sample collection and titration methods are summarized above. Additional procedure information can be obtained from HACH (2007) and Geosyntec on request. Phase 2 methods are consistent with the approved POS. Results and analyses from Phase 2 are reported in Section 3.

2.2.3 Chlorine Decay Processes and Data Analysis Decay mechanisms for TRO in fresh and saltwater environments include: oxidation, substitution, addition, and light catalyzed decomposition (Fang et al., 1999). In addition to various chemical reactions, TRO concentrations in the water column are attenuated by physical dispersion and mixing processes (Martin and McCutcheon, 1999). Several researchers including Vasconcelos et al. (1995) and Gang et al. (2003) have identified a parallel first-order model (PFO, Equation 2) as representing fast and slow oxidant decay reactions. As presented in Section 3, the PFO model fit bench-scale decay data better than a typical first order exponential decay model.

Equation 2: Ct = CO [f e- kf t + (1 - f)e-ks t]

where C, = Concentration of TRO at elapsed time t, t = elapsed time, Co = initialconcentrationof TRO in vessel,f firaction offast-reacting TRO(in %),kf= first-order rateforfast-reactingTRO (perhour), and k, =first-orderrate for slow-reacting TRO (perhour).

Fitting of Equation 2 to bench-scale decay series was performed using non-linear regression routines available in SYSTAT software. Aggregated variability of Equation 2 parameters f, kj, and k, were characterized as 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) using bootstrap methods (Efron and Tibshirani, 1998) available in SYSTAT.

The dependent variable used in PFO regression analyses for this study is the dimensionless quantity C, / Co. Use of dimensionless response as the dependent variable facilitated data aggregation over different elapsed times and initial concentrations obtained during bench-scale testing.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 2-3 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec t-at St. Lucie Plant consultants 2.3 Field-Scale Decay Attenuation of TRO in-situ was measured during a single field verification event according to the POS. During this field event, sodium hypochlorite was injected at a volume estimated to produce a 75 gg/L peak of TRO at EFF-2. Following injection, concentrations of TRO were measured at approximately 4-minute intervals at EFF-2 and the Main Inlet using two AutoCat amperometric titrators. Loss of TRO through decay processes were approximated from centroids and mass recovery timeseries at EFF-2 using numerical integration techniques referenced in Kilpatrick (1993).

2.4 Outfall Diffuser Modeling From 2007 through 2010, Golder and Associates Inc. (Golder) conducted a thermal discharge study (Thermal Study) at the Plant. The purpose of the study was to assess changes in water temperature and biology that may occur in the Atlantic Ocean as a result of increasing the discharge temperature from 113' to 11 5°F. A key component of the study included numerical modeling of thermal discharge plumes from existing Y and multiport diffusers.

The plume model used in the Thermal Study was MULDIF. MULDIF is the Envirosphere version of the near-field Koh and Fan model (see Appendix B). The Koh and Fan near-field model (Koh and Fan, 1970) 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. Thermal Study modeling results presented by Golder are summarized in Section 3.

2014-FW2]29-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 2-4 3 -Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec ,

at St. Lucie Plant consultants

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In Section 3 we present and interpret data obtained during implementation of the approved POS.

3.1 Travel Time Geosyntec conducted travel time studies during full operating conditions during the period of January 10, 2013 through January 12, 2013. Travel times resulting from a single unit in operation were obtained during the period of October 14, 2013 through October 18, 2013.

3.1.1 Full Operating Conditions To evaluate travel times at average flow conditions, Geosyntec completed a travel time study under full operating conditions. Under these conditions, both units and associated circulating pumps are running. To evaluate the effects of tides, the initial travel time study consisted of three separate dye injection events. These events were scheduled to measure travel time under different tidal conditions. Geosyntec conducted the first and third events at low tide when the volume of the discharge canal and residence time of cooling water in the canal should be lower.

The second event was conducted at high tide when the volume of the discharge canal and residence time of cooling water should be higher. Conducting tests at both low and high tides approximate an upper and lower bound on travel times during full operating conditions. The time of high and low tides were estimated based on the tidal predictions for the Ft. Pierce Inlet South Jetty and were corrected to account for the lag time to the Plant's discharge canal.

As listed in Table 2, mean (centroid) travel time to EFF-2 from Outfall D-001 varied from 32.9 to 37.7 minutes during low-tide. Travel time from EFF-2 to the main inlet varied from 6.2 minutes (injection 03) to 11.2 minutes during low-tide. Travel times in the canal were 20% to 30% longer during high-tide compared to low-tide. Dye from the high-tide injection was not completely flushed from the canal before initiation of the second low-tide injection (1-03 in Table 2). Consequently, the tracer recovery curve for the second low-tide injection featured substantive variance and transient storage effects. For these reasons, travel times measured during the first injection are believed to be most representative of low-tide conditions. Travel time from the main discharge inlet through the diffusers is qualitatively estimated at approximately 10 minutes based on visual observations made during Injection-01. Tracer recovery curves are provided in Appendix C.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-1 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec c at St. Lucie Plant consultants Table 2. Mean Travel Times in the St. Lucie Discharge Canal during Full Operating Conditions Measured from January 10, 2013 through January 12, 2013 Travel Time T Segment 1 Segment 2 Characteristic Outfall D-001 to EFF-2 EFF-2 to Main Diffuser Inlet RhoWT Injection 1-01 (low-*tide) D-001 on 1/11/2013 14:17=-4.5 LperUnit Time and 1-02 (high-tide) D-001 on 1/11/2013 20:28 = 5.5 L per Unit Volume 1-03 (low-tide) D-001 on 1/12/2013 02:59 = 5.5 L per Unit Travel Time and 1-01 (low-tide) 32.9 minutes, 8 lig/L 11.2 minutes, 6 lig/L Centroid RhoWT 1-02 (high-tide) 43.0 minutes, 8 lig/L 13.5 minutes, 6 Vg/L Concentration 1-03 (low-tide) 37.7 minutes, 19 itg/L **6.2 minutes, 8 Vig/L

Predicted Tide Elevation at Ft. Pierce Inlet:I-01 = -0.6 ft, 1-02 = +3.0 ft. 1-03 -1.2 ft

- Transient storage effects at EFF-2 from high tide injection resulted in less certain travel times for 1-03 3.1.1 Single Unit Operating Conditions Travel time during single unit operating conditions was measured during the period of October 14, 2013 to October 18, 2013. During this period, Unit 1 was shut down for maintenance leaving Unit 2 in operation. All three injections during the single unit travel time study were conducted at low-tide. Tide elevation at the Plant was estimated from tidal predictions at the Ft. Pierce Inlet South Jetty and corrected to account for the lag time to the Plant's discharge canal.

As listed in Table 3, mean (centroid) travel time to EFF-2 from Outfall D-001 varied from 31.6 to 33.8 minutes during low-tide. Travel time from EFF-2 to the inlets varied from 9.0 to 11.3 minutes during low-tide. Travel times between EFF-2 and individual inlets differed by 2 or less minutes. Operating conditions (i.e., one vs two units in operation) did not substantively affect travel times. In Segment 1 (D-001 to EFF-2), mean low-tide travel time (Unit 2 only) was 33.0 minutes as compared to 32.9 minutes (both units) measured by Injection-01 (most representative).

Within Segment 2 (EFF-2 to Diffuser Inlets), mean low-tide travel time during single unit conditions was 9.9 minutes at the main inlet in comparison to 11.2 minutes for Injection-01.

Tracer recovery curves are provided in Appendix C.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-2 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntec 'ý at St. Lucie Plant consultants Table 3. Mean Travel Times in the St. Lucie Discharge Canal during Single Unit Operating Conditions measured from October 14, 2013 through October 18, 2013 Travel Time Segment I Segment 2 Characteristic Injection ID Outfall D-001 to EFF-2 EFF-2 to Diffuser Inlets RhoWT Injection 1-04 (low-*tide) D-001 on 10/16/2013 01:00 = 6.7 L (Unit 2)

Time and 1-05 (low-tide) D-001 on 10/17/2013 01:45 = 6.7 L (Unit 2)

Volume 1-06 (low-tide) D-001 on 10/18/2013 02:30 = 6.7 L (Unit 2)

Main Inlet **Extended Inlet 1-04 (low-tide) 33.8 minutes, 10 iig/L 11.3 minutes, 8 ltg/L 10.6 minutes, 8 I.tg/L Travel Time and Centroid RhoWT 1-05 (low-tide) 33.7 minutes, 10 ltg/L 9.0 minutes, 8 pg/L 11.0 minutes, 8 .tg/L Concentration 1-06 (low-tide) 31.6 minutes, 11 I ig/L 9.3 minutes, 8 lig/L 11.1 minutes, 8 ig/L

Predicted Tide Elevation at Ft. Pierce Inlet: 1-04 = 0.4 ft, 1-05 = 0.3 ft, 1-06 = 0.2 ft

- Tracer was also measured at the extended inlet to assess travel time differences between inlets 3.2 Phase 1 Decay Evaluation Geosyntec conducted Phase 1 decay evaluations from January 9, 2013 through January 11, 2013.

During Phase 1, Geosyntec demonstrated laboratory capability, identified appropriate spike concentrations of sodium hypochlorite, and preliminarily assessed the ability of the PFO model to fit decay response data.

3.2.1 Demonstration of Laboratory Capability Geosyntec conducted seven replicate tests of a known 1 mg/L standard solution of Total Chlorine on December 12, 2012. The results of replicate tests are listed in Table 4. Single-operator precision for these tests against the I mg/L standard solution was 0.026 mg/L and less than ASTM (2008) precision estimates. Single-operator bias for 7 replicate analyses was low (-

6%) compared to the standard solution. On this basis, Geosyntec determined the HACH AutoCAT and laboratory procedures implemented in this demonstration were adequate to support TRO decay studies.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report v lworking.docx 3-3 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntecu' consultants at St. Lucie Plant Table 4. Results of Laboratory Demonstration Study using HACH AutoCat 9000 Amperometric Titrator Total Residual 95% Confidence Test Description Chlorine Interval (mg/L)

(mg/L)

Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.975 + 0.197 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.980 + 0.050 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.927 + 0.137 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.925 + 0.057 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.941 + 0.084 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.938 + 0.056 Ref. Std. = 1.00 mg/L TRC 0.911 + 0.055 Study Single-Operator Precision: 0.026 ASTM (2008) Single-Operator Precision: 0.084 Study Single-Operator Bias: - 0.058 (underestimate) 3.2.2 Initial Bench-Scale Sampling and Decay Series Analysis During Phase 1, Geosyntec collected five separate samples from EFF-2 and spiked the samples with sodium hypochlorite to achieve an initial chlorine concentration that ranged from 661 gg/L to 47 jtg/L. Geosyntec then measured TRO decay resulting from these n=5 initial concentrations (Appendix D) for a period of approximately 60 minutes per series using the HACH AutoCat 9000 titrator. Phase I decay time series suggested that initial concentrations greater than 100

ýtg/L were needed to achieve a consistent and smooth decay response. To support adequate measurement (at least 5 response values) of decay within the relevant concentration range (i.e.,

near criterion of 100 gg/L), Geosyntec determined that initial concentrations between 100 and 200 gg/L would be targeted during Phase 2 bench-scale evaluations.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-4 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec"'

at St. Lucie Plant consultants Data obtained during Phase 1 were also used to assess the fit of the PFO model (Equation 2) as compared to the common First Order (FO) decay model described by Chapra (1997). As depicted in Figure 3, the PFO model fit Phase 1 data better than the first order model. The PFO model had a lower Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and greater correlation to data (r2 ) (Figure 3). In addition, several researchers including Gang et al. (2003) have identified physical and chemical processes that necessitate chlorine decay be modeled with fast and slow reacting components. On this basis, Geosyntec selected the PFO model to quantify TRO decay in the discharge canal.

100 _- Model Parameter Mean 95% C.I.

0 TRO Concentration 90-- f (%) 38.6 +37

- PFO Model Prediction PFO kr (hrf) 4.14 + 3.99 80 k, (hrf') 0.380 +0.59 0

0% - - First Order Model Prediction k (hr-') 1.046 +0.08 70 U

60 00 iMode

-- O- .. . .. . O-..... .. . PFO I RMSE r"I p 50 2.1 % 0.95 <0.05 3.5 % 0.87 <0.05 40 30 -

20 -

10 0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Elapsed Time from Dosing (in hours)

Figure 3. Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Data and Model Predictions for Phase 1 Decay Series with Initial Concentration Greater than 100 pIg/L (n = 32) 3.3. Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Geosyntec conducted Phase 2 decay evaluations from January 28, 2013 through December 10, 2014. Phase 2 data are included as Appendix E. During Phase 2, Geosyntec quantified TRO decay in canal water samples at the bench-scale according to the approved POS.

In this section, we present bench-scale decay rates measured under varying environmental conditions during the two-year sampling period. In addition, we use Phase 2 data to calibrate a robust PFO model that may be used to predict TRO behavior along the discharge canal.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Reportv I working.docx 3-5 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec c at St. Lucie Plant consultants Half-life (t50) is a standard metric used to describe the degradation rate of an environmental constituent. Half-life is the amount of time required for 50% of the initial mass to be degraded.

Mean t50 for TRO during the study period was 11 minutes (standard deviation = 7.6 minutes, n =

70). As depicted in Figure 4, decay was slowest in February (mean t50 = 23 minutes, n = 6) and fastest in October (mean t50 = 6.9 minutes, n = 6). Water temperature and half-life were not significantly correlated (r2 < 0.1, p > 0.05, n= 70) indicating that Arrhenius temperature relationships (Chapra, 1997) play a minor role in describing TRO decay variability compared to other factors. Greater levels of water column organic matter were visually observed by FPL and Geosyntec on dates coinciding with faster decay rates. Such observations are consistent with literature as chlorine can react quickly with organic matter via oxidation, addition, and substitution reactions (Koechling, 1998).

25

"* 20 15 0

Figure 4. Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Half-Life by Month for Phase 2 Decay Series Conducted from January 28, 2013 through December 10, 2014 (n = 70)

To aid in predicting TRO decay behavior within the canal, the PFO model (Figure 5) was calibrated with the entire Phase 2 bench-scale dataset (n = 831 discrete TRO measurements). As with Phase 1 activities, we observed during Phase 2 that TRO decays rapidly during degradation of fast-reacting components followed by a gradual decline of the slow-reacting fraction.

According to the calibrated PFO model (Figure 5), only 5% of the fast-reacting fraction of TRO remains after an elapsed time of 19.2 minutes (0.32 hrs) following dosing canal samples with sodium hypochlorite. That is, slow decay reactions (k, = 0.98 hr1) principally influence the TRO degradation process after t = 19 minutes from dosing. As a result, slow reacting TRO likely 2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vlIworking.docx 3-6 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation GeosyntecO' at St. Lucie Plant consultants dominates composition at EFF-2 because travel time to EFF-2 from dosing at the intakes is at least 34 minutes during low-tide (Table 3). Results from the field verification test presented in Section 3.4 suggest a faster decay rate than the PFO bench-scale rates.

Evidence suggests that slow decaying forms likely occurring near EFF-2 may not threaten aquatic life because chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests conducted on EFF-2 samples have passed required thresholds (i.e., IC 25 > 100% effluent) for multiple years. WET test results are further discussed in Section 3.5.

Figure 5. Bench-Scale Total Residual Oxidant Data and Model Predictions for Phase 2 Decay Series for the Period of January 28, 2013 through January 10, 2014 (n = 831) 0 0

100 90 80 70 60 50 0

Y 80 o

0 00 0 0 00 0 OOo 0°80° 0R 0

o O

g 0-o TRO Concentration

-PFO 00 0-Model Prediction o-o -- --....

o ,..

AXoVIUU PFO A I Model e

PFO D

1- .I.

0 -------.......--

f (%)

RMSE 11l kf (hf) k, (hl")

7.24%

r 2

0.81 ean 56.9 9.39 0.983 p

O~O/

J/)

+8

+ 0.28

< 0.05 C I

+ 2.03 40 0

.....oo':..0 o ........ o-

~0

-u 30 8@o0 20 0 10 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Elapsed Time from Dosing (in hours) 3.4. Field-Scale Verification Geosyntec conducted the field verification component of the TRO attenuation study on December 9, 2014 during low-tide conditions. Field verification data are included as Appendix F and TRO recovery curves are provided in Appendix G. Quantification of in-situ decay rates were performed by injecting sodium hypochlorite and subsequent measurement of TRO concentrations at EFF-2 and the Main Inlet. In this section, we present the results of the field-scale degradation assessment and provide a comparison to TRO decay rates determined from Phase 2 bench-scale studies.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report v lworking.docx 3-7 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec t at St. Lucie Plant consultants To obtain measurable TRO concentrations in the discharge canal, FPL gravity fed 200 gallons of sodium hypochlorite solution (10.5% by weight) into each branch of D-001 over a period of 19 minutes (Table 5). Center of mass (centroid) TRO concentrations obtained at EFF-2 and the Main Inlet were 3.7 jag/L and 8.0 gig/L, respectively. Operational injections of sodium hypochlorite prior to the field-scale study injection potentially contributed to greater TRO concentration at the Main Inlet compared to EFF-2.

Given such interference, it is not possible to directly calculate TRO decay between EFF-2 and Main Inlet. However, if we assume that TRO concentrations at EFF-2 are unaffected by previous operational injections, estimation of in-situ decay may be approximated as the difference between the injection pulse chlorine concentration and centroid TRO concentration at EFF-2.

Table 5. Summary of Total Residual Oxidant Field-Scale Decay Evaluation in the St. Lucie Discharge Canal conducted on December 9, 2014 Segment 1 Segment 2 Study Characteristic Outfall D-001 to EFF-2 EFF-2 to Main Inlet D-001 Time: 12/9/2014 15:36- 15:55 Injectionand Time, Volume, Mass Total Volume: 400 gallons (1,503 L) of 10.5% NaOCI solution Chlorine Mass: 75.6 kg (estimated from solution stoichiometry)

Travel Time, Centroid Travel Time: 35.5 minutes Travel Time: 12 minutes TRO Concentration Centroid Concentration: 3.7 pIg/L Centroid Concentration: 8.0 pig/L The mean chlorine injection pulse concentration is estimated to be 1.12 mg/L. Estimation of the chlorine pulse concentration is based on an injection of 400 gallons of a 49.98 gram per liter (g/L) chlorine solution (10.5% NaOCI by weight) into a cumulative discharge flow of 1,350 MGD over a period of 19 minutes. As with the PFO model, if we express the EFF-2 TRO concentration (0.037 mg/L TRO) as a percent of the initial concentration (1.12 mg/L chlorine),

we estimate the value of 3.3% of the initial concentration at an elapsed time of 35.5 minutes (Table 5). In comparison, the calibrated bench-scale PFO model predicts that a mean value of 24% of the initial concentration will remain after 35.5 minutes (0.59 hours6.828704e-4 days 0.0164 hours 9.755291e-5 weeks 2.24495e-5 months ) following dosing. In other words, relative concentrations (i.e., C / Co) measured during the field-scale assessment were approximately 7-fold less than predicted by the PFO model calibrated with bench-scale data.

The effect of scale on environmental rates and processes is an ongoing area of research. It is a common occurrence for apparent reaction or process rates measured in the field or pilot-scale to be considerably different than the laboratory counterpart (Chapra, 1997; Hill and Root, 2014).

As reported by Carpenter et al. (1981), chlorine-produced oxidants decayed much more quickly 2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-8 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec t' at St. Lucie Plant consultants (a factor of 10) at the field-scale than under controlled laboratory dosing conditions at a power plant on the Patuxent estuary in Maryland. While the 7-fold difference between bench and field-scale obtained during this study is based on limited field-scale data, it seems reasonable to conclude that decay in the discharge canal likely proceeds at a faster rate and to a greater extent than quantified from Phase 2 bench-scale studies.

3.5. Effluent Toxicity, Diffuser Dilution, and Mixing! Considerations According to the Rule 62-4.244 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), mixing zones for open ocean discharges may be allowed. Such mixing allowances may be granted following adequate demonstration of (1) absence of toxicity, (2) achieved mixing, and (3) required mixing. Each of these mixing zone requirements are informed and discussed below.

A mixing allowance may be considered if the applicant demonstates that toxicity is absent from effluent. More specifically, Subparagraph 62-4.244(3)(c)1 F.A.C. offers:

"The effluent, when diluted to 30% full strength with water having a salinity representative of the average receiving-water'ssalinity, shall not cause more than 50% mnortalit, in 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months (96 hr. LC5 Q)in a species significant to the indigenous aquaticcommunity.

In review of chronic WET tests conducted on samples collected at EFF-2 for the past 3-years, it has been observed that chronic toxicity was absent at 100% effluent strength in the reviewed tests (n = 8). These WET tests were conducted for the period of October 3, 2011 through August 25, 2014. Further, we note samples collected at EFF-2 were not dechlorinated prior to WET testing. As WET test taxa (i.e., Mysidopsis bahia, Menidia beryllina) may be considered representative of species significant to the indigenous community, and chronic thresholds (IC 25) were achieved at greater than 30% effluent, it seems reasonable that effluent toxicity requirements specified at Subparagraph 62-4.244(3)(c)1 F.A.C. have been and are being met.

With respect to achieved mixing, the MULDIF plume model results approved by FDEP as part of the Thermal Study at the Plant (Appendix B) predicted a range of surface dilution values achieved by existing Y and multiport diffusers (Table 6). Worst-case dilution predicted by the MULDIF model was 3.9:1 for the Y-diffuser and 11.1:1 for the multiport diffuser. As flow from D-001 was assumed to distribute equally between diffusers (Appendix B), the worst-case flow-weighted dilution ratio for the diffuser pair is 7.5.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report Ilworking.docx 3-9 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntec `

at St. Lucie Plant consultants Table 6. Surface Dilution Ratios Predicted by the MULDIF Plume Model for Existing Diffuser Structures at the St. Lucie Plant Dilution Ratio Case Case Description at Surface I Y-diffuser, Existing Conditions 4.33 2 Y-diffuser, Post-Uprate Discharge at 1137F 4.34 3 Y-diffuser, Post-Uprate Discharge at I 17'F 3.88 4 Multiport diffuser, Existing Conditions 12.37 5 Multiport diffuser, Post-Uprate Discharge at I 13'F 12.44 6 Multiport diffuser, Post-Uprate Discharge at 11 70 F 11.08 According to sub-paragraph 62-4.244(3)(c)3.a. F.A.C., "...demonstration of required dilution shall be determined by the ratio of the worst case effluent concentration (WCEC) minus the worst case background concentration to the criterion minus the worst case background concentration." Additionally, the Rule specifies that the WCEC be calculated as the effluent concentration 95th percentile for the most recent 3-year period of monitoring data (Appendix H).

The 95th percentile of TRO concentrations measured at EFF-2 and listed on Discharge Monitoring Reports is 40 ug/L for the period of March 2011 to February 2014 (Table 7). On this basis, a dilution ratio of 4 (Table 7) is required to achieve the marine WQS of 10 Pg/L TRO without consideration of decay processes. Dilution needed to achieve the WQS is reduced as a result of TRO decay occurring between EFF-2 (monitoring point) and the diffuser inlets.

According to the bench-scale PFO model, TRO decays at a rate of 0.98 hrl near EFF-2 (Section 3.3), leading to a lower required dilution ratio of approximately 3.3 (Table 7). Insufficient sample size prevents calculation of required dilution based on field-scale decay.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vI working.docx 3-10 3-Feb- 15

Evaluationof TRO Attenuation Geosyntec 00 at St. Lucie Plant consultants Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Total Residual Oxidant Concentrations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports and Required Dilution for Diffusers at the St. Lucie Plant Parameter Unit Value Mean pg/L as TRO 14.0 Geometric Mean gg/L as TRO 9.6 Maximum pg/L as TRO 50.0 Minimum pg/L as TRO < 5.0 9 5 th Percentile pg/L as TRO 40.0 Sample Number n (#) 36 Required Dilution dimensionless 4.0 (no decay)

Required Dilution

(*bench-scale decay)

Required Dilution

(**field-scale decay)

Predicted Dilution from MULDIF dimensionless 7.5

(***flow-weighted, worst-case)

calculated as decay of 9 5 th percentile DMR value at k, = 0.98 hr' for 11 minute travel time to inlets from EFF-2.

- assumed less than bench-scale decay based on results obtained at EFF-2 from field-scale study.

- - average of case 3 and case 6 in Table 6.

In this section, we have provided data and information that supports a mixing zone for TRO at the St. Lucie Plant. More specifically, we have cited or provided data that indicate:

" According to WET tests performed by others, toxicity to species representing significant and indigenous taxa is absent at thresholds specified by the FAC in effluent sampled at EFF-2;

" Dilution is needed to achieve the TRO WQS because the WCEC is predicted to exceed the WQS when accounting for decay measured at the bench-scale; and

" Dilution ratios provided by existing diffuser structures are predicted to equal or exceed dilution needed to achieve TRO WQS at the ocean surface.

For these reasons, we believe a mixing zone for TRO is justified and could be pursued during the next permit renewal. With this recommendation we note two implicit margins of safety in 2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-11 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec o at St. Lucie Plant consultants allocating a mixing allowance and determining effluent limitations. The first safety factor is the difference between in-situ decay of TRO and decay measured at the bench-scale. Effluent limitations and mixing allowances based on bench-scale decay are likely to be conservative because decay in-situ is likely greater than bench-scale. The second safety factor is that physical dispersion (e.g., attenuation of peak concentrations) and decay of TRO in the discharge pipes leading to the diffusers has not been included in this analysis. Additional decay time and friction from discharge pipes will further attenuate TRO prior to discharge from the diffusers. These implicit safety factors provide additional assurance that a mixing allowance would be protective of aquatic life beneficial uses.

3.6. Summary and Recommendations According to Section VI.6 of the St. Lucie permit, FPL is required to design and implement a POS to reaffirm that the discharge from the diffusers meets the Class III Marine WQS of 0.01 mg/L. In accordance with this permit requirement, FPL and their contractor prepared an FDEP-approved POS dated June 2012 (Rev 1) (Appendix A). Geosyntec successfully implemented the TRO POS from January 9, 2013 to December 10, 2014 by (1) conducting low-tide travel time studies, (2) quantifying TRO decay rates at the bench-scale, and (3) performing a field-scale decay test.

Travel time during low-tide with both units in operation between EFF-2 and inlets to the diffuser was measured to be approximately 11 minutes (0.19 hours2.199074e-4 days 0.00528 hours 3.141534e-5 weeks 7.2295e-6 months ). Decay rates quantified at the bench-scale (kf = 9.39 hr 1 , k, = 0.98 hrl) using the PFO model indicate that TRO discharged at the current effluent limit of 100 pg/L at EFF-2 will not decay to the 10 l.1g/L WQS at the diffuser inlets. Results from decay studies at the field-scale suggest the in-situ rate is greater than predicted from bench-scale studies.

Review of available WET test data, approved diffuser modeling results, and effluent DMRs justify a mixing zone allowance for TRO at the St. Lucie Plant. Therefore, we recommend a mixing zone allowance pursuant to FAC 62-4.244(3) be considered by FDEP. Any revised effluent limitations for TRO at EFF-2 will vary according to the size of mixing zone and associated dilution ratio ultimately granted to the Plant. For example, use of the flow-weighted worst-case dilution ratio of 7.5:1 (Tables 6 and 7) and a bench-scale decay rate of ks = 0.98 hr-1 would result in a water quality-based wasteload allocation of approximately 90 [ig/L TRO. That is, a TRO concentration of 90 jig/L (at EFF-2) is calculated to meet the 10 ug/L WQS at the surface of the Atlantic Ocean under the dilution and decay assumptions listed above.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 3-12 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntec C, at St. Lucie Plant consultants

4. REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, 2008. Standard Test Method for Residual Chlorine in Water. Test Method D1253 - 08, West Conshohocken, PA.

Carpenter, J., Smith, C. and R. Zika. 1981. Reaction Products from the Chlorination of Seawater.

PA 600/4-81-010. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.

Chapra, S. 1997. Surface Water Quality Modeling. B. Clark, D. Damstra, and J. Bradley (eds).

McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. 844 pp.

Efron, B. and R. Tibshirani. 1998. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

pp 436.

Fang, H., West, J., Barker, R. and Forster, C. 1999. Modeling of Chlorine Decay in Municipal Water Supplies. Water Res., 33(12): 2735.

Gang, D., Clevenger, T., and Banerji, S., 2003. Modeling of Chlorine Decay in Surface Water. J.

Env. Informatics 1(1): 21-27.

HACH, 2007. Users Manual for AutoCat 9000 Chlorine Amperometric Titrator. Loveland, Colorado, USA.

Hill, C. and T. Root. 2014. Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics and Reactor Design.

2 nd Edition. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Hubbard, E., F. Kilpatrick, L. Martens, and J. Wilson. 1982. Measurement of time of travel and dispersion in streams by dye tracing, Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 3, Applications of Hydraulics, Chapter A9. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Kilpatrick, F. 1993. Simulation of Soluble Waste Transport and Buildup in Surface Waters Using Tracers. Techniques for Water Resources Investigations, Chapter A20, Book 3. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Koechling, M.T. 1998. Assessment and Modeling of Chlorine Reaction with Natural Organic Matter: Impact of Source Water Quality and Reaction Conditions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Koh, R. and L.-N. Fan. 1970. Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Temperature Distributions Resulting from the Discharge of Heated Water into Large Bodies of Water.

US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Washington, DC.

Martin, J. and S. McCutcheon. 1999. Hydrodynamics and Transport for Water Quality Modeling.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vl working.docx 4-1 3-Feb- 15

Evaluation of TRO Attenuation Geosyntect&

at St. Lucie Plant consultants Vasconcelos, J., Taras, F., Rossman, L., Grayman, W., Clark, R., and J. Goodrich. 1995.

Characterizing and modeling chlorine decay in distribution systems - A Summary. Proc.

Amer. Wat. Works Assoc. Ann. Conf.. Anaheim, CA. pp. 903.

2014-FW2129-PSL TRO Report vi working.docx 4-2 3-Feb- 15

APPENDIX A TOTAL RESIDUAL OXIDANTS PLAN OF STUDY Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Submitted To: Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 6501 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, FL 34987 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.

6026 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 USA Distribution: Florida Power & Light Company - Electronic Golder Associates Inc. - Electronic June 2012 (Rev.1) 113-87706 A w o ld o capabilitie Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

-__-_--'June 2012 i 113-87706 Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PLAN OF STUDY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 3 2.1 D ye S tu d y ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 D e c a y Stu d y ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 F ie ld V a lid a tio n ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 INSTRUMENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................ 7 5.0 S C HE D ULE ...................................................................................................................................... 8 6.0 R E PO R T ING .................................................................................................................................... 9 List of Figures Figure 1 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and Sampling Location EFF-2 Attachments Attachment A Material Safety Data Sheet for Rhodamine WT 3"Golder y:'projects\201 1\1 13-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of studyVev final_061512\tropos_062112 (rev final).docx *Associates

June 2012 1 113-87706

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie Plant) [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL 0002208] is located on a 1,132-acre site on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The Plant consists of two nuclear-fueled electric-generating units. Unit 1 received an operating license in March 1976 and Unit 2 in April 1983. The St. Lucie Plant is located on the widest section of Hutchinson Island. The island is separated from the mainland on its western side by the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) and borders the Atlantic Ocean on the east (see Figure 1).

The source of once-through cooling water for the St. Lucie Plant is the Atlantic Ocean. Cooling water is treated daily using sodium hypochlorite as an anti-fouling agent. There are no de-chlorination processes in place at the St. Lucie Plant, and Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) are monitored in the cooling water prior to discharge to the Atlantic Ocean.

The FDEP issued an Administrative Order effective September 29, 2011, along with the Industrial Wastewater Facility (IWWF) permit modification that specifies a new TRO monitoring requirement for the Plant. The following is the Condition 6 language for the TRO monitoring requirement:

"6. No later than 90 days after the effective date of this Order, the Permittee shall prepare and submit for the Department's review and approval a plan of study (Total Residual Oxidants POS) that includes a schedule. The Total Residual Oxidant POS shall be designed and implemented to reaffirm that the discharge from the diffusers meets the total residual oxidants Class III marine water quality standard of 0.01* mg/L. The study shall last no less than 24 months from commencement. The results of the study shall be submitted in a report (Total Residual Oxidants Report) to the Department for review and approval no later than 60 days after the approved Total Residual Oxidant POS completion date. The schedule shall include milestones and the completion date."

Corrected limit, Condition 6 misstates the limit as 0.1 mg/L.

The discharge monitoring point for the St. Lucie Plant is EFF-2 (see Figure 1) and is located within the discharge canal. The Plant's previous IWWF permit allowed for a TRO concentration of 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L) at EFF-2 for compliance. This assumed that the TRO would decay prior to the ocean discharge from the diffusers. The Class III marine water quality standard is 0.01 mg/L at the point of discharge.

This Plan of Study (POS) has been designed to reaffirm compliance with this water quality standard.

Should the data collected not support compliance in the Atlantic Ocean, alternative limits at EFF-2 will be evaluated as predictors for compliance in marine waters. This POS outlines the methods to generate data on TRO decay in seawater under conditions similar to the discharge canal. These data and cooling water travel-time calculations will be used to estimate the TRO at the point of discharge.

y~0Goder yAprojects\2011\113-87706 fpl St. lucie\tro plan of study\rev final_061512\tro~pos_082112 (rev final).docx ' A.ssociates

-- - - June 2012 2 113-87706 There are several processes that result in the decay of chlorine in seawater. Chlorine reacts readily with some organic and inorganic compounds, becoming reduced and no longer contributing to TRO. Sunlight can also cause chlorine decay. The rapid decay of chlorine in seawater is dependent on the concentration of oxidizable material (such as fouling organisms) or 'demand' for chlorine. However, if the chlorination dose exceeds the demand, residual oxidants measured as TRO, will remain in the water and continue to decay over time.

Golder yAprojectsk2011\113-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of study\rev finalO61512\tro_pos_062112 (rev final).docx PAssociates

-- __ June 2012 3 113-87706 2.0 PLAN OF STUDY OBJECTIVES The objective of the TRO POS is to develop a procedure and data to estimate and potentially reaffirm that the discharge from the Plant's diffusers meets the TRO Class III marine water quality standard of 0.01 mg/L. TRO is currently measured at EFF-2 and the majority of the time it is below the detection limit of 0.01 mg/L at this monitoring point. TRO has been detected above 0.01 mg/L at EFF-2, and this POS will evaluate the decay rate of TRO in the discharge canal and pipes to calculate the TRO concentrations at the diffusers during events of measurable TRO at EFF-2.

There are three factors that determine the concentration of TRO in seawater at the point of discharge from the St. Lucie Plant: the initial concentration, the decay rate, and the travel time. The initial concentration is controlled by St. Lucie Plant operations (see St. Lucie Plant Procedures 0-NOP-40.01 and 0-NOP-40.02). The POS includes three components to evaluate the TRO decay rate, determine cooling water travel time, and validate the results:

" Dye Study - A dye study will be conducted within the St. Lucie Plant discharge canal to estimate travel times of cooling water as it flows through the discharge canal.

Decay Study - A TRO decay study will be conducted to measure the rate of decay of TRO in cooling water.

I Field Confirmation - A Plant-level experiment replicating conditions when elevated TRO levels are detected at EFF-2 2.1 Dye Study The dye study will be used to measure the travel time of water in the Plant's cooling water system. The interval of primary importance will be from EFF-2 to the entrances to the discharge pipes. Travel time within the canal will vary with the number of circulating pumps running (total flow) and tidal influences. To provide a conservative estimate of TRO decay between EFF-2 and the point of discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, the shortest potential travel time from EFF-2 to the point of discharge will be used.

Under typical St. Lucie Plant operating conditions, the volume of the discharge canal and, therefore, residence time of cooling water, will be lowest at low tide. Therefore, the dye study will be conducted at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). At least three measurements of travel time will be conducted under full operating conditions (both units and all circulating pumps running) and three measurements when only a single unit (four circulating pumps) is operating. The injection point for the Rhodamine WT dye will be determined in the first phase of the project but will be appropriate to provide the necessary travel times.

Rhodamine WT fluoresces and can be detected using a fluorometer at very low concentrations

[<1 microgram per liter (pg/L)]. For each dye study, it is estimated that approximately 1 gallon of 20-percent Rhodamine WT solution will be required to achieve a peak concentration of 100 to 300 parts per billion (ppb) at EFF-2 and the entrance to the discharge pipes. This concentration should be easily detectable but not visible. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Rhodamine WT is provided as Golder yAprojects\201 1\1 13-87706 fpl St. Iucie\tro plan of study~rev final 061512\tro~pos _062112 (rev final).docx Assoi a~C~tes

-- _June 2012 4. 113-87706 Attachment A. Time of travel from the chlorine injection point to the sampling points (at a minimum, EFF-2 and the entrance to the discharge pipes) will be measured as the time from injection to the time when the maximum concentration is observed at each sampling point. The dye study time-of-travel measurements may be conducted at any point during the 24-month sampling window and will be scheduled when tidal and Plant operating conditions provide the proper circumstances for the study.

2.2 Decay Study The decay study will estimate the rate of decay of TRO in cooling waters under the varying environmental and water quality conditions present over the course of the 24-month study period. Understanding the rate of decay of TRO in cooling waters has regulatory relevance only when there is a detectable concentration of TRO (concentration >0.01 mg/L) in cooling waters at EFF-2. If the discharge water from the circulating pumps is well mixed and the TRO is detectable at EFF-2, it can be assumed that the combined chlorine demand of all cooling waters has been fulfilled and TRO decay will continue at a lower rate.

To assess the decay rate of TRO in cooling waters, it is important to identify the conditions under which TRO would be detectable at EFF-2. This is expected to occur when the chlorination dosage exceeds the demand from the rapid oxidation reactions. Actual detection of TRO in cooling water at EFF-2 is an intermittent and unpredictable occurrence. It will therefore be necessary to simulate these conditions in order to measure the TRO decay rate in cooling waters near the EFF-2 sampling point. To accomplish this, cooling water will be sampled from EFF-2 and spiked with sodium hypochlorite until a concentration of approximately 0.1 mg/L is reached. It is expected that initial additions of sodium hypochlorite will fulfill any residual chlorine demand, after which further sodium hypochlorite additions will increase the TRO concentration. This will simulate the conditions under which TRO would be detectable at EFF-2.

Additionally, through the use of water baths and appropriately designed sample vessels, the physical conditions (temperature, sunlight, etc.) that water would be subjected to in the discharge canal will be replicated. By monitoring the concentration of TRO in the spiked sample of water over time, the decay rate can be calculated. Measurements will be made at approximately 4-minute intervals until TRO concentrations are no longer measureable (<0.01 mg/L) or for a maximum of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . This will be performed three times per sampling event, and 24 monthly events are planned.

The decay study will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will validate the technique of dosing cooling water samples with excess sodium hypochlorite to generate a TRO concentration of 0.1 mg/L and subsequently monitoring its decay. The second phase will consist of 24 monthly sampling events to measure the decay rate of TRO under the naturally variable water quality characteristics of the cooling water. Modifications may be made to the sampling design during the second phase based on the results from the first phase.

Golder y:\projects\201 1\1 13-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of study~rev final_061512\tro_pos_062112 (rev final).docx (V Associates

June 2012 5 113-87706 Should the first 6 months of data collection indicate that the TRO decay rate is not sufficient to generate levels of TRO at the diffusers that are in compliance with the Class III marine water quality standard, FPL may request a re-evaluation of this permit requirement based on the anticipated magnitude and frequency of TRO discharges that exceed the water quality standard.

2.3 Field Validation A Plant-scale verification of the results of the decay study will be conducted within the final 6 months of the study period. Sodium hypochlorite will be added to intake cooling waters in concentrations sufficient to produce a measurable TRO concentration at EFF-2. TRO concentration will be monitored at EFF-2 and at the intake to the discharge pipes, allowing calculation of in-situ TRO decay rates. Results of the validation study will be compared to the results of the decay study.

_0Golder y:'projects\2011\113-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of studyVev final 061512\tropos_062112 (rev final).docx .Associates

- -- _June 2012 6 113-87706 3.0 INSTRUMENTATION TRO in seawater can be measured by several methodologies. Amperometric titration is the method that will provide the necessary accuracy and precision in the range of concentrations to be tested.

Development of this POS is based on the assumption that TRO concentration can be measured by amperometric titration approximately every 4 minutes. The travel time from EFF-2 to the point of discharge (the timeframe of interest) is estimated to be in the range of 15 to 20 minutes which will allow approximately ten measurements to be made using two sets of instrumentation.

Golder yAprojects\2011\113-87706 fpl st, lucie\tro plan of studyVev final_061512\tro_pos_062112 (rev final).docx 'Associates

__ -June 2012 7 113-87706 4.0 DATA COLLECTION All TRO measurements will be conducted according to the procedures defined in 40 CFR 136.3. Data collection efforts for this project will follow FDEP-approved quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures.

SOGolder y:'projects\2011\113-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of study~rev final_061512\troDpos_062112 (rev final).docx A ssociates

- ... -- June 2012 8 113-87706 5.0 SCHEDULE A detailed schedule for implementing the POS is presented in the table below:

Milestone Duration Start Date End Date Submittal of POS to FDEP 12/28/2011 Approval by FDEP 90 days 7/20/2012 FPL contracting and procurement 60 days 7/20/2012 9/25/2012 Contractor mobilization 30 days 9/25/2012 10/24/2012 Dye study 2 years 10/24/2012 10/24/2014 Decay study - Phase 1 30 days 10/24/2012 11/23/2012 Decay study - Phase 2 2 years 11/23/2012 11/23/2014 Plant-level verification study 6 months 5/23/2014 11/23/2014 Final TRO Report to FDEP 60 days 11/24/2014 01/22/2015 y:\projects\2011\113-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of study'rev final_061512\tropos_062112 (rev final).docx ~Associates

__ - . .. June 2012 9 113-87706 6.0 REPORTING A status report will be completed every 6 months during the study period, and a final TRO Report will be submitted within 60 days of completion of the study.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

ýz-7 e- I I /jý;

Kennard F. Kosky, P.E. Isabel C. Johnson Principal Associate and Practice Leader Golder yAprojects\2011\113-87706 fpl st. lucie\tro plan of studyVev final_061512\tropos_062112 (rev final).docx Associates

FIGURI LEGEND EFF-2 REFERENCES

1. Monitoring Station, Golder Associates Inc., 2011

2. Aerial Imagery, USDA/FSA-Aerial Photography Field Office, 2007 0 350 700 Feet IEV DATE DES REVISIONDESCRIPTION GIS CHI( RVW PROJECT FPL ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT TITLE SAMPLING LOCATION EFF-2 PROJECT No 113-87706 FILE No. 11387706_A001 oler DESIGN SUL 12116111 SCALE, AS SHOWN REV.a0 G~....

e

~od. HECK REVIEW SJL lCJ 12/1611 12J16111 FIGURE 1

ATTACHMENT A Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 12/6/2006 Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Identification Page 1 of 3 Cat#: 19922 Part Name: RHODAMINE WT WATER TRACING DYE Supplier: Polysciences, Inc.

400 Valley Road Warrington, PA 18976 Telephone #215-343-6484 Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients Item# Name CAS# % in product 1 Rhodamine WT CASRNHX19922 5 2 Water 007732185 95 OSHA (ACGIH) Exposure Limits TWA STEL CEILING ppm mg/ ppm mg/m3 ppm _ mg/m3 CAS#: 007732185 IDLLH: NE OSHA NE NE NE NE NE NE ACGIH NE NE NE NE NE NE CAS#: CASRNHX1992 IDLLH: NE OSHA NE NE NE NE NE NE ACGIH NE NE NE NE NE NE Section 3: Hazards Identific*ation Causes eye irritation.

Hazard Ratings:

These ratings are Polysciences' Inc. own assesments of the properties of the material using the ANSI/NFPA 704 Standard.

Additional information can be found by consulting in the NFPA published ratings lists (List 325 and List 49).

If no data is listed the information is not available.

Health Flammability Reactivity 2 0 1 Section 4: First Aid Measures Flush eyes with flowing water for at least 15 minutes.

Ifbreathing is difficult, contact emergency personnel.

If swallowed, induce vomiting as directed by medical personnel.

Remove contaminated clothing.

Remove to fresh air.

Wash skin with deluge of water for at least 15 minutes.

Section 5: Fire Fighting Measures Flash point, deg F.: no data Method: no data UEL: no data LEL: no data Autoignition temperature, deg. F.: no data Flammability Classification: no data Flame Propagation Rate: no data Hazardous Combustion Products: no data Section 6: Accidental Release Measures Any information listed below is to be considered in addition to internal guidelines for isolation of spill, containment of spill, removal of ignition sources from immediate area, and collection for disposal of spill by trained, properly protected clean up personnel.

Absorb liquids on absorbent material.

Contain spilled liquids.

Section 7: Handling and Storage Store at room temp Section 8: Exposure Controls/ Personal Protection The use of eye protection in the form of safety glasses with side shields and the use of skin protection for hands in the form of gloves are considered minimum and non-discretionary in work places and laboratories. Any recommended personal protection equipment or environmental equipment is to be considered as additional to safety glasses and gloves.

Use chemical splash goggles and face shield.

Page 1 of 3

Section 9: Physical and Chemical Properties Formula: no data vapor pressure: no data Formula Weight: no data vapor density: heavier than air boiling point: no data Specific gravity: 0 melting point: no data ph: 10.5 @1.0 %

solubility: miscible appearance: fluorescing red liquid Section 10: Stability and Reactivity Chemical Stabilit no data Conditions to Avoid: no data Incompatibility with other materials: no data Hazardous Decomposition Products: no data Hazardous Polymerization: will not occur Section 11 :Toxicological Information Acute Data: no data Subchronic data: no data Section 12: Ecological Information LC50: >320 mg/I rainbow trout (96 hour0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months )

LC50:170 mg/I daphnia magna No developmental abnormalities or toxicity to oyster larvae at 100 mg/L.

Section 13: Disposal Considerations The following chart lists the status of the chemical and its components in reference to 40 CFR Part 261.33. If the product is listed by code number the substance may be subject to special federal and state disposal regulations. If no codes are listed the material must be disposed in compliance with all Federal, State and Local Regulations.

CAS# Waste Code Regulated Name 007732185 not listed not listed CASRNHX19922 not listed not listed Section 14: Transportation Data Refer to bill of lading or container label for DOT or other transportation hazard classification , if any.

Section 15: Regulatory Information All components of this product are on the TSCA public inventory.

Prop 65 - Column A identifies those items which are known to the State of California to cause cancer. Column B identified items which are known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity.

CAS# Column A Column B 007732185 no no CASRNHX19922 no no State Regulatory Information If a CAS# is listed below this material is subject to the listed state right-to-know requirements.

CAS#

007732185 not listed CASRNHX199 not listed SARA Toxic Release Chemicals(as defined in Section 313 of SARA Title Ill)

This list identifies the toxic chemicals, including their de minimis concentrations for which reporting is required under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The list is also referred to as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) List.

CAS# Regulated name de minimis conc. % Rep. Thres.

007732185 not listed not listed not listed CASRNHX19922 not listed not listed not listed SARA Extremely Hazardous Substances and TPQs This list includes hazardous chemicals as defined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(c); and extremely hazardous substances regulated under Section 302 of SARA Title Ill with their TPQs (in pounds), as listed in 40 CFR 355, Appendices A and B.

CAS# Regulated name TPQ (pounds) EHS-RQ(pounds) 007732185 not listed not listed not listed CASRNHX19922 not listed not listed not listed Page 2 of 3

CERCLA The hazardous substances, and their reportable quantities (RQs) are listed in the federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 302, Table 302.4. Release of a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount equal to or greater than its RO, in any 24-hour period, must be reported to the National Response Center at (800) 424-8802.

CAS# Regulated name RQ (pounds) 007732185 Not listed Not listed CASRNHX19922 Not listed Not listed Section 16: Other Information POLYSCIENCES, INC. provides the information contained herein in good faith but makes no representation as to its comprehensiveness or accuracy.

Individuals receiving this information must exercise their independent judgment in determining its appropriateness for a particular purpose.

POLYSCIENCES, INC. makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or implied of merchantability, fitness for particular purposes with respect to the information set forth herein or to which the information refers. Accordingly, POLYSCIENCES, INC. will not be responsible for damages resulting from the use of or reliance upon this information.

END OF MSDS Page 3 of 3

At Gode - Asoiae we stiv to beS th otrspce lba ru f Ifia+2712440 copne spcalzn in grun eniern an enirnena sevcs Asi +- 852 256 3658-Employe owne sinc ou fomto in 1960 we hav crae a uiqu Autaai + 61 88. 350 cutr wit prid in oweshp reutn in long-tr oranzaioa stblt + 356 2142 30 20

~

Golder~ ~~ obida ~ ~nesadn ~ prfsinl ~~~~~~~' fcin taetetm ed ot mrc 802538 and of the spcii ~ enionet in whc the oprae We cotiu toepnothAeia +5510590

~and ~hav ~exeine~~~ ~

our~~~~~~~~~ taygrwhwt tehia caailte mlye, oIinfod now oprtn fro ofie loae thoghu Afia Asia, Autalsa 0o wwwSold.

Euoe Not Amrc andS Sot America.S - 5-Golder Associates Inc.

6026 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 USA Tel: (352) 336-5600 Fax: (352) 336-6603 Golder

-_Associates Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

APP-END'3 December 2007 10.6-1 0738-7685 APPENDIX 10.6 10.6 Thermal Discharge modeling This appendix includes a set of calculations which were done to document the thermal discharge modeling and associated results that were performed to analyze both the existing thermal discharge plumes and the expected thermal discharge plumes that will result from the Project. The model used is called MULDIF, which is the Envirosphere version of the near-field Koh and Fan model. A listing of the program is included as Attachment 1. The calculations are as follows:

Calculation 12 - Revised Y-Port Diffuser MULDIF Runs Calculation 13 - Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Runs Calcualtion 14 - Predicted vs. Allowed Mixing Zones Detailed studies were performed following commercial operation of St. Lucie Unit 1 in June, 1976 to verify the accuracy of the thermal discharge model which had been used during the plant licensing (Envirosphere, 1977). That modeling consisted of a near-field model, based on the work of Koh and Fan (Koh and Fan, 1970), and a far-field model based on the work of Pritchard (Pritchard, 1970).

Now that the extent of the mixing zone is defined as the 170F isotherm above ambient, only the near-field model is necessary to show mixing zone compliance.

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, and thermal energy flux, and two equations of horizontal and and vertical distance. The solution of these equations provides jet width, dilution, temperature, density, jet trajectory, and temperature rise as a fimction of position.

The field monitoring program that was performed consisted of thermal mapping of the St. Lucie Unit No. 1 discharge plume and ambient conditions using a mobile mapping system, supplemented by vertical, temperature profiles and airborne infrared photography. In addition, fixed in situ temperature and current instruments were moored at a depth of about ten feet below the surface at

December 2007 10.6-2 0738-7685 four pre-selected points, two on each side of the diffuser, to obtain continuous records of water temperature and current. Thermal mapping was performed by boat-mounted fast scanning thermal sensors, designed and provided by Environmental Devices Corporation (ENDECO). This system employed three thermistors at three depths with a towed V-fin depressor, a digital data display printer, and a magnetic cassette recorder. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. of Tequesta, FL, provided field support and a 24-foot V-hull boat in which the mapping system was mounted. Boat position was established using a Motorola Mini-Ranger III and two shore-based transponders The thermistor probes measured temperatures between 32 and 122 ° F with an accuracy of + or - 0.1iF and a resolution of 0.1 F.

For the near field, boat speed was set to about four knots and the interval of data logging was set to two seconds. At this combination of boat speed and rate of data collection, temperatures were measured at about 15-foot intervals. Track spacing was 30 to 45 feet apart and track lengths were usually 1200 feet. Ten to fifteen tracks were run for each near-field map. To supplement temperature measurements taken at three depths by the mobile mapping system, vertical temperature measurements were conducted at selected points in the plume area. Temperatures were measured at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 25-foot depths with a Hydrolab Thermistor probe and deck read-out unit. Four to seven temperature profiles were obtained during each survey.

The field survey was conducted between March 25 and April 4, 1977. With respect to the near-field model, Envirosphere reached the following conclusions:

1. "Based on the near-field results, it is concluded that the diffuser performs close to its expected performance."

2. "The near-field (Koh-Fan) model gives satisfactory comparisons (i.e.,0.2 to 1F) between the predicted and measured results."

0* FPL,

December 2007 10.6-3 0738-7685

References:

Koh, R.C.Y. and Fan, L.N., "Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Temperature Distributions Resulting from the Discharge of Heated Water". Report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Program #16310, DWO, Contract #14-12-570. October, 1970.

Pritchard, D.W., "Design and Siting Criteria for Once-Through Cooling Systems." Chesapeake Bay Institute, The John Hopkins University. AIChE 68th National Meeting. March 2, 1970.

Calculations SUBJECT Revised Y-Nozzle Diffuser MULDIF Runs Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By H. Fredlani Date 11/20/2007 Checked S.Asamenaw Sheet 1 of 2 Associates Ref. St Lucie Uprate Cale12 1 ReviewedI Based on the SCA Review Meeting on Nov. 13 and 14. Itwas decided to model the Y.Port Diffuser for an existing plant case using the highest recorded plant discharge temperature from calc 11. It was also decided to model two uprate cases as follows:

Adding 2.9 0 F to the existing case discharge temperature will result in a post-uprate discharge temperature which exceeds the existing NPDES permit limit of 113 0 F. FPL has committed to shed load In such a case, assuming the discharge temperature exceeding 113 0 F Is not caused by" ...condenser and/or circulating water pump maintenance, throttling circulating water pumps to minimize use of chlorine, and/or fouling of circulating water system." as allowed by the NPDES Permit Effluent Limitation I.A.3. Therefore, the maximum discharge temperature under normal C.W. flow conditions will be 113 0 F. Assuming worst case is with maximum DT, ambient temperature in this case will be 113 - 28.6 (see cafe 6) = 84.4 0 F When flow is reduced due to "...condenser and/or circulating water pump maintenance, throttling circulating water pumps to minimize use of chlorine, and or fouling of circulating water system.", the maximum discharge temperature will be 117 0 F. For this case, it is assumed the flow has been reduced by the temporary condition.

Assuming the OT is 32 o F (from the NPDES Permit Effluent Limitation I.A.3), the corresponding ambient temperature is 117 - 32= 85 0 F.

The following cases will be modeled:

Case 1 Existing plant. (Pre-Uprate)

Case 2 Post-Uprate with Discharge at 113 0 F Case 3 Post-Uprate with Discharge at 117 0 F The Input parameters for each case are delineated In attached worksheets called "Input-x". where "x; is the case number.

Case I From Caec. 10, the peak discharge temperature over the period of record was 111.1 0 F. we will use that for discharge temp:

Since existing peak DT Is 25.7 0 F, ambient Is 84.4

F.

For associated densities, use Book1 .xls which was developed in Calc 7.

P Golder SUBJECT Revised Y-Nozzle Diffuser MULDIF Runs I Associates I Job No. 07387675 Ref. PSL Uprate Calb 12 Made By H. Frediani Checked S.Asamenaw 1Reviewed Date Sheet 11/20/2007 2 of 2 From Caic 6, CW flow is (2,301 cfs) /2 = 1151 cfs for both ports. Therefore, each port has a flow of 2301/4 = 575.25 cfs Calculate jet velocity = 575.31(7.5"7.5"3.1415914) = 13.02 feet per second Rest of parameters remain the same as in calc 7. See worksheet "Input-I" for results.

Case 2 Parameters are the same, except for temperatures and densities, see bookl.xls for values derived.

Case 3 Parameters are the same except for temperatures and densities, see bookl.xls for values derived, and the velocity is reduced.

From page 1, flow is reduced by the inverse ratio of the DTs which are 32 and 28.6. Therefore the flow Is 575,3 * (28.6/32) =

514.1 cfs Velocity = 514.1/(7.5"7.5-3.1415914) = 11.64 feet per second Set up files as follows:

Input file Output File Case I PSL-1 .dat PSL-1.out Case 2 PSL-2.dat PSL-2.out Case 3 PSL-3.dat PSL-3.out Create the files and run the programs. Open the output files as Word files and save as .doc files, which are attached.

Note that the DT drops below 17 a F inthe second step for all three runs. Plot Center line temperature against center line horizontal distance for all three runs and compare to the runs in Calc 7. Do this by importing them al into Excel, file called PSL-Y-OUT.xls

MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser Case I Input Parameters Parameter Existing 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 13.02 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 111.1 De Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DENI 1.017838 lg/cm3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 1none I Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios D 34 Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 115 Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1 jet 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 85.4 De~gF .... Ambient River temperature Dena 1.023365 g/cm3 Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 F"Sec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 575.3 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 , River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 11/28/2007 12:27 PM Calc-12.xIs Input-1

MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser - Case 2 Input Parameters Parameter Proposed 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 13.02 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 113 Deq F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.017362 g/cmrn Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios ID3 I 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SO 115 Ft Spacin between jet centers OnlI 1et D 34 It Depth of discharge Depth of discharge ITA 1 85 IDeg F Ambient River temperature Dena 1.023438 g/cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Sec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 575.3 cfs Rie Discharge iwT = flow 11L Assume slack tide Calculated RIVRt 0ei 11/2812007 12:27 PM Calc-12.xis Input-2

MULDIF- Y-Port Diffuser - Case 3 Input Parameters Parameter Proposed 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 11.64 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TOO 117 Dec F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.01633 g/cm Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios D1 SPACJ 34 115 Ft Ft - Depth of discharge Spacing between jet centers Depth of discharge Onl 1 "et D 34 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge TA 85 DI. FAmbient River temperature Dena 1.023438 g/cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Sec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 514.1 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 1 River flow ( 0 for slack tide Assume slack tide 11128/2007 12:27 PM Caic-12.xis Input-3

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 12 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1----------- AA ------ 1 7.50 FEET 1

JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

JET DIS CHARGE VELO CITY= 13.02 FT/SEC

CHARGE TEMPERATURE=

- - - - **********I*********** **********'JET DIS 111.10 F JET DIS CHARGE DENSITY= 1.017838 GRAM/CC JET DIS CHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84 0.00014 15.15771 1.01051 107.4291 1.01862 1.02355 84.4 23.02909 17 63.1925 0.814116 22.714747 101.4 17 76.70811 1.48688 28.96076 1.93655 96.41686 1.02098 1.02355 84.4 12.01686 17 91.50193 3.68498 35.70835 2.40173 94.08938 1.02147 1.02355 84.4 9.68938 17 106.0567 7.12125 42.22679 2.87068 92.50653 1.02181 1.02355 84.4 8.10653 17 120.2216 11.91491 48.40776 3.34601 91.35493 1.02206 1.02355 84.4 6.95493 17 133.8389 18.09402 54.17075 3.83077 90.47482 1.02225 1.02355 84.4 6.07482 17 146.7748 25.59637 59.48996 4.32811 89.77677 1.0224 1.02355 84.4 5.37677 17 T HIS IS FRI SURFACE Interpolated Point 11/28/2007 12:35 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls PSL- I

FPL PSL Uprate Cale 12 M ULTIPOR BAQUEOUS -FUSER IN A ARBITRARII DENSITY S TRATIFIED E VIRONMENT AA= 115. 0OFEET 1----- AA------ I A= 7. 50 FEET 1

4 JET DISC HARGE ANG .00 DEG REES W/HO.IZ

********~(*** **** ******

JET DISC HARGE VEL(TY= 13.02 FT/SEC

********'C ***********4 **********: ~ JET DISC HARGE TEN ATURE= 112 00 F JET DISC HARGE DEN! Y= 1.017362 GRAM/CC JET DISC HARGE DEPI 34.00 FEE T x Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMBTEM DELTA T ALLOWT 46.84 0.00015 15.15771 1.01051 109.1504 1.0182 1.02344 85 24.15036 17 65.32795 0.979604 23.69739966 17 76.70126 1.58214 28.9508 1.93665 97.60127 1.0207 1.02344 85 12.60128 17 91.47353 3.91752 35.67405 2.40216 95.15929 1.02123 1.02344 85 10.1593 17 105.9779 7.55859 42.14262 2.87192 93.49754 1.02159 1.02344 85 8.49754 17 120.0498 12.61691 48.2433 3.34881 92.28745 1.02186 1.02344 85 7.28745 17 133.5237 19.10192 53.90034 3.83613 91.36169 1.02206 1.02344 85 6.36169 17 146.2664 26.92742 59.10154 4.33722 90.62671 1.02222 1.02344 85 5.62671 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 12:36 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls PSL-2

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 12 MUL TIPORT S BAQUE01 USER IN. ARBITRA DENSITY RATIFIEE VIRONMENT AA= 115.(0 FEET 1--.--- A A------ 1 A= 7.5 0FEET 1

JET DISC, ARGE AN.00 DEG REES W/I-Z

- - *******.4.*** *** ***** **********

JET DISC: ARGE VE TY= 11.6. FT/SEC JET DISC: ARGE TE: ATURE= 00 F JET DISC: ARGE DE Y= 1.0163 GRAM/CC JET DISC: ARGE DE 34.00 FEE T X Y JET WIDI DILUTIO JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEI* AMB TEN DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84 0.00022 15.15771 1.01051 112.6004 1.01731 1.02344 85 27.60041 17 70.75587 1.850115 17 76.63532 2.30489 28.85568 1.93765 99.39401 1.02024 1.02344 85 14.39401 17 91.2058 5.65904 35.35647 2.40634 96.59048 1.02086 1.02344 85 11.59048 17 105.2571 10.76426 41.40145 2.88355 94.67231 1.02129 1.02344 85 9.67231 17 118.5446 17.61576 46.88834 3.37425 93.26571 1.0216 1.02344 85 8.26571 17 130.8926 26.04585 51.83208 3.88326 92.18227 1.02184 1.02344 85 7.18228 17 THI S IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 12:36 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls PSL-3

FPL PSL Uprate Cale 12 X Y Case 1 DELTA T Case 2 Delta T Case 3 Delta T 0 0 25.7 28.6 32 46.84 0.00014 23.02909 24.15036 27.60041 63.1925 0.814116 17 17.82589933 20.35236921 65.32795 0.941532 16.21267257 17 19.40586131 70.75587 1.850115 14.21142081 14.90196869 17 76.70811 1.48688 12.01686 12.60128 14.39401 91.50193 3.68498 9.68938 106.0567 7.12125 8.10653 120.2216 11.91491 6.95493 133.8389 18.09402 6.07482 146.7748 25.59637 5.37677 T HIS IS FR SURFACE Interpolated Point X Depth Y 0 34 0 63.1925 33.18588 0.814115849 65.32795 33.05847 0.941532237 70.75587 32.14989 1.8501145141 11/28/2007 12:37 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls Data

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 12 Centerline Location of 17Degree F isotherm Horizontal Distance - Feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0

5 10 15

'4-20 25 30 35 40 11/28/2007 12:37 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls Centerline

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 12 Y-Nozzle Diffuser Temperature Rise vs. Horizontal Distance

-- Case 1 DELTA T . Case 2 Delta T "Case 3 Delta T 35 30 25 20

,15 10 5

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Horizontal Distance - Feet 11/28/2007 12:37 PM PSL-Y-OUT.xls Horizontal Plot

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 12 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 84.4 63.8693 1.023546 85 63.8625 1.023438 85.4 63.8580 1.023365 90 63.80 63.8040 91 63.7918 92 63.7795 93 63.7670 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 102 63.6473 103 63.6332 104 63.6189 105 63.6045 106 63.5899 107 63.5752 108 63.5603 109 63.5452 110 63.5300 111 63.5146 111.1 63.5131 1.017838 112 63.4991 113 63.4834 1.017362 114 63.4675 1151

- 63.4515 116 63.4353

__ 117 63.4190 1.01-633 118 63.4025 119 63.3858 120 1 63.3690 Eli 11/28/2007 12:41 PM Bookl.xls Interpolate

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 12 Unit 1 4 CW pumps @ 121,000 gpm each = 484,000 gpm (from Circ Water pump Curves)

Unit 1 2 AECW pumps @ 14,500 gpm each= 29,000 gpm (assumed same as Unit 2 )

Unit 2 4 CW pumps @ 122,650 gpm each = 490,600 gpm (from Circ Water pump Curves)

Unit 2 2 AECW pumps @ 14,500 gpm each= 29,000 gpm (from Unit 2 FES p 4-12)

Total = 1,032,600 gpm Total = 1,487 MGD Total = 2,301 CFS 11 /28/2007 12:50 PM Calc-006.xls CW Flow Rate

FPL PSL Uprate Cale 12 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET 1

.*_* +

JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 13.02 FT/SEC

- - - - +*++**+***+***********

JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 111.10 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.017838 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET x Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84000 .00014 15. 15771 1.01051 107.42910 1.01862 1.02355 84.40000 23.02909 17.00000 76.70811 1.48688 28.96076 1.93655 96.41686 1.02098 1.02355 84.40000 12.01686 17.00000 91.50193 3.68498 35.70835 2.40173 94.08938 1.02147 1.02355 84.40000 9.68938 17.00000 106.05670 7.12125 42. 22679 2.87068 92.50653 1.02181 1.02355 84.40000 8.10653 17.00000 120.22160 11.91491 48.40776 3.34601 91.35493 1.02206 1.02355 84.40000 6.95493 17.00000 133.83890 18.09402 54.17075 3.83077 90.47482 1.02225 1.02355 84.40000 6.07482 17.00000 146.77480 25.59637 59.48996 4.32811 89.77677 1.02240 1.02355 84.40000 5.37677 17.00000 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 1:24 PM PSL-l~doe

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 12 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA------ 1 A= 7.50 FEET 1

JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 13.02 FT/SEC

- - ++*+*+++****++*++*+* +****+******++***+++++ JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 113.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.017362 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET x Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84000 .00015 15.15771 1.01051 109.15040 1.01820 1.02344 85.00000 24.15036 17.00000 76.70126 1.58214 28.95080 1.93665 97. 60127 1.02070 1.02344 85.00000 12.60128 17.00000 91.47353 3.91752 35.67405 2.40216 95.15929 1.02123 1.02344 85.00000 10.15930 17.00000 105.97790 7.55859 42.14262 2.87192 93.49754 1.02159 1.02344 85.00000 8.49754 17.00000 120.04980 12.61691 48.24330 3.34881 92.28745 1.02186 1.02344 85.00000 7.28745 17.00000 133.52370 19.10192 53.90034 3.83613 91.36169 1.02206 1.02344 85.00000 6.36169 17.00000 146.26640 26.92742 59.10154 4.33722 90.62671 1.02222 1.02344 85.00000 5.62671 17.00000 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 1:24 PM PSL-2.doe

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 12 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 115.00 FEET 1------ AA ------ 1 A- 7.50 FEET 1

JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= .00 DEGREES W/HORIZ

JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= 11.64 FT/SEC

+* * *** * * ** * * *** *** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** *4- ,* ** * ** JET DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE= 117.00 F JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= 1.016330 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= 34.00 FEET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 46.84000 .00022 15.15771 1.01051 112.60040 1.01731 1.02344 85. 00000 27.60041 17.00000 76.63532 2.30489 28.85568 1.93765 99.39401 1.02024 1.02344 85. 00000 14.39401 17.00000 91.20580 5.65904 35.35647 2.40634 96.59048 1.02086 1.02344 85. 00000 11.59048 17.00000 105.25710 10.76426 41.40145 2.88355 94.67231 1.02129 1.02344 85.00000 9.67231 17.00000 118.54460 17.61576 46.88834 3.37425 93.26571 1.02160 1.02344 85.00000 8.26571 17.00000 130.89260 26.04585 51.83208 3.88326 92.18227 1.02184 1.02344 85. 00000 7.18228 17.00000 THIS IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 1:24 PM PSL-3.doc

Golder Associates Based on the SCA Review Meeting on Nov. 13 and 14, itwas decided to model the Multiport Diffuser for an existing plant case using the highest recorded plant discharge temperature from cale 11. It was also decided to model two uprate cases as follows:

Adding 2.9 0 F to the existing case discharge temperature will result in a post-uprate discharge temperature which 0

exceeds the existing NPDES permit limit of 113 F. FPL has committed to shed load in such a case, assuming the discharge temperature exceeding 113 0 F is not caused by" ...condenser and/or circulating water pump maintenance, throttling circulating water pumps to minimize use of chlorine, and or fouling of circulating water system." as allowed by the NPDES Permit Effluent Limitation I.A.3. Therefore, the maximum discharge temperature under normal C.W. flow conditions will be 113 0 F. Assuming worst case is with maximum DT, ambient temperature in this case will be 113 - 28.6 (see calc 6) = 84.4 a F When flow is reduced due to " ...condenser and/or circulating water pump maintenance, throttling circulating water pumps to minimize use of chlorine, and or fouling of circulating water system.", the maximum discharge temperature will be 117 0 F. For this case, It is assumed the flow has been reduced by the temporary condition.

Assuming the DT is 32 0 F (from the NPDES Permit Effluent Limitation I.A.3), the corresponding ambient temperature Is 117 - 32 = 85 0 F.

The following cases will be modeled:

Case 4 Existing plant. (Pre-Uprate)

Case 5 Post-Uprate with Discharge at 113 0 F Case 6 Post-Uprate with Discharge at 117 0 F The input parameters for each case are delineated in attached worksheets called "lnput-x", where "x: is the case number.

Case 4 0

From Cale. 10, the peak discharge temperature over the period of record was 111.1 F, we will use that for discharge temp..

Since existing peak DT is 25.7 0 F, ambient is 85.40 F.

For associated densities, use Book I.xls which was developed in Cale 7.

SUBJECT Revised Multiport Diffuser MULDIF Runs Golder

Job No. 07387675 IMade By H. Frediani Date 11120/2007 Ref. PSL Uprate Checked S. Asamenaw Sheet 2 of 2 Associates Calc 13 Reviewed From Calc 6. CW flow is (2,301 cfs)12 = 1151 cfs for all ports. Therefore, each port has a flow of 2301/(2"58) = 19.836 cfs Calculate jet velocity = 19.841(((17.75/12)*(17.75/12))*3.14159/4) = 11.54 feet persecond Rest of parameters remain the same as in calc 7. See worksheet *Input-4" for results.

Case 5 Parametersi are the same, except for temperatures and densities, see bookl.xls for values derived.

Case 6 Parameters are the same except for temperatures and densities, see booki .xls for values derived, and the velocity is reduced.

From page 1, flow Is reduced by the inverse ratio of the DTs which are 32 and 28.6. Therefore the flow is 19.84" (28.6/32) =

17.7 cfs Velocity = 17.7/((17.75112)*(1 7.75/12)'3.14159/4) = 10.32 feet per second Set up files as follows:

Input file Output File Case 4 PSL-4.dat PSL-4.out Case 2 PSL-5.dat PSL-5.out Case 3 PSL-6.dat PSL-6.out Create the files and run the programs. Open the output files as Word files and save as .doc files, which are attached.

Note that the DT drops below 17 0 F in the second step for all three runs. Plot Center One temperature against center line horizontal distance for all three runs and compare to the runs in Calc 7. Do this by Importing them all into Excel, file called PSL-multiport-OUT.xds

MULDIF- Multipart Diffuser Case 4 Input Parameters Parameter Existing Multiport Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 1,4792 Ft Jet diameter Discharge is through UO 11.54 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 111.1 De F j Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.017838 g/cm3 Discharge density Calculated

[THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DJ 26.5 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 0 1 42 lFt Scin between Jet centers ID ____Depth 34 of water body Depth of water body TA_____ 85.4 I~nFAmbient River temperature__ ____________________

Dena 1.023365 glcni Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Se Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 19.84 cfs Discharge flow Calculated IVR River flow (0 for slack Assume slack tide 11/28/2007 12:55 PM Calc-13.xis Input-4

MULDIF. Multiportort Diffuser - Case 5 Input Parameters Parameter Proposed Multiport :Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 1.4792 Ft Jet diameter Discharge Is through UO 11.54 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per let From Calc 6 TO 113 Deo F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.017362 g/cm Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios D0 26.5 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPAC) 42 1Ft Spacing between jet centers Only 1 iet D 34 IFt I Depth of water body Depth of water body TA 85 DDeq F Ambient River temperature Dena 1.023438 g/cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 FSec Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 19.84 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0J

River flow 0 for slack tide Assume slack tide 11/28/2007 12:55 PM Calc-1 3.xis Input-5

MULDIF- Multiport Diffuser - Case 6 Input Parameters Parameter Proposed Multiport Units Definition Note NC 2 none Number of layers Assume 2 layers at same temp and density DO 1.4792 Ft Jet diameter Discharge is through UO 10.32 Ft/Sec Discharge velocity per jet From Calc 6 TO 117 ,OeaJ F Discharge Temperature From Conference call on 10/19 with Ron Hix DEN1 1.01633 g/cm3 Discharge density Calculated THETAO 0 none Angle of discharge with respect to horizontal Two scenarios DJ 26.5 Ft Depth of discharge Depth of discharge SPACJ 42 Ft ISacing between let centers Only 1 iet DD_____ 34 Ft71 Depth of discharge Depth of discharge T a5 DFI Ambient River temperature Dena 1.023438 /cm Ambient River density GRAVAC 32.2 Ft/Se Gravitational constant Gravitational constant BLDR 17.7 cfs Discharge flow Calculated RIVR 0 River flow ( 0 for slack tide) Assume slack tide 11/28/2007 12:55 PM Calc-13.xis Input-6

FPL PSLUprate Cale 13 X Y JET WIDTH Case 4 AT Case 5 AT Case 6 AT 0 0 1.492 25.7 28.6 32 9.33539 0.00004 3.03464 22.68659 23.90364 27.30238 15.08721 0.07247 5.70205 12.07158 12.72115 14.53009 X Depth y JET WIDTH Case 4 12.41671 26.4611584 0.038842 4.463604 Case5 12.88629 26.4523576 0.047642 4.681316 Case 6 13.9742 26.4089917 0.091008 5.185152 11/28/2007 1:50 PM PSL-Multiport.OUT.xis Table

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 13 Multiport Diffuser Temperature Rise vs. Horizontal Distance 35

~30 I- 2 S20

~15

~10 5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Horizontal Distance - Feet 11/28/2007 1:40 PM PSL-Multiport.OUT.xls Temp Profile

FPL PSL Uprate Calculation 13 Centerline Location of 17 Deg F Isotherm Case 5 Horizontal Distance - Feet Case 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 1-4 15 0

5 I " I 10 1l5

20 25 Port

_ I _

I_

30 35 11/28/2007 1:40 PM PSL-Multiport.OUT.xls Centerline

FPL PSL Uprate Cale 13 MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT AA= 42. 00 FEET 1-- AA- I A= I. 48 FEET

JET DISC HARGE ANGLE .00ODE GREES WIZ

JET DISC HARGE VELOCITY= 11.54 FT/SEC S ******** JET DISC HARGE TEMPERATURE= 111 .]OF JET DISC HARGE DENSITY= 1.01783 8 GRAM/CC JET DISC HARGE DEPTH = 26.50 FE ET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTION JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 9.33539 0.00004 3.03464 1.02577 107.0866 1.0187 1.02355 84.4 22.68659 17 12.41671 0.038842 4.46360399 17 15.08721 0.07247 5.70205 1.92777 96.47157 1.02097 1.02355 84.4 12.07158 17 18.04352 0.18222 7.07187 2.39179 94.12963 1.02147 1.02355 84.4 9.72963 17 21.16055 0.36981 8.51419 2.88186 92.47507 1.02182 1.02355 84.4 8.07508 17 24.10752 0.62835 9.87468 3.3466 91.3537 1.02206 1.02355 84.4 6.9537 17 27.04511 0.97754 11.22617 3.81207 90.50462 1.02224 1.02355 84.4 6.10462 17 29.80682 1.40049 12.49069 4.25267 89.87215 1.02238 1.02355 84.4 5.47214 17 32.71232 1.95641 13.81255 4.72067 89.32964 1.02249 1.02355 84.4 4.92964 17 35.59235 2.63182 15.11182 5.19072 88.88324 1.02259 1.02355 84.4 4.48324 17 38.4398 3.43344 16.38319 5.66342 88.50904 1.02267 1.02355 84.4 4.10904 17 41.2471 4.3659 17.62163 6.13947 88.19043 1.02274 1.02355 84.4 3.79043 17 44.00659 5.43157 18.82279 6.6196 87.9155 1.02279 1.02355 84.4 3.51551 17 46.71082 6.63053 19.98342 7.10458 87.67553 1.02285 1.02355 84.4 3.27552 17 49.35301 7.96064 21.10163 7.5952 87.46394 1.02289 1.02355 84.4 3.06394 17 51.92731 9.41782 22.17697 8.09223 87.27575 1.02293 1.02355 84.4 2.87575 17 54.42904 10.99637 23.21041 8.59639 87.10709 1.02297 1.02355 84.4 2.70709 17 56.85479 12.6894 24.20412 9.10837 86.95493 1.023 1.02355 84.4 2.55493 17 59.20241 14.48924 25.16113 9.62878 86.81684 1.02303 1.02355 84.4 2.41684 17 61.47092 16.38785 26.08507 10.15818 86.69089 1.02306 1.02355 84.4 2.29089 17 63.66044 18.37707 26.97981 10.69703 86.57549 1.02308 1.02355 84.4 2.17548 17 65.77192 20.44896 27.84928 11.24575 86A6934 1.0231 1.02355 84.4 2.06934 17 67.80704 22.59595 28.6972 11.80466 86.37136 1.02312 1.02355 84.4 1.97136 17 69.76798 24.8109 29.52706 12.37404 86.28065 1.02314 1.02355 84.4 1.88065 17 THIS IS FREE SURFACE interpolated value 11/28/2007 1:28 PM PSL-Multiport.OUT.xls PSL-4

FPL PSL Uprate Cale 13 MUL TIPORT S BAQUEOU' FFUSER IN N ARBITf DENSITY! RATIFIED INVIRONMENT AA= 42.0 0 FEET I 1---- #NAME? A= 1.4 8 FEET

JI*T DISCIH ARGE ANG = .00 DE GREES W Z

- - - - 4*** *** ******* **********

JET DISCHARGE VEL(ITY= 11.54 FT/SEC

- - - - , ********** ********** ********,JET DISCHARGE TEM RATURE= 1.00 F JET DISCHARGE DEN TY= 1.017312 GRAM/CC JET DISCHARGE DEP:= 26.50 FE ET X Y JET WIDTH DILUTIO1, JET TEM JE' TDENS AMB DEN AMB TEM DELTA T ALLOW T 9.33539 0.00005 3.03464 1.02577 108.7713 1.01828 1.02344 84.86765 23.90364 17 12.88629 0.047642 4.6813163 17 15.08713 0.07714 5.70192 1.92778 97.58743 1.02069 1.02344 84.86629 12.72115 17 18.04317 0.19398 7.07142 2.39182 95.1206 1.02122 1.02344 84.86423 10.25637 17 21.15943 0.39361 8.51292 2.88194 93.37845 1.0216 1.02344 84.8607 8.51774 17 24.1049 0.66866 9.87186 3.3468 92.19843 1.02186 1.02344 84.85585 7.34257 17 27.03975 1.03995 11.22065 3.81248 91.30576 1.02205 1.02344 84.8493 6.45646 17 29.79727 1.48931 12.48117 4.25341 90.64164 1.02219 1.02344 84.84136 5.80028 17 32.69601 2.07932 13.79679 4.72195 90.07298 1.02232 1.02344 84.83096 5.24202 17 35.56625 2.79513 15.08735 5.19279 89.60609 1.02242 1.02344 84.81832 4.78777 17 38.4002 3.64318 16.34723 5.6666 89.21583 1.0225 1.02344 84.80336 4.41247 17 41.18972 4.62753 17.57129 6.14415 88.88463 1.02258 1.02344 84.78599 4.09864 17 43.92667 5.74976 18.75531 6.62624 88.59991 1.02264 1.02344 84.76618 3.83374 17 46.6034 7.00888 19.89643 7.11369 88.35243 1.02269 1.02344 84.74397 3.60846 17 49.2131 8.40164 20.99334 7.60734 88.13516 1.02274 1.02344 84.71938 3.41578 17 51.75012 9.92278 22.04634 8.10798 87.94277 1.02278 1.02344 84.69254 3.25023 17 54.21018 11.5655 23.05716 8.61638 87.77106 1.02282 1.02344 84.66355 3.10751 17 56.5904 13.32197 24.02867 9.13321 87.61673 1.02286 1.02344 84.63255 2.98417 17 58.88924 15.1837 24.9645 9.6591 87.47712 1.02289 1.02344 84.5997 2.87742 17 61.10639 17.14204 25.86874 10.19458 87.35009 1.02292 1.02344 84.56514 2.78495 17 63.24258 19.18842 26.74555 10.7401 87.23388 1.02294 1.02344 84.52903 2.70485 17 65.29939 21.31461 27.59901 11.29605 87.12704 1.02297 1.02344 84.49151 2.63553 17 67.27898 23.51289 28.4329 11.86273 87.02835 1.02299 1.02344 84.45271 2.57564 17 69.18401 25.77611 29.25064 12.4404 86.93682 1.02301 1.02344 84.41277 2.52405 17 TIl S IS FREE SURFACE 11/28/2007 1:39 PM PSL-Multiport.OUT.xls PSL-5

FPL PSL Uprate Calc 13 M ULTIPOR' BAQUEOI FUSER IN ARBITRA DENSITY RATIFIED VIRONMENT AA= 42.0 0 FEET 1 AA- A= 1.4 8 FEET I

JET DISCI ARGE AN .00 DEG REES W/h IZ

~********, *** **** ****** * *********

JET DISCI ARGE VE]TY= 10.3:FT/SEC

********* *********'********* ********* JET DISCI ARGE TEIATURE= 100 F JET DISCI ARGE DE] Y= 1.01631 GRAM/CC JET DISCIARGE DEI 26.50 FEE T x Y JET WIDT DILUTIOI* JET TEM JET DENS AMB DEN AMB TER DELTA T ALLOW T 9.33539 0.00007 3.03464 1.02577 112.17 1.0174 1.02344 84.86765 27.30238 17 13.9742 0.091008 5.185152 17 15.08631 0.11281 5.70072 1.92784 99.39574 1.02022 1.02344 84.86565 14.53009 17 18.03966 0.2835 7.06706 2.39208 96.5776 1.02085 1.02344 84.86265 11.71495 17 21.14861 0.57459 8.50067 2.88277 94.58665 1.02129 1.02344 84.85751 9.72915 17 24.07964 0.97431 9.84494 3.34874 93.2373 1.02159 1.02344 84.85046 8.38684 17 26.98863 1.51109 11.16857 3.81644 92.21555 1.02181 1.02344 84.84098 7.37458 17 29.70689 2.15608 12.3925 4.2605 91.4544 1.02198 1.02344 84.8296 6.6248 17 32.5435 2.99476 13.65279 4.73407 90.80144 1.02213 1.02344 84.8148 5.98664 17 35.32558 3.99948 14.869 5.21222 90.26404 1.02225 1.02344 84.79707 5.46697 17 38.04129 5.17179 16.03531 5.69614 89.81347 1.02235 1.02344 84.77638 5.03708 17 40.67979 6.50884 17.1484 6.18705 89.42973 1.02244 1.02344 84.75278 4.67694 17 43.23207 8.00395 18.20785 6.68615 89.09853 1.02251 1.02344 84.7264 4.37213 17 45.69145 9.64746 19.21586 7.19456 88.80935 1.02258 1.02344 84.6974 4.11196 17 48.05373 11.42778 20.17673 7.71328 88.55434 1.02263 1.02344 84.66598 3.88836 17 50.31712 13.33232 21.09603 8.24321 88.32748 1.02269 1.02344 84.63237 3.69511 17 52.48186 15.34833 21.97987 8.78506 88.12411 1.02273 1.02344 84.59679 3.52731 17 54.54987 17.46351 22.83433 9.33943 87.94055 1.02277 1.02344 84.55947 3.38108 17 56.52425 19.66639 23.66506 9.90678 87.77387 1.02281 1.02344 84.52059 3.25328 17 58.40893 21.94654 24.47704 10.48749 87.6217 1.02285 1.02344 84.48035 3.14134 17 60.20831 24.29461 25.2745 11.0818 87.48209 1.02288 1.02344 84.43892 3.04317 17 T HIS IS FRI SURFACE 11/28/2007 PSL-Multiport.OUT.xis PSL-6

SUBJECT Predicted vs Allowed Mixing Zones Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By H. Frediani Date: 11/21/2007 Ref. FPL Uprate PSL Checked S. Asamenaw Sheet 1 of 4 Associates Calculation 14 Reviewec I From the NPDES Permit (see attachment1), page 4, we have the following mixing zone (AT <- 17 deg F) limits:

(numbers in black are from permit, numbers in red are calculated from black numbers)

Y-1ort Multiport Both Acre-Feet 283.9 10.7 cubic meters 350,202 13,198 cubic feet 12,367,168 466,092 seaward extent (feet) 380.0 1,385.5 width perpendicular to pipe axis (feet) 21.0 height above bottom of discharge (feet) 27.26 8.0 length (meters) 115.82 height above bottom (meters) 8.31 square meters 42,142 1 1 5.406 1 47,548 square feet 453,613 1 .58,191 1 511,804 From Calc 12, calculate the mixing zone size for the Y-Port Diffuser for pre- and post-uprate conditions:

At the origin, for each port, there is a circular cross section with radius = 7.512 = 3.75 feet Area = "rr*R 2 = Tn 13.75 )A 2= 44.18 sq ft.

First point for Case 1 is at X = 46.84 ft where jet width = 15.2 ft, radius =15.212 7.6 ft., Area= 180.5 sq ft circle = area = zero.

Second point is at 61.45 ft (see calc 12) . At this point, radius of Using average end-area method, volume = (44.18+180.5)*(46.84/2) + (180.5+0)*((61.45-46.84)/2)

Volume = 6,581 cubic feet per nozzle, total = 13,161 cubic feet Similarly, cross sectional area =(((7.5 + 15.2)/2)*46.84)+ (((15.2+0.0)/2)*(61.45.46.84)) = 643 sq ft per nozzle First point for Case 2 at X = 46.84 ft where Jet width = 15.2 ft, radius = 15.2/2= 7.6 ft, A= 180.504 sq ft Second point is at X = 65.3; At this point, radius of circle = area = zero.

Using average end-area method, volume = (44.18+180.5)6(46.84/2) + (180.5+0)*((65.3-46.84)/2)

Volume = 6,928 cubic feet per nozzle, total = 13,856 cubic feet Similarly, cross sectional area =(((7.5 + 15.16)/2)*46.84)+ (((15.16+0.0)/2)*(65.3-46.84)) = 671 sq ft per nozzle Similarly, for case 3, distance to first point is still 46.84 ft, to second point at 17 deg isotherm, its 70.8 ft Volume =(44.18+180.5)*(46.84/2) + ((180.5 + 0)*(70.8-46,84)12) = 7,424 cubic feet per nozzle, = 14,849 cu ft Area = (((7.5 + 15.1.6)/2)*46.84)+ (((15.16+0.0)/2)*(70.8-46.84)) = 712 sq ft per nozzle.

On page 2, tabulate permitted values vs. predicted for Y-port diffuser.

1 SUBJECT Predicted vs Allowed Mixing Zones Golder Job No. 07387685 Made By H. Frediani Date: 11/21/2007 Associates Ref. FPL Uprate PSL S. Asamenaw Sheet 2 of 4 Calculation 14 Reviewed From the previous page, tabulate the Y-Port Diffuser values (in blue) for the pre- and post-uprate plumes with the permitted limits:

1 Case 1 - fexistina' Case 2- f113oFd Case 3 -(117 0 fl nermitted n Case 1 - ( i . C.a . 3 4. .F Acre-Feet 283.9 0.31 0.32 0.34 cubic meters 350,202 373 392 420 cubic feet 12,367,168 13.161 13,856 14.849 seaward extent (feet) 380.0 63.20 65.3 70.8 width perpendicular to pipe axis (feet) ......

height above bottom of discharge (feet) 27.26 7.6 7.6 7.6 length (meters) 115.82 19.3 19.9 21.6 height above bottom (meters) 8.31 2.32 2.32 2.32 square meters 42,142 119 125 132 square feet 453,613 1,285 1,341 1,425 From Calc 13, calculate the mixing zone size for the Multiport Diffuser for pre- and post-uprate conditions:

At the origin, for each port, there is a circular cross section with radius = 17.75/(12*2) = 0.74 feet 2

Area = Tr*R = 1T*(0.74) A 2 = 1.72 sq ft.

First point for..C.ase, 4 is at X = 9.3 ft where jet width = 3.0 ft, radius = 3.0/2 = 1.50 ft., Area = 7.07 sq ft Second point is at X = 12.4 ft; At this point, radius of circle = area = zero.

Using average end-area method, volume = (1.72+7.07)*(9.3/2) + (7.07+0)*((12.4.9.3)/2)

Volume = 52 cubic feet per nozzle, total = 3,006 cubic feet Similarly, cross sectional area =(((1.48 + 3.0)/2)*9.3)+ (((3.0+0.0)/2)*(12.4-9.3)) = 25.5 sq ft per nozzle 0 1,478 sq ft Distance from pipe centerline = X

SIN(25 ) = 5.24 ft.

Length along main pipe from first to last port = (58-1)*24 = 1,368 feet Add in the extent of the plume from the last port = 12,4

COS(250) = 11.2 ft Total mixing zone extent seaward = 1368 + 11.2 = 1,379 feet

Golder SUBJECT Predicted vs Allowed Mixing Zones Job No. 07387685 Made By H. Frediani Date: 11/21/2007 Associates Ref. FPL Uprate PSL Checked S. Asamenaw Sheet 3 of 4 Calculation 14 Reviewec For the Multiport Diffuser for post-uprate conditions (Cases 5 and 6):

At the origin, for each port, there is a circular cross section with radius =17.75/(2*12) = 0.74 feet Area = "n*R2 = Tr *( 0.74) A 2 = 1.72 sq ft.

First point for Case _ is at X = 9.3 ft where jet width = 3.0 ft, radius = 3.012 = 1.50 ft., Area = 7.07 sq ft Second point is at X = 12.9; At this point, radius of circle = area = zero.

Using average end-area method, volume = (1.72+7.07)*(9.3/2) + (7.07+0)((12.9-9.3)Y2)

Volume = 54 cubic feet per nozzle, total = 3,109 cubic feet Similarly, cross sectional area =(((1.48 + 3.0)/2))9.3)+ (((3.0+0.0)/2)*(12.9-9.3)) = 26 sq ft per nozzle 1,521 sq ft Distance from pipe centerline = X

SIN(25°) = 5.45 ft.

Length along main pipe from first to last port = (58-1)'24 = 1,368 feet Add in the extent of the plume from the last port = 12.9

COS(250) = 11.7 ft Total mixing zone extent seaward = 1368 + 11.7 = 1,380 feet First point for Case 6 is at X = 9.3 ft where jet width = 3.0 ft, radius = 3.0/2 = 1.5(0 ft., Area = 7.07 sq ft Second point is at X = 14.0; At this point, radius of circle = area = zero.

Using average end-area method, volume = (1.72+7.07)*(9.3/2) + (7.07+0)((14.0-9.3)/2)

Volume = 57.5 cubic feet per nozzle, total = 3,334 cubic feet Similarly, cross sectional area =(((1.48 + 3.0)12)*9.3)+ (((3.0+0.0)12)*(14.0.9.3)) = 28 sq ft per nozzle 1,617 sq ft Distance from pipe centerline = X

SIN(250 ) = 5.92 ft.

Length along main pipe from first to last port = (58-1)*24 = 1,368 feet Add in the extent of the plume from the last port = 12.9

COS(250) = 12.7 ft Total mixing zone extent seaward = 1368 + 12.7 = 1,381 feet On page 4, tabulate permitted values vs. predicted for multiportport diffuser.

Golder SUBJECT Predicted vs Allowed Mixing Zones Job No. 07387685 Made By H. Frediani Date: 11121/2007 Associates Ref. FPL Uprate PSL S. Asamenavh Sheet" 4 of 4 Calculation 14 Reviewed From the previous page, tabulate thdVlultiport Diffuser values (in blue) for the pre- and post-uprate plumes with the permitted limits:

Pprmiltnrl Case* 6 111 -PF%

Permi~tted -~

Cas.e 4 'Eif I TLFL Acre-Feet 10.7 0.069 0.071 0.077 cubic meters 13,198 85 88 94 cubic feet 466,092 3,006 3,109 3,334 seaward extent (feet) 1,385.5 1.379 1,380 1,381 width perpendicular to pipe axis (feet) 21.0 5.2 5.5 5.92 height above bottom of discharge (feet) 8.0 0.04 0.04 0.06 length (meters) height above bottom (meters) square meters 5,406 137 141 150 square feet 58,191 j 1,478 1,521 1,617

Listing of MULDIF C MULTIPORT DIFFUSER IN A STABLY DENSITY-STRATIFIED STAGNANT ENVIRN.

C THIS PROGRAM WILL OUTPUT THE JET TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION AT 1/2 C FT INTERVALS FROM THE JET ORIFICE TO THE FREE SURFACE. INPUT C PARAMETERS MAY BE IN FPS,MKS OR CGS UNITS. WHEN SPECIFYING TABLE C OF AMBIENT DEPTH, TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY, FIRST DEPTH MUST BE C EQUAL OR LESS THAN DJ, THEN WORK TOWARDS SURFACE. IF AMBIENT IS C UNIFORM, SPECIFY TWO POINTS, AT DJ AND AT 1 FT- WHEN THE TWO C VALUES COINCIDE,AMBIENT IS UNIFORM. THE INPUT PARAMETERS ARE C DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

C NC NUMBER OF STRATIFIED LAYERS INPUTTED C DO DIAMETER OF INDIVIDUAL JETS C UO VELOCITY OF JET DISCHARGE C TO TEMPERATURE OF DISCHARGE C DENI DENSITY OF DISCHARGE(MUST BE IN GM/CC)

C THETAO ANGLE OF DISCHARGE W/RESPECT TO HORIZ.

C DJ DEPTH OF DISCHARGE C SPACJ JET SPACING(BETWEEN CENTERS)

C D(I=1,NC) DEPTH AT WHICH AMBIENT SPECIFIED C TA(I=I,NC) AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AT D(I=1,NC)

C DENA(I=1,NC) AMBIENT DENSITY AT D(I=1,NC)

C GRAVAC GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION PROGRAM MULDIF DIMENSION TA(50),D(50),DENA(50),ET(50),ED(50),YT(50)

DIMENSION Y(6),YP(6)

REAL LAMBDR, LAMBDS, M COMMON LAMBDR,LAMBDS,M,H,ALPHAR,ALPHAS,NC,ET,ED, PAI,GRAVAC,YT, IK 1,ICHEK, IQ, SPACJ 1 FORMAT(II10,7F10.6) 10 FORMAT (3F10.6) 11 FORMAT (3F10.5) 100 FORMAT(T1I,'MULTIPORT SUBAQUEOUS DIFFUSER IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSIT 1Y STRATIFIED ENVIRONMENT',////T60,'AA= ',F6.2,' FEET',//T28,1'1----

2--AA ------ 1',T61,'A= ',F6.2,' FEET',/T43,'1',/T25,'*--A--*

3* *',T60,'JET DISCHARGE ANGLE= ',F6.2,' DEGREES W/HORIZ',

4/TI,'************ ******** *************T55*****

5T60,'JET DISCHARGE VELOCITY= ', F6.2,' FT/SEC',/T55,'*I,/T11,'****

6***i~r****** ******* ******* ~"" JET DISCHARGE TEMPERA 7TURE= ',F6.2,' F',/T60,'JET DISCHARGE DENSITY= ',F8.6,' GRAM/CC',

8/T60,'JET DISCHARGE DEPTH= ',F6.2,' FEET'//////)

102 FORMAT (75H1ROW BUOYANT JETS IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED ISTAGNANT ENVIRONMENT///5X, 13HJET DIAMETER=,IF6.3,6HMETERS, 5X, 223HJET DISCHARGE VELOCITY=,1F6.2,8HMET./SEC/5X, 26HJET DISCHARGE T 3EMPERATURE=,IF6.2,13HDEGREE CENTIG, 5X,22HJET DISCHARGE DENSITY=,

41F10.7, 11HGRAM PER ML/4X,18H JET DISCH.ANGLE=,1F6.2,BH DEGREES/

55X,20HJET DISCHARGE DEPTH=,IF6.2,6HMETERS,5X, 16HJET SPACING C-C=,

61F6.2,6HMETERS) 103 FORMAT (75HIROW BUOYANT JETS IN AN ARBITRARILY DENSITY STRATIFIED iSTAGNANT ENVIRONMENT///5X, 13HJET DIAMETER=,IF6.2,4H CM.,5X, 223HJET DISCHARGE VELOCITY=,1F6.2,8H CM./SEC/5X, 26HJET DISCHARGE T 3EMPERATURE=,IF6.2,13HDEGREE CENTIG, 5X,22HJET DISCHARGE DENSITY=,

41FI0.7, IIHGRAM PER ML/4X,18H JET DISCH. ANGLE=, 1F6.2,8H DEGREES/

55X,20HJET DISCHARGE DEPTH=,IF6.2,4H CM., 5X,16HJET SPACING C-C=,

61F6.2,4H CM.)

111 FORMAT(///7X,1HX,10X,IHY,6X,9HJET WIDTH,3X,8HDILUTION,3X,7HJET TEM 1,3X,SHJET DENS,4X,7HAMB DEN,4X,7HAMB TEM,4X,7HDELTA T,3X,7HALLOW T 2) 120 FORMAT(5X,53H INSUFFICIENT DATA ON AMBIENT DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE

I) 222 FORMAT (12F11.5) 520 FORMAT (lOX, 20HTRANSITION POINT TWO) 532 FORMAT (10X,20HTHIS IS FREE SURFACE) 1222 FORMAT (10X,20HTRANSITION POINT ONE) 204 READ(5,1)NC,DO,UO,TO,DEN1,THETAO,DJ,SPACJ IF (DO) 2,2,3 2 GO TO 104 3 READ(5,10) (D(I),TA(I),DENA(I),I=1,NC)

READ (5,11) GRAVAC,BLDR,RIVR TRA=(BLDR*TO+RIVR*TA(1) ) / (3LDR+RIVR)

TRA=TA(1)

PAI=3.14159265 ALPHAR=. 082 ALPHAS=.16 LAMBDR=1.16 LAMBDS=1.

DO 999 I=1,NC 999 YT(I)=DJ-D(I)

THETA=THETAO*PAI/180.

ZIP=1 .5 ICHEK=0.

L=0 C CHECK PHYSICAL UNITS IF(GRAVAC-900.) 97,97,98 97 IF(GRAVAC-30.) 101,99,99 C IN FPS UNITS 99 WRITE(6,100) SPACJ,DO,THETAO,UO,TO,DEN1,DJ GO TO 110 C IN MKS UNITS 101 WRITE (6,102) DO,UO,TO,DEN1,THETAO,DJ,SPACJ GO TO 110 C IN CGS UNITS 98 WRITE (6,103) DO,UO,TO,DEN1,THETAO,DJ,SPACJ 110 WRITE(6,111)

S=0.

C TO FIND REFERENCE TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY IR=1 IF (DJ-D(IR)) 112,113,114 113 TR=TA(IR)

DENR=DENA (IR)

GO TO 118 112 IR=IR+1 IF (DJ-D(IR)) 112,113,117 114 WRITE (6,120)

GO TO 204 117 SL=(DJ-D(IR))/(D(IR-1)-D(IR))

TR=TA(IR)+SL* (TA(IR-1)-TA(IR))

DENR=DENA(IR)+SL* (DENA(IR-1)-DENA(IR))

C INITAL CONDITIONS 118 Y(1)=PAI*DO*DO*UO*0.5 M=Y (1)*OO*Q0.5 VOLFJ=Y (1)

H=M*COS (THETA)

Y (2)=M*SIN (THETA)

Y(3)=Y(1)* (DENR-DENI)/DENR*0.5 Y(4)=Y(1)* (TR-TO)/TR*0.5

Y(5)=6.2*DO*COS(THETA)

Y(6)=6.2*DO*SIN(THETA)

IQ=0 IP=O IK=2 SQLAM=(I.+LAMBDR*LAMBDR)/(LAMBDR*LAMBDR)

SQRLAM=SQRT(I.+LAMBDS*LAMBDS)/LAMBDS C CALCULATION OF DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE GRAIDENTS NC1=NC-1 DO 912 I=1,NC2 Ii=I+l DPI=YT(I1)-YT(I)

ET(I)=(TA(II)-TA(I))/(TR*DPI) 912 ED(I)=(DENA(I1)-DENA(I))/(DENR*DPI)

C CHOICE OF INTEGRATION STEP DS1=DO/9.

DS2=DJ/100.

K=I IF (DS1-DS2) 301,301,302 301 DS=DS1 GO TO 303 302 DS=DS2 C INTEGRATION BY RUNGE-KUTTA METHOD K=1 303 CALL RUNGS (S,DS,6,Y,YP,L) 304 Y20=Y(2)

CALL RUNGS (S,DS,6,Y,YP,L)

IF (Y(2)*Y20) 20,21,21 20 K=K+I IF(K-3) 21,22,22 22 IF(ICHEK-1) 204,511,204 21 CONTINUE C LOOP FOR TRANSITION POINT TWO IF(ICHEK-2) 513,514,204 513 IF(ICHEK-1) 203,206,206 203 TRANW=SPACJ C ROUND JET SOLUTION 514 IF (Y(6)-DJ) 530,531,531 531 WRITE (6,532)

GO TO 204 530 IF (IQ) 533,533,206 533 M=SQRT(H*H+Y(2)*Y(2))

WIDTH=2.*Y(1)/SQRT(PAI*M)

IF(WIDTH-TRANW)207,206,206 C PRINT SPACING CONTROL 207 SJP=2.*DO PI=IP*SJP IF(S-PI)220,221,221 220 GO TO 304 221 IP=IP+1.

DENDIF=SQLAM*DENR*Y(3)/Y(1)

TDIF=SQLAM*TR*Y(4)/Y(1)

DILU=Y(1)/VOLFJ IF (DENDIF) 401,920,920 401 DENDIF=DENDIF*0.5 TDIF=0.5

TDIF C TO FIND AMBIENT DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE VALUES

920 IY=2 906 IF (Y(6)-YT(IY)) 900,901,902 901 DENAA=DENA(IY)

TAA=TA (IY)

IY=IY+1 GO TO 909 900 IY=IY-1 IF (Y(6)-YT(IY)) 900,901,905 905 IYY=IY+1 SYY=(Y(6)-YT(IYY))/(YT(IY)-YT(IYY))

TAA=SYY* (TA(IY)-TA(IYY) )+TA(IYY)

DENAA=SYY* (DENA(IY) -DENA(IYY) )+DENA(IYY)

GO TO 909 902 IY=IY+1 GO TO 906 909 TJ=TAA-TDIF DENJ=DENAA-DENDI F TDIFM=-TDIF IF(I.3-DOLU) 428,423,423 428 IF(DILU-ZIP)304,425,425 425 ZIP=ZIP+.5 423 ALT=17.

WRITE (6,222) Y(5),Y(6),WIDTH,DILU,TJ,DENJ,DENAA,TAA,TDIFM,ALT GO TO 304 C SLOT JET SOLUTION C CHECK TRANSITION POINT ONE OR TWO 206 IF (Y(6)-DJ) 522,511,511 511 ICHEK=ICHEK+1 IF (ICHEK-2) 512,512,204 C TRANSITION POINT TWO 512 S=SO Y(1)=Y1 Y(2)=Y2 Y(3)-Y3 Y(4)=Y4 Y (5) =Y5 Y(6)=Y6 IP=IPC IK=IKC IQ=O IY=IYC L=O K=KI WRITE (6,520)

GO TO 303 522 IQ=I IF (ICHEK-1) 240,241,241 C TRANSITION POINT ONE 240 WRITE (6,1222)

C STORE SOLUTIONS AS INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR TRANSITION POINT TWO SO=-S Y1=Y (1)

Y2=Y(2)

Y3=Y (3)

Y4=Y(4)

Y5=Y(5)

Y6=Y(6)

TRANW=2. *ALPHAS*SPACJ/(PAI*ALPHAR)

IPC=IP KI=K IKC=IK ICHEK=ICHEK+ 1 IYC=IY C PRINT SPACING CONTROL 241 PI=IP*SJP IF (S-PI) 304,501,501 501 IP=IP+I M=SQRT(H*H+Y (2) *Y(2))

WIDTH=Y(1)*Y(1)/(SQRT(PAI)*M*SPACJ)*2.

DENDIF=SQRLAM*DENR*Y(3) /Y(1)

TDIF=SQRLAM*TR*Y (4)/Y (1)

DILU=Y (1)/VOLFJ IF (DENDIF) 402,906,906 402 CONST=0.5*SQRT(PAI*0.5)

DENIF=CONST* DENDI F TDIF=CONST*TDIF GO TO 906 104 STOP END SUBROUTINE DERIVE (S,N,Y,YP)

DIMENSION Y(6),YP(6)

DIMENSION ET(50),ED(50),YT(50)

REAL LAMBDR,LAMBDS,M COMMON LAMBDR,LAMBDS,M,H,ALPHAR,ALPHAS,NC,ET,ED,PAI,GRAVAC,YT, IK 1, ICHEK, IQ,SPACJ C COMPUTATION OF DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS AT Y 814 IF (Y(6)-YT(1)) 811,811,812 812 IF (Y(6)-YT(NC)) 806,813,813

.811 EDD=ED(i)

ETT=ET (1)

GO TO 70 813 EDD=ED(NC-1)

ETT=ET (NC-i)

GO TO 70 806 IF (Y(6)-YT(IK)) 800,801,802 801 EDD=(ED(IK)+ED(IK-1))*0.5 ETT=(ET(IK)+ET(IK-1))*0.5 IK=IK+1 GO TO 70 800 IK=IK-1 IF(Y(6)-YT(IK)) 800,801,805 805 EDD=ED(IK)

ETT=ET(IK)

IK=IK+1 GO TO 70 802 IK=IK+I IF (IK-NC) 814,814,807 807 WRITE (6,808) 808 FORMAT (1OX,25H THIS IS THE FREE SURFACE)

RETURN 70 IF (IQ) 71,71,72 C ROUND JET SOLUTION 71 ENTRAN=2.* ALPHAR*SQRT(2.*PAI*M)

CLAM= (I. +LAMBDR*LAMBDR) /2.

GO TO 73 C SLOT JET SOLUTION 72 ENTRAN=2.*SQRT(2.) *ALPHAS*SPACJ*M/Y(i)

CLAM=SQRT( (i.+LAMBDS*LAMBDS)/2.)

73 SQROTM=SQRT(Y (2)*Y(2)+H*H)

YP (1)=ENTRAN YP(2)=CLAM

GRAVAC

Y(1)

Y(3)/SQROTM YP(3)=Y(1)

EDD

Y(2)/SQROTM YP(4)=Y(1)

ETT

Y(2)/SQROTM YP (5) =H/SQROTM YP(6)=Y(2)/SQROTM RETURN END SUBROUTINE RUNGS (X, H, N, Y, YPRIME, INDEX)

DIMENSION Y(7),YPRIME(7),Z(7),WI(7),W2(7),W3(7),W4(7)

CRUNGS - RUNGE-KUTTA SOLUTION OF SET OF FIRST ORDER O.D.E. FORTRAN II IF (INDEX) 5,5,1 1 DO 2 I=1,N WI(I)=H

YPRIME(I) 2 Z (I)=Y(I)+(W (I)*.5)

A=X+H/2.

CALL DERIVE (A,N,Z,YPRIME)

DO 3 I=I,N W2(I)=H

YPRIME(I) 3 Z (I)=Y(I)+.5*W2 (I)

A=X+H/2.

CALL DERIVE (A,N,Z,YPRIME)

DO 4 I=I,N W3(I)=H

YPRIME(I) 4 Z (I)=Y(I)+W3 (I)

A=X+H CALL DERIVE (A,N,Z,YPRIME)

DO 7 I=1,N W4(I)=H

YPRIME(I) 7 Y(I)ýY(I)+( ((2.*(W2(I)+W3(I)))+WI (I)-+W4 (I))/6.)

X=X+H CALL DERIVE (X,N,Y,YPRIME)

GO TO 6 5 CALL DERIVE (X,N,Y,YPRIME)

INDEX=I 6 RETURN END

APPENDIX C Appendix C Rhodamine WT Dye Recovery Curves and Calculated Centroids Travel Time Study during Full Operating Conditions Low-Tide, 2 Units, Injection at 01/11/2013 14:17 30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- EFF-2 25 --- --- --- --- --- -------------------------------------------------------- - - Main Inlet

/

EFF-2 Centroid S 20 --------- - ......................... -

.....- Inle t C e n tro id I ; ',

2 ,-

1 ------------------------------------------------

15 ---- %-------------------------------------------------

.=

5------------------------------------------------- --- -- ---- -- I,-- "% N---------------------- % ----

~ ~~~~

~- -

0 .. %..

. ^ .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Time Since Injection (minutes) 3 0 High-Tide, 2 Units, Injection at 01/11/2013 20:28 30-1 -----------------------------------

20 ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. -- - I.---------------------

08 S6 o

.- 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Time Since Injection (minutes)

Low-Tide, 2 Units, Injection at 01/12/2013 2:59

. 40 0 ...... ..........

20 -------------------------------------- ~-------------------

10 .SI 40 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Time Since Injection (minutes)

Appendix C Rhodamine WT Dye Recovery Curve and Calculated Centroids Travel Time Study during Single Unit Operating Conditions Low-Tide, 1 Unit, Injection at 10/16/20 13 01:00 40 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EFF-2

ýP 30 35 ------------------------------------------------------

------------------------- O EFF-2 Centroid

- - - Main Inlet

25 --------------------------------------

A Main Inlet Centroid c 20

-o 0e-,

15 10 5

----- /--- -------------------- ...... Extended Inlet O Extended Inlet Centroid 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Time Since Injection (minutes)

Low-Tide, 1 Unit, Injection at 10/17/2013 01:45 40

- 35 30 ---- -----

---- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- -I--- - - -- j-- -- - -- - - -- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -

25

.E 20 -- ----

E ----

-a15 0

e- - - ---

" 10 ft

ý 5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Time Since Injection (minutes)

Low-Tide, 1 Unit, Injection at 10/18/20 13 02:30 40 35 ----------------------------------------------------

30 ----------------------------------------------------

HL 25 20 E) 15 10 5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Time Since Injection (minutes)

APPENDIX D Appendix D Phase I Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Canal Sample pH Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration CC) (SU) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (lAg/L) (% Initial) 1/9/13 15:01 0 661 100%

1/9/13 15:10 9 541 82%

1/9/13 15:19 18 440 67%

1/9/13 15:25 24 359 54%

1/9/13 15:32 31 361 55%

35.3 7.99 1/9/13 15:39 38 368 56%

1/9/13 15:39 38 346 52%

1/9/13 15:48 47 323 49%

1/9/13 15:54 53 306 46%

1/9/13 15:59 58 293 44%

1/9/13 16:05 64 282 43%

1/9/13 17:18 0 328 100%

1/9/13 17:25 7 233 71%

1/9/13 17:31 13 253 77%

1/9/13 17:37 19 236 72%

1/9/13 17:42 24 196 60%

1/9/13 17:47 29 184 56%

1/9/13 17:54 36 190 58%

1/9/13 18:00 42 162 49%

1/9/13 18:05 47 136 41%

1/9/13 18:10 52 132 40%

1/10/13 12:01 0 142 100%

1/10/13 12:07 6 119 84%

1/10/13 12:13 12 105 74%

1/10/13 12:20 19 96 68%

1/10/13 12:26 25 74 52%

35.3 8.05 1/10/13 12:32 31 77 54%

1/10/13 12:38 37 74 52%

1/10/13 12:44 43 65 46%

1/10/13 12:50 49 63 44%

1/10/13 12:55 54 62 44%

1 1/10/13 13:01 60 65 46%

Appendix D Phase I Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Canal Sample pH Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration (CC) (SU) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (tg/L) (% Initial) 1/10/13 14:28 0 47 100%

1/10/13 14:35 7 52 111%

1/10/13 14:41 13 48 102%

1/10/13 14:47 19 41 87%

1/10/13 14:54 26 52 111%

1/10/13 15:01 33 50 106%

1/10/13 15:01 33 23 49%

35.3 8.01 1/10/13 15:08 40 65 138%

1/10/13 15:08 40 21 45%

1/10/13 15:14 46 49 104%

1/10/13 15:14 46 25 53%

1/10/13 15:20 52 49 104%

1/10/13 15:20 52 22 47%

1/10/13 15:27 59 121 257%

1/10/13 15:27 59 22 47%

1/11/13 11:05 0 57 100%

1/11/13 11:12 7 52 91%

1/11/13 11:19 14 75 132%

1/11/13 11:19 14 72 126%

I/I 1/13 11:25 20 47 82%

35.4 NR I/11/13 11:31 26 51 89%

1/11/13 11:38 33 52 91%

I/I 1/13 11:44 39 69 121%

I/11/13 11:49 44 65 114%

I/11/13 11:57 52 77 135%

1/11/13 12:08 63 85 149%

APPENDIX E Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration (C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (% Initial) 1/28/2013 14:22 0 195 100%

1/28/2013 14:28 6 136 70%

1/28/2013 14:34 12 109 56%

1/28/2013 14:41 19 94 48%

1/28/2013 14:45 23 86 44%

35.81/28/2013 14:52 30 81 42%

1/28/2013 14:58 36 84 43%

1/28/2013 15:04 42 80 41%

1/28/2013 15:10 48 81 42%

1/28/2013 15:16 54 88 45%

1/28/2013 15:36 0 123 100%

1/28/2013 15:42 6 101 82%

1/28/2013 15:48 12 87 71%

1/28/2013 15:54 18 73 59%

1/28/2013 15:59 23 68 55%

1/28/2013 16:05 29 66 54%

1/28/2013 16:11 35 72 59%

1/28/2013 16:17 41 66 54%

1/28/2013 16:23 47 82 67%

1/28/2013 16:29 53 88 72%

1/28/2013 16:49 0 111 100%

1/28/2013 16:54 5 86 77%

1/28/2013 17:00 1I 87 72%

1/28/2013 17:07 18 65 47%

35.7 1/28/2013 17:12 23 64 28%

1/28/2013 17:18 29 64 27%

1/28/2013 17:24 35 65 28%

1/28/2013 17:29 40 70 37%

1/28/2013 17:35 46 70 41%

2/25/2013 12:44 0 144 100%

2/25/2013 12:51 7 116 81%

2/25/2013 12:56 12 112 78%

2/25/2013 13:02 18 97 67%

2/25/2013 13:10 26 84 58%

37.3 2/25/2013 13:15 31 75 52%

2/25/2013 13:21 37 65 45%

2/25/2013 13:27 43 59 41%

2/25/2013 13:32 48 62 43%

2/25/2013 13:37 53 56 39%

2/25/2013 13:43 59 60 42%

2/25/2013 14:04 0 208 100%

2/25/2013 14:12 8 182 88%

2/25/2013 14:19 15 184 88%

2/25/2013 14:24 20 144 69%

2/25/2013 14:30 26 131 63%

2/25/2013 14:38 34 110 53%

2/25/2013 14:44 40 105 50%

2/25/2013 14:49 45 100 48%

2/25/2013 14:54 50 104 50%

2/25/2013 15:00 56 98 47%

2/25/2013 15:23 0 160 100%

2/25/2013 15:29 6 151 94%

2/25/2013 15:36 13 121 76%

2/25/2013 15:42 19 1I1 69%

2/25/2013 15:47 24 101 63%

2/25/2013 15:53 30 100 63%

2/25/2013 15:59 36 83 52%

2/25/2013 16:05 42 86 54%

2/25/2013 16:10 47 77 48%

2/25/2013 16:17 54 70 44%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration 0

( C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (vg/L) (% Initial) 3/25/2013 12:04 0 234 100%

3/25/2013 12:12 8 182 78%

3/25/2013 12:18 14 155 66%

3/25/2013 12:25 21 129 55%

3/25/2013 12:31 27 110 47%

3/25/2013 12:36 32 127 54%

3/25/2013 12:42 38 106 45%

3/25/2013 12:48 44 106 45%

3/25/2013 12:53 49 99 42%

3/25/2013 12:58 54 73 31%

3/25/2013 13:23 0 185 100%

3/25/2013 13:28 5 89 48%

3/25/2013 13:35 12 185 100%

3/25/2013 13:41 18 133 72%

3/25/2013 13:45 22 63 34%

3/25/2013 13:51 28 69 37%

3/25/2013 13:55 32 57 31%

3/25/2013 14:00 37 47 25%

3/25/2013 14:05 42 45 24%

3/25/2013 14:09 46 45 24%

3/25/2013 14:13 50 45 24%

3/25/2013 14:18 55 41 22%

3/25/2013 14:43 0 123 100%

3/25/2013 14:48 5 81 66%

3/25/2013 14:52 9 68 55%

3/25/2013 14:57 14 60 49%

3/25/2013 15:01 18 55 45%

3/25/2013 15:06 23 48 39%

3/25/2013 15:10 27 42 34%

3/25/2013 15:13 30 43 35%

3/25/2013 15:18 35 29 24%

3/25/2013 15:22 39 35 28%

4/24/2013 12:03 0 300 100%

4/24/2013 12:12 9 167 56%

4/24/2013 12:17 14 114 38%

4/24/2013 12:21 18 94 31%

38.4 4/24/2013 12:27 24 79 26%

4/24/2013 12:32 29 75 25%

4/24/2013 12:37 34 63 21%

4/24/2013 12:43 40 62 21%

4/24/2013 12:47 44 61 20%

4/24/2013 12:52 49 60 20%

4/24/2013 13:22 0 162 100%

4/24/2013 13:27 5 83 51%

4/24/2013 13:32 10 68 42%

4/24/2013 13:37 15 59 36%

38.8 4/24/2013 13:42 20 46 28%

4/24/2013 13:47 25 40 25%

4/24/2013 13:52 30 40 25%

4/24/2013 13:57 35 38 23%

4/24/2013 14:01 39 37 23%

4/24/2013 14:06 44 34 21%

4/24/2013 14:26 0 119 100%

4/24/2013 14:30 4 71 60%

4/24/2013 14:36 10 55 46%

4/24/2013 14:44 18 40 34%

4/24/2013 14:49 23 35 29%

4/24/2013 14:54 28 30 25%

4/24/2013 14:59 33 31 26%

4/24/2013 15:04 38 27 23%

4/24/2013 15:I0 44 28 24%

4/24/2013 15:16 50 27 23%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date'and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration

('C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (plg/L) (% Initial) 5/31/2013 11:17 0 197 100%

5/31/2013 11:22 5 131 66%

5/31/2013 11:27 10 105 53%

5/31/2013 11:33 16 92 47%

5/31/2013 11:38 21 86 44%

5/31/2013 11:44 27 75 38%

5/31/2013 11:49 32 66 34%

5/31/2013 11:55 38 59 30%

5/31/2013 12:00 43 51 26%

5/31/2013 12:04 47 49 25%

5/31/2013 12:31 0 242 100%

5/31/2013 12:37 6 160 66%

5/31/2013 12:44 13 105 43%

5/31/2013 12:50 19 84 35%

5/31/2013 12:55 24 77 32%

5/31/2013 13:00 29 68 28%

5/31/2013 13:05 34 61 25%

5/31/2013 13:09 38 58 24%

5/31/2013 13:13 42 55 23%

5/31/2013 13:18 47 46 19%

5/31/2013 13:40 0 108 100%

5/31/2013 13:45 5 75 69%

5/31/2013 13:49 9 52 48%

5/31/2013 13:54 14 43 40%

5/31/2013 13:59 19 37 34%

5/31/2013 14:03 23 32 30%

5/31/2013 14:07 27 28 26%

5/31/2013 14:11 31 26 24%

5/31/2013 14:15 35 22 20%

5/31/2013 14:20 40 20 19%

6/24/2013 11:53 0 127 100%

6/24/2013 11:59 6 89 70%

6/24/2013 12:04 I1 68 54%

6/24/2013 12:10 17 53 42%

6/24/2013 12:14 21 47 37%

39.7 6/24/2013 12:19 26 43 34%

6/24/2013 12:24 31 39 31%

6/24/2013 12:28 35 36 28%

6/24/2013 12:33 40 32 25%

6/24/2013 12:38 45 31 24%

6/24/2013 12:43 50 29 23%

6/24/2013 13:09 0 248 100%

6/24/2013 13:16 7 198 80%

6/24/2013 13:22 13 136 55%

6/24/2013 13:28 19 86 35%

35.7 6/24/2013 13:36 27 62 25%

6/24/2013 13:41 32 54 22%

6/24/2013 13:46 37 46 19%

6/24/2013 13:51 42 45 18%

6/24/2013 13:55 46 40 16%

6/24/2013 14:04 55 45 18%

6/24/2013 14:23 0 292 100%

6/24/2013 14:30 7 129 44%/o 6/24/2013 14:35 12 101 35%

6/24/2013 14:41 18 81 28%

36.1 6/24/2013 14:47 24 69 24%

6/2 56 19%

6/24/2013 15:00 37 56 19%

6/24/2013 15:07 44 44 15%

6/24/2013 15:11 48 44 15%

6/24/2013 15:15 52 42 14%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration

(,C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (ltg/L) (% Initial) 7/22/2013 11:22 0 130 100%

7/22/2013 11:27 5 91 70%

7/22/2013 11:32 10 68 52%

7/22/2013 11:38 16 58 45%

7/22/2013 11:43 21 53 41%

7/22/2013 11:47 25 45 35%

7/22/2013 11:53 31 41 32%

7/22/2013 11:58 36 38 29%

7/22/2013 12:03 41 34 26%

7/22/2013 12:07 45 33 25%

7/22/2013 12:11 49 30 23%

7/22/2013 12:16 54 29 22%

7/22/2013 12:41 0 123 100%

7/22/2013 12:47 6 88 72%

7/22/2013 12:52 I1 73 59%

7/22/2013 12:58 17 63 51%

7/22/2013 13:03 22 51 41%

7/22/2013 13:08 27 47 38%

36.87/22/2013 13:14 33 44 36%

7/22/2013 13:19 38 42 34%

7/22/2013 13:24 43 35 28%

7/22/2013 13:29 48 33 27%

7/22/2013 13:34 53 32 26%

7/22/2013 13:38 57 31 25%

7/22/2013 13:55 0 137 100%

7/22/2013 14:00 5 95 69%

7/22/2013 14:06 I1 73 53%

7/22/2013 14:11 16 62 45%

7/22/2013 14:17 22 50 36%

7/22/2013 14:23 28 45 33%

7/22/2013 14:29 34 39 28%

7/22/2013 14:34 39 36 26%

7/22/2013 14:39 44 34 25%

7/22/2013 14:44 49 31 23%

7/22/2013 14:49 54 26 19%

7/22/2013 14:53 58 28 20%

8/12/2013 11:29 0 138 100%

8/12/2013 11:34 5 87 63%

8/12/2013 11:39 I0 64 46%

8/12/2013 11:44 15 48 35%

8/12/2013 11:48 19 44 32%

8/12/2013 11:53 24 37 27%

40.7 8/12/2013 11:58 29 33 24%

8/12/2013 12:02 33 32 23%

8/12/2013 12:06 37 28 20%

8/12/2013 12:11 42 27 20%

8/12/2013 12:15 46 22 16%

8/12/2013 12:19 50 25 18%

8/12/2013 12:36 0 131 100%

8/12/2013 12:41 5 83 63%

8/12/2013 12:46 10 68 52%

8/12/2013 12:51 15 53 40%

8/12/2013 12:55 19 44 34%

8/12/2013 13:00 24 40 31%

8/12/2013 13:05 29 35 27%

8/12/2013 13:09 33 32 24%

8/12/2013 13:13 37 30 23%

8/12/2013 13:17 41 27 21%

8/12/2013 13:22 46 25 19%

8/12/2013 13:27 51 23 18%

8/12/2013 13:41 0 138 100%

8/12/2013 13:47 6 107 78%

8/12/2013 13:52 11 66 48%

8/12/2013 13:57 16 52 38%

8/12/2013 14:02 21 43 31%

40.8 8/12/2013 14:06 25 39 28%

8/12/2013 14:10 29 32 23%

8/12/2013 14:16 35 32 23%

8/12/2013 14:20 39 25 18%

8/12/2013 14:24 43 27 20%

8/12/2013 14:28 47 22 16%

8/12/2013 14:32 51 24 17%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration (TC) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (% Initial) 9/23/2013 11:06 0 87 100%

9/23/2013 11:11 5 55 63%

9/23/2013 11:16 10 38 44%

9/23/2013 11:22 16 29 33%

9/23/2013 11:28 22 24 28%

9/23/2013 11:32 26 23 26%

9/23/2013 11:37 31 18 21%

9/23/2013 11:42 36 17 20%

9/23/2013 11:46 40 16 18%

9/23/2013 11:50 44 16 18%

9/23/2013 11:55 49 16 18%

9/23/2013 11:59 53 16 18%

9/23/2013 12:15 0 163 100%

9/23/2013 12:21 6 83 51%

9/23/2013 12:26 11 60 37%

9/23/2013 12:31 16 51 31%

9/23/2013 12:35 20 41 25%

9/23/2013 12:40 25 34 21%

9/23/2013 12:44 29 32 20%

9/23/2013 12:49 34 30 18%

9/23/2013 12:54 39 25 15%

9/23/2013 12:58 43 22 13%

9/23/2013 13:03 48 21 13%

9/23/2013 13:07 52 21 13%

9/23/2013 13:31 0 123 100%

9/23/2013 13:37 6 78 63%

9/23/2013 13:42 11 57 46%

9/23/2013 13:46 15 47 38%

9/23/2013 13:51 20 37 30%

41.7 9/23/2013 13:56 25 33 27%

9/23/2013 14:01 30 27 22%

9/23/2013 14:05 34 26 21%

9/23/2013 14:11 40 22 18%

9/23/2013 14:15 44 21 17%

9/23/2013 14:19 48 20 16%

9/23/2013 14:23 52 20 16%

10/15/2013 10:12 0 130 100%

10/15/2013 10:19 7 80 62%

10/15/2013 10:24 12 53 41%

10/15/2013 10:28 16 43 33%

10/15/2013 10:33 21 37 28%

10/15/2013 10:39 27 30 23%

37.210/15/2013 10:44 32 27 21%

10/15/2013 10:49 37 27 21%

10/15/2013 10:54 42 26 20%

10/15/2013 10:58 46 25 19%

10/15/2013 11:03 51 22 17%

10/15/2013 11:09 57 22 17%

10/15/2013 11:50 0 141 100%

10/15/2013 11:55 5 85 60%

10/15/2013 12:01 11 57 40%

10/15/2013 12:06 16 43 30%

10/15/2013 12:11 21 36 26%

10/15/2013 12:15 25 30 21%

39.210/15/2013 12:20 30 27 19%

10/15/2013 12:24 34 24 17%

10/15/2013 12:30 40 23 16%

10/15/2013 12:35 45 22 16%

10/15/2013 12:39 49 21 15%

10/15/2013 12:44 54 21 15%

10/15/2013 13:43 0 138 100%

10/15/2013 13:48 5 78 57%

10/15/2013 13:53 10 48 35%

10/15/2013 13:58 15 37 27%

10/15/2013 14:02 19 28 20%

10/15/2013 14:07 24 24 17%

10/15/2013 14:12 29 22 16%

10/15/2013 14:17 34 19 14%

10/15/2013 14:23 40 20 14%

10/15/2013 14:27 44 17 12%

10/15/2013 14:31 48 15 11%

50/15/2013 14:35 52 16 12%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration 0

( C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (% Initial) 11/18/2013 11:10 0 153 100%

11/18/2013 11:16 6 114 75%

11/18/2013 11:22 12 93 61%

11/18/2013 11:28 18 75 49%

11/18/2013 11:33 23 63 41%

S11/18/2013 11:38 28 50 33%

40.211/18/2013 11:43 33 42 27%

11/18/2013 11:48 38 41 27%

11/18/2013 11:53 43 35 23%

11/18/2013 11:57 47 32 21%

11/18/2013 12:02 52 30 20%

11/18/2013 12:07 57 29 19%

11/18/2013 12:44 0 157 100%

11/18/2013 12:50 6 128 82%

11/18/2013 12:57 13 104 66%

11/18/2013 13:02 18 90 57%

11/18/2013 13:08 24 71 45%

40.7 11/18/2013 13:13 29 65 41%

11/18/2013 13:19 35 60 38%

11/18/2013 13:23 39 51 32%

11/18/2013 13:28 44 48 31%

11/18/2013 13:32 48 44 28%

11/18/2013 13:37 53 41 26%

11/18/2013 13:43 59 39 25%

11/18/2013 14:28 0 116 100%

11/18/2013 14:33 5 112 97%

11/18/2013 14:39 11 88 76%

11/18/2013 14:44 16 74 64%

11/18/2013 14:49 21 63 54%

40.4 11/18/2013 14:54 26 53 46%

11/18/2013 15:00 32 48 41%

11/18/2013 15:05 37 44 38%

11/18/2013 15:11 43 33 28%

11/18/2013 15:15 47 32 28%

11/18/2013 15:20 52 32 28%

11/18/2013 15:26 58 30 26%

12/17/2013 11:25 0 199 100%

12/17/2013 11:31 6 108 54%

12/17/2013 11:36 11 83 42%

12/17/2013 11:41 16 70 35%

12/17/2013 11:46 21 60 30%

12/17/2013 11:52 27 56 28%

12/17/2013 11:56 31 48 24%

12/17/2013 12:00 35 44 22%

12/17/2013 12:05 40 37 19%

12/17/2013 12:10 45 35 18%

12/17/2013 12:14 49 34 17%

12/17/2013 12:20 55 35 18%

12/17/2013 13:09 0 158 100%

12/17/2013 13:14 5 101 64%

12/17/2013 13:19 10 73 46%

12/17/2013 13:25 16 65 41%

12/17/2013 13:30 21 53 34%

12/17/2013 13:35 26 45 28%

12/17/2013 13:40 31 40 25%

12/17/2013 13:45 36 37 23%

12/17/2013 13:49 40 31 20%

12/17/2013 13:54 45 30 19%

12/17/2013 13:59 50 28 18%

12/17/2013 14:04 55 26 16%

12/17/2013 14:50 0 163 100%

12/17/2013 14:55 5 83 51%

12/17/2013 15:00 10 64 39%

12/17/2013 15:05 15 51 31%

12/17/2013 15:11 21 45 28%

12/17/2013 15:16 26 34 21%

32.312/17/2013 15:21 31 30 18%

12/17/2013 15:26 36 29 18%

12/17/2013 15:31 41 23 14%

12/17/2013 15:36 46 21 13%

12/17/2013 N 5:41 51 19 12%

12/17/2013 15:46 56 19 12%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration CC) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (% Initial)

I/28/2014 11:29 0 320 100%

1/28/2014 11:36 7 109 34%

1/28/2014 11:41 12 99 31%

1/28/2014 11:46 17 83 26%

1/28/2014 11:51 22 74 23%

1/28/2014 11:56 27 67 21%

1/28/201412:01 32 57 18%

1/28/2014 12:06 37 50 16%

1/28/2014 12:12 43 46 14%

1/28/2014 12:16 47 39 12%

1/28/2014 12:21 52 39 12%

1/28/2014 12:25 56 33 10%

1/28/201413:16 0 183 100%

1/28/2014 13:21 5 89 49%

1/28/2014 13:27 11 63 34%

1/28/2014 13:31 15 52 28%

1/28/2014 13:36 20 43 23%

1/28/2014 13:41 25 40 22%

36.3 1/28/2014 13:46 30 31 17%

1/28/2014 13:51 35 28 15%

1/28/2014 13:56 40 24 13%

1/28/2014 14:02 46 22 12%

1/28/2014 14:08 52 20 11%

1/28/2014 14:13 57 21 11%

1/28/2014 14:47 0 245 100%

1/28/2014 14:53 6 100 41%

1/28/2014 14:58 11 81 33%

1/28/2014 15:03 16 65 27%

1/28/2014 15:08 21 57 23%

1/28/2014 15:13 26 47 19%

1/28/2014 15:18 31 40 16%

1/28/2014 15:23 36 36 15%

1/28/2014 15:28 41 32 13%

1/28/2014 15:33 46 31 13%

1/28/2014 15:38 51 28 11%

1/28/2014 15:42 55 27 11%

2/27/2014 10:33 0 80 100%

2/27/2014 10:39 6 44 55%

2/27/2014 10:44 11 35 44%

2/27/2014 10:48 15 27 34%

2/27/2014 10:53 20 22 28%

2/27/2014 10:58 25 16 20%

35.82/27/2014 11:04 31 16 20%

2/27/2014 11:10 37 16 20%

2/27/2014 11:15 42 1I 19%

2/27/2014 11:20 47 15 19%

2/27/2014 11:24 51 14 18%

2/27/2014 11:28 55 14 18%

2/27/2014 11:55 0 106 100%

2/27/2014 12:00 5 71 67%

2/27/2014 12:05 10 52 49%

2/27/2014 12:10 15 44 42%

2/27/2014 12:15 20 38 36%

37.0 2/27/2014 12:20 25 32 30%

2/27/2014 12:25 30 30 28%

2/27/2014 12:30 35 25 24%

2/27/2014 12:35 40 22 21%

2/27/2014 12:40 45 18 17%

2/27/2014 12:44 49 17 16%

2/27/2014 12:48 53 17 16%

2/27/2014 13:30 0 152 100%

2/27/2014 13:35 5 90 59%

2/27/2014 13:40 10 72 47%

2/27/2014 13:45 15 56 37%

2/27/2014 13:49 19 49 32%

2/27/2014 13:54 24 39 26%

36.9 2/27/2014 13:59 29 39 26%

2/27/2014 14:04 34 37 24%

2/27/2014 14:09 39 32 21%

2/27/2014 14:14 44 29 19%

2/27/2014 14:18 48 26 17%

2/27/2014 14:26 56 26 17%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration

('C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (lAg/L) (% Initial) 3/27/2014 10:59 0 265 100%

3/27/2014 11:04 5 125 47%

3/27/2014 11:10 I1 107 40%

3/27/2014 11:15 16 91 34%

3/27/2014 11:22 23 81 31%

3/27/2014 11:27 28 61 23%

3/27/2014 11:31 32 63 24%

3/27/2014 11:37 38 54 20%

3/27/2014 11:42 43 48 18%

3/27/2014 11:47 48 44 17%

3/27/2014 11:51 52 41 15%

3/27/2014 11:55 56 42 16%

3/27/2014 12:12 0 212 100%

3/27/2014 12:18 6 143 67%

3/27/2014 12:23 11 92 43%

3/27/2014 12:29 17 91 43%

3/27/2014 12:34 22 68 32%

3/27/2014 12:39 27 65 31%

3/27/2014 12:45 33 57 27%

3/27/2014 12:51 39 53 25%

3/27/2014 12:55 43 45 21%

3/27/2014 13:00 48 42 20%

3/27/2014 13:04 52 43 20%

3/27/2014 13:09 57 39 18%

3/27/2014 13:33 0 176 100%

3/27/2014 13:39 6 100 57%

3/27/2014 13:45 12 80 45%

3/27/2014 13:49 16 65 37%

3/27/2014 13:54 21 59 34%

3/27/2014 14:01 28 31 18%

3/27/2014 14:05 32 43 24%

3/27/2014 14:11 38 35 20%

3/27/2014 14:15 42 35 20%

3/27/2014 14:19 46 28 16%

3/27/2014 14:24 51 27 15%

3/27/2014 14:28 55 25 14%

4/24/2014 10:01 0 191 100%

4/24/2014 10:07 6 169 88%

4/24/2014 10:13 12 140 73%

4/24/2014 10:20 19 110 58%

4/24/2014 10:25 24 87 46%

4/24/2014 10:30 29 83 43%

4/24/2014 10:35 34 74 39%

4/24/2014 10:41 40 71 37%

4/24/2014 10:48 47 62 32%

4/24/2014 10:53 52 51 27%

4/24/2014 10:58 57 51 27%

4/24/2014 11:01 60 50 26%

4/24/2014 15:05 0 244 100%

4/24/2014 15:11 6 139 57%

4/24/2014 15:16 I1 115 47%

4/24/2014 15:22 17 104 43%

4/24/2014 15:28 23 81 33%

4/24/2014 15:36 31 71 29%

4/24/2014 15:42 37 64 26%

4/24/2014 15:47 42 56 23%

4/24/2014 15:52 47 52 21/%

4/24/2014 15:56 51 47 19%

4/24/2014 16:01 56 43 18%

4/24/2014 16:05 60 43 18%

4/24/2014 16:40 0 204 100%

4/24/2014 16:46 6 119 58%

4/24/2014 16:51 11 100 49%

4/24/2014 16:56 16 87 43%

4/24/2014 17:02 22 70 34%

4/24/2014 17:07 27 64 31%

4/24/2014 17:12 32 60 29%

4/24/2014 17:18 38 51 25%

4/24/2014 17:22 42 43 21%

4/24/2014 17:25 45 40 20%

4/24/2014 17:32 52 37 18%

4/24/2014 17:36 56 36 18%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration (CC) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (% Initial) 5/29/2014 10:42 0 168 100%

5/29/2014 10:47 5 145 100%

5/29/2014 10:53 11 95 66%

5/29/2014 10:59 17 77 53%

5/29/2014 11:04 22 64 44%

5/29/2014 11:09 27 63 43%

40.25/29/2014 11:13 31 57 39%

5/29/2014 11:18 36 52 36%

5/29/2014 11:22 40 42 29%

5/29/2014 11:26 44 36 25%

5/29/2014 11:31 49 42 29%

5/29/2014 11:35 53 35 24%

5/29/2014 13:29 0 163 100%

5/29/2014 13:34 5 86 53%

5/29/2014 13:39 10 65 40%

5/29/2014 13:44 15 60 37%

5/29/2014 13:48 19 50 31%

5/29/2014 13:53 24 43 26%

5/29/2014 13:58 29 28 17%

5/29/2014 14:03 34 31 19%

5/29/2014 14:08 39 27 17%

5/29/2014 14:12 43 26 16%

5/29/2014 14:17 48 25 15%

5/29/2014 14:22 53 23 14%

5/29/2014 14:54 0 188 100%

5/29/2014 14:59 5 72 38%

5/29/2014 15:04 10 51 27%

5/29/2014 15:09 15 46 24%

5/29/2014 15:14 20 35 19%

5/29/2014 15:19 25 33 18%

5/29/2014 15:24 30 31 16%

5/29/2014 15:29 35 28 15%

5/29/2014 15:33 39 25 13%

5/29/2014 15:38 44 22 12%

5/29/2014 15:43 49 20 11%

5/29/2014 15:48 54 20 11%

6/17/2014 10:29 0 120 100%

6/17/2014 10:35 6 95 79%

6/I 7/2014 10:42 13 76 63%

6/I 7/2014 10:47 18 65 54%

6/17/2014 10:53 24 52 43%

6/17/2014 10:58 29 45 38%

39.16/17/2014 11:03 34 39 33%

6/17/2014 11:07 38 38 32%

6/17/2014 11:13 44 36 30%

6/17/2014 11:18 49 32 27%

6/17/2014 11:23 54 31 26%

6/17/2014 11:27 58 30 25%

6/17/2014 11:44 0 346 100%

6/17/2014 11:51 7 111 32%

6/17/2014 11:57 13 114 33%

6/17/2014 12:03 19 105 30%

6/17/2014 12:08 24 89 26%

6/17/2014 12:16 32 77 22%

6/17/2014 12:22 38 68 20%

6/17/2014 12:27 43 71 21%

6/I 7/2014 12:32 48 53 15%

6/17/2014 12:36 52 47 14%

6/I 7/2014 12:40 56 42 12%

6/17/2014 12:44 60 43 12%

6/17/2014 13:40 0 249 100%

6/17/2014 13:46 6 141 57%

6/17/2014 13:51 11 111 45%

6/17/2014 13:57 17 97 39%

6/17/2014 14:01 21 86 35%

6/17/2014 14:07 27 69 28%

6/17/2014 14:11 31 62 25%

6/17/2014 14:17 37 59 24%

6/17/2014 14:22 42 50 20%

6/17/2014 14:27 47 47 19%

6/17/2014 14:33 53 39 16%

6/17/2014 14:37 57 37 15%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration

(*C) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (1tg/L) (% Initial) 7/8/2014 10:19 0 82 100%

7/8/2014 10:25 6 50 61%

7/8/2014 10:30 I1 29 35%

7/8/2014 10:35 16 20 24%

7/8/2014 10:41 22 16 20%

42.2 7/8/2014 10:48 29 15 18%

7/8/2014 10:54 35 12 15%

7/8/2014 10:59 40 14 17%

7/8/2014 11:03 44 12 15%

7/8/2014 11:08 49 14 17%

7/8/2014 11:12 53 12 15%

7/8/2014 11:16 57 13 16%

7/8/2014 11:28 0 133 100%

7/8/2014 11:33 5 63 47%

7/8/2014 11:37 9 42 32%

7/8/2014 11:43 15 32 24%

7/8/2014 11:47 19 24 18%

42.8 7/8/2014 11:52 24 19 14%

7/8/2014 11:58 30 15 11%

7/8/2014 12:04 36 15 11%

7/8/2014 12:09 41 13 10%

7/8/2014 12:16 48 15 11%

7/8/2014 12:20 52 13 10%

7/8/2014 12:25 57 14 11%

7/8/2014 12:59 0 133 100%

7/8/2014 13:04 5 56 42%

7/8/2014 13:09 10 34 26%

7/8/2014 13:14 15 27 20%

7/8/2014 13:18 19 23 17%

42.9 7/8/2014 13:23 24 18 14%

7/8/2014 13:28 29 14 11%

7/8/2014 13:35 36 15 11%

7/8/2014 13:41 42 13 10%

7/8/2014 13:47 48 13 10%

7/8/2014 13:52 53 10 8%

7/8/2014 13:56 57 13 10%

8/19/2014 9:10 0 117 100%

8/19/2014 9:15 5 84 72%

8/19/2014 9:20 10 62 53%

8/19/2014 9:26 16 50 43%

8/19/2014 9:31 21 42 36%

8/19/2014 9:36 26 36 31%

39.88/19/2014 9:40 30 27 23%

8/19/2014 9:45 35 27 23%

8/19/2014 9:50 40 20 17%

8/19/2014 9:56 46 24 21%

8/19/2014 10:02 52 22 19%

8/19/2014 10:07 57 21 18%

8/19/2014 10:40 0 139 100%

8/19/2014 10:45 5 103 74%

8/19/2014 10:50 10 81 58%

8/19/2014 10:56 16 59 42%

8/19/2014 11:01 21 52 37%

8/19/2014 11:06 26 40 29%

40.98/19/2014 11:11 31 37 27%

8/19/2014 11:16 36 31 22%

8/19/2014 11:25 45 32 23%

8/19/2014 11:29 49 24 17%

8/19/2014 11:34 54 23 17%

8/19/2014 11:38 58 25 18%

8/19/2014 14:38 0 127 100%

8/19/2014 14:43 5 73 57%

8/19/2014 14:49 11 49 39%

8/19/2014 14:54 16 39 31%

8/19/2014 14:59 21 34 27%

41.3 8/19/2014 15:04 26 30 24%

8/19/2014 15:09 31 26 20%

8/19/2014 15:13 35 23 18%

8/19/2014 15:18 40 20 16%

8/19/2014 15:24 46 20 16%

8/19/2014 15:29 51 16 13%

8/19/2014 15:34 56 19 15%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration CC) (M/D/Y 24:00) (minutes) (pg/L) (%Initial) 9/18/2014 10:32 0 102 100%

9/18/2014 10:37 5 74 73%

9/18/2014 10:42 10 54 53%

9/18/2014 10:48 16 47 46%

9/18/2014 10:53 21 36 35%

9/18/2014 10:59 27 31 30%

43.09/18/2014 11:05 33 26 25%

9/18/2014 11:10 38 36 35%

9/18/2014 11:19 47 18 18%

9/18/2014 11:23 51 17 17%

9/18/2014 11:28 56 14 14%

9/18/2014 11:32 60 15 15%

9/18/2014 13:10 0 122 100%

9/18/2014 13:15 5 71 58%

9/18/2014 13:20 10 47 39%

9/18/2014 13:25 15 37 30%

9/18/2014 13:30 20 32 26%

9/18/2014 13:36 26 26 21%

9/18/2014 13:45 35 25 20%

9/18/2014 13:50 40 17 14%

9/18/2014 13:55 45 16 13%

9/18/2014 14:00 50 14 11%

9/18/2014 14:05 55 16 13%

9/18/2014 14:10 60 14 11%

9/18/2014 15:02 0 136 100%

9/18/2014 15:08 6 80 59%

9/18/2014 15:13 11 56 41%

9/18/2014 15:17 15 45 33%

9/18/2014 15:22 20 34 25%

9/18/2014 15:27 25 32 24%

9/18/2014 15:32 30 27 20%

9/18/2014 15:37 35 24 18%

9/18/2014 15:42 40 21 15%

9/18/2014 15:46 44 21 15%

9/18/2014 15:50 48 19 14%

9/18/2014 15:55 53 20 15%

10/9/2014 9:18 0 133 100%

10/9/2014 9:24 6 86 65%

10/9/2014 9:30 12 36 27%

10/9/2014 9:36 18 27 20%

10/9/2014 9:41 23 19 14%

41.1 10/9/2014 9:47 29 17 13%

10/9/2014 9:52 34 14 11%

10/9/2014 9:57 39 15 11%

10/9/2014 10:02 44 15 11%

10/9/2014 10:06 48 14 11%

10/9/2014 10:10 52 13 10%

10/9/2014 10:15 57 14 11%

10/9/2014 11:02 0 156 100%

10/9/2014 11:07 5 71 46%

10/9/2014 11:12 10 46 29%

10/9/2014 11:18 16 32 21%

10/9/2014 11:22 20 26 17%

41.1 10/9/2014 11:27 25 20 13%

10/9/2014 11:33 31 19 12%

10/9/2014 11:38 36 16 10%

10/9/2014 11:42 40 17 11%

10/9/2014 11:46 44 14 9%

10/9/2014 11:51 49 16 10%

10/9/2014 11:56 54 14 9%

10/9/2014 13:07 0 136 100%

10/9/2014 13:13 6 72 53%

10/9/2014 13:17 10 49 36%

10/9/2014 13:23 16 32 24%

10/9/2014 13:28 21 26 19%

10/9/2014 13:33 26 20 15%

10/9/2014 13:38 31 17 13%

10/9/2014 13:45 38 15 11%

10/9/2014 13:49 42 16 12%

10/9/2014 13:53 46 13 10%

10/9/2014 13:58 51 15 11%

10/9/2014 14:02 55 13 10%

Appendix E Phase 2 Bench-Scale Decay Data Sample Temperature Date and Time Elapsed Time TRO Concentration TRO Concentration (TC) (M/D/ 24:00) (minutes) (1ig/L) (% Initial) 11/19/2014 12:25 0 180 100%

11/19/2014 12:34 9 68 38%

11/19/2014 12:40 15 54 30%

11/19/2014 12:46 21 44 24%

11/19/2014 12:52 27 33 18%

11/19/2014 12:57 32 29 16%

34.611/19/2014 13:02 37 24 13%

11/19/2014 13:06 41 24 13%

11/19/2014 13:10 45 22 12%

11/19/2014 13:15 50 21 12%

11/19/2014 13:19 54 19 11%

11/19/2014 13:23 58 17 9%

11/19/2014 14:25 0 156 100%

11/19/2014 14:31 6 62 40%

11/19/2014 14:35 10 37 24%

11/19/2014 14:39 14 32 21%

11/19/2014 14:44 19 20 13%

S11/19/2014 14:50 25 20 13%

11/19/2014 14:59 34 19 12%

11/19/2014 15:03 38 16 10%

11/19/2014 15:07 42 17 11%

11/19/2014 15:11 46 14 9%

11/19/2014 15:15 50 16 10%

11/19/2014 15:19 54 15 10%

11/19/2014 16:01 0 138 100%

11/19/2014 16:05 4 70 51%

11/19/2014 16:14 13 43 31%

11/19/2014 16:18 17 31 22%

11/19/2014 16:23 22 24 17%

11/19/2014 16:27 26 19 14%

11/19/2014 16:31 30 17 12%

11/19/2014 16:36 35 19 14%

11/19/2014 16:40 39 16 12%

11/19/2014 16:44 43 18 13%

11/19/2014 16:48 47 15 11%

11/19/2014 16:52 51 19 14%

12/10/2014 9:11 0 162 100%

12/10/2014 9:17 6 90 56%

12/10/2014 9:23 12 65 40%

12/10/2014 9:30 19 51 31%

12/10/2014 9:34 23 38 23%

12/10/2014 9:38 27 30 19%

12/10/2014 9:43 32 30 19%

12/10/2014 9:48 37 25 15%

12/10/2014 12/10/2014 9:53 9:58 42 47 28 22 17%

14%

12/10/2014 10:02 51 24 15%

12/10/2014 10:06 55 22 14%

12/10/2014 11:14 0 138 100%

12/10/2014 11:20 6 75 54%

12/10/2014 11:27 13 55 40%

12/10/2014 11:31 17 44 32%

12/10/2014 11:36 22 36 26%

12/10/2014 11:41 27 30 22%

12/10/2014 11:46 32 30 22%

12/10/2014 11:51 37 24 17%

12/10/2014 11:56 42 24 17%

12/10/2014 12:00 46 21 15%

12/10/2014 12:04 50 21 15%

12/10/2014 12:08 54 19 14%

12/10/2014 13:06 0 136 100%

12/10/2014 13:14 8 72 53%

12/10/2014 13:21 15 52 38%

12/10/2014 13:26 20 31 23%

12/10/2014 13:32 26 30 22%

12/10/2014 13:36 30 22 16%

36.012/10/2014 13:40 34 24 18%

12/10/2014 13:45 39 21 15%

12/10/2014 13:49 43 22 16%

12/10/2014 13:54 48 19 14%

12/10/2014 13:58 52 21 15%

12/10/2014 14:02 56 20 15%

Notes:

I. 'C indicates degrees Celsius.

2. M/D/Y indicates Month/Day/Year.

3. TRO indicates Total Residual Oxidant.

4. [pg/L indicates micrograms per liter.

4. NR indicates not recorded.

APPENDIX F Appendix F Field Verification Data Sample Location Sample Collection Time Analytical Time Titrator TRO Measurement (Main Inlet or EFF-2) (M!D/Y 24:00) (M/D/Y 24:00) (mg/L)

EFF-2 12/9/14 14:56 12/9/14 14:58 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 15:51 12/9/14 15:54 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 15:54 12/9/14 15:57 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 15:57 12/9/14 16:01 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:02 12/9/14 16:06 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:06 12/9/14 16:10 0.031 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:08 12/9/14 16:14 0.040 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:12 12/9/14 16:18 0.073 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:15 12/9/14 16:22 0.090 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:20 12/9/14 16:27 0.097 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:24 12/9/14 16:31 0.055 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:29 12/9/14 16:34 0.031 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:33 12/9/14 16:38 0.021 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:36 12/9/14 16:42 0.018 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:40 12/9/14 16:45 0.013 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:44 12/9/14 16:49 0.013 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:47 12/9/14 16:54 0.011 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:51 12/9/14 16:59 0.013 EFF-2 12/9/14 16:56 12/9/14 17:02 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 17:01 12/9/14 17:05 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 17:04 12/9/14 17:08 < 0.004 EFF-2 12/9/14 17:07 12/9/14 17:12 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 14:59 12/9/14 15:02 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 15:56 12/9/14 15:59 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 15:59 12/9/14 16:02 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:08 12/9/14 16:09 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:09 12/9/14 16:12 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:13 12/9/14 16:15 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:15 12/9/14 16:19 0.0294 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:18 12/9/14 16:24 0.0704 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:26 12/9/14 16:37 0.206 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:34 12/9/14 16:41 0.0701 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:39 12/9/14 16:45 0.0364 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:43 12/9/14 16:47 0.023 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:46 12/9/14 16:51 0.0204 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:49 12/9/14 16:53 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:52 12/9/14 16:56 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:55 12/9/14 16:58 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 16:58 12/9/14 17:01 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 17:01 12/9/14 17:03 < 0.004 Main Inlet 12/9/14 17:03 12/9/14 17:06 < 0.004

APPENDIX G Appendix G Total Residual Oxidant Recovery Curves from Field-Scale Evaluation 1.20

____________________- Injection

- FF-2 1.00---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Inlet 0 TRO Cenlroids 0 0.80 n5 0.600-----

0 .20 -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - ; - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Elapsed Time from Injection and Dosing Onset (minutes)

APPENDIX H Appendix H Discharge Monitoring Report Data for Total Residual Oxidants Measured at EFF-2 Month Year DMR TRO Daily Max Value DMR TRO Daily Max Value (Mm) (YYYY) (as Reported, Vg/L) (for Computation, ýig/L) 3 2011 <10 4.999 4 2011 <10 4.999 5 2011 <10 4.999 6 2011 10 10 7 2011 <10 4.999 8 2011 <10 4.999 9 2011 <10 4.999 10 2011 <10 4.999 11 2011 <5 2.499 12 2011 40 40 1 2012 10 10 2 2012 20 20 3 2012 5 5 4 2012 10 10 5 2012 40 40 6 2012 7 7 7 2012 10 10 8 2012 <5 2.4999 9 2012 <5 2.4999 10 2012 15 15 11 2012 20 20 12 2012 <5 2.4999 1 2013 10 10 2 2013 10 10 3 2013 10 10 4 2013 50 50 5 2013 15 15 6 2013 30 30 7 2013 30 30 8 2013 30 30 9 2013 30 30 10 2013 <5 2.4999 11 2013 15 15 12 2013 <5 2.4999 1 2014 20 20 2 2014 18 18

L-2015-036, Evaluation of Total Residual Oxidant Attenuation, Enclosure

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

References:

Navigation menu

Search