ML15364A434
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 TN 3.04-457 4.05 4.26 TN 2.81 -4.40 4.19 0.00£ OJIJ 0.027 5.15 0.1112 rw TN TP 2.10-33£ 3.l3 0.1112 O.OJ OJI:;.! 322 0.1112 rw l'[)x TN TP (l1ll-{)_;/ll 1-400-UOO 520-520 0.42 ll0l7 z_12 000 NS NS NS NCllt Tl~ TP 11tZ-4Jil 2-79 0.029 H.tl NCllt TN TP -ZJl:J.-3,81 "2115 0.027 6.05 '"°" HI 3.!i2-5.05 ZJl1 i>-llJ.5 rw !Ox 0.03-11119 o_og-112&0 0.5J 0.027 02a OJl27 N-0 Note_* 1) NH3_- Tota/Ammonia (mg/Las NJ,- No x* Nitrate / Nitrite as N (m g/LJ; TN_* Total Nitrogen (mg/LJ; TP_* Total Phosphorus (m g/L).
- 2) Pre-Uprate: J un 2010 to Dec 2011.
- 3) N13: Nov 2013; M14.- May 2014.
- 4) NS: Not sampled_
Quarterly ecological Nutrient samples (mg/L) collected at 30 cm depth. Section4 1.111 TN IP 015-1.49 O.ll& 1.!l6 TN 1i!l6-22& 1-ZI 1-53 TN 7-2014 Ranges of data in periods of Pre-Up rate and quater1y values in the Post-Uprate period from J une 2013 to March 2014. Figure 4.1-3. Post-Uprate Semi-Annual Porewater Nutrient (mg/L) Results with Pre-Uprate Ranges. 4-114
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Figure 4.2-1 Ecological Transect Locations Section4 Marsh Transect Mangrove Transect Bay Transect 7-2014 Figure 4.2-1. Post-Uprate Ecological Transect Locations with Reduced Monitoring Locations in Biscayne Bay. 4-115
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-1
- 5. HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT In the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012), FPL provided an overview of the Biscayne aquifer and geologic formations. Information was also presented that showed groundwater responses to environmental conditions in the area, operational effects of the CCS on water levels, and the extent of CCS waters. This Post-Uprate report follows up on some of the information previously presented and notes any changes since the Pre-Uprate Report.
5.1 Post-Uprate Hydrogeologic Observations Water levels in the CCS have been in a general decline over the Post-Uprate period. Unlike in the Pre-Uprate period when substantial rain events raised water levels throughout the CCS, no substantial rain events have occurred during the Post-Uprate, which is one of the reasons for the currently higher specific conductance values in the CCS. With lower water levels (basically no major spikes in water levels) there is less of a driving head for water to move outward into the groundwater. Any effects of generally lower water level in the CCS are offset, though, by the increased specific conductance/densities of the CCS water. In the Post-Uprate period, the previously reported occasional seepage effects of the CCS at TPSWC-5 (Grand Canal immediately adjacent, south of the CCS) were not as evident based on temperature and specific conductance data. When reviewing the CCS water levels for the entire monitoring period from June 2010 through May 2014, the smallest difference in water levels among the CCS stations was during the middle part of the Interim Operating period when the nuclear units were being uprated. Water level on the intake side of the plant at TPSWCCS-6 was also higher than normal for an extended period during the Interim Operating period. It is possible that the increase in specific conductance and tritium at TPGW-10D could be attributable, in part, to the higher water levels at TPSWCCS-6, but that has not been confirmed. While specific conductance and temperature have increased in the CCS since the Uprate, the effect has not yet been observed in TPGW-13S, the shallow well in the CCS. The temperature in TPGW-13S has gradually decreased over the entire monitoring period and specific conductance levels in this well were lower in May 2014 than in May 2011. These observations provide some insights into the vertical hydraulic conductivity below the CCS. As a follow-up to the assessment conducted in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report, FPL reviewed the Post-Uprate data along with the rest of the water level data to determine if the CCS operations were having any profound effect on the groundwater levels. Groundwater levels for the three well clusters in Biscayne Bay are shown in Figures 5.1-1, 5.1-2, and 5.1-3. The values reflect daily averages and the vertical scale is enhanced to facilitate a review of the differences
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-2 between each zone. Since the TPGW-10 well cluster is located closest to the CCS plant intake where the CCS water levels are the lowest, the potential for drawing down the groundwater in the shallow zone, and possibly in the intermediate zone, is greatest at this location. A review of the time series plot for the three wells at TPGW-10 shows that differences in water levels between zones are minimal i.e. typically within hundredths of a foot; these differences are within the accuracy of the instruments and their settings. Additionally, the differences in water levels among the three wells do not track each other consistently. If there is continued drawdown from the CCS, water level at the zone of withdrawal would most likely be lower compared to the other wells. Neither TPGW-10 nor TPGW-11 exhibited such a pattern over the Pre-Uprate or Post-Uprate periods At well cluster TPGW-14, difference in water levels among the three zones was greater than at other Biscayne Bay well clusters. In the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012), FPL noted that the only well cluster that consistently had the shallow and intermediate zones lower than the deeper zone groundwater levels was at well cluster TPGW-14, which is farthest from the pump intake into the CCS. The water levels in the shallow and intermediate zones were shallower than the deep zone for approximately half of the Post-Uprate period, but since the beginning of 2014, the shallow zone now has the highest elevations. Thus, there is no consistency in the trends. None of the observations at well clusters TPGW-10, TPGW-11, and TPGW-14 indicate an influence of the CCS on groundwater level at any depth interval. Differences in water levels between zones such as at TPGW-14 are more likely associated with site-specific hydrogeological conditions. In an effort to further determine if and how the groundwater responds to operation of the CCS, FPL reviewed groundwater levels during periods of outages and non-outages for the plant with a focus on the Uprate construction/Interim Operating period when either Nuclear Unit 3 or Nuclear Unit 4 was out of service for an extended period of time. When pumping and associated flow is reduced, the CCS water levels may rise on the intake side and drop on the discharge canal side of the plant. Figures 5.1-4 and 5.1-5 show plots of flow for the nuclear units with CCS water levels and adjacent groundwater level superimposed for TPGW-1 and TPGW-10 for the entire monitoring period. The Interim Operating period is clearly noted. The flow from the nuclear units is based on the run time of the four circulating water pumps and configuration of the three intake cooling water pumps for each nuclear unit. TPGW-1 would be the most likely location to see an effect of reduced flows/lower water levels on the discharge side of the CCS, and TPGW-10 would be the most likely location to see an effect of reduced flows/increased water levels on the intake side of the CCS as a result of an outage. Water levels at TPSWCCS-1 and TPSWCCS-6 are included with TPGW-1 and TPGW-10, respectively. For both TPGW-1 and TPGW-10, there is no clear trend or influence associated with the Uprate outage. If there are effects, they are subtle and are masked by meteorological and seasonal conditions. This still suggests that other factors (perhaps meteorological or hydrological) exert a greater influence on groundwater in wells near the CCS than does operation of the CCS.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-3 5.2 Extent of CCS Water As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the most notable changes in the extent of saline water in the groundwater is the increase in specific conductance at TPGW-10D and, to a lesser extent, in TPGW-11D. Another notable increase in specific conductance was at TPGW-7D where levels began to rise in July 2013 from less than 600 S/cm to over 4300 S/cm by May 2014 (Figure 2.1-8). Figures 5.2-1, 5.2-2, and 5.2-3 show cross-section locations and cross-sections with pre-CCS (April 1, 1971, through February 1, 1972) and recent (March 2014) specific conductance data. Isopleths are drawn to show the approximate change in specific conductance concentrations from the early 1970s (pre-CCS operation) to the recent period. Other than accounting for the increases, primarily in TPGW-10D and TPGW-7D, these figures are similar to those provided in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). All isopleths represent estimations of historical and current water quality conditions and were developed based on interpolation methods and best professional judgment. While chloride concentrations provide more direct evidence of saltwater/marine water intrusion, specific conductance can also be used as a surrogate, with the understanding that its value could be affected by salts found in fresh water. In nearly all the wells sampled for this current monitoring effort, a high specific conductance value (greater than 1,275 S/cm) appears to indicate marine influences. Only one well (TPGW-8S) had specific conductance readings that were influenced by another ion (calcium) and may not reflect marine influences. Figures 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 show the approximate historical limit of what would now be defined by the FDEP as Class III groundwater (TDS greater than 10,000 mg/L per Chapter 62-520.430, F.A.C.). While historical TDS values are not available for all stations, there is a relationship between specific conductance and TDS; based on the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report findings from recent analytical data, the TDS value on average is 60% of the specific conductance value. This relationship was used to calculate historical TDS values and to estimate the approximate limits of Class III groundwater prior to CCS construction. Plan view maps showing the isopleths of specific conductance in each zone (shallow, intermediate, and deep) are provided as Figures 5.2.4, 5.2-5, and 5.2-6. Although there have been some slight adjustments, these figures are almost identical to the Pre-Uprate figures (FPL 2012). 5.3 Water and Salt Balance Model Tetra Tech developed a model of the water and salt balance for the CCS. The purpose of this model is to quantify the volume of water and mass of salt entering and exiting the CCS over a period of time. This Excel-based model, the underlying conceptualization of the relationship between the CCS and the surrounding environmental systems, key calculations, and results were most recently detailed in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). That version of the model simulated water and salt flow to and from the CCS for the period between September
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-4 2010 and June 2012. Currently, the modeled period extends through May 2014 and encompasses a Post-Uprate period. The conceptual model and associated calculations are predominantly unchanged since last presented in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report. As such, only a brief summary of the model is provided below. In addition, model results and corresponding conclusions regarding the operation of the CCS, based on the current calibrated water and salt balance model, are provided herein. The Excel spreadsheet that comprises the model is provided in a separate data file. 5.3.1 Model Summary As Figure 5.3-1 depicts, the water balance for the proposed control volume is comprised of seepage (lateral through the sides and vertical through the bottom), blowdown (additional water pumped from other units to the CCS), precipitation (including runoff from earth berms between canals), and evaporation. Aside from evaporation and precipitation, these are the same mechanisms by which salt flows into and out of the CCS. The means by which water and/or salt is transferred (e.g., seepage, evaporation) are calculated using various equations provided in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). Calculations were performed for a 45-month period from September 2010 through May 2014. Average flows of water and salt into and out of the control volume were calculated for each day of this period using hydrologic, water quality, and meteorological data measured within, beneath, and adjacent to the CCS. The average daily flows were summed to estimate the amount of water and salt that enters or exits the control volume (i.e., the CCS) during each month and the entire 45-month period. These calculations demonstrate and validate the conceptual model of the CCS and, in so doing, illustrate the hydrologic mechanisms by which the CCS functions. Calculated water flows are reported in 106 gallons per day (millions of gallons per day [MGD]). The mass flux into or out of the control volume is calculated by multiplying the volumetric flow by the salinity of the body of water from which the water is flowing. Salinity was monitored at all groundwater and surface water stations employed in the ensuing calculations and was reported in the practical salinity scale (PSS-78), which is equivalent to grams per liter (g/L). Calculated mass fluxes are reported in thousands of pounds per day (lb x 1000/day). The gain/loss of water and salt mass within the control volume during some period of time results in a change in the control volumes water and salt mass storage. Increased water storage, for instance, occurs when more water enters the control volume than exits. Storage, then, can be estimated by summing all of the components of the water (and salt) balance. When the net flow is positive (into the control volume) during a specified period of time, the storage of control volume increases. Conversely, a net negative (out of the control volume) flow implies a decrease in storage during a specified time period. Another manner in which a change in storage can be estimated relies on direct measurements of water elevations and salinities within the control volume. A change in water elevation within the control volume can be calculated as a difference between water elevations at the beginning and end of a specified time period. The product of this change in water elevations and the
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-5 surface area of the control volume provide an estimate of the change in the volume of water contained in the control volume during that period of time. Estimates of daily storage changes derived from this method are used to further calibrate the water and salt balance model to ensure an accurate simulation of temporal trends CCS water elevation and salinity. 5.3.2 Results and Discussion The individual components of the water and salt balance were simulated daily and summed for each month from September 2010 through May 2014, as well as for the collective 45-month period. The individual components of flow are summed in order to calculate a simulated change in volume for each month and for the 45-month period. These simulated changes in storage were compared to observed changes in CCS water and salt storage for each month and the entire calibration period. Errors between the simulated and observed storage changes were minimized by adjusting key variables associated with the flow balance model; this process is called calibration. The calibration process ensures that the model can accurately reflect the average changes in CCS storage over the 45-month time frame, while also effectively capturing day-to-day changes in CCS water and mass storage. Calibration of the water and salt balance model was achieved by adjusting hydraulic conductivities of the aquifer materials adjacent to and beneath the CCS that factor into the calculation of seepage to/from groundwater and Biscayne Bay. Additional adjustable parameters include the coefficients in the wind function (FPL 2012), the amount of runoff that enters the control volume as percentage of precipitation, the amount of Unit 5 cooling tower water that is lost to evaporation before entering the CCS, and the salinity of the Unit 5 blowdown as a percentage of seawater. The calibrated model parameter values are provided in Table 5.3-1. The horizontal hydraulic conductivities laterally adjacent to the control volume were calibrated to range between 500 ft/d and 950 ft/d. The calibrated vertical conductivities beneath the control volume ranged from 0.1 ft/day to 4 ft/d. The northern portion of the discharge canals and return canals, where it is assumed deeper canals intersect highly permeable material underlying the muck and Miami limestone, were calibrated to have higher vertical hydraulic conductivities (3.8 ft/d and 4 ft/d, respectively). Lower vertical conductivities were calibrated for the mid-and southern portions of the discharge canals, as well as the southern portion of the return canals (0.1 ft/d). Results of the simulated 45-month water and salt balance model are provided in Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3, respectively. Monthly balance results follow in Table 5.3-4 through Table 5.3-5. The modeled net flow of water, as calculated by the summing the components of the water balance for the 45-month calibration period, is denoted as the Modeled Change in CCS Storage and was calculated to be an average inflow of 0.05 MGD over the 45-month calibration period. The observed change in storage, which is the difference in the volume of water in the CCS between the final and first days of the calibration period, divided by the number of days in the period, was observed to be 0.31 MGD (inflow). Though the model underestimated the net inflow of water from the CCS, the residual error between the simulated and observed flow is only 0.26 MGD. This error is small (0.26%) relative to the monthly net observed flows, which for the entire 45-month period range from a net outflow of 46.6 MGD (October 2010) and a net inflow of 52.1
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-6 MGD (September 2010). During the Post-Uprate period (June 2013 - May 2014), the monthly net observed flows range from a net outflow of 31.1 MGD (June 2013) to a net inflow of 19.6 MGD (July 2013). The model simulates a net outflow of 3.26 MGD of water from the CCS during the Post-Uprate period, which matches the observed net outflow of water during Post-Uprate (3.42 MGD) reasonably well. The net outflow of water during this timeframe is predominantly attributable to a relative lack of precipitation (which accounts for 30% of the simulated inflow during this timeframe) and relatively high evaporation (which accounts for 85% of the simulated outflow). During the simulated Pre-Uprate and Interim Operating period (September 2010 through May 2013), precipitation accounted for 39.4% of inflowing water to the CCS and evaporation accounted for 63.7% of the outflowing water from the CCS. The model simulated a net influx of salt over the 45-month period at rate of 1,938 (lb x 1,000)/day. The corresponding observed rate of salt inflow was calculated by multiplying the average observed salinity in the CCS on the final and first day of the calibration period by the corresponding CCS volumes on those days. The difference between these two products, divided by the number of days in the calibration period, provides the net inflow of salt, 497 (lb x 1,000)/day. The error associated with the mass flux is an overestimation by approximately 697 (lb x 1,000)/day. As in the case of water balance simulation, the magnitude of this overestimation is small (3.1%) relative to the range in monthly average flows for the entire 45-month period; the monthly net mass fluxes range from an outflow of 13,790 (lb x 1,000)/day (October 2010) to an inflow of 8,659 (lb x 1,000)/day (June 2011). During the Post-Uprate period (June 2013 - May 2014), the monthly observed net salt mass fluxes range from a net outflow of 6,529 (lb x 1,000)/day (December 2013) to a net inflow of 5,847 (lb x 1,000)/day (April 2014). There was a net gain of salt within the CCS during the Post-Uprate period of 2,216 (lb x 1,000)/day. This gain in salt is likely to be attributable to two factors. First, the relative paucity in freshwater precipitation resulted in reduced CCS water levels. As such, groundwater and associated salt mass account for much of the inflow to the CCS during the Post-Uprate period. Second, the low water levels and relatively high evaporation (which removes freshwater from the CCS and leaves salt behind) resulted in seepage to groundwater being a relatively small component of the water and mass outflow from the CCS. Thus, CCS salt mass outflow was not a pronounced element of the salt balance during the Post-Uprate period and salt mass from evaporation was generally retained. As a result, the CCS gained salt between June 2013 and May 2014. Figures 5.3-2 and 5.3-3 illustrate the models ability to match the magnitude and direction of net monthly flows of water and salt, respectively. Figure 5.3-2 compares observed and modeled net monthly flows of water into and out of the CCS. There is a seasonal trend in observed flows to/from the CCS, where inflows are generally associated with the wet season and outflows are generally associated with the dry season. The model is able to replicate this trend reasonably well. However, there are isolated months where the model does not accurately simulate the net flow (e.g., April and September 2011). Figure 5.3-3 compares observed and modeled net monthly flows of salt into and out of the CCS. Like the modeled water flows, estimated salt mass fluxes generally match observed fluxes well, though there are individual months where the estimated mass flux is less accurate.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-7 Implicit in the models ability to simulate monthly net water and salt mass flows is the accurate simulation of daily flows to and from the CCS. Because the model is able to characterize the daily flows of water and salt, the model estimates the daily changes in CCS water and salt storage. As previously mentioned, these changes in storage are associated with daily changes in CCS water levels and salinity. Figure 5.3-4 shows the model-calculated water level in the CCS, which varies over the period of record. These modeled water levels range between approximately -1.5 ft NAVD 88 and 1 ft NAVD 88, and reflects an average water level throughout the entire CCS. Also shown in this figure are the observed CCS water levels over time; the observed values reflect the mean of daily-averaged water elevations across the seven sensors in the CCS. Simulated water elevations are calculated by dividing the simulated daily change in CCS storage by the average daily CCS surface area and adding the resulting value (which reflects a change in water level) to the previous days simulated water elevation. It is evident from this figure that the model effectively captures the general trend in CCS water elevations over the 45-month period, and accurately simulates average CCS water elevations throughout much of the calibration period. Similarly, changes in salt mass storage within the CCS can be used to calculate average CCS salinity changes over time. The simulated daily net flow of salt is divided by the simulated volume of water in the CCS, which results in a change in salinity. This change in salinity is added to the simulated salinity calculated for the previous day to produce a simulated salinity for the current day. Like the simulated CCS water level, the model salinity reflects a representative daily salinity throughout the CCS. Figure 5.3-5 compares the simulated salinities to those observed in the CCS over the period of record. Observed salinities are the mean of daily averaged salinities measured in the CCS monitoring stations. The modeled CCS salinity changes over time match changes in the average observed CCS salinity throughout the 45-month period of record. This timeframe includes the recent rise in salinity from approximately 60 g/L to approximately 90 g/L. That the model can match this notable increase in CCS salinity reinforces the conceptual model, which suggests that changes in CCS salinity are predicated solely on changes in the flow of water into and out of the CCS. The accurate simulation of changing CCS inflows, outflows, water elevations and salinities is complex due to the different components of the balance model and their varying impacts upon CCS water and salt storage. For instance, vertical flows into and out of the control volume are generally larger than horizontal flows, and have a greater impact upon CCS water elevation. The salinity of inflowing water, however, can vary depending upon the source of the water. For example, horizontal flow from the west (L-31E) is non-saline and has a pronounced mitigating impact upon CCS salinities; vertical flow from groundwater beneath portions of the discharge canals is saline to hyper-saline and generally increases the salinity of the CCS. The correct balance of both water and salt mass flow is difficult to estimate in the model. In addition, the simulated timeframe encompasses both Pre-and Post-Uprate periods, during which CCS water temperatures slightly increase. The model addresses associated impacts to the CCS by explicitly simulating the effects of water/air temperature gradients on evaporation. Whereas myriad sources and sinks of water, varying salinities, and changes in water temperature do increase model complexity, the need to accurately simulate these different components of CCS operation constrains the number of possible solutions.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-8 Though the model is able to simulate the complex dynamics associated with the CCS over a 45-month timeframe with reasonable accuracy, there are periods of time where the simulated flows of water and salt do not accurately reflect observed conditions. Consequently, the simulated water level and salinities in the CCS deviate from those that have been observed at various times in the simulation period. However, the overall performance of the model reinforces its utility as a tool for understanding how the CCS has and will operate under varying meteorological, hydrological, and operational conditions. This is best demonstrated by the fact that the same conceptual model employed to characterize changes in CCS storage of water and salt during the Pre-Uprate period is used to explain changes in storage during the Post-Uprate period. This is a period of time during which water levels have generally decreased, salinities have dramatically increased and water temperatures have risen within the CCS. Nevertheless, the exchanges of flows between the CCS and surrounding environment during Post-Uprate are governed by the same hydrologic principles as during the Pre-Uprate period. This robustness and accuracy in the model underpins FPLs firm understanding of processes that control the CCS and the manner in which the CCS interacts with the adjacent aquifer and water bodies. This accuracy in simulating the historical changes within the CCS bolsters confidence in the models utility as a tool to evaluate the sensitivity of CCS operations to certain factors such as changes in operation, drought conditions, storm events, and other potential environmental stresses. Additionally, the model accuracy validates the fact that the most appropriate data are being collected to effectively capture CCS operations, identify interactions between the CCS and the surrounding environment, and support FPLs comprehension of historical and future operations of the CCS.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 TABLES
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-10 Table 5.3-1. Calibration Parameters Parameter Name Calibrated Value Units Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone A) 3.8 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone B) 0.1 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone C) 0.1 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone D) 4 ft/day West Face Hydraulic Conductivity 950 ft/day East Face Hydraulic Conductivity 1000 ft/day North Face Hydraulic Conductivity 500 ft/day South Face Hydraulic Conductivity 500 ft/day Evaporation Modifier (Factor Multiplier) 0.69 Runoff Modifier (as % of Precipitation) 34% Blowdown Evaporation Factor 20% Blowdown Concentration (as % of Seawater) 0.4
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-11 Table 5.3-2. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2010 to May 2014 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.92 1256.71 E. Seepage 15.37 21044.68 N. Seepage 0.01 13.96 S. Seepage 2.39 3274.42 Bottom Seepage 11.47 15708.95 Precipitation and Runoff 20.44 27984.72 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.47 648.79 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.92 1256.99 ID Pumping 3.31 4529.48 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 55.31 75718.69 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -3.91 E. Seepage -4.12 -5642.91 N. Seepage -0.01 -8.68 S. Seepage -0.12 -162.98 Bottom Seepage -12.48 -17091.43 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -38.53 -52744.39 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -55.26 -75654.30 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.05 64.39 Observed Change 0.31 417.57 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. gal = Gallon. ID = Interceptor Ditch. MGD = Million gallons per day.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-12 Table 5.3-3. Calculated Mass Flows from Salt Budget Components September 2010 to May 2014 Mass Budget Component lb/day (x1000) Mass (lb x 1000) Into CCS W. Seepage 6.55 8965.03 E. Seepage 4324.59 5920366.26 N. Seepage 2.30 3150.21 S. Seepage 466.15 638163.40 Bottom Seepage 3350.12 4586312.27 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 107.28 146861.12 ID Pumped Water 363.67 497869.29 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 8620.66 11801687.58 Out of CCS W. Seepage -42.58 -58287.90 E. Seepage -1632.46 -2234836.51 N. Seepage -3.05 -4179.04 S. Seepage -63.49 -86913.97 Bottom Seepage -5685.41 -7783332.80 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -7426.99 -10167550.22 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 1193.67 1634137.36 Observed Change 497.04 680445.13 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. ID = Interceptor Ditch. lb = Pound(s).
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-13 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.73 21.80 E. Seepage 10.82 324.68 N. Seepage 0.02 0.45 S. Seepage 2.54 76.13 Bottom Seepage 8.29 248.59 Precipitation and Runoff 78.65 2359.64 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.98 29.36 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 102.31 3069.29 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -6.06 -181.83 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.08 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -7.18 -215.33 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -38.11 -1143.43 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -51.36 -1540.66 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 50.95 1528.63 Observed Change 52.14 1564.08 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. gal = Gallon. ID = Interceptor Ditch. MGD = Million gallons per day.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-14 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components October 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.25 7.86 E. Seepage 0.74 22.98 N. Seepage 0.00 0.15 S. Seepage 2.04 63.20 Bottom Seepage 6.04 187.28 Precipitation and Runoff 13.60 421.63 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.75 23.11 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 23.71 735.14 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.01 -0.33 E. Seepage -24.43 -757.44 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.19 S. Seepage -0.04 -1.13 Bottom Seepage -23.74 -735.81 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -29.88 -926.14 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -78.10 -2421.04 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -54.38 -1685.91 Observed Change -46.60 -1444.52
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-15 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components November 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.30 9.12 E. Seepage 4.85 145.62 N. Seepage 0.00 0.14 S. Seepage 1.77 53.17 Bottom Seepage 1.67 50.15 Precipitation and Runoff 26.93 807.85 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Blowdown 0.50 14.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 36.32 1089.69 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.07 -1.99 E. Seepage -7.91 -237.30 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.11 S. Seepage -0.02 -0.66 Bottom Seepage -14.98 -449.29 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -29.16 -874.94 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.14 -1564.29 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -15.82 -474.60 Observed Change -5.02 -150.50
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-16 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components December 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.85 26.31 E. Seepage 18.20 564.28 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.60 49.75 Bottom Seepage 2.36 73.31 Precipitation and Runoff 3.79 117.56 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.72 22.33 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 27.82 862.46 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.49 -15.24 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.41 S. Seepage 0.00 -0.13 Bottom Seepage -15.08 -467.61 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -27.76 -860.43 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -43.35 -1343.82 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -15.53 -481.36 Observed Change -12.72 -394.29
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-17 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components January 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.76 54.46 E. Seepage 9.94 308.08 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.38 42.83 Bottom Seepage 2.80 86.95 Precipitation and Runoff 19.42 602.16 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.82 25.40 ID Pumping 4.91 152.24 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 41.32 1281.04 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -4.19 -129.74 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.45 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -18.38 -569.72 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -26.80 -830.84 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -49.38 -1530.75 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -8.06 -249.71 Observed Change -2.54 -78.88
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-18 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components February 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.26 35.15 E. Seepage 25.22 706.19 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 2.80 78.37 Bottom Seepage 10.00 279.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.70 19.51 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.06 Blowdown 0.70 19.46 ID Pumping 2.25 63.03 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 43.21 1209.76 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.38 -10.77 N. Seepage -0.02 -0.56 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -19.59 -548.63 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.26 -903.41 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.26 -1463.38 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -9.06 -253.62 Observed Change -14.26 -399.40
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-19 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components March 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.41 43.73 E. Seepage 20.83 645.80 N. Seepage 0.00 0.08 S. Seepage 3.06 94.99 Bottom Seepage 11.11 344.53 Precipitation and Runoff 7.12 220.82 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.66 20.55 ID Pumping 9.37 290.40 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 53.87 1669.85 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.31 -9.51 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.14 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -17.95 -556.34 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.91 -1051.21 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.17 -1617.21 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 1.70 52.64 Observed Change 3.19 99.02
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-20 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components April 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.11 33.40 E. Seepage 29.39 881.74 N. Seepage 0.00 0.13 S. Seepage 3.75 112.65 Bottom Seepage 16.92 507.68 Precipitation and Runoff 10.36 310.85 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Blowdown 1.13 33.95 ID Pumping 7.46 223.80 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 70.43 2112.84 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage 0.00 0.00 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.06 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -18.57 -557.09 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -35.31 -1059.27 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -53.88 -1616.42 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 16.55 496.41 Observed Change -7.85 -235.45
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-21 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components May 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.44 44.50 E. Seepage 47.76 1480.44 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 4.38 135.75 Bottom Seepage 28.64 887.78 Precipitation and Runoff 6.92 214.50 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 1.16 35.93 ID Pumping 14.81 459.13 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 105.39 3266.96 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage 0.00 0.00 N. Seepage -0.04 -1.19 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -51.71 -1603.15 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -42.03 -1302.87 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -93.78 -2907.21 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 11.60 359.75 Observed Change 11.51 356.77
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-22 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components June 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.59 47.67 E. Seepage 38.31 1149.35 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 4.26 127.95 Bottom Seepage 28.84 865.18 Precipitation and Runoff 8.02 240.68 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.53 15.99 Blowdown 1.02 30.60 ID Pumping 16.13 483.83 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 98.71 2961.25 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.01 -0.27 N. Seepage -0.03 -1.02 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -43.32 -1299.71 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -46.24 -1387.09 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -89.60 -2688.10 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 9.11 273.16 Observed Change 10.30 309.07
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-23 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components July 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.95 60.52 E. Seepage 4.81 149.10 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.56 48.21 Bottom Seepage 5.91 183.20 Precipitation and Runoff 45.19 1400.79 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.54 16.59 Blowdown 1.13 35.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 61.08 1893.42 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -12.01 -372.46 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.43 S. Seepage -0.05 -1.58 Bottom Seepage -14.48 -449.03 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -46.43 -1439.30 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -72.99 -2262.80 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -11.92 -369.38 Observed Change 9.24 286.59
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-24 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components August 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.16 36.08 E. Seepage 14.19 439.99 N. Seepage 0.00 0.13 S. Seepage 2.56 79.39 Bottom Seepage 7.27 225.36 Precipitation and Runoff 37.76 1170.55 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.53 16.36 Blowdown 1.04 32.25 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 64.52 2000.11 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.05 E. Seepage -2.37 -73.46 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.03 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -3.97 -123.00 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -44.75 -1387.17 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -51.09 -1583.72 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 13.43 416.39 Observed Change 20.17 625.23
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-25 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.83 24.75 E. Seepage 10.10 302.92 N. Seepage 0.00 0.02 S. Seepage 2.10 62.99 Bottom Seepage 3.65 109.50 Precipitation and Runoff 37.53 1125.82 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.55 16.55 Blowdown 0.98 29.36 ID Pumping 5.74 172.08 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 61.47 1843.99 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.02 -0.70 E. Seepage -2.05 -61.38 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.21 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -8.12 -243.67 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -44.87 -1346.23 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -55.07 -1652.19 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 6.39 191.81 Observed Change -5.14 -154.17
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-26 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components October 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.75 23.15 E. Seepage 6.22 192.95 N. Seepage 0.00 0.11 S. Seepage 2.48 76.86 Bottom Seepage 6.96 215.70 Precipitation and Runoff 52.98 1642.32 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.52 16.21 Blowdown 0.75 23.11 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 70.66 2190.41 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -9.88 -306.26 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.24 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -12.38 -383.88 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.60 -1010.53 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -54.87 -1700.91 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 15.79 489.50 Observed Change 8.79 272.51
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-27 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components November 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.47 14.01 E. Seepage 14.55 436.40 N. Seepage 0.01 0.22 S. Seepage 2.26 67.69 Bottom Seepage 6.76 202.89 Precipitation and Runoff 1.24 37.18 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.47 14.14 Blowdown 0.50 14.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 26.25 787.53 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.01 E. Seepage -1.08 -32.32 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.07 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -4.06 -121.76 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -34.24 -1027.32 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -39.38 -393.94 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -13.13 393.58 Observed Change -25.56 -766.91
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-28 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components December 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.03 31.82 E. Seepage 21.14 655.36 N. Seepage 0.01 0.16 S. Seepage 2.52 78.16 Bottom Seepage 7.44 230.79 Precipitation and Runoff 1.77 55.02 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.61 18.76 Blowdown 0.72 22.33 ID Pumping 9.14 283.37 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 44.38 1375.75 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.22 -6.77 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.13 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.23 -410.20 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -30.89 -957.49 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -44.34 -1374.58 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.04 1.16 Observed Change -11.66 -361.51
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-29 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components January 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.66 51.39 E. Seepage 25.43 788.46 N. Seepage 0.00 0.02 S. Seepage 2.79 86.45 Bottom Seepage 10.43 323.45 Precipitation and Runoff 2.83 87.58 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.59 18.37 Blowdown 0.89 27.50 ID Pumping 15.39 476.96 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 60.01 1860.18 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.03 -0.97 N. Seepage -0.02 -0.54 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -29.36 -910.08 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.79 -1016.63 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -62.20 -1928.22 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -2.19 -68.04 Observed Change -9.98 -309.33
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-30 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components February 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.24 36.07 E. Seepage 12.17 353.03 N. Seepage 0.01 0.23 S. Seepage 2.04 59.02 Bottom Seepage 6.98 202.37 Precipitation and Runoff 35.50 1029.63 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.52 15.17 Blowdown 0.78 22.68 ID Pumping 1.50 43.56 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 60.75 1761.77 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -1.65 -47.80 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.03 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -9.41 -272.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -31.84 -923.30 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -42.90 -1244.12 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 17.85 517.65 Observed Change 12.36 358.44
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-31 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components March 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.91 28.18 E. Seepage 18.19 563.76 N. Seepage 0.02 0.67 S. Seepage 2.86 88.75 Bottom Seepage 12.57 389.53 Precipitation and Runoff 2.42 74.90 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.35 10.99 Blowdown 0.99 30.56 ID Pumping 4.10 126.99 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 42.40 1314.32 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.54 -16.60 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.01 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -7.89 -244.56 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.18 -1028.59 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -41.61 -1289.77 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.79 24.56 Observed Change -11.24 -348.30
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-32 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components April 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.45 43.59 E. Seepage 17.94 538.28 N. Seepage 0.01 0.25 S. Seepage 2.80 84.04 Bottom Seepage 14.20 426.09 Precipitation and Runoff 50.85 1525.64 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.39 11.73 Blowdown 0.98 29.41 ID Pumping 9.76 292.86 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 98.40 2951.89 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.28 -8.41 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.05 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.20 -395.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -35.04 -1051.09 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -48.52 -1455.54 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 49.88 1496.35 Observed Change 33.69 1010.73
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-33 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components May 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.23 38.01 E. Seepage 0.55 17.06 N. Seepage 0.02 0.74 S. Seepage 0.93 28.94 Bottom Seepage 11.40 353.36 Precipitation and Runoff 41.18 1276.57 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.41 12.61 Blowdown 0.97 30.04 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 56.69 1757.33 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -14.73 -456.50 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.02 S. Seepage 0.00 -0.04 Bottom Seepage -12.23 -379.01 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.39 -1035.06 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -60.34 -1870.64 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -3.66 -113.31 Observed Change -2.89 -89.62
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-34 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components June 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.66 19.79 E. Seepage 3.72 111.63 N. Seepage 0.02 0.48 S. Seepage 1.65 49.57 Bottom Seepage 7.95 238.37 Precipitation and Runoff 30.82 924.74 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.66 Blowdown 1.03 30.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 46.14 1384.22 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.06 E. Seepage -10.75 -322.64 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.02 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.23 -397.04 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.57 -1007.10 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -57.56 -1726.87 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -11.42 -342.65 Observed Change -3.50 -105.04
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-35 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components July 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.06 32.85 E. Seepage 0.02 0.63 N. Seepage 0.02 0.73 S. Seepage 1.05 32.46 Bottom Seepage 14.22 440.68 Precipitation and Runoff 29.66 919.46 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.34 10.51 Blowdown 1.07 33.07 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 47.43 1470.39 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -12.89 -399.63 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage -0.05 -1.46 Bottom Seepage -13.30 -412.33 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -39.84 -1235.10 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -66.08 -2048.51 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -18.65 -578.12 Observed Change -7.97 -247.19
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 TN 3.04-457 4.05 4.26 TN 2.81 -4.40 4.19 0.00£ OJIJ 0.027 5.15 0.1112 rw TN TP 2.10-33£ 3.l3 0.1112 O.OJ OJI:;.! 322 0.1112 rw l'[)x TN TP (l1ll-{)_;/ll 1-400-UOO 520-520 0.42 ll0l7 z_12 000 NS NS NS NCllt Tl~ TP 11tZ-4Jil 2-79 0.029 H.tl NCllt TN TP -ZJl:J.-3,81 "2115 0.027 6.05 '"°" HI 3.!i2-5.05 ZJl1 i>-llJ.5 rw !Ox 0.03-11119 o_og-112&0 0.5J 0.027 02a OJl27 N-0 Note_* 1) NH3_- Tota/Ammonia (mg/Las NJ,- No x* Nitrate / Nitrite as N (m g/LJ; TN_* Total Nitrogen (mg/LJ; TP_* Total Phosphorus (m g/L).
- 2) Pre-Uprate: J un 2010 to Dec 2011.
- 3) N13: Nov 2013; M14.- May 2014.
- 4) NS: Not sampled_
Quarterly ecological Nutrient samples (mg/L) collected at 30 cm depth. Section4 1.111 TN IP 015-1.49 O.ll& 1.!l6 TN 1i!l6-22& 1-ZI 1-53 TN 7-2014 Ranges of data in periods of Pre-Up rate and quater1y values in the Post-Uprate period from J une 2013 to March 2014. Figure 4.1-3. Post-Uprate Semi-Annual Porewater Nutrient (mg/L) Results with Pre-Uprate Ranges. 4-114
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Figure 4.2-1 Ecological Transect Locations Section4 Marsh Transect Mangrove Transect Bay Transect 7-2014 Figure 4.2-1. Post-Uprate Ecological Transect Locations with Reduced Monitoring Locations in Biscayne Bay. 4-115
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-1
- 5. HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT In the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012), FPL provided an overview of the Biscayne aquifer and geologic formations. Information was also presented that showed groundwater responses to environmental conditions in the area, operational effects of the CCS on water levels, and the extent of CCS waters. This Post-Uprate report follows up on some of the information previously presented and notes any changes since the Pre-Uprate Report.
5.1 Post-Uprate Hydrogeologic Observations Water levels in the CCS have been in a general decline over the Post-Uprate period. Unlike in the Pre-Uprate period when substantial rain events raised water levels throughout the CCS, no substantial rain events have occurred during the Post-Uprate, which is one of the reasons for the currently higher specific conductance values in the CCS. With lower water levels (basically no major spikes in water levels) there is less of a driving head for water to move outward into the groundwater. Any effects of generally lower water level in the CCS are offset, though, by the increased specific conductance/densities of the CCS water. In the Post-Uprate period, the previously reported occasional seepage effects of the CCS at TPSWC-5 (Grand Canal immediately adjacent, south of the CCS) were not as evident based on temperature and specific conductance data. When reviewing the CCS water levels for the entire monitoring period from June 2010 through May 2014, the smallest difference in water levels among the CCS stations was during the middle part of the Interim Operating period when the nuclear units were being uprated. Water level on the intake side of the plant at TPSWCCS-6 was also higher than normal for an extended period during the Interim Operating period. It is possible that the increase in specific conductance and tritium at TPGW-10D could be attributable, in part, to the higher water levels at TPSWCCS-6, but that has not been confirmed. While specific conductance and temperature have increased in the CCS since the Uprate, the effect has not yet been observed in TPGW-13S, the shallow well in the CCS. The temperature in TPGW-13S has gradually decreased over the entire monitoring period and specific conductance levels in this well were lower in May 2014 than in May 2011. These observations provide some insights into the vertical hydraulic conductivity below the CCS. As a follow-up to the assessment conducted in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report, FPL reviewed the Post-Uprate data along with the rest of the water level data to determine if the CCS operations were having any profound effect on the groundwater levels. Groundwater levels for the three well clusters in Biscayne Bay are shown in Figures 5.1-1, 5.1-2, and 5.1-3. The values reflect daily averages and the vertical scale is enhanced to facilitate a review of the differences
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-2 between each zone. Since the TPGW-10 well cluster is located closest to the CCS plant intake where the CCS water levels are the lowest, the potential for drawing down the groundwater in the shallow zone, and possibly in the intermediate zone, is greatest at this location. A review of the time series plot for the three wells at TPGW-10 shows that differences in water levels between zones are minimal i.e. typically within hundredths of a foot; these differences are within the accuracy of the instruments and their settings. Additionally, the differences in water levels among the three wells do not track each other consistently. If there is continued drawdown from the CCS, water level at the zone of withdrawal would most likely be lower compared to the other wells. Neither TPGW-10 nor TPGW-11 exhibited such a pattern over the Pre-Uprate or Post-Uprate periods At well cluster TPGW-14, difference in water levels among the three zones was greater than at other Biscayne Bay well clusters. In the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012), FPL noted that the only well cluster that consistently had the shallow and intermediate zones lower than the deeper zone groundwater levels was at well cluster TPGW-14, which is farthest from the pump intake into the CCS. The water levels in the shallow and intermediate zones were shallower than the deep zone for approximately half of the Post-Uprate period, but since the beginning of 2014, the shallow zone now has the highest elevations. Thus, there is no consistency in the trends. None of the observations at well clusters TPGW-10, TPGW-11, and TPGW-14 indicate an influence of the CCS on groundwater level at any depth interval. Differences in water levels between zones such as at TPGW-14 are more likely associated with site-specific hydrogeological conditions. In an effort to further determine if and how the groundwater responds to operation of the CCS, FPL reviewed groundwater levels during periods of outages and non-outages for the plant with a focus on the Uprate construction/Interim Operating period when either Nuclear Unit 3 or Nuclear Unit 4 was out of service for an extended period of time. When pumping and associated flow is reduced, the CCS water levels may rise on the intake side and drop on the discharge canal side of the plant. Figures 5.1-4 and 5.1-5 show plots of flow for the nuclear units with CCS water levels and adjacent groundwater level superimposed for TPGW-1 and TPGW-10 for the entire monitoring period. The Interim Operating period is clearly noted. The flow from the nuclear units is based on the run time of the four circulating water pumps and configuration of the three intake cooling water pumps for each nuclear unit. TPGW-1 would be the most likely location to see an effect of reduced flows/lower water levels on the discharge side of the CCS, and TPGW-10 would be the most likely location to see an effect of reduced flows/increased water levels on the intake side of the CCS as a result of an outage. Water levels at TPSWCCS-1 and TPSWCCS-6 are included with TPGW-1 and TPGW-10, respectively. For both TPGW-1 and TPGW-10, there is no clear trend or influence associated with the Uprate outage. If there are effects, they are subtle and are masked by meteorological and seasonal conditions. This still suggests that other factors (perhaps meteorological or hydrological) exert a greater influence on groundwater in wells near the CCS than does operation of the CCS.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-3 5.2 Extent of CCS Water As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the most notable changes in the extent of saline water in the groundwater is the increase in specific conductance at TPGW-10D and, to a lesser extent, in TPGW-11D. Another notable increase in specific conductance was at TPGW-7D where levels began to rise in July 2013 from less than 600 S/cm to over 4300 S/cm by May 2014 (Figure 2.1-8). Figures 5.2-1, 5.2-2, and 5.2-3 show cross-section locations and cross-sections with pre-CCS (April 1, 1971, through February 1, 1972) and recent (March 2014) specific conductance data. Isopleths are drawn to show the approximate change in specific conductance concentrations from the early 1970s (pre-CCS operation) to the recent period. Other than accounting for the increases, primarily in TPGW-10D and TPGW-7D, these figures are similar to those provided in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). All isopleths represent estimations of historical and current water quality conditions and were developed based on interpolation methods and best professional judgment. While chloride concentrations provide more direct evidence of saltwater/marine water intrusion, specific conductance can also be used as a surrogate, with the understanding that its value could be affected by salts found in fresh water. In nearly all the wells sampled for this current monitoring effort, a high specific conductance value (greater than 1,275 S/cm) appears to indicate marine influences. Only one well (TPGW-8S) had specific conductance readings that were influenced by another ion (calcium) and may not reflect marine influences. Figures 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 show the approximate historical limit of what would now be defined by the FDEP as Class III groundwater (TDS greater than 10,000 mg/L per Chapter 62-520.430, F.A.C.). While historical TDS values are not available for all stations, there is a relationship between specific conductance and TDS; based on the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report findings from recent analytical data, the TDS value on average is 60% of the specific conductance value. This relationship was used to calculate historical TDS values and to estimate the approximate limits of Class III groundwater prior to CCS construction. Plan view maps showing the isopleths of specific conductance in each zone (shallow, intermediate, and deep) are provided as Figures 5.2.4, 5.2-5, and 5.2-6. Although there have been some slight adjustments, these figures are almost identical to the Pre-Uprate figures (FPL 2012). 5.3 Water and Salt Balance Model Tetra Tech developed a model of the water and salt balance for the CCS. The purpose of this model is to quantify the volume of water and mass of salt entering and exiting the CCS over a period of time. This Excel-based model, the underlying conceptualization of the relationship between the CCS and the surrounding environmental systems, key calculations, and results were most recently detailed in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). That version of the model simulated water and salt flow to and from the CCS for the period between September
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-4 2010 and June 2012. Currently, the modeled period extends through May 2014 and encompasses a Post-Uprate period. The conceptual model and associated calculations are predominantly unchanged since last presented in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report. As such, only a brief summary of the model is provided below. In addition, model results and corresponding conclusions regarding the operation of the CCS, based on the current calibrated water and salt balance model, are provided herein. The Excel spreadsheet that comprises the model is provided in a separate data file. 5.3.1 Model Summary As Figure 5.3-1 depicts, the water balance for the proposed control volume is comprised of seepage (lateral through the sides and vertical through the bottom), blowdown (additional water pumped from other units to the CCS), precipitation (including runoff from earth berms between canals), and evaporation. Aside from evaporation and precipitation, these are the same mechanisms by which salt flows into and out of the CCS. The means by which water and/or salt is transferred (e.g., seepage, evaporation) are calculated using various equations provided in the Comprehensive Pre-Uprate Report (FPL 2012). Calculations were performed for a 45-month period from September 2010 through May 2014. Average flows of water and salt into and out of the control volume were calculated for each day of this period using hydrologic, water quality, and meteorological data measured within, beneath, and adjacent to the CCS. The average daily flows were summed to estimate the amount of water and salt that enters or exits the control volume (i.e., the CCS) during each month and the entire 45-month period. These calculations demonstrate and validate the conceptual model of the CCS and, in so doing, illustrate the hydrologic mechanisms by which the CCS functions. Calculated water flows are reported in 106 gallons per day (millions of gallons per day [MGD]). The mass flux into or out of the control volume is calculated by multiplying the volumetric flow by the salinity of the body of water from which the water is flowing. Salinity was monitored at all groundwater and surface water stations employed in the ensuing calculations and was reported in the practical salinity scale (PSS-78), which is equivalent to grams per liter (g/L). Calculated mass fluxes are reported in thousands of pounds per day (lb x 1000/day). The gain/loss of water and salt mass within the control volume during some period of time results in a change in the control volumes water and salt mass storage. Increased water storage, for instance, occurs when more water enters the control volume than exits. Storage, then, can be estimated by summing all of the components of the water (and salt) balance. When the net flow is positive (into the control volume) during a specified period of time, the storage of control volume increases. Conversely, a net negative (out of the control volume) flow implies a decrease in storage during a specified time period. Another manner in which a change in storage can be estimated relies on direct measurements of water elevations and salinities within the control volume. A change in water elevation within the control volume can be calculated as a difference between water elevations at the beginning and end of a specified time period. The product of this change in water elevations and the
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-5 surface area of the control volume provide an estimate of the change in the volume of water contained in the control volume during that period of time. Estimates of daily storage changes derived from this method are used to further calibrate the water and salt balance model to ensure an accurate simulation of temporal trends CCS water elevation and salinity. 5.3.2 Results and Discussion The individual components of the water and salt balance were simulated daily and summed for each month from September 2010 through May 2014, as well as for the collective 45-month period. The individual components of flow are summed in order to calculate a simulated change in volume for each month and for the 45-month period. These simulated changes in storage were compared to observed changes in CCS water and salt storage for each month and the entire calibration period. Errors between the simulated and observed storage changes were minimized by adjusting key variables associated with the flow balance model; this process is called calibration. The calibration process ensures that the model can accurately reflect the average changes in CCS storage over the 45-month time frame, while also effectively capturing day-to-day changes in CCS water and mass storage. Calibration of the water and salt balance model was achieved by adjusting hydraulic conductivities of the aquifer materials adjacent to and beneath the CCS that factor into the calculation of seepage to/from groundwater and Biscayne Bay. Additional adjustable parameters include the coefficients in the wind function (FPL 2012), the amount of runoff that enters the control volume as percentage of precipitation, the amount of Unit 5 cooling tower water that is lost to evaporation before entering the CCS, and the salinity of the Unit 5 blowdown as a percentage of seawater. The calibrated model parameter values are provided in Table 5.3-1. The horizontal hydraulic conductivities laterally adjacent to the control volume were calibrated to range between 500 ft/d and 950 ft/d. The calibrated vertical conductivities beneath the control volume ranged from 0.1 ft/day to 4 ft/d. The northern portion of the discharge canals and return canals, where it is assumed deeper canals intersect highly permeable material underlying the muck and Miami limestone, were calibrated to have higher vertical hydraulic conductivities (3.8 ft/d and 4 ft/d, respectively). Lower vertical conductivities were calibrated for the mid-and southern portions of the discharge canals, as well as the southern portion of the return canals (0.1 ft/d). Results of the simulated 45-month water and salt balance model are provided in Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3, respectively. Monthly balance results follow in Table 5.3-4 through Table 5.3-5. The modeled net flow of water, as calculated by the summing the components of the water balance for the 45-month calibration period, is denoted as the Modeled Change in CCS Storage and was calculated to be an average inflow of 0.05 MGD over the 45-month calibration period. The observed change in storage, which is the difference in the volume of water in the CCS between the final and first days of the calibration period, divided by the number of days in the period, was observed to be 0.31 MGD (inflow). Though the model underestimated the net inflow of water from the CCS, the residual error between the simulated and observed flow is only 0.26 MGD. This error is small (0.26%) relative to the monthly net observed flows, which for the entire 45-month period range from a net outflow of 46.6 MGD (October 2010) and a net inflow of 52.1
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-6 MGD (September 2010). During the Post-Uprate period (June 2013 - May 2014), the monthly net observed flows range from a net outflow of 31.1 MGD (June 2013) to a net inflow of 19.6 MGD (July 2013). The model simulates a net outflow of 3.26 MGD of water from the CCS during the Post-Uprate period, which matches the observed net outflow of water during Post-Uprate (3.42 MGD) reasonably well. The net outflow of water during this timeframe is predominantly attributable to a relative lack of precipitation (which accounts for 30% of the simulated inflow during this timeframe) and relatively high evaporation (which accounts for 85% of the simulated outflow). During the simulated Pre-Uprate and Interim Operating period (September 2010 through May 2013), precipitation accounted for 39.4% of inflowing water to the CCS and evaporation accounted for 63.7% of the outflowing water from the CCS. The model simulated a net influx of salt over the 45-month period at rate of 1,938 (lb x 1,000)/day. The corresponding observed rate of salt inflow was calculated by multiplying the average observed salinity in the CCS on the final and first day of the calibration period by the corresponding CCS volumes on those days. The difference between these two products, divided by the number of days in the calibration period, provides the net inflow of salt, 497 (lb x 1,000)/day. The error associated with the mass flux is an overestimation by approximately 697 (lb x 1,000)/day. As in the case of water balance simulation, the magnitude of this overestimation is small (3.1%) relative to the range in monthly average flows for the entire 45-month period; the monthly net mass fluxes range from an outflow of 13,790 (lb x 1,000)/day (October 2010) to an inflow of 8,659 (lb x 1,000)/day (June 2011). During the Post-Uprate period (June 2013 - May 2014), the monthly observed net salt mass fluxes range from a net outflow of 6,529 (lb x 1,000)/day (December 2013) to a net inflow of 5,847 (lb x 1,000)/day (April 2014). There was a net gain of salt within the CCS during the Post-Uprate period of 2,216 (lb x 1,000)/day. This gain in salt is likely to be attributable to two factors. First, the relative paucity in freshwater precipitation resulted in reduced CCS water levels. As such, groundwater and associated salt mass account for much of the inflow to the CCS during the Post-Uprate period. Second, the low water levels and relatively high evaporation (which removes freshwater from the CCS and leaves salt behind) resulted in seepage to groundwater being a relatively small component of the water and mass outflow from the CCS. Thus, CCS salt mass outflow was not a pronounced element of the salt balance during the Post-Uprate period and salt mass from evaporation was generally retained. As a result, the CCS gained salt between June 2013 and May 2014. Figures 5.3-2 and 5.3-3 illustrate the models ability to match the magnitude and direction of net monthly flows of water and salt, respectively. Figure 5.3-2 compares observed and modeled net monthly flows of water into and out of the CCS. There is a seasonal trend in observed flows to/from the CCS, where inflows are generally associated with the wet season and outflows are generally associated with the dry season. The model is able to replicate this trend reasonably well. However, there are isolated months where the model does not accurately simulate the net flow (e.g., April and September 2011). Figure 5.3-3 compares observed and modeled net monthly flows of salt into and out of the CCS. Like the modeled water flows, estimated salt mass fluxes generally match observed fluxes well, though there are individual months where the estimated mass flux is less accurate.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-7 Implicit in the models ability to simulate monthly net water and salt mass flows is the accurate simulation of daily flows to and from the CCS. Because the model is able to characterize the daily flows of water and salt, the model estimates the daily changes in CCS water and salt storage. As previously mentioned, these changes in storage are associated with daily changes in CCS water levels and salinity. Figure 5.3-4 shows the model-calculated water level in the CCS, which varies over the period of record. These modeled water levels range between approximately -1.5 ft NAVD 88 and 1 ft NAVD 88, and reflects an average water level throughout the entire CCS. Also shown in this figure are the observed CCS water levels over time; the observed values reflect the mean of daily-averaged water elevations across the seven sensors in the CCS. Simulated water elevations are calculated by dividing the simulated daily change in CCS storage by the average daily CCS surface area and adding the resulting value (which reflects a change in water level) to the previous days simulated water elevation. It is evident from this figure that the model effectively captures the general trend in CCS water elevations over the 45-month period, and accurately simulates average CCS water elevations throughout much of the calibration period. Similarly, changes in salt mass storage within the CCS can be used to calculate average CCS salinity changes over time. The simulated daily net flow of salt is divided by the simulated volume of water in the CCS, which results in a change in salinity. This change in salinity is added to the simulated salinity calculated for the previous day to produce a simulated salinity for the current day. Like the simulated CCS water level, the model salinity reflects a representative daily salinity throughout the CCS. Figure 5.3-5 compares the simulated salinities to those observed in the CCS over the period of record. Observed salinities are the mean of daily averaged salinities measured in the CCS monitoring stations. The modeled CCS salinity changes over time match changes in the average observed CCS salinity throughout the 45-month period of record. This timeframe includes the recent rise in salinity from approximately 60 g/L to approximately 90 g/L. That the model can match this notable increase in CCS salinity reinforces the conceptual model, which suggests that changes in CCS salinity are predicated solely on changes in the flow of water into and out of the CCS. The accurate simulation of changing CCS inflows, outflows, water elevations and salinities is complex due to the different components of the balance model and their varying impacts upon CCS water and salt storage. For instance, vertical flows into and out of the control volume are generally larger than horizontal flows, and have a greater impact upon CCS water elevation. The salinity of inflowing water, however, can vary depending upon the source of the water. For example, horizontal flow from the west (L-31E) is non-saline and has a pronounced mitigating impact upon CCS salinities; vertical flow from groundwater beneath portions of the discharge canals is saline to hyper-saline and generally increases the salinity of the CCS. The correct balance of both water and salt mass flow is difficult to estimate in the model. In addition, the simulated timeframe encompasses both Pre-and Post-Uprate periods, during which CCS water temperatures slightly increase. The model addresses associated impacts to the CCS by explicitly simulating the effects of water/air temperature gradients on evaporation. Whereas myriad sources and sinks of water, varying salinities, and changes in water temperature do increase model complexity, the need to accurately simulate these different components of CCS operation constrains the number of possible solutions.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-8 Though the model is able to simulate the complex dynamics associated with the CCS over a 45-month timeframe with reasonable accuracy, there are periods of time where the simulated flows of water and salt do not accurately reflect observed conditions. Consequently, the simulated water level and salinities in the CCS deviate from those that have been observed at various times in the simulation period. However, the overall performance of the model reinforces its utility as a tool for understanding how the CCS has and will operate under varying meteorological, hydrological, and operational conditions. This is best demonstrated by the fact that the same conceptual model employed to characterize changes in CCS storage of water and salt during the Pre-Uprate period is used to explain changes in storage during the Post-Uprate period. This is a period of time during which water levels have generally decreased, salinities have dramatically increased and water temperatures have risen within the CCS. Nevertheless, the exchanges of flows between the CCS and surrounding environment during Post-Uprate are governed by the same hydrologic principles as during the Pre-Uprate period. This robustness and accuracy in the model underpins FPLs firm understanding of processes that control the CCS and the manner in which the CCS interacts with the adjacent aquifer and water bodies. This accuracy in simulating the historical changes within the CCS bolsters confidence in the models utility as a tool to evaluate the sensitivity of CCS operations to certain factors such as changes in operation, drought conditions, storm events, and other potential environmental stresses. Additionally, the model accuracy validates the fact that the most appropriate data are being collected to effectively capture CCS operations, identify interactions between the CCS and the surrounding environment, and support FPLs comprehension of historical and future operations of the CCS.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 TABLES
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-10 Table 5.3-1. Calibration Parameters Parameter Name Calibrated Value Units Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone A) 3.8 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone B) 0.1 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone C) 0.1 ft/day Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Zone D) 4 ft/day West Face Hydraulic Conductivity 950 ft/day East Face Hydraulic Conductivity 1000 ft/day North Face Hydraulic Conductivity 500 ft/day South Face Hydraulic Conductivity 500 ft/day Evaporation Modifier (Factor Multiplier) 0.69 Runoff Modifier (as % of Precipitation) 34% Blowdown Evaporation Factor 20% Blowdown Concentration (as % of Seawater) 0.4
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-11 Table 5.3-2. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2010 to May 2014 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.92 1256.71 E. Seepage 15.37 21044.68 N. Seepage 0.01 13.96 S. Seepage 2.39 3274.42 Bottom Seepage 11.47 15708.95 Precipitation and Runoff 20.44 27984.72 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.47 648.79 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.92 1256.99 ID Pumping 3.31 4529.48 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 55.31 75718.69 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -3.91 E. Seepage -4.12 -5642.91 N. Seepage -0.01 -8.68 S. Seepage -0.12 -162.98 Bottom Seepage -12.48 -17091.43 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -38.53 -52744.39 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -55.26 -75654.30 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.05 64.39 Observed Change 0.31 417.57 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. gal = Gallon. ID = Interceptor Ditch. MGD = Million gallons per day.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-12 Table 5.3-3. Calculated Mass Flows from Salt Budget Components September 2010 to May 2014 Mass Budget Component lb/day (x1000) Mass (lb x 1000) Into CCS W. Seepage 6.55 8965.03 E. Seepage 4324.59 5920366.26 N. Seepage 2.30 3150.21 S. Seepage 466.15 638163.40 Bottom Seepage 3350.12 4586312.27 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 107.28 146861.12 ID Pumped Water 363.67 497869.29 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 8620.66 11801687.58 Out of CCS W. Seepage -42.58 -58287.90 E. Seepage -1632.46 -2234836.51 N. Seepage -3.05 -4179.04 S. Seepage -63.49 -86913.97 Bottom Seepage -5685.41 -7783332.80 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -7426.99 -10167550.22 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 1193.67 1634137.36 Observed Change 497.04 680445.13 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. ID = Interceptor Ditch. lb = Pound(s).
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-13 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.73 21.80 E. Seepage 10.82 324.68 N. Seepage 0.02 0.45 S. Seepage 2.54 76.13 Bottom Seepage 8.29 248.59 Precipitation and Runoff 78.65 2359.64 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.98 29.36 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 102.31 3069.29 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -6.06 -181.83 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.08 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -7.18 -215.33 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -38.11 -1143.43 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -51.36 -1540.66 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 50.95 1528.63 Observed Change 52.14 1564.08 Key: CCS = Cooling Canal System. gal = Gallon. ID = Interceptor Ditch. MGD = Million gallons per day.
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-14 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components October 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.25 7.86 E. Seepage 0.74 22.98 N. Seepage 0.00 0.15 S. Seepage 2.04 63.20 Bottom Seepage 6.04 187.28 Precipitation and Runoff 13.60 421.63 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.75 23.11 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 23.71 735.14 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.01 -0.33 E. Seepage -24.43 -757.44 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.19 S. Seepage -0.04 -1.13 Bottom Seepage -23.74 -735.81 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -29.88 -926.14 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -78.10 -2421.04 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -54.38 -1685.91 Observed Change -46.60 -1444.52
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-15 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components November 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.30 9.12 E. Seepage 4.85 145.62 N. Seepage 0.00 0.14 S. Seepage 1.77 53.17 Bottom Seepage 1.67 50.15 Precipitation and Runoff 26.93 807.85 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Blowdown 0.50 14.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 36.32 1089.69 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.07 -1.99 E. Seepage -7.91 -237.30 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.11 S. Seepage -0.02 -0.66 Bottom Seepage -14.98 -449.29 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -29.16 -874.94 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.14 -1564.29 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -15.82 -474.60 Observed Change -5.02 -150.50
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-16 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components December 2010 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.85 26.31 E. Seepage 18.20 564.28 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.60 49.75 Bottom Seepage 2.36 73.31 Precipitation and Runoff 3.79 117.56 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.72 22.33 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 27.82 862.46 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.49 -15.24 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.41 S. Seepage 0.00 -0.13 Bottom Seepage -15.08 -467.61 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -27.76 -860.43 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -43.35 -1343.82 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -15.53 -481.36 Observed Change -12.72 -394.29
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-17 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components January 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.76 54.46 E. Seepage 9.94 308.08 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.38 42.83 Bottom Seepage 2.80 86.95 Precipitation and Runoff 19.42 602.16 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.82 25.40 ID Pumping 4.91 152.24 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 41.32 1281.04 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -4.19 -129.74 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.45 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -18.38 -569.72 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -26.80 -830.84 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -49.38 -1530.75 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -8.06 -249.71 Observed Change -2.54 -78.88
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-18 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components February 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.26 35.15 E. Seepage 25.22 706.19 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 2.80 78.37 Bottom Seepage 10.00 279.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.70 19.51 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.06 Blowdown 0.70 19.46 ID Pumping 2.25 63.03 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 43.21 1209.76 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.38 -10.77 N. Seepage -0.02 -0.56 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -19.59 -548.63 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.26 -903.41 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.26 -1463.38 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -9.06 -253.62 Observed Change -14.26 -399.40
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-19 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components March 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.41 43.73 E. Seepage 20.83 645.80 N. Seepage 0.00 0.08 S. Seepage 3.06 94.99 Bottom Seepage 11.11 344.53 Precipitation and Runoff 7.12 220.82 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 0.66 20.55 ID Pumping 9.37 290.40 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 53.87 1669.85 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.31 -9.51 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.14 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -17.95 -556.34 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.91 -1051.21 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -52.17 -1617.21 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 1.70 52.64 Observed Change 3.19 99.02
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-20 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components April 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.11 33.40 E. Seepage 29.39 881.74 N. Seepage 0.00 0.13 S. Seepage 3.75 112.65 Bottom Seepage 16.92 507.68 Precipitation and Runoff 10.36 310.85 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.64 Blowdown 1.13 33.95 ID Pumping 7.46 223.80 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 70.43 2112.84 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage 0.00 0.00 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.06 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -18.57 -557.09 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -35.31 -1059.27 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -53.88 -1616.42 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 16.55 496.41 Observed Change -7.85 -235.45
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-21 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components May 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.44 44.50 E. Seepage 47.76 1480.44 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 4.38 135.75 Bottom Seepage 28.64 887.78 Precipitation and Runoff 6.92 214.50 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.93 Blowdown 1.16 35.93 ID Pumping 14.81 459.13 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 105.39 3266.96 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage 0.00 0.00 N. Seepage -0.04 -1.19 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -51.71 -1603.15 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -42.03 -1302.87 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -93.78 -2907.21 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 11.60 359.75 Observed Change 11.51 356.77
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-22 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components June 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.59 47.67 E. Seepage 38.31 1149.35 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 4.26 127.95 Bottom Seepage 28.84 865.18 Precipitation and Runoff 8.02 240.68 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.53 15.99 Blowdown 1.02 30.60 ID Pumping 16.13 483.83 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 98.71 2961.25 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.01 -0.27 N. Seepage -0.03 -1.02 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -43.32 -1299.71 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -46.24 -1387.09 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -89.60 -2688.10 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 9.11 273.16 Observed Change 10.30 309.07
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-23 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components July 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.95 60.52 E. Seepage 4.81 149.10 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage 1.56 48.21 Bottom Seepage 5.91 183.20 Precipitation and Runoff 45.19 1400.79 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.54 16.59 Blowdown 1.13 35.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 61.08 1893.42 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -12.01 -372.46 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.43 S. Seepage -0.05 -1.58 Bottom Seepage -14.48 -449.03 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -46.43 -1439.30 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -72.99 -2262.80 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -11.92 -369.38 Observed Change 9.24 286.59
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-24 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components August 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.16 36.08 E. Seepage 14.19 439.99 N. Seepage 0.00 0.13 S. Seepage 2.56 79.39 Bottom Seepage 7.27 225.36 Precipitation and Runoff 37.76 1170.55 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.53 16.36 Blowdown 1.04 32.25 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 64.52 2000.11 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.05 E. Seepage -2.37 -73.46 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.03 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -3.97 -123.00 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -44.75 -1387.17 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -51.09 -1583.72 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 13.43 416.39 Observed Change 20.17 625.23
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-25 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components September 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.83 24.75 E. Seepage 10.10 302.92 N. Seepage 0.00 0.02 S. Seepage 2.10 62.99 Bottom Seepage 3.65 109.50 Precipitation and Runoff 37.53 1125.82 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.55 16.55 Blowdown 0.98 29.36 ID Pumping 5.74 172.08 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 61.47 1843.99 Out of CCS W. Seepage -0.02 -0.70 E. Seepage -2.05 -61.38 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.21 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -8.12 -243.67 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -44.87 -1346.23 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -55.07 -1652.19 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 6.39 191.81 Observed Change -5.14 -154.17
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-26 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components October 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.75 23.15 E. Seepage 6.22 192.95 N. Seepage 0.00 0.11 S. Seepage 2.48 76.86 Bottom Seepage 6.96 215.70 Precipitation and Runoff 52.98 1642.32 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.52 16.21 Blowdown 0.75 23.11 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 70.66 2190.41 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -9.88 -306.26 N. Seepage -0.01 -0.24 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -12.38 -383.88 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.60 -1010.53 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -54.87 -1700.91 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 15.79 489.50 Observed Change 8.79 272.51
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-27 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components November 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.47 14.01 E. Seepage 14.55 436.40 N. Seepage 0.01 0.22 S. Seepage 2.26 67.69 Bottom Seepage 6.76 202.89 Precipitation and Runoff 1.24 37.18 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.47 14.14 Blowdown 0.50 14.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 26.25 787.53 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.01 E. Seepage -1.08 -32.32 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.07 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -4.06 -121.76 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -34.24 -1027.32 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -39.38 -393.94 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -13.13 393.58 Observed Change -25.56 -766.91
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-28 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components December 2011 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.03 31.82 E. Seepage 21.14 655.36 N. Seepage 0.01 0.16 S. Seepage 2.52 78.16 Bottom Seepage 7.44 230.79 Precipitation and Runoff 1.77 55.02 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.61 18.76 Blowdown 0.72 22.33 ID Pumping 9.14 283.37 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 44.38 1375.75 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.22 -6.77 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.13 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.23 -410.20 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -30.89 -957.49 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -44.34 -1374.58 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.04 1.16 Observed Change -11.66 -361.51
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-29 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components January 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.66 51.39 E. Seepage 25.43 788.46 N. Seepage 0.00 0.02 S. Seepage 2.79 86.45 Bottom Seepage 10.43 323.45 Precipitation and Runoff 2.83 87.58 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.59 18.37 Blowdown 0.89 27.50 ID Pumping 15.39 476.96 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 60.01 1860.18 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.03 -0.97 N. Seepage -0.02 -0.54 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -29.36 -910.08 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -32.79 -1016.63 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -62.20 -1928.22 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -2.19 -68.04 Observed Change -9.98 -309.33
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-30 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components February 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.24 36.07 E. Seepage 12.17 353.03 N. Seepage 0.01 0.23 S. Seepage 2.04 59.02 Bottom Seepage 6.98 202.37 Precipitation and Runoff 35.50 1029.63 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.52 15.17 Blowdown 0.78 22.68 ID Pumping 1.50 43.56 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 60.75 1761.77 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -1.65 -47.80 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.03 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -9.41 -272.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -31.84 -923.30 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -42.90 -1244.12 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 17.85 517.65 Observed Change 12.36 358.44
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-31 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components March 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.91 28.18 E. Seepage 18.19 563.76 N. Seepage 0.02 0.67 S. Seepage 2.86 88.75 Bottom Seepage 12.57 389.53 Precipitation and Runoff 2.42 74.90 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.35 10.99 Blowdown 0.99 30.56 ID Pumping 4.10 126.99 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 42.40 1314.32 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.54 -16.60 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.01 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -7.89 -244.56 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.18 -1028.59 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -41.61 -1289.77 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 0.79 24.56 Observed Change -11.24 -348.30
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-32 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components April 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.45 43.59 E. Seepage 17.94 538.28 N. Seepage 0.01 0.25 S. Seepage 2.80 84.04 Bottom Seepage 14.20 426.09 Precipitation and Runoff 50.85 1525.64 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.39 11.73 Blowdown 0.98 29.41 ID Pumping 9.76 292.86 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 98.40 2951.89 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -0.28 -8.41 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.05 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.20 -395.99 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -35.04 -1051.09 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -48.52 -1455.54 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: 49.88 1496.35 Observed Change 33.69 1010.73
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-33 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components May 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.23 38.01 E. Seepage 0.55 17.06 N. Seepage 0.02 0.74 S. Seepage 0.93 28.94 Bottom Seepage 11.40 353.36 Precipitation and Runoff 41.18 1276.57 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.41 12.61 Blowdown 0.97 30.04 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 56.69 1757.33 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -14.73 -456.50 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.02 S. Seepage 0.00 -0.04 Bottom Seepage -12.23 -379.01 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.39 -1035.06 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -60.34 -1870.64 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -3.66 -113.31 Observed Change -2.89 -89.62
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-34 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components June 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 0.66 19.79 E. Seepage 3.72 111.63 N. Seepage 0.02 0.48 S. Seepage 1.65 49.57 Bottom Seepage 7.95 238.37 Precipitation and Runoff 30.82 924.74 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.29 8.66 Blowdown 1.03 30.98 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 46.14 1384.22 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 -0.06 E. Seepage -10.75 -322.64 N. Seepage 0.00 -0.02 S. Seepage 0.00 0.00 Bottom Seepage -13.23 -397.04 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -33.57 -1007.10 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -57.56 -1726.87 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -11.42 -342.65 Observed Change -3.50 -105.04
FPL Turkey Point Annual Post-Uprate Monitoring Report for Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project - August 2014 Section 5 5-35 Table 5.3-4. Calculated Fluid Flows from Water Budget Components July 2012 Water Budget Component Flow (MGD) Volume (gal x 10^6) Into CCS W. Seepage 1.06 32.85 E. Seepage 0.02 0.63 N. Seepage 0.02 0.73 S. Seepage 1.05 32.46 Bottom Seepage 14.22 440.68 Precipitation and Runoff 29.66 919.46 Evaporation 0.00 0.00 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.34 10.51 Blowdown 1.07 33.07 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total In: 47.43 1470.39 Out of CCS W. Seepage 0.00 0.00 E. Seepage -12.89 -399.63 N. Seepage 0.00 0.00 S. Seepage -0.05 -1.46 Bottom Seepage -13.30 -412.33 Precipitation and Runoff 0.00 0.00 Evaporation -39.84 -1235.10 Unit 3, 4 Added Water 0.00 0.00 Unit 5 Blowdown 0.00 0.00 ID Pumping 0.00 0.00 Plant Outflow Equal to Intake Plant Intake Equal to Outflow Total Out: -66.08 -2048.51 Modeled Change in CCS Storage: -18.65 -578.12 Observed Change -7.97 -247.19}}