ML17037D011

Aquatic Resources (AR) RAI AR-7 Lpl 1979_WF3 Demonstration Under Section 316(a)

ML17037D011
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/07/2017
From:	Entergy Operations
To:	Keegan E Division of License Renewal
ELAINE KEEGAN, NRR/DLR, 415-8517
Shared Package
ML17018A143	List: ML17018A166 ML17018A186 ML17018A205 ML17019A297 ML17019A306 ML17023A266 ML17023A268 ML17024A170 ML17024A193 ML17024A218 ML17024A239 ML17024A247 ML17030A167 ML17030A177 ML17030A187 ML17034A323 ML17034A328 ML17037C948 ML17037C997 ML17037D011 ML17037D017 ML17037D036 ML17037D055 ML17037D108 ML17037D250 ML17037D282 ML17037D290 ML17037D302 ML17037D315 ML17037D321 ML17038A260 ML17038A264 ML17038A273 ML17038A277 ML17038A280
References
Download: ML17037D011 (162)

Text

Draft LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THEfil!AL RELEASES ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT NO. 3 January, 1979

ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THERMAL RELEASES ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 B. PLANT DESCRIPTION 2 II. MASTER ECOSYSTEM RATIONALE 3 III. BIOTIC CATEGORY RATIONALES 6 A. PHYTOPLANKTON 6

1. Decision Criteria 7 B. HABITAT FORMERS 7 C. ZOOPLANKTON AND MEROPLANKTON 7

1. Zooplankton 8

2. Meroplankton 10

3. Decision Criteria 10 D. SHELLFISH/MACROINVERTEBRATES 12

1. Threatened, Endangered or Commercial Species 12

2. Importance of Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates 13

3. Decision Criteria 14 E. FISH 15

1. Threatened, Endangered, Sport and Commercial Species 15

2. Fish Spawning and Nursery Potential 16

3. Zone of Passage 20

4. Potential for Cold Shock 20

5. Decision Criteria 21 F. VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE 21 IV. ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGIC DATA 23 A. ENGINEERING DATA 23 B. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION 25 C. DISCHARGE OUTFALL CONFIGURATION AND OPERATION 27 D. PLUME PREDICTION METHODOLOGY 28 Tables Figures Appendix A - Waterford 3 - Hydrothermal Study

LIST OF TABLES Contribution of Cyanophyta to the Phytoplankton Connnunity

2. Taxa of Zooplankton Collected From 1973-1976 Near Waterford 3

3. Average Zooplankton Densities, Numbers per M by Station By Date in s~mples Collect~1 in the Vi;nity of Waterford 3

4. Average Number of Dominant Zooplankton (per ~) for all Depths at All Stations

5. List of Macroinvertabrates and Shellfish Taxa 1973 to 1976

6. Ash-Free Dry Weight of Benthic Macroinvertabrates at Waterford 3

7. Species of Fish Collected in the Vicinity of the Proposed Waterford Unit 3, April 1973-September 1976 3

s. Average Ichthyoplankton Organisms per M by Family and Month in Samples Collected During the Waterford Steam Electric Station Survey (October 1975-September 1976) (Year III) 3

9. Average Numbers of Ichthyoplankton per M Collected in the Water-ford Vicinity

10. Small ( < lOOmm) Fish Found in the Mississippi River

11. Monthly Water Temperature Data from the Mississippi River near Westwego, Louisiana (1951-1969)

12. Summary of Cooling Water System Operational Modes

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Waterford 3 Vicinity Map

2. Sampling Areas in the Mississippi River Near Waterford 3

3. Duration Curve of Suspended-Sediment Concentration-Mississippi River at Red River Landing, La., 1949-1963

4. Predicted Excess Isotherms(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - Average Winter Flow Condition

5. Predicted Excess Isotherms(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - Average Spring Flow Condition

6. Predicted Excess Isotherms(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - Average Summer Flow Condition

7. Predicted Excess Isotherms(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - Average Fall River Flow Condition 0

8. Excess Isotherms( F) at the Surface-Before Waterford 3 Discharge -

September 9, 1976 - Low Flow Condition

9. Excess Isothenns(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - September 9, 1976 Low Flow Condition

10. Excess Isotherms(°F) at the Surface - Before Waterfo.rd 3 Discharge September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition

11. Excess Isothenns(°F) at the Surface-Combined Field - September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition

12. Combined Thermal Plume Cross-Section at Little Gypsy for typical Low Flow Condition

13. Allowable Thermal Plume Temperatures for the Minimization of Cold Shock in the Event of Plant Shutdown

14. Circulating Water System - General Plan

15. Circulating W~ter System - Discharge Structure and Canal

le. Schematic of Water Flow, Waterford 3 17 Mississippi River Flow Duration Curve

-~

• -------- - -* - . ---- -*--" -*- - - _ ,.,_ ~~~- -~ ---- *---

• 1 I, INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Scope This assessment is submitted in support of Louisiana Power & Light Com-pany's application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, filed pursuant to 40 CFR 125 with the U S Environmental Pro-tection Agency, Region VI, on October 18, 1978. In order to facilitate review of this application, this document has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines developed by the U S Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 122. This is based upon an evaluation of the design of the discharge facility and the nature of the Mississippi River near Waterford.

The primary source of site-specific data and analyses utilized in the determination of thermal impacts on the river is the Waterford 3 Operat-ing License Stage Environmental Report (OLER). This report, and its detailed supporting data base, forms the basis of this demonstration.

However, for the purposes of this document, it was considered necessary to only reproduce that biological and hydrothermal data from the OLER that would adequately demonstrate the low impact of thermal discharges from Waterford 3. As appropriate, additional analysis methodologies, additional data, etc. are cross-referenced in this document to the OLER.

The scope of work included:

1. A brief description of pertinent systems at Waterford 3 contributing to this discharge,

2. A master ecosystem rationale highlighting key points in-dicative of the low potential impact of Waterford 3 thermal discharges,

3. Biotic category rationales supporting the master ecosystem rationale and keyed to decision criteria for low potential impact detailed in the EPA guidance manual.

2 B. PLANT DESCRIPTION Waterford 3 is located at River Mile 129.6 on the west bank (right descending) of the Mississippi River. This location is approximately one-half mile downstream from Waterford 1 and 2 (882 MWe fossil-fueled) and is almost directly across river from the Little Gypsy Generating Station (1229 MWe fossil-fueled). Figure 1 presents a location map of the project area.

The gross electrical output of this nuclear-fueled unit for the rated power level is 1202 MWe. Makeup water for all systems, with the excep-tion of _the Potable and Sanitary Water System and the service Water syst~

is the Mississippi River. Potable water and service water are obtained from the St Charles Parish Water Works.

The main condenser Circulating Water System, the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System and the Steam Generator Blowdown System heat exchangers all operate in the once-through (open cycle) mode. For these once-through systems, evaporative losses are assumed to be negligible. Spent cooling water from these systems, along with certain plant process waste-waters, are combined and discharged to the Mississippi River in the Circulatin~ Water System Discharge. The water is discharge to the river utlizing a surface discharge through a canal which is tapered to provide improved dispersion of the spent cooling water during lower river flows.

Chlorine (used on an intermittant basis as necessary) is added to the circulating water to prevent bioloRical fouling of the condenser tubing.

The Circulating Water System has three operational modes, corresponding to the operation of two, three or four intake water pumps. The require-ments for the operation of these pumps are a function of ambient intake water temperatures in the river and plant operating conditions. For the purposes of this document, all analyses assume maximum plant load conditions.Section IV of this document contains information on the operational modes of the intake water pumps. Discharges are expected to range from approximately 622,000 gpm (1386 cfs) to 1,003,000 gpm (2235 cfs), during maximum plant load conditions.

3 II. MASTER ECOSYSTEM RATIONALE This section summarizes the ba1i1 for the conclusion that the balanced indigenous population of the Mississippi River will not be disruyted by thermal discharges of Waterford 3. This section also briefly discusses the findings, detailed in Section III, concerning the acreage and croaa-sectional area affected by the excess temperature of the discharge, as well as the ecological characteristics of the organisms present. These factors indicate that the ecosystem should be considered one of low potential for impact from thermal discharges.

The Mississippi River at Waterford 3 is a turbid water body with little habitat diversity. The productivity of the system is limited by light penetration as well as the stability and habitability of the substrate .

The system is considered to be detrital-based, because phytoplankton occur 3

in low densities, averaging approximately 260 cells/cm , and are not seen to be the significant energy base that they constitute in more lake-like environments. This is typical of large, southeastern and midwestern rivers. Similarly, the densities of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton are also low. Zooplankton densities in the Mississippi at Waterford 3 range 3

from approximately 400 to 1000 organisms/m , and ichthyoplankton densities are all significantly less than 1 organism/m3

• In the vicinity of Waterford 3, the Mississippi River does not offer good spawning habitat for most fish species, but catfish and shad may take some advantage of this area for such purposes. Nevertheless, it is not a unique or critical fish spawning area.

A cOtJI1Jercial fishery exists in the Mississippi River for catfish, freshwater drum and river shrimp. From Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, thi1 fishery took 1.2 million pounds of catfish, 80 thousand pounds of drum, and 4 thousand pounds of river shrimp in 1975. These commercial species do not uniquely occur near Waterford 3, but are present throughout the Mississippi River.

Benthic species of beneficial corranercial value do not occur in the river near Waterford. However, the Asiatic clam (Corbicula), one of the domin-ant benthic organisms in thie area and a food for indigenous fish, bas been found to be a nuisance species in other parts of the country, forcing economic losses for their control. The Corbicula population is not expected to be significantly affected by the thermal discharges because of the very small area of its habitat which will be influenced.

The species found in the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 do not include any of those listed on the U S Fish and Wildlife Service threatened or endangered species list for 1976.

The thermal characteristics of the Mississippi River ecosystem, as depicted in more detail in Section III, will be affected by the combined discharge plumes of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3, and the Little Gypsy Generating Station. Plumes are shown in Section IV for the combined discharges of these plants during typical low flow and average seasonal flow conditions.

The plume configuration and detailed supporting data indicate that, with all generating stations operating, a zone of passage conservatively estimated to exceed 90 percent of the river area will exist in all seasons.

The benthic community near Waterford is relatively sparse. Also, river croas-sectional configuration at Waterford places a very small percentage of this communities' habitat within the area affected by the thermal discharges. It is estimated that a total of one acre of benthic habitat will have contact with water heated greater than 2°c (3.6°F) above ambient conditions.

The relatively small volumes of the river affected indicate that a significant problem from cold shock to fish is unlikely. The small volumes are also estimated on the assumption that the Waterford 1 and 2. Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy Stations are all operating. A simultaneous, abrupt shutdown of all three stations would be necessary to cause significant cold shock. Such an event is very improbable. For example, if Waterford 3 went off-line when ambient river temperatures were a minimum (40°F) and Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy were already shutdown cold shock would be limited to 3.2 acre-feet.

~-- *- - *- ¥ - - * --- *- * -- ~ - -- * -* *- *-*** ...

5 For the reasons presented above, the balanced indigenous population of the Mississippi River will not be disrupted by the thermal di1ch&rge of Waterford 3. This conclusion 11 1ubstantiated by the following ecosystem characteristics: low productiv'ity, sparse populations, absence of endangered species, the unsuitability and oonuniqueness for fish spawning, and the presence of commercially important species. The combination of these eco-logical characteristics with the small volume of river to be thermally affected and the lack of potential for significant effects from cold shock demonstrates the low potential for adverse impact from the operation of Waterford 3.

,.~-- * - --- - --~ - * * - - * ~ *-- - *----

-*~ * - - -- ----- - - -- -- -- ----- -* --- -*- .. -------- - ** -* --- ..

6 III. BIOTIC CATEGORY RATIONALES The following section utilizes the data \olhich was collected from the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 by the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program. This program was conducted from 1973 through 1976 to predict the expected biological impacts from the thermal discharges of Waterford 3.

The sampling stations utilized during the Environmental Surveillance Program were selected to analyze the various types of habitat existing in the Mississippi near Waterford. Station locations included shallow water ~ low current velocity areas and deep water - fast current velocity areas. Control stations were also established in these habitat types.

Figure 2 presents the location of the sampling stations.

The discussion below is divided into six sections, describing six biotic categories:

phytoplankton habitat formers zooplankton and meroplankton shellfish and macroinvertebrates fish and; vertebrate wildlife Section 2.2.2.1 of the Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage presents a more detailed discussion of the aquatic ecology of the lower Mississippi River near Waterford.

In each section data are compared to the decision criteria for impact poten-tial as detailed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency'*

2 Section 316(a) Guidance Manual, dated May 3, 1977( ).

A. PHYTOPLANKTON In the lower Mississippi River, turbidity, turbulence and suspended solids limit the productivity of the primary producers (eg, phytoplankton). High river suspended solids concentrations (Figure 3) and turbidity limit light

7 pentratioo to very shallow depths. Also,shallow areas of suitable substrate for benthic (attached) algae production are rare. Therefore, production of "tychoplanktoo". or algae which find their way into the plankton community by sloughing off of various substrates on which they grow, is limited. The system may be considered a detrital-based one, typical of large, commercially-travelled rivers such as the Mississippi. Recent data support the fact that primary productivity is very low, with values of between 0 - 47.6 mg carbon/

hr/m3 being measured in the river near Waterford between August 1977, and 3

April 1978( ). Most measurements were near zero.

During the period 1973 through 1976, phytoplankton densities measured in the Environmental Surveillance Program ranged from 24.6 to 1,446.8 cells/cm3 in the Mississippi River near Waterford. The mean (average) and median (50th percentile) densities were 260 and 150 cells/cm 3 , respectively(l). These densities can be compared to those found in lakes, where phytoplankton usually occur in much higher densities and consequently make a more significant contri-bution to the food web than in rivers. For example, phytoplankton densities typically range from 500-8000 cells/cm 3 in some lakes which have been studied(4 ,S).

It is also noted that a maximum seasonal average of only 6.6 percent of the cross-section will be heated 2°c (3.6°F) or more above ambient (during fall) by the combined discharges from Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy.

It is estimated that .* an organism .entrained into the Waterford 1 and 2 plume 0

along the Waterford 3 plume to the 2 C AT isotherm would be subject to these excess temperatures for approximately one hour. Therefore, this low percentage of the river affected by the heated discharge, as well as the short duration of the exposure of phytoplankton to the discharge, are not expected to cause any change to the phytoplankton community. Blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) a group containing many nuisance species, are also not expected to increase above their present, low proportions in the phytoplankton community. Table 1 presents the measured densities of cyanophyta in the Mississippi River near Waterford.

8

1. Decision Criteria It is felt that the phytoplankton category should be considered one of low potential impact because:

1. A shift towards nuisance species of phytoplankton is not likely to occur;

2. There is little likelihood that the discharge will alter the indi-genous community from a detrital to a phytoplankton based system; and

3. Appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous population is not likely to occur as a result of phytoplankton community changes caused by the heated discharge.

B. HABITAT FORMERS Habitat formers are defined as " *.*. any assemblage of plants and/or animals characterized by a relatively sessile life stage with aggregated distribution and functioning as:

1. A living and/or formerly living substrate for the attachment of epibiota (eg, a coral);

2. Either a direct or indirect food source for the production of shellfish, fish and wildlife (eg, Elodea);

3. A biological mechanism for the stabiliEation and modification of sedi-ments, contributing to the development of soil (eg, salt cord grass).

4. A nutrient cycling path or trap (eg, a marsh); or

5. Species sites for spawning and providing nursery, feeding, and cover areas for fish and shellfish" ( 2).

The Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford 3 was found, during the (1 6)

Environmental Surveillance Program, to be devoid of habitat formers '

• C. ZOOPLANKTON AND MERO PLANKTON The Environmental Protection Agency states that "areas of low potential impact for zooplankton and meroplankton are defined as those characteriEed by low concentrations of commercially important species, rare and endangered speices.

and/or those forms that are important components of the food web or where the thennal discharge will affect

• relatively small proportion of the receiving water body" ( 2 )

9

1. Zoop 1 ank ton None of the species of zooplankton collected in the Mississippi River near Waterford (Table 2) are comnercially important, threatened or endangered(?). It i1 also believed that zooplankton are of limited importance in the food web.

Table 3 presents the average densities of all zooplankton sampled near Waterford 3.

Average densities of the dominant taxa sampled from 1973 through 1976 are shown in Table 4. Rotifers, usually numerically dominant in river systems, were poorly represented in samples of zooplankton taken near the Waterford site. In view of the large number of rotifers sampled elsewhere in the Lower Mississippi River(S), and the small mesh-sized net normally required to sample members of this phylum( 9 ), it is suspected that the densities found during the Environmental Surveillance Program were biased downwards because of the relatively large mesh-size (0.243 mm) utilized.

Nevertheless, the 0.243 mm mesh size is \.tell suited for sampling zooplankton large enough to serve as prey for many juvenile and adult fish. Galbraith(lO) found that yellow perch and rainbow trout usually fed on zooplankton larger than 1.3 m:n. Lyaklnovich et al(ll) found that similarly sized zooplankton were preferred by carp. Also, Vineyard et al found that bluegill sunfish responded towards daphnids ranging from 0.75tmn to 3.75 mm, with a preference exhibited for the larger sizes(l 2). Allan(ll) reported that yellow perch were most interested in prey 1.3 mm or larger, and least interested in prey less than O.Smm; comparable values for rainbow trout were l.6mm and 0.9mm.

Alewives, which are planktivores, showed most and least interest, respectively, in zooplankton 0.7mm and 0.2mm in length. Thus, the above findings suggest that estimates of zooplankton abundance presented in this document (Table 4) although biased, because of sampling eouipment, provide a measure of the potential contribution of Eooplankton as forage for the fish community near Waterford.

10 The significance of this contribution can be assessed by comparing the densities of large zooplankton in the Mississippi Rive~ to densitie1 reported for other ecosystems. The iooplankton densities measured during the Environmental Surveillance*Program ranged from about 200 to 4000/m3 (Tables 3 and 4). Zooplankton are generally regarded to be an important component of quiet water systems. Crustacean zooplankton were reported to 3

range between 2000 and 2400/m , 2000 and 55,000/m 3 , 2000 and 200,000/m3 in Lakes Huron, Ontario and Erie, respectively(l 4 ). In a survey of 340 lakes and ponds in the Canadian Rockies, Anderson(lS) found that the mean density of crustacean z:ooplankton in the "sparsely populated" water bodies to be 3

28, OOO/m and the mean of "densely populated" water bodies to be 170, 500/m3 .

The densities of cladocerans and calanoid copepods sampled by Lane(l 6) in Gull Lake, Michigan; Cranberry Lake, New York; and Lake George, New York were 3 3 3 6,000 to 13,000/m , 20,000 to 26,000/m and 15,000/m , respectively.

Combining the above data with thermal tolerance infonnation presented in the Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage(l), impact to the zooplankton community should appear negligible. In summer, for example, when ambient temperatures are highest, (84.3°F), the 5.6°C (10°F) ~ T isotherm only affects 2.2 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river (combined discharges of Waterford 1, 2, and 3, and Little Gypsy). The zone of potentially lethal temperatures should occupy a much smaller percentage of the river. and travel times through the portions of Waterford 1, 2, and 3 plumes experiencing such temperatures are expected to be less than one hour.

2. Meroplankton In the Mississippi River, fish, shellfish, and the macroinvertebrate Macrobrachium ohione (river shrimp) have meroplanktonic life stages. These life stages form the meroplankton comnrunity. These are considered in the appropriate sections (Sections III.D and III.E). However, it will be shown that the .Waterford portion 6f tbe Mississippi River is of no special significance to support of their population.

3. Decision Criteria For reasons given above, in this section, and considering that an average of 0 0 only 6.6 percent of the river cross-section is heated more than 2 C (3.6 F)

- - - * - -- -- -- ~- . -- -- ---- ---- -~- --~~ - ~ ~-~---

ll by all Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and the Little Gypsy discharges during the hot season, it ia suggested that the zooplankton/meroplankton be considered one"of low potential impact. This conclusion is based on the following:

1. Changes in the zooplankton and meroplankton community in the river at Waterford 3 that may be caused by the heated discharge will not result in appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous fish and shellfish popu-lation.

2. The heated discharge is not likely to alter the standing crop or relative abundance, with respect to natural population fluctuations in the far-field study area fram those values typical of the receiving water body segment prior to plant operation.

3. The thermal plume does not constitute a lethal barrier to the free movement (drift) of zooplankton and meroplankton.

,_ * -- - -* - * ~- - - ------

12 D. SHELLFISH/MACROINVERTEBRATES

l.

• Threatened, Endangered or Commercial Species

• -~ .-- -:. *- - -- - ~ *- - - -

The taxa of shellfish/macroinvertebrates found in samples from the Mississippi River near Waterford are given in Table 5, None of the 7

taxa are considered to be threatened or endangered( ). Only two taxa, river shrimp (Macrobrachium ohione) and blue crab (Callinectes (17 ' 18 ' 19)

• sapidus) have the potential to be corranercially important However, the occurrence of blue crab is marginal near Waterford.

Numbers of this species are extremely low, and the Waterford area is distant from water with a salinity sufficiently high for spawn-ing of this species( 20).

River shrimp is found in higher numbers. Sp awning of river shrimp takes place near the Waterford site. Both females "in berry" and decapod larvae, probably river shrimp, were observed during the 1972-1976 sampling program (l).

However, the occurrence of river shrimp near the Waterford site is not unique.

The species occurs as far upstream as St Louis, Missouri <21 >. Another study of the lower Mississippi River at a location 400 miles away also found evidence of spawning activity (2Z). River shrimp does not appear to require any specialized spawning habitat, but seems to be capable of spawning in any and all habitats in which it occurs. Comnercial landings of river shrimp ar~ largely restricted to the Mississippi and Atchafalya Rive~s( 23 ~

In 1971, 900 pounds of river shrimp (worth $297) we re taken in commercial catches from the lower Mississippi River between the river mouth and 7

Baton Rouge. By 1975, 4200 pounds valued at $2940, were taken (1 ). As

13 these staUBtics represent the total catch along 230 river miles, the coumercial fishing effort is low, and it would seem that the mark.et for this species is not substantial. This is supported by Viosca< 23 >

who states that !i ohione is being replaced as a food item by larger sea shrimp and ~ acanthurus. River shrimp may be marketed as bait, but IJ:t~ti&tic~ on this market are not presently available.

To summarize, the Mississippi River near the Waterford site is not unique in terms of macroinvertebrate habitat. Because the Waterford 3 discharge will affect only a small portion of the habitat for river shrimp, no effect on this commercial shellfishery is expected.

2. Importance of Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates A simple indication of the potential importance of the benthic community to the ecosystem is provided by determining its standing crop. A measure of standing crop is ash-free dry weight - ie, that weight which represents living biomass, exclusive of such material as shells. The Environmental Protection Agency( 2 ) suggests a value of 1 gm ash-free dry weight per square meter of benthic substrate as one decision criteria for benthic low impact potential. At Waterford, recent data (Table 6) indicate that this value was exceeded at Station AC (Figure 2) in February 1978 (due to patches of Corbicula), Stations A and B in April 1978 (due to t c sludge worms or Tubificid abundance), and Station Bt in August-September 1977 (due to Corbicula abundance). These exceedences are not considered to be of ecological significance because of the types of organisms present and the general instability of their habitat. Absence of organisms from Station Bt in February and April 1978 suggest that spring flood conditions and scouring washed the organisms away.

Also, station Bt is the only Station within the Waterford 3 discharge plume, and it should only experience temperature rises of less than 2.78 0 C (5 0 F) ( compare Figure 2 with Figures 4-7).

14 (24,25,26)

Corbi cul a is often considered a nuisance species ._ , but it does serve as a food for fish. Corbicula is frequently found in the stomachs 4

of blue catfish, freshwater drum, sturgeon, and redear sunfish(2 )*

Several of these fish species are comnonly found in the Mississippi River.

However, there is little chance that the benthic comu:runity will be affected significantly by the Waterford 3 plume.

During the typical low flow (200,000 cfs), the 2 0 C (3.6 0 F) isotherm of the Waterford 1 and 2 thermal plume extends 3 ft (lm) below the surface of the 2

river and contacts up to 2062 m (approximately 1/2 acre) of river bottom.

The addition of Waterford 3 will not increase this exposure. During average spring and winter flow conditions, the addition of Waterford 3 will increase the area of the bottom contacted by the 2 0 C (3.6 0 F) isotherm by approximately 1 acre. Corbicula is very resistant to high temperatures. When acclimated to 30°C (86°F) the incipient lethal limit (i.e. concentration at which 50% of the population can live for an 0 0 indefinite period) was found to be 34 C (93.2 F) for long-term ex-posures, while 43°C (109.4°F) was required to kill 50 percent of the test organisms in 30 minutes(iS). On the basis of this informa-tion, little or no impact to the benthic community and no impact to the dominant organism, Corbicula , is foreseen.

3. Decision Criteria The decision criteria for low potential impact on the shellfish/macro-invertebrate cateogry may be summarized as follows:

15

1. Although shellfish/macroinvertebrate species of existing or potential value do occur at the site (river shrimp), their distribution 11 vi.de and there is no evidence to predict that the Waterford discharge will harm their population.

2. Shellfish/macroinvertebrates (Corbicula) may serve as food for finfish.

Ho1o1ever, these organisms are not expected to be affected by Waterford 3 thermal discharge because little of the plume will impinge on the river bottom.

3. Threatened or endangered.ppecies of shellfish/macroinvertebrates do not occur at the site *.

4. In certain instances, the standing crop of Corbicula or sludge worms exceeded 1 gm ash-free dry weight per square meter; however, this is considered insignificant for two reasons: (a) the apparent washout of Corbicula in 1978 at a station where it was abundant the prior fall is indicative of the instability of this community, and (b) the thermal plume should affect only a small part of the river bottom (nearshore) at Waterford.

5. The site probably serves as a spawning and/or nursery area for Corbicula and river shrimp, but is certainly not in a unique area. Further, little of the habitat is significantly affected by the plume.

E. FISH

1. Threatened, Endangered, Sport and Commercial Species The species of fish collected in the vicinity of the Waterford site are listed in Table 7. None of these species are listed by the Fish and 7

Wildlife Service< >as threatened or endangered. Several species however have some commercial value. Between Baton Rouge and the river mouth, 80,300 lbs of freshwater drum, worth $11,763, 1,198,400 lbs of blue and channel catfish ($401,000) and 16,200 lbs of carp ($944) were taken by commercial fisherman during 1975(!]). Those fish of

16 commercial importance found at the Waterford site are not likely to be affected by the thermal discharge from Waterford 3. As described in the Macroinvertebrate/Shellfish section, the thermal plume is re-stricted to a relatively shallow surface layer in the river. Since the 27 28 commercial species are primarily bottom feeders( * ), temperature effects are expected to be minimal. Furthermore, the two primary commercial taxa, catfish and freshwater drum, have high thermal tolerances.

6 Sport fishing in the lower Mississippi River is not common( ). This is probably a result of the industrial development of the river bank and heavy commercial river traffic, which tend to make small boat operations hazardous. Also the generally low productivity of the Mississippi River would probably make sport fishing unattractive from the viewpoint of catch per unit effort.

2. Fish Spawning and Nursery Potential The Mississippi River at Waterford does not provide habitat suitable for spawning of many fish species. It lacks the riffle areas preferred for spawning by many catfish (Ictalurids)and most suckers (Catastomids),

the shallow backwaters and flooded areas preferred by _pikes . (Esocids) and some of the shads (Clupeidas)and sunfishes (Centrarchids),and the vegetated areas preferred by other sunfishes and perch (Percidas~ 27

• 28 , 29 > 3 0).

To the extent that sheltered locations are available (including cans, snags, etc), a limited number of catfish may spawn near Waterford. Other species that may be capable of spawning in this portion of the river include fresh-water drum, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, river carpsucker and skipjack

{27,29,31) h err i ng

• However, the spawning habitat appears not to be optimal even for these species. This is supported by the low densities

- -.. .. _,,. __ _.-----... __....,J _ _ _ ____ ..__ :).,.... *- ..... . ... . _.....,~ .. - - - - ----- - - - - --* --- -

17 of ichthyoplankton taken during the Environmental Surveillance Program (Tables 8 and 9).

Some fish larvae sampled during the Environmental Surveillance Program must have been produced upstreBlD of Waterford 3, since the habitat at Waterford does not meet their spawning requirements (e.g. sunfishes and pikes). Most of these washed out eggs and larvae are not adapted to the turbid, turbulent, high velocity river conditions and few would be expec.ted to survive, regardless of the Waterford and/

or Little Gypsy thermal plumes. However, increased mortality of bouyant freshwater drum eggs, especially during the summer months, might occur.

In view of the low numbers of eggs and larvae collected in the river and the high fecundity of drum (approximately 200,000 to 350,000 eggs 27 per female< >, no significant reduction in the number of adults is ex-pected.

With the exception of freshwater drum, the eggs of those species expected to spa"1D near the Waterford site are demersal and/or adhesive. Because of the buoyant character of the thermal plume, most should not be exposed to large increases in water temperature.

Juvenile stages of certain species will occur at Waterford 3. In the monitoring program, a number of small fish were taken during 1973-1976 (Table 10). The proportion of these fish which were juveniles is dependent upon the individual species gr owth rate and their size at time of matura-tion. For example, the majority of bay anchovy taken were probably mature, as the maximum length reported for this species is 100 mm()l).

On the other hand, the channel catfish that were less than 100 mm were probably young-of-the-y ear because the av er age total l e ngth of

---

~- ~----------_...._...._.....____;_~'-"""""'-"'"""

• ""'c..._

, ....,..._,,.,"-' ' *.__,,,, c * *r

. <"-'"~'"--" x =="" &di -*""-~ - :- ~ ---------- --~ ~- __,,;:_ _....... __ ._-. .~

18 this species at the beginning of its second year of life has been reported (29) to be 102 mm

• The dominant small fish (Table 10) were the blue catfish, gizzard shad, threadf in shad and freshwater drum. Some reported lengths at Age I (29) (29) 29 for these species, respectively, 119-150 mn , 130mm (average) , 102-130mm< >

and 130mm (total length)(Z 7 >. Based on these values, it would appear that many of the small fish of these species were young-of-the-year.

These same species dominate the fish community throughout their life cycles. The discharges from Waterford 3 are not expected to alter the structure of this community or the success of any given species.

Predictions of low potential impact to the adult fish community resulting from exposure to the Waterford 3 plume are based on the fecundity, breed-ing habits and thermal tolerances of generally nonunique character of the Mississippi River near Waterford.

Fecundity (eggs/female) along with such parameters as growth rate, long-evity, age at first spawning, etc., is related to a species success in exploiting and coping with its environment. The high fecundity of fresh-water drum has previously been mentioned. Gizzard shad are even more fecund, with Age II females containing an average 378,958 eggs and Age VI females containing an average ' 215,331 eggs per female( 29 ). In addition, some females spawn during their first year of life.

On the average, threadfin shad spawn at younger ages and consequently contain fewer eggs (6,700-12,400 per 102mm female). Members of this species frequently spawn when less than a year old, thereby decreasing the chances of death before reproducing. Two peaks of spawning activity (29) usually occur each year

• increasing the chances of favorable con-ditions for survival at the time of spawning.

19 Catfish are less fecund. A fourteen oonce catfish was reported to con-tain 3100 eggs, a four pound catfish 8000 eggs, 18 inch catfish from 27 34 6000 to 8000 eggs, and a 660mm individual contained 34,500< * >.

Although catfish fecundity is low compared to the clupeids, catfish ensure a higher survival of eggs and larval fish by spawning in, and subsequently guarding a protected nest. The longevity of catfish also helps compensate for low fecundity by allowing an individual to spawn many times.

Thus, the dominant species (catfish, shad, drum) are well adapted to variations and stresses of the Mississippi River. The species which appear to use the river near Waterford 3 as a nursery exhibit high thermal tolerances. Threadfin shad embryos can survive long-term expo-o 0 (35) sures to 34 C (93.2 F)

• Catfish can tolerate temperatures up to 38°C (100.4°F) and can survive temperatures up to 36°C (96.8°F) for 27 long periods of time < ' 36 ). The optimum temperature for freshwater drum is 29.0-31.0°C (84.2-87.8°F). The lethal threshold for gizzard shad is 36°C (96.8°F) when acclimated at 30°c (86°F) '3 6 ). In actuality, about 1 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river would experience 0 0 temperatures above 35 C (95 F) during the hot, low flow period in fall.

It is expected that most fish would avoid such an area.

---~--- - ----- -

20

3. Zone of Passage The predicted extent of the combined thermal plumes from the Little Gypsy, Waterford 1 and 2, and Waterford 3 steam electric stations under average seasonal flow conditions are given in Figures 4-7. The predicted thermal plume during typical low flow conditions before and after the addition of Waterford 3, is approximated in Figures 8-11. The cross-sectional profile (Figure 12) indicates that zone of passage will exist under the plume 0

( ~ T 2 C) across most of the river width. This zone of passage will average 93.9 percent of the river cross-section during all four seasons. The zone of passage is smallest during typical low flow conditions but it still allows passage through more than 90 percent of the river cross-sectional area.

These values are well within the guidelines provided by EPA(JS) of a 67 percent cross-sectional area zone of passage.

4. Potential for Cold Shock Cold shock is a physiological response (perhaps death) to a sudden decrease in water temperature. During the period 1951-1969, the lowest average monthly Mississippi River water temperature at the Nine-mile Point Generat-ing Station (25.6 miles downstream of the Waterford 3 site) was 80 C (46 0 F).

This occurred during January and February. A minimum temperature of s0 c (41°F) was reported for January, and 4.s 0 c (40°F) for February(l).

To estimate the potential for cold shock, the graph shown in Figure 12 was utilized. According to this graph, a ~ T of l0°c (18°F) over sc 0 0 0 0 0 0 ambient (41 F) or a ~ T of l? C (27 F) over 10 C ambient (SO F) should not cause cold shock. During winter operating conditions, Waterford 3 will create 3

a plume with a volume of 3964 m (3.2 acre-feet) inside the 10°C (18°F) 0 AT isotherm. The resulting temperature would then be at least 15 C, or

.21 59°F,in that area. If an unscheduled shutdown were to occur on a day when ambient river temperatures were at their lowest, and if the temperature decreas~

0 during shutdown within the l0°c (18 F) plume was1*rapid, and the other generating units were shutdown, the more sensitive fish within the Waterford 3 plume could experience cold shock. The simultaneous occurence of these conditions is very unlikely.

5. Decision Criteria Summarizing the above information, it may be concluded that:

1. Although some commercial and sport fish occur in the area, their presence is not unique to the area and their importance as a resource is not significant.

2. No special spawning habitat is provided at Waterford 3 and only small portions of the water colunn are affected by the thermal plume. Therefore, the Waterford 3 discharge should not significantly affect the fish respective populations.

3. The thermal plume (enclosed by the 2°c (3.6°F) ~T isotherm) occupies only a small portion of the typical low flow water column.

4. Under most circumstances the Waterford 3 discharge will not cause fish to become vulnerable to cold shock. In the event that conditions were con-

-ducive to cold shock, an estimated 3.2 acre-feet could be involved.

5. Threatened or endangered species were not found to be present, and there-fore cannot be affected by the thermal plume.

F. VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE The zone of potential impact from the discharge of Waterford 3 to vertebrate wildlife originates in the discharge area. It extends downstream variable distances, depending upon the configuration of the plume. The wildlife habitat which could be impacted is restricted to a narrow band of land between the levee and the river.

22 The Waterford site is considered to be a low potential impact area for vertebrate wildlife for the following reasons:

1. The narrow configuration of the limited area available as habitat which may be affected precludes the presence of major concentrations of wildlife species.

2. No unique wildlife concentrations occur on the river shoreline in the site area.

3. The habitat and surrounding environment are highly stressed at the present time. *

4. The normal potential impacts to the semi-aquatic vertebrates associated with once-through thermal systems, such as cold shock, should not measurably affect other vertebrates in this climate.

The Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage(l) identifies no major wildlife resources along the river at the site. The stressed industralized environment already limits aquatic food resources to such wild-life groups as fish-eating ducks, watersnakes, etc. Additionally, the river is swift, deep, and generally turbid at the site and therefore not conducive to wildlife usage. A heronry exists off-site, upstream of the discharge.

However, the Mississippi River receiving waters in the vicinity of the Water-ford site are not preferred heron feeding habitat. Also, the heronry would be active only during the warmer months in late spring and summer. No known rare and endangered species would be measurably impacted by the cooling system.

The relatively warm climate in the site area would minimize potential cold shock of possible bank dwelling vertebrates such as muskrats (Ondatra zibethia) and nutria (Myocaster cop~).

23 IV. ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGIC DATA A. ENGINEERING DATA The Circulating Water System (CWS) provides once-through (open-cycle) cooling water for the main condenser, the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System heat exchangers and the Steam Generator Blowdown System Beat exchangers. The water supply source for the CWS is Mississippi River water.

Cooling water is transported by pumps located at the intake structure through the main condenser and the heat exchangers and is then returned to the river through a discharge structure. Figures 14 and 15 present a plan drawing of this system and a schematic drawing of the discharge structure, respectively. The CWS operates with either two, three or four intake pumps in use. The number of intake pumps in use at a given time is a function of the ambient water temperatures and the plant load condition. As the intake water temperatures decrease, the heat transfer ef f iciences across the ll'l8in condenser (which requires approximately 97% of the CWS de~ign flow) increase. This requires smaller quantities of cooling water to condense the turbine exhaust steam for reuse in the power production cycle. Table 11 presents monthly ranges of ambient Mississippi River (intake) water temperatures. Table 12 summarizes the anticipated annual operation of the intake pumps as dictated by the CWS requirements. The design CWS discharge flow amounts to approximately 97 percent of the design Waterford 3 discharge.

Facilities will be available to add chlorine to the CWS cooling water if needed to control fouling by biological growth. However, experience at the Little Gypsy and the Waterford 1 and 2 generating stations has indicated that the heavy silt content of the Mississippi River tends to cause a continuous scour in the condenser tubes which can control foul-ing from nuisance organisms.

24 As a result, no routine chlori~tion is expected to be needed for the main condenser cooling water. When chlorine is utilized, the free avail-able chlorine at the condenser outlet will be controlled to restrict the concentration from 0.2 to 0.5 ppm and will not be discharged for more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day. The anticipated chlorine requirements are estimated to be sixteen pounds per million gallons of CWS water at a free available chlorine concentration of 0.2 ppm and an available chlorine content of seventy percent in the reagent added.

The travel times after heat addition in the CWS are a function of both the number of intake pumps in operation and the river stage (i.e. at high river water levels, the travel time through the dis-charge structure and discharge canal is longer). The travel times after heat addition in the CWS are a maximum at average high river water level(AHWL) conditions and are 330, 393, 352 seconds for the four, three and two pump modes, respectively.

• Figure 16 presents a schematic diagram of water use at Waterford 3.

Plant process Y.'astewaters consisting of primary water treatment plant filter flush wastes and treated wastewaters from both the Waste Manage-ment System and the Boron Management System are combined and discharged with the CWS discharges. The primary water treatment plant filter flush water quality is essentially the same as Mississippi River water with increased concentrations of river suspended solids. The design average daily discharge quantity of this wastewater is 180,000 gpd.

Radioactive wastewaters are typically treated in either the Waste Management System or the Boron Management System. The treated effluents from these systems average approximately 4000 gpd. Treated effluent concentrations of radioactive substances in these discharges will conform with the limits listed in Table 3 of the Waterford 3 NPDES permit application~ These wastewater streams comprise the remain-ing 3-percent of the Waterford 3 discharge. Figure 16 presents a schematic diagram of water use at Waterford 3.

25 B. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Spent cooling waters from the operation of Waterford 3 are discharged to the Mississippi River. Monthly average Mississippi River flows, measured at Tarbert Landing (River Mile 306.3) and Red River Landing (River Mile 302.4), varied between 105,000 cfs and 1,470,000 cfs during the period of 1942 to 1976. These stations were chosen because there are no major tributaries below these points and the flows are characteristic of the lower reach of the river (and the Waterford 3 site), except for flood flows. The seasonal average flows at the site are estimated at 580,000, 650,000, 280,000 and 240,000 cfs for the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons, respectively. Each season consists of three consecutive months starting in January.

For the purposes of the analyses performed in this study, a typical low flow in the Mississippi River at Waterford is assumed to be 200,000 cfs. The probability of occurrence of flows less than 200,000 cfs (for all months) implies both an annual recurrence interval of about 6.7 years, and a flow which is exceeded approximately 85 percent of the time. Figure 17 presents a plot of the mean Mississippi River discharge versus the percent of time equaled or exceeded.

Current speeds can be expected to fluctuate as the flow and stage in the river changes. Long-term information on current velocity at the Waterford 3 site is not presently available. However, long-term stage and discharge information is available from the records of the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District; and from these data, cross-sectional averaged velocities (i.e. current speed) can be determined for the river at the Waterford Site. Section 2.4.3.4.1 of the Operating License Stage Environmental Report presents the methodology used to calculate these currents at the Waterford Site.

Based on these calculations, the 39 year average and minimum current speeds are 2.3 and 1.1 fps, respectively. These values represent cross-sectional averaged velocities. The actual velocity distribution is controlled by the channel geometry, and, can be expected to vary

26 greatly along the cross-section. The following briefly summarizes the current velocities for the four average seasonal flows and the typical low flow condition:

River Current Flow River Site Stage Speed Condition Flow (1000 cfs) (ft) (fps)

'Winter 580 10.4 3.1 Spring 650 11.8 3.4 Summer 280 4.0 1.6 Fall 240 3.0 1.4 Typical Low Flow 205 2.3 1.2 Thermal stratification, for depths up to 30 feet in the vicinity of discharge, does not appear to occur. Table 11 presents the range of ambient monthly river temperatures which occur at the Waterford 3 site.

Since the bed of the lower Mississippi River is below sea level, salt water from the Gulf of Mexico intrudes as a wedge under the freshwater discharge. The extent of the saline front upstream of the river mouth, as well as the depth of the top of the wedge, is highly dependent on river flow volume and duration. The saline front generally does not extend above New Orleans. However, in two instances of relatively long duration of low flow (less than 100,000 cfs), the front was found to extend up to River Mile 115 and beyond.

For observations made since 1929, the maximum salt water intrusion occured in October 1939, when the wedge was detected at River Mile 120. Flow during the period was slightly less than 100,000 cfs for several days. The wedge also passed the Kenner Hump (RM 115) during October 1940. During 1953-54 and 1956, the wedge encroached to the Kenner Hump, but did not go beyond it as flow slightly exceeded 100,000 cfs. Future intrusions of the wedge should be limited by flow control on the river. Since Waterford 3 is located at River Mile 129.4, there is not expected to be any interactions between the plant discharge and the saline wedge.

---

~~ ~- - *- - -..--- -~---- ---- _ _ _ __ . _____,...,-.., _____ ~-- - -*

27 C. DISCHARGE OUTFALL CONFI GURATION AND OPERATION The discharge at Waterford 3 consists of two components: a dischatge structure and a discharge canal. Figure 15 presents a drawing contain-ing the dimensions of both the discharge structure and canal. The dis-charge structure consists of a concrete seal well with outer dimensions approximately 52 feet by 45 feet. Cooling water leaves the seal well by overflowing about 95 feet of weirs placed on three of the four sides of the discharge structure. The elevation of the weir crests (highest point) can be adjusted to correspond to the fluctuations of river water levels. High water levels in the river cause river water to back up into the discharge canal, and as the water level increases, can eventually submerge the discharge structure. The height of discharged water above the weirs at full design flow (caused by high water levels in the Mississippi River) is about 3.4 feet. Elevation of the weir crests is adjustable between elevations 6.0 feet MSL and 11.0 feet MSL. The discharge structure design selected is typically of those presently in use at other LP&L plants on the Mississippi River.

A sheet pile formed discharge canal conveys water from the discharge structure to the river. The bottom portion of the canal at the river face is at elevation - 5.0 feet MSL. At the shore end, the discharge canal is 81 feet wide. The width is constant over the first 81 feet of canal*length. From this point, the canal width contracts symmetrically over a distance of about 95 feet, to a width of 50 feet at the river end.

The discharge canal is concrete lined to prevent erosion. The top of the canal sheet pile is at elevation 15.0 feet MSL where the canal is 81 feet wide and at elevation 10.0 feet MSL where the canal is contract-ing . At the river face of the discharge canal, there is a single rectangular opening for the discharge of water to the river.

---

-- ---~*- ------- - -- ---~

28 Velocities of the discharge flow are affected by the rate of discharge flow and the seasonal variations in river stage. The following data present the average discharge velocities for the average seasonal conditions and the typical low flow condition:

Average Average cws Discharge River Discharge Flow Flow Stage Velocity Condition (cf s) (ft) (fps)

Average Winter 1384 10.4 1.8 Average Spring 2114 11.8 1.9 Average Summer 2235 4.0 5.0 Average Fall 1 1831 3.0 4.6 Typical Low Flow 2235 2.3 6.1 1

For the purpose of this study, the maximum expected discharge flow is assumed to occur during the typical low flow period.

D. PLUME PREDICTJON METHODOLOGY To establish the existing thermal characteristics of the river, thermal dis-tributions resulting from operation of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy were estimated under typical low and seasonal average river flow conditions.

Because of the availability of field measurements at typical low flow condi-tions, as well as the complexity of the flow regime near the Waterford site, it was determined to be appropriate and accurate to base the low flow thermal predictions for the existing plants on the field measurements. The Edinger and Polk farf ield mathematical model (see Appendix A for model description) was utilized for the existing plants to estimate the thermal distributions under the seasonal average river flow conditions.

Thermal plume predictions for Waterford 3 under typical low flow conditions

{200,000 cfs) were based on the Prych-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) nearfield jet model (see Appendix A for model description). Both the Edinger and Polk and PSD models were employed to estimate Waterford 3 thermal effects under the four seasonal average flow conditions. When the Waterford 3 discharge

. * * * * -*- *- - -~- -- * ------ - ~~ --_ .,,, _____._.:....___. __ :; ___ ~

29 will act as a srong surface .jet (river flows *less than 300.000-350.000 cfs). the PDS model was applied; at higher flows. th~ jet will be weak and therefore the Edinger and Polk model was used. Rationales for model selection and a discussion of procedures used to calibrate the models can be found in Appendix A.

Because of the complexities involved in prediction of thermal effects occurr-ing at the river bend. steps were taken to develop a modeling approach that would yield representative, though conservative, results. For example, all plants were assumed operating at full load, the models were calibrated against the largest plumes observe~; and surface cooling was neglected.

Figures 4 through 12 present the results of the thermal predictions.

The major features of the predictions are the following:

(a) Under typical low flow conditions, the cross-sectional area occupied by the 50 F isotherm is only 4.2 percent of the river cross-section.

(b) Based on the seasonal average, the combined thermal effect of all discharges (i.e. Waterford 1 and 2, and Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy) is a minimum level during the spring season and reaches a maximum during summer and fall.

(c) During both winter and spring seasons,when river discharges are high, dispersion of the thermal plumes is expected to be dominated by the ambient river flow. Therefore. plume distributions on either side of the river would remain separated from each other. The Little Gypsy thermal plume, being in a relatively broad and quiescent flow field located behind a river bend, displays the largest plume dimensions.

The thermal plume at Waterford 3 in contrast, takes a narrow and lengthy shape. This is caused primarily by the swiftly moving river flow.

(d) For river flows less than about 300,000 cfs, plume dispersion at Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy is still expected to be dominated by river flow. The momentum effect in the near-field of the Little Gypsy discharge, however, is expected to be more pronounced than at higher flows.

30 (e) The Waterford 3 discharge at river flows less than 300,000 cfs is expected to exhibit surface jet characteristics. As sucb, the dilution of the discharged warm water with the cooler ambient river water is expected to be increased because of an increased rate of jet entrainment of the cooler water into the discharged water. The jet momentum, however, is also expected to transport the thermal discharge across the river channel and cause it to merge with the Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 plumes. The Waterford 3 discharge is not expected to have any contact with river bottom areas, except in the immediate area of the discharge.

(f) The maximum plume dimensions of the combined thermal field during typical low flow conditions shoi.m in Figure 9 are summarized below:

MAXIMUM PLUME 0

Dimensions 5 F Isotherm 10°F Isotherm Cross-Sectional Area 4.2% 1.1%

Cross-stream Extent full river width (1800 ft) 1100 ft Longitudinal Extent 7200 ft 2700 ft (g) Comparison of results between low flow and average flow con-ditions must consider that estimates for the existing dis-charges for low flow conditions are based on survey data, while predictive models were utilized for average flow conditions. Because the predictive models are more conserva-tive than estimates based on survey data, some predictions of the combined field thermal plume distribution show slightly greater effects for average flows than the corresponding low flow conditions.

PROJECT WATERFORD 3 , Jl6a) DATE h ..1.NTED 12/11/78 DATE 12/11/78, TYPIST: r Page? n DISKETTE NO. D-43 PAGE vl REFERENCES 02 03 l. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report - Operatin&

04 License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. 1978.

OS 06 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency 316 (a) 07 Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections 08 of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements, USEPA 09 Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits 10 Branch, Washington, D.C. 1977.

11 12 3. Stockner, J. G. and T. G. Northcote, Recent Limnological Studies of 13 Okanagan Basin Lakes and Their Contribution to Comprehensive Water 14 Resources Planning", J. Fish Res Board Can 31 (5): 955-976. 1974.

15 16 4. Geo-marine, Inc. Dallas, Texas, Personal Communication. 1978 17 18 5. Hutchinson, G.E., A Treatise on Limnology, Volume II: Introduction 19 to Lake Biology and Limnoplankton, J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y. lllSpp.

20 1967.

21 22 6. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement 23 Related to Construction of the Waterford Nuclear Station Unit 3.

24 Docket No. 50-382. 1973.

7. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and 27 Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Federal Register 41 (191): 43340-28 43358. 1976.

29 30 8. Bryan, C. F., J. V. Conner and D. J. DeMont, "An Ecological Study of 31 the Lower Mississippi River and Alligator Bayou near St Francis-32 ville, Louisiana". In: Environment a 1 Report, River Bend Station 33 Units 1 and 2, Construction Permit Stage Volume III, Gulf States 34 Utilities Company, Appendix E. 1973.

34 36 9. Likens, G. E. and J. J. Gilbert, "Notes on Quantitative Sampling of 37 Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers", Limnol and Oceanogr 15 38 (5): 816-820. 1970.

39 40 10. Galbraith, M. G., "Size-Selective Predation on Daphnia by Rainbow 41 Trout and Yell0w Perch, Trans Amer Fish Soc 96 (1): 1-10. 1967.

42 43 11 Lyakhnovich, V.P., G.A. Galkovskala and G.V. Kazyuchits, "The 44 "Age, Composition and Fertility 0f Daphnia Populations in Fish 45 Rearing Ponds", Tr. Beloruss. Navchno-Issled Inst Rybn. Khoz.

46 6:33-38 (Cited by Archibold, C.P. 1975) "Experimental Observa-47 tions on the Effects 0f Predation by Goldfish (C Auratus) on the 48 Zooplankton of a Small Saline Lake", J Fish. Res. Bd. Can.

49 32: 1589-1594.

50

12. Vineyard, G. L. and J. O'Brien, "Dorsal Light Response as an Index

>2 of Prey Preference in Bluegill (Lep0mis macrochirus)", J. Fish 53 Res. Board Can 32 (10): 1860-1863. 1975.

54

PROJECT WATERFORD ~ '16a) DATE ~TED 12/10178 DAT£ 12/09178, n.PIST : l~I~  ; : : ge? n DISKETTE NO. D-43 PAGE 2

n. Allan, J. D., "Balancing Predation and Competition in Cladocerans",

u2 Ecology 5~: 622-629. 1974.

03 04 14. Watson, N. H. F., "Zooplankton of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes -

05 Species Composition, Distribution, and Abundance", .J Fish Res 06 .Bd Can 31(5): 783-794. 1974.

07 08 15. Anderson, R. S., "Crustacean Plankton Communities of 340 Lakes and 09 Ponds In and near the National Parks of the Canadian Rocky 10 Mountains", .J_,__£_Uh..Jles Board Can 31 (5): 855-869. 1974.

11 12 16. Lane, P. "The Dynamics of Aquatic Systems: a Comparative Study of 13 the Structure of Four Zooplankton Communities", Ecol Monogr 45:

14 307-376. 1975.

15 16 17. Plaisance, O. A. Personal Communication. National Oceanic and 17 Atmospheric Administration, (Louisiana). 1978.

18 19 18. Pennak, R. w., fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States, 20 Ronald Press, New York. 769pp. 1953.

21 22 19. Williams, J. C., "Mussell Fishery Investigation Tennessee, Ohio 23 and Green Rivers Final Report," Kentucky Department of Fish and 24 Wildlife Resources. 1969.

25

20. Pearse, A. S. and G. Gunter, "Salinity". In: Treatise on Marine c.( Ecology and Paleoecology Volume J, Ecology. The Geological 28 Society of America, Memoir 67: 129-157. 1957.

29 30 21. Williams, A. B. "Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas",

31 Fishery Bulletin, 65 ( 1). 1965.

32 33 22. United States Atomic Energy Commission, final Environmental State-34 ment Related to Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 35 Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 50-416 and 417. 1973.

36 37 23. Viosca, Jr. P., "The Louisiana Shrimp Story", Louisiana 38 Conservationist 9 ( 7). 1957.

39 40 24. Sinclair, R. M. and B. G. Isom, "Further Studies on the Introduced 41 Asiatic Clam (Corbicula) in Tennessee", Tennessee Stream 42 Pollution Control Board, Tennessee Department of Public Health.

43 1963.

44 45 25. Mattice, J. S. and L. L. Dye, "Thermal Tolerance of the Adult 46 Asiatic Clam". In: Thermal Ecology II, Technical Information 47 Center, Energy Research and Development Administration.

48 130-135 pp. 1976.

49 50

') 1 53 54

PROJECT  : WATERFORD 3 16a) DATE F 1TED 12/ 10178 DATE 12/09/78, TYPIST: !'Ill r ~ ~e? DISKETTE NO. D-43 PAGE 3

26. Gross, L. B. and C. Cain, J !'., "Powe!' Plant Condense!' and Se!'vice vL Wate!' System Fouling by Corbicula 1 the Asiatic Clam". In:

03 Biofouling Control Procedures, Pollution Engineering on 04 Technology Series, Volume 5. 130 pp. 1977.

05 06 27. Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman, freshwater Fishes of Canada, 07 Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp. 1973.

08 09 28. Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill, Northern Fishes, 3rd Edition, 10 University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. 1974.

11 12 29. Carlander, K. D., Handbook of Freshwater fishery Biology, 3rd 13 Edition, The Iowa State Unive!'sity Press, Ames. 751 pp. 1969.

14 15 30. Scarola, J. F., F!'eshwater Fishes of New Hamoshire, N. H. Fish 16 and Game Department, Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries, 17 Concord. 131 pp. 1973.

18 19 31. Cross, F. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas, Museum of Natural 20 History, University of Kansas, Lawrence. 357 pp. 1967.

21 22 32. Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder, Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, 23 TFH Publications, Neptune, New Jersey. 388 pp. 1972.

24 25 33. Edsall, J. A., "Biology of the F!'eshwater Drum in Western Lake E!'ie", Ohio J. Sci. 67(6): 321. 1967.

28 34. Davis, H. S., Culture and Diseases of Game Fish, University of 29 California Press, Berkeley. 332 pp. 1970.

30 31 35. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Crite!'ia 32 for water', Washington, D. c. 501 pp. 1976.

33 34 36. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Manual 35 of Selected Techniaues for Case-by-Case Evaluation of Thermal 36 Discharge, Washington, D. C. 1973.

37 38 37. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Envi!'onmental Report - Construction 39 Permit Stage, For Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3.

40 1972.

41 42 38. Personal Communication, U. S. Geological Survey, Baton Houge, 43 Louisiana. March 3, 1977.

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

j 54

-- ---~*------- ~~ - - -- ...,..- * * ~,...,,.. r * -

TABLES

- ---- -- - . . - ._. . _____ . . . _ - -.--.. -* . _ ,.,. _ .. *- - .-_._.__. ._ -- *.:..- *Z- - .

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 ' (a) DA TE Pf' ""ED 12/05/78 DAIL 12/05/78, TYPIST: jjc Pa 6 e? n DISKETTE NO. : SD-37 PAGE J

(

TABLE J 02 03 CON TR I BU TI ON OF CYANOPHYTA TO TH.£ 04 PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITY 05 06 Number of Total 07 Cyanophytea Phytoplankton Cyanophyte*

08 Year Month 1£er 5 liters) (per 5 litera) (%)

09 JO 1973 Jun 0 136,000 0 11 Jul 0 289,000 0 12 Aug 25,500 1, 045, 500 2 13 Sep 8,500 3,672,000 0 14 Oct 0 297,500 0 15 Nov 0 263,500 0 16 Dec 0 170,000 0 17 1974 Feb 0 204. 000 0 18 Mar 0 255,000 0 19 Apr 0 229, 500 0 20 May 0 144. 500 0 21 22 Jun 1, 000 J

• 154. 071 0 23 Aug ) '200 2,397,085 0 24 1975 Feb 4,000 2,506,003 0

~~ Apr )

• 200 1 , J89. 642 0 27 Oct 23,007 283,753 8 28 Nov 0 J 22, 704 0 29 Dec 7,669 299,082 3 30 J 976 Jan 0 761,744 0 31 Feb 0 598, 182 0 32 Mar 0 812,871 0 33 Apr 0 7,234,078 0 34 May 0 1,602,740 0 35 Jun 7,685 2,633,497 0.5 36 Jul 7,685 2,200,946 0.4 37 Aug 30,676 3,044,593 l 38 Sep 38,425 812,893 5 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Snurc-e: Louisiana Po wer & Light Company, En~~~~ ~~~~al Re~~~

48 Operating License Stage, ~aterfnrd Steam Elec~ric Station, 49 50 iinTt-3-. - 1978. .

r . t 53 54

-*--------- -~ -~* - *--- -* *~---~-w._, __,,. _______ __..,,., - * -- ** ~ * -- --- -- ~

- - --- -----~-- ... - - _.:.._ -;,:_:::::.:..:.:--.::::_~-.::..:-.:...::. -..-.:..;..-~--;;__-:.-;:.,.--..;:,:.;. ~-=. - ..:...-=-~----- :::-.~ -:;;.*;~*-~ -

PROJECT ~ WATERFORD-3 )J6(a) DATE PR.1.11TED 12/05/78 BATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-37 PAGE 2 01 TABLE 2 02 03 TAXA OF ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED FROM 04 1973-1976 NEAR WATERFORD 05 06 C:Oelenterata 01 08 Hydro%oa 09 10 Nematoda ll 12 Rotifera 13 14 BraC"hionus 15 Kerllte lla 16 AsplanC"hna 17 Platyias ~uadriC"ornis 18 19 Arthropoda 20 21 Daphnia longiremi~

22 Daphnia magna 23 cerTod;p~ra-retiC"ulata 24 Mnina braC"hia-ta BOS"rnina longirostris 26 Bosmina coregoni 21 Alona sp _ _ __

28 ATOiiella rostrata 29 Alonopsis sp 30 CamptoC"ercus branchyurum 31 Leptodora kindtii 32 Ostracoda 33 f~e;;:;ra affinis 34 Diaptomus paITidta' 35 Diaptomus siciloides 36 Di apt nmus 5tign8TIS 37 cyrfOPS-"biC"uspidatus 38 Cyc~ ve~alis 39 HarpaC"ticoida 40 Decapoda 41 Am phi poda 42 43 44 45 46 SourC'e: Loui ~ana Po~er -~ Light Co~e_anx, Environment al Report -

47 Qt;_:.~~ins___~~~ens~Sta~e, Waterford Steam ElectriC' Station, 48 Unit 3. 1978.

49 l;l'I 52

'53 54

- . -- - -* - - ~ -- - * * - - -- -~ * ~ - . -- - -~ - -- - - - - -- - - - - - _ _ 4__.._........ _

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 ),6(a) DATE PR~NTED 12/05/78 DATE JZ/05/78. TYPIST: jjc Page? n DISK.ETll: NO. : SD-38 PAIZ 1 01 TABLE 3 02 AVERAGE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES*, NU~~ER PER M , BY STATION BY DATE IN SAMPLES 3

03 04 COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 05 06 07 08 STATION - Averagt 09 Ac At Be Bt Btl Density 10 YEAR DAIE 11 12 13 I 73 JUN 08** 2151.734 1580.130 1803.907 2005.236 2679.522 2044. lC 14 73 JUL 17 126.281 140. 528 97.441 214.526 158.607 147.4i 15 73 AUG 22** 62.817 99.730 73.826 295.303 272.853 160.9C 16 73 SEP 28 647.594 ) 385. 887 1944.685 2087.479 l 901.405 1593.41 17 73 OCT 25** 210.468 77. 352 460.079 336.389 223 . 060 261.4!

18 73 NOV 30 201 .474 314.514 239.250 221.261 248.244 244. 94 19 73 DEC 19 250.441 229. 720 314.981 225. 287 252.158 2S4. 51 20 74 FEB 13 980.525 744.519 701. 260 873.192 459.180 751.73 21 74 MAR 27 1475.952 1528.514 1384. 779 1806.556 1448. 072 1528.77 22 74 APR 20 478.675 227. 956 319.404 391.012 488.194 38 I. ()l.

23 74 APR 23 1181.860 1284.395 1576.604 1214.239 lll8.899 1275.lS

')/,, 74 MAY 17 3890.018 1991.789 743.248 3291.852 2133.284 2410.0::

Average Year I 971.487 800 .420 804.96 ) 080 .194 948.623 26 II - 74 JUN 04 282.044 229. 545 223.501 225.018 150.570 222.1::

27 74 JUN 24 95 .196 100.219 148.189 79. 112 77 .409 l 00. 02 28 74 AUG 22 1727.880 4398. 961 2395.663 7689.520 928.038 3428.01 29 74 NOV J3 483.673 1189.501 508.609 7873.902 2774.520 2566 .04 30 75 FEB 26 756.809 24 7. l 72 399.953 416.015 825. 766 529.14 31 75 APR 23** 100. 409 263.693 160.395 439.766 214.347 235.72 32 75 AUG 08 268.163 168.986 297.409 443.718 380.032 31I.6t 33 Average Year II 530.596 942.582 590.531 2452.436 764.383 34 Ill 75 OCT 30 123.350 52.613 436. 986 314 . 618 38. i85 193.2i 35 15 NOV 20 62.821 83.003 44.854 20.066 75.966 57 .3L 36 75 DEC 22 32.400 108.214 59.537 28. 711 208.136 87 .4(

37 76 JAN 30 5.173 18.819 5.151 9.339 3.593 8.41 38 76 FEB 26 .000 5.505 l. 033 3.156 1. 746 2.2f 39 76 MAR 25 327.820 233.666 402.086 407.337 7.238 275.6~

40 76 APR 29** 19.055 132. 969 109.459 83. 841 l 41. 732 97.41 41 76 MAY 27 JJ3.404 225. 532 197.259 153.344 182.504 174. 4(

42 76 JUN 24 68.690 ) 50. 226 157.960 103.963 J 50. 243 126.21 43 76 JUL 29 225. 149 69 .174 632.122 92 5. 233 504. 507 471.2:

44 76 SEP JO 1434.406 527. 145 1985.596 1571.616 1297.066 1363.1<

45 76 SEP 26 622.113 528.958 792.617 706.768 951.573 720.4(

46 Average Year III 252.865 177.985 402.055 360.666 296.921 47 48

• Densities do not ind ude exoskeletons or fish larvae:~

49

,. - ** Sarnpl ed on more than one S illD p 1 i ng d ay ':.

.~

=..

52 Source: Lol!__i__~ ana Power & Li_&~ Co~panl_..._ Env i_::__~~~~~!__!l_ _~~__!_-=

53 Q~raJ~~-~~~~~se_~~~~~aterfoi::__~ -~~arn ~~~~~~ir s~~~~on, 54 197.

Unit

---

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

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-) ~ (a) DATE PR 'ED : 12/05/78 DA'I'.E 12/01/78. TYPIST: jm Page? n DISKETTE NO. : SD-37 PAGE 5 l.~ TABLE 4 02 03 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DOMINANT* ZOOPLANKTON (PER ~)

04 FOR ALL DEPTHS AT ALL STATIONS 05 FOR SAMPLING YEARS INDICATED**

06 07 08 Density 09 (Numbers per m3 )

10 Taxa 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 11 12 Cladocera 13 14 Daphnia ap 88 31 10 15 16 Bosmina longirostris ] 21 59 65 17 18 Moina brachiata 0 0 65 19 20 Ceriodaphnia 32 35 2 21 22 Di aphanosoma 0 7 2 23 24 Copepoda Calanoida 305 362 25.5 27 28 Cyclopoida 369 579 141. 3 29 30 Decopoda 4 3 0 31 32 All Zooplankton 975 1, 034 317 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 z.

49 50

• Dmiinant was defined as 10% or more of the zooplankton community 5:l on any sampling date.

53 54 ** Computed with data from Louisiana Po"'1er & Light Cc>mpany 0978)( ).

2

PROJECT ~ATER.FORD-3 (a) DATE Pf '.ED J 2/05/78 DATE 12/01 /78, TYPIST: Page? DISKETTE NO. : SD-37 PAGE 3 TABLE 5 02 (Sheet l of 2) 03 LIST OF MACROINVERTEBRATES AND SHELLFISH

()4 TAY.A 1973 to 1976 05 06 Coelenterata 07 08 Hydro~oa 09 10 Hydra ap 11 12 Platyhelminthes 13 14 Turbe 1 laria 15 16 Duge s i a t ri gen a 17 Stenostromum sp 18 19 Annelida 20 21 Clitellata 22 23 ~chi~ sowerby 24 L1mnodrilus arv1x

., C'\

Limnodrilus maumeensis 27 Hirudinea 28 29 Erpobdella punctata 30 31 Arthropoda 32 33 In sec ta 34 35 Chiromidae 36 Culcidae 37 Anisoptera 38 Hymenoptera 39 Dermaptera 40 Ephemeroptera 41 Corixidae 42 Coleoptera 43 Trichoptera 44 45 Crustacea 46 47 48 49 50 Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report -

53 Operatin~ License Stage, WaterfordStea~-ffec:trrc=--statTon, 54 unTf-~-.""191a-.---------

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 ~ ~a) DA'It PR ED : 12/05/78

CA TE 12/05/78, TIPlS!: jjc Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-37 PAGE 4

(.' _ TABLE 5 02 (Sheet 2 of 2)

LIS! OF MACROlNVERTEBRATES AND SHELLFISH 03 04 TAXA 1973 to 1976 05 06 07 08 Mollusca Gastropoda 09 10 Viviparus intertextus 11 AmnTC:OTa e p 12 Goniobasis *P 13 Pl eur ic-era *P 14 Parapholyx sp 15 Physa sp 16 Lymnaea ap l7 Gyraulus ap 18 Corhliopa ap 19 20 Bivalvia 21 22 Corbirula manilensis 23 Musrulium s_p____

24 Pis idi um sp 2c:.

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 .

5' 11.

'~

53 54

• 6- -- --~ -* . . . . _ -*--- -

• _ _ .. _ - - - - *-- - -- - --*-**--------- . . . - -4**

PROJECT  : WATERFORD 3 J 6a) DATE P TED  : 12/05/78

~lA T£ 1 ! i2 7 /78, TYPIST: cf Page? n DISKETTE NO. : D-43 PAGE 4 i TABLE 6 {Sheet l of 4) 02 03 ASH-FREE DRY ~EIGHT (g/m 2 ) OF BENTHIC

()4 MACROlNVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3*

05 06 01 08 Date:

Station August, 1977 Organiam J 2 Replicate No.

4

- Average 3

09 10 Ac Corbi cu la 0 2.48 0.67 0.50 o. 91 11 Chironooiids 0.01 0 0.04 0 O.OJ 12 Coleoptera 0 0 0 0 0 13 Sum o:-9!

14 15 At Corbic-ula o. Jl 0 0 0 0.03 16 Tubifidds 0 0.02 0 0 0 17 Gyraulis 0.01 0 0 0 0 18 Sum 0.03 19 20 BC' Corbi cu la 0 0 0 0 0 21 Tubi fie- ids o. 01 0.02 0.15 0 0.05 22 Nematodes 0 0.01 0 0 0 23 Sum 0.05 24 Bt Corbirula 21.08 0.01 5.95 12.01 9.76 Chironooiids 0 0 0 0.01 0 27 Gyraulis 0 0 0 0.01 0 28 Sum 9.76 29 30 Bt No Spedmens 1

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

• Collected with a Smith-Mcintire Grab Sampler.

':U.

53 Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environm e ntal Report - Oper_ating 54 Litense Sta~~aterford Steam ElectiTC'StatTOO:-t.Jn1t 3. 1978.

_,__ _ __ .,;...___ ____ __._ _ _ ___,__. __.._ - ~-~ ~ :...__.._...._~.,, - ----*-*..-........:..C......... .-,_.... _ .:.....c...a. __ __ _ _ * ~- - --- - ----- - - ** - ------- -------*-- - -

PROJECT ~ATER.FORD 3 6a) DATE PJ rED  : 12/05/78 DATE ll/20/78, TY PIST: cf Page? n DISKETTE NO. : D-43 PAGE 5 TABLE 6 (Sheet 2 of 4) 02

. 03 ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m2) OF BENTHIC 04 MACR OINVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 05 06 07 08 Date:

Station September, 1977 Organism l 2 Re~lic-ate 3

No.

4

- Average 09 10 k Corbic-ula 0.29 0.39 0 0 0.17 11 Odonata 0 2.60 0 0 0.65 12 Sum o.82 13 14 At Chi rnnom ids 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 15 Ephemeroptera 0.04 2.22 0.06 1.20 0.88 16 Tubi fidds 0.06 0 0.07 0 0.03 17 Odon a ta 0 0.15 0 0 0 . 04 18 Sum 0.96 19 20 Be Chiron om ids 0 . 01 0.02 0 0 0 . 01 21 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 22 Sum 0 . 01 23 24 Bt Corbic-ula 16.90 13.95 2.67 4.89 9.60 25 Sum 9.60 21 Bt No Specimens 1

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

~1 53 54

PROJECT WATERFORD 3

• 6a) DATE PI TED 12/05/78 DATE ll/20/78, TYPIST: cf Pa~e? n DISKETTE NO. : D-43 PAGE 6 TABLE 6 (Sheet 3 of 4)

\14'.

03 ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m 2 ) OF BENTHIC 04 MACROlNVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 05 06 Date: Februar~

• l 978 Replicate No.

07 08 Station Organism l 2 3 I+ Average 09 10 Ac Corbic-ula l.02 4.08 0 4.74 2.46 11 Sum 2."46 12 13 At Tubi fidds 0 0.18 0.54 0 o. 18 14 Odon a ta 0 0 0 .11 0 .03 15 Sum 0.21 16 17 Be Tubi ficids 0 0 0.18 0.26 0. l 1 18 Sum 0.11 19 20 Bt River Shrimp 0 0 0 o. 81 0 . 20 21 Sum 0.20 22 23 Bt Odonata 0 0 0 0.09 0.02 1

24 Sum o.oI 25

~I 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 SJ 5

53 54

• --- ----~ -- - -- - -----~- -~ .. ---....__~.~----- ... -*.t..*-* - --- -*~ *-------~------- * -- --- --

PROJECT WATEPYORD 3 1 6a) DA TE P! TED : J 2/05/78 DATE Jl/20/78, TYPIST: cf Page? n DISKETTE NO. : D-.43 PAGE 7 i TABLE 6 (Sheet 4 of 4) 02.

ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) OF BENTHIC 2

03 04 MACROlNVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 05 06 Date: Apri 1, 1978 Replicat~

07 08 Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average 09 ----

10 Ac- No Specimens ll 12 At Corbic-ula 0.14 0 0 0.63 0.19 13 Tubi fic1ds J.03 l.11 1.37 0.68 l.05 14 Sum 1.24 15 16 Be Tubi fie-ids 2.68 3.26 0.43 3.39 2.44 17 Chironomids 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 18 Sum 2.44 19 20 Bt Tubi fie ids 0.13 0 0.43 0 0.14 21 Ch iron om ids 0.01 0 0 0 0 22 River Shrimp 2.04 0 0 0 0.51 23 Sum 0.65 24 25 Bt Tubi ficids 0 1.35 0 0.49 0.46 1

Sum 0.46

°"'28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

~

53 54

--- *- --- -- - -- *-- ~----~---*---- ... ..,,. ' ..... .~,,.._... .,.,,,. * .:.:......;

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-: l 6 (a) DATE .NTED : J 2 /05 /78 DATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: jm Page? DISKETTE NO. ~ SD-37 PAGE 6 il TABLE 7 02 {Sheet l of 4) 03 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 04 OF THE PROPOSED WATERFORD 3 05 JJ>RILT911-~-- sm£11B£R---W6 06 ...-

07 Aci penser i formee 08 09 Aci pen seridae 10 11 Sraphirhynrhus albus (Pallid Sturgeon) 12 Scaphirhynchus ~rynchus (Shovelnose Sturgeon) 13 14 Polyodonitidae 15 16 Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish) 17 18 Semionot i fonnes 19 20 Lepisosteidae 21 22 Lepisosteus orulatus (Spotted Gar) 23 Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar) 24 Lepl505teus pfat()Stomus (Shortnose Gar) 25 Le-p isosteus spatulS(Afligator Gar) 6

~1 Amii fonnes 28 29 Amiidae 30 31 Amia calva (Bowfin) 32 33 Elopi formes 34 35 Elopidae 36 37 Elops saurus (Lady Fish) 38 39 Angui 11 i formes 40 41 Angui 11 idae 42 43 Anguilla rostrata(American Eel) 44 45 Cl upe i formu 46 47 Clupeidae 48 49 ~os~ rhrysorh~~ri s (Ski pj ark Herring)

.50 51

~~~~~~ia patronus (Gulf Menhaden)

Dorosoma rep ed1anum (Gizzard Shad) ...

~

Doro~~ma £.ete~i:_~se (Threadfin Shad)

Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, ~nvironmental Repo~~--=-~~~ting Lirense Sta~, ~aterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. 1978.

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 (a) DATE Pi* * ~D : J 2/05/78 DATE 12/05/78, TYPIST: jjc Page? D DISKETTE NO. :  ;:;D~ 3 7 PAGE 7 TABLE 7

"~ (Sheet 2 nf 4) 03 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 04 OF THE PROPOSED WA-f ERFO-RD 3 05 APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976 06 07 Engraulidae 08 09 Anchoa mitrhilli (Bay Anchovy) 10 11 Osteoglossiformes 12 13 Riodont idae 14 15 Hiodon alosoides (Goldeye) 16 Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye) 17 18 Cy pr ini fonnes 19 20 Cyprin idae 21 22 Cyprinus carpio (Carp) 23 HybOgflathus nuchalis (Silvery Minnow) 24 Hybopsis aestiva l is (Speckled Chub) 25 H~p$[S amblops (Bigeye Chub)

Hybopsis storeriana (Silver Chub) 2.1 N"Oteml.gonUSC"rysoleucas (Golden Shiner) 28 Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner) 29 Notropis blennius (River Shiner) 30 Notropis emiliae (Pugnose Minnow) 31 Notropis furn e us (Ribbon Shiner) 32 Notropis sh~di (Silverband Shiner) 33 Notropis ~-st~(Blacktail Shiner) 34 P~hales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow) 35 36 Catostnmidae 37 38 Carpiod~! carpi~ (River Carpsucker) 39 Carpiodes cyprinus (Quillback) 40 Ictiobus bubalus (Srnallmouth Buffalo) 41 I;tf~ cjp-i'ineTlus (Bigmouth Buffalo) 42 43 Si 1 ur i forme*

44 45 lC'taluridae 46 47 lC'talurus furcatus (Blue Catfish) 48 Ictalurus me fBsTBlark Bullhead) 49 f~alurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead)

.50 lrt af~ n e bu losus (Brown Bullhead)

.5) Irtafurus punrtatus (Channel Catfish) 5 !tlodic-tis oli~'!_riS (Flathead Catfi1h) 53

.54

PROJECT  : WATERFORD J(a) nATE Pfl.. fED : 12/05/78

~ATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: jm Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-37 PAGE 8

.. - TABLE 7 02 (Sheet 3 of 4) 03 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 04 OF THE PROPOSED WATERFORD 3 05 APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMEER 1976 06 07 08 At her ini fonnes -

09 Poeciliidae 10 11 Gambusia affinis (Mosquito Fish) 12 13 Atherinidae 14 15 Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside) 16 17 Pere i formes 18 19 Perc-ichthyidae 20 21 Morone ~bE1~op;_ (White Bass) 22 Morone miss1ss1ppiensis (Yellow Bass) 23 f:iorone saxatilis (Striped Bass) 24 27 Centrarchidae Elassoma zonatum (Banded Pygmy Sunfish) 28 Lepomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish) 29 tepo;:;;TS gulosus (Warmouth) 30 Lepmis macrochirus (Bluegill) 31 Lepomis megalotis (Longear Sunfish) 32 Lep~mis ;-rc:-~~us (Redear Sunfish) 33 Mfrropterus punctulatus (Spotted Bass) 34 Micropterus salmoides (Largemough Bass) 35 Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie) 36 p;;o;os nTgr~Jatus (Black Crappie) 37 38 Peu idae 39 40 Percina sciera (Dusky Darter) 41 Stizostedion canadense (Sauger) 42 43 Sciaenidae 44 45 ~odinotus irunniens (Freshwater Drum}

46 47 Hugi 1 idae 48 49 Mugi! ~~lus (Striped Mullet) 50 ~

e- ...

53 54

- - ---- - .- ~-~ "'tl-r--....-....*... .. -....-:-..... J *~---,~*----------~ - - - --- ----*----*-*- --

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 J : a) DATE PRI :D 12/05/78 DATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: jm Paget n DISKETTE NO. SD-37 PAGE 9

-c TABLE 7 02 (Sheet 4 of 4) 03 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 04 OF THE PROPOSED WATERFORD 3 05 APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER l~

06 07 08 Pleurone~tiformes --

09 Bothidae 10 11 Paralichth~s lethostigma (Southern Flounder) 12 13 Soleidae 14 15 Trine~tes ma~ulatus 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 SJ 5 ..

53 54

un&~ ~ft&nl~~ 1 1£fU0fll DATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: J* Pagtf n DIS~!TT! NO. SD-37 PAC! II 01 TABLE 8 02 OJ AVERAGE lCHTHYOPLANKTON ORGANISMS PER H) BY FAHlLY AND HONTH 04 lN SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE WATERFORD STEAH ELECTRIC STATIO" 05 SURVEY (OCTOHER 197$ - SEPTEH.BER l976) (YEAR 111) 06 07 Fully 08 Onidenti- Ctntrar- Cyprin- lcta- SCiaen-09 Date fiablt chid1e Clupeid1e idae !1ocld1e lurid** ...!.!!.!

10 ll ""* I) 74 .019 12 I

1J Ftb 26 75 14 15 Apr 24 75 .002 I

16 I I 17 Aug 8 75 .015 .005 .004 .004 I i 18 19 20 Oct 30 75 -... I; 21 1'n* 20 75 22 23 24 Dec 22 75 I 1I '

n Jan JO 76 26 11 27 Feb 26 76 28 29 Kar 25 76 .002 .008

)() I Ji

)2 Apr JO 76 .004 .008 - .005 .002 .002 .003 I

)]

)4 Kay 27 76 .003 .007 - .012 I

35 Jun 08 76 .002 .00) .065 .029 36

)7 Jun 24 76 .002 11 38

)9 40 Jul 7 76 .004 .012 41 Jul 29 76 .003 42

4) Aus 12 76 .ooJ 44 45 s.p *'ab t6 **

~

47 48 Sep 27 76 . ... pt ..

49 50 51 llnurc11 Lnui*l*n* Pnver ' Light Cn11pany 1 !nvlrn1111ent1l Rtpnrt -

52 Operatina Llctn** St111, W1t1rfnrd Steam Electric Statinn 1 53 Onat J. 1978.

l'KUJt;\;'l. I WATiRFORO-J Jl6(a) Mt! PRINT!D I 12/06/71 DATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: j* Pagef n Dl91t!T1! "O.  ! SD-J7 PA~ 10 01 TAllL! 9 02 03

()4

. AV!llAC! NUKllERS OP ICHTHYOPLANltTON PER Ml COLLECTED IN TH! WATERFORU VICINITY OS 06 STATIO" I 07 08 09 DATE AC AT llC lit lit l AV'C l

.ooo 10 11 12 74 1'0V 75 FEB 26 l) .000

.ooo

.122

.000

.000

.000

.000

.ooo .ooo

.024

.ooo I

13 14 75 Al'lt 24 .000 .000 .000 .ooo .010 .002 t

IS 16 75 AUC 08 .ooo .000 .005 .054 .071 .021 17 18 75 OCT 30 .000 .000 .000 .000 .ooo .000 19 20 75 ltOV 20 .000 .000 .000 .ooo .ooo .ooo 21 I 22 75 ~c 22 .000 .000 .000 .000 .ooo .ooo )

23 '

24 76 JM 30* .ooo .ooo .000 .ooo .000 .ooo I 25 26 76 PEI 26 .000 .ooo .000 .ooo .ooo .000 I 27 28 76 KM 25 .000 .010 .009 .02) .004 .009 I:

'19 i\

)0 76 APR 30* .000 .081 .007 .026 .01' .026 I;

• JI Ii .

32

n 76 MAT 27 .020 .009 .069 .000 .001 .021 I!

)4

)5 76 JUI' 08 .127 .176 .030 .1]9 .058 .106 Ii 36 76 JU" 24 .ooo .000 .000 .ooo .008 .002 :I

)7 I ii 38 76 JUL 07 .00) .0)4 .01) .011 39

.011 .017 I !'

I!

40 41 76 JUL 29 .ooo .000 .000 .Oii .ooo .002  :!

42 76 AUG 12 .ooo .ooo .006 .000 .oot .oo, I +*

4) 11 44 76t'V!P .* IO. .000 .000 .000 .ooo .000 \ .ooo I I I

4~

.ooo 11 46 76 HP 27 .000 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 47 ........ I!

I 48 49

' I 50 *SA1tPL!9 COLL!CTlD Of!ll TVO 8AHPL11'C DAYS 51 52 53 8'turce: Lttuielana PnVOl!r & Light ~pany, !nvirnnniental Report - Operating S4 LiunH Stage,_Waterford Ste .. Electric Station, Unit ). 1~18 .

-*- *---*-- -- ----- - - - - - --------- * *-~- -- - - ..... --*

- - ---- -~--

PROJECT  : ~ATERFORD-3 )16(a) DATE PRl~TED  : J2/05/78 DATE 12/01/78, TYPIST: jm Page? n DlSK.ET'IE NO. : SD-37 PAGE 12 01 T~LE JO

• 02 03 SHALL FISH* IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 04 05 Species Number**

06 07 Bay Anchovy A 08 Bigeye Chub p 09 Blac-k Bullhead p 10 Black Crappie p 11 Blac-ktail Shiner p 12 Blue Catfish D 13 Bluegill A 14 Bullhead Minnow p 15 Carp p 16 Channel Catfish A 17 Emerald Shiner p 18 Freshwater Drum D 19 Gizzard Shad D 20 Golden Shiner p 21 Gold eye p 22 Green Sunfish p 23 Gulf Menhaden A 24 Hog choker p Immature Sucker p

£0 Longear Sunfish p 27 Mississippi Silversides p 28 Moone'je p 29 Mosquitofish p 30 Pugnose Minnow p 31 Pygmy Sunfish p 32 Ribbon Shiner p 33 River Carpsucker p 34 River Shiner p 35 Shovelnose Sturgeon p 36 Silver Chub p 37 Silverband Shiner p 38 Silvery Minnow p 39 Skipjack Herring A 40 Sma11mouth Buffalo p 41 Spec-kled Chub p 42 Spotted Bass p 43 Striped Bau p 44 Striped Mullet A 45 Thread fin Shad D 46 Warmouth p 47 White Bau p 48 White Crappie p 49 Yellow Bau ~

. p

."fl Yel lnw Bullhead t p 52 NOTES:

• Less than l 00 mn 10 1 ength~**T- Abun d ant 53 D - Dorninant 54 P - Present

- - --. ~- - - ~ --- -

. -* - **- - ""- -- *- *--- - - ~- --- --~

P; ;"JJECT WATERFORD - ER DATE PRINTED  : 12/06/78 DATE 06/16/78, TYPIST: jw Page? n DlSKETlE NO. DJ4A PAGE 3 Cl TABLE 11 02 03 MONTHLY WATER TEMPERATURE DATA FROM THE 04 MlSSlSSlPPl RIVER NEAR WESTWEGO, LOUISIANA 05 1951-1969) 06 07 08 Temperature (nF) 09 Month Maximum Minimum Mean 10 11 January 50 41 46 12 February 50 40 46 13 March 56 46 51 14 April 63 57 59 15 May 78 67 71 16 June 83 77 79 17 July 87 81 84 18 August 90 81 86 19 September 87 76 83 20 October 78 71 74 21 November 71 57 63 22 Dec-ember 57 47 52 23 21 2..

26 *Measurements taken at Ninemile Point Generating Station, 27 25. 6 miles downsl ream -f rom Wat er ford 3.

28 29 Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report Operating 30 Lic-ense Stage, Waterford Steam Elec-tric Stat~Unit 3, 1978.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37

l TABLE 12

• I

~

l

SUMMARY

OF COOLING WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONAL HODES j

i l Range of cws Average Discharge iI Number of Intake Pumps In Operation Ambient Intake 1 Water Temperatures Months with Average Intake Temperature ln R~nge Annual '7. 2 of Tine Design Flow Temperature Increase (OF)

(OF) In Use (1000 GPM) j I

I 2 < 55 December to March 30 622 26.0 l

l , 3 55-70 April, May, October, November 25 843 19.2 l .i I'

I 4 > 70 June to September 34 1,003 16.l (1) See Figure for range of monthly ambient Mississippi River water temperatures.

(2) Waterford 3 shutdown estimated at eleven percent per year.

FIGURES

-~r ST. OiARLES PARJSH Of' ,.. ........ ...

l..'oulSIANA co POWER & LIGHT . Ml SSl SSt PPI ~ WAT ER FORD VER DEPTH Waterford Ste.om CONTOURS A Electric Station

f.~

...,,,, .. f

~ A;\~

~"

,,--- \ --~~~ ~*

'A ft

i"'

'~ c? ~ I w f

~

~

tiI'

~

-*u..n-. r

~;

~- ~

~~':

+

• tn*

--*:.:.*:.:.*.:.:-- * ~**. '

Ac, Station -...p" ~

e Benthos Gil 1 Nets Water Chemistry BT* .

• 1 Le Hvy 18 1/4 '" 1/4 t

tf Otter Trawls k*'* ** ..,,.. f'

ao:,

- - - M1dw1ter Trtwls

..........- Surface Trawls a Zoophnkton f

f*

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. ~*

SAMPLING AREAS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WATERFORD 3 Waterford Stearn 2 ~*

~

Electric Station

~

c lo.I

~*ooo a: I

~ 900 Cf)

I 2

Cl a:

600 I

~

500 I j 400 I

~ I z 300 I

Q Cl a:

I z zoo lo.I I u

~ I

...z I w

I 100 I z:w VI 80 I 0'

w 0

I 60

~

z I 50 VI

J VI I

40 I 30 I 1111111 IJ 0 !> I z 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 9e 99 995 PERCENT Of TIME IN01CATEO SUSP(NOCD SEO rM(NT WAS EOUALEO ~ ErCEEDE:O

~* .,..,.

• 1 c.-....... , u c.--.' *Oll AlllO

()'If 0(;, 1-...;, -<.4-l. I ... V *t.l -U . - **vi* ..0 00o..1*t * *** C.U1 * (~T M..Ct * , _ . _ . LI

- oc 1 f ~ OJ ,,.. *t CW *a1 *U*

4c:.lllC.

• M O*Ml 11 ' *'..._ -_ CJilrl l l*tlllC.I LOUISIANA figurt POWER & LIGHT CO. DURATION OJRVE OF SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION Waterford Steam MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT RED RIVER LANDING, LA., 1949-63 3 Electric Station

t,..

i;

~ '

.~

• ... "'"' ...... I, LITTll QYP'SY STATION UlllT 1,llJ 019CMUU:

uccn TC*'*. 11 .4.,

VOlUMl UTl

• 140 .fCPI 01$CHUU~

..., SltltUUfU iu Y( It IOUMIAltT IATfllFOttO J lllTMC OISCHAll&f llC['5 HM'.

• it*F VOlUMf UTE

• 1514 .H'I *'

wat11ro11 tTATtO*

1000 C!

0 IOOO !000 9CAll IN FUT 9()00 4000 9000 i-

~\

f:*

rt LOUISIANA Fi9ure POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE WINTER RIVER FLOW CONDITION 4 Electric Station t"'~'~'f"" ... Z$4¥1 I; a a. 444 I CZ 4$ $ . 2 OP ¥4 .. ;ea,;; 41QZXJ44P.4A;c.:HPl4 Pki 40$4) PS sse:s:

lltYll PlOWt t*.* et.

LITTLE OY'H STATION

• llNIT l,Z a S DISCHAllO(

£XC£5~ TU.,.* ll .4*f VOlUMl UT( I 140.TCFI OISCIUllO[

ocns TE*'*',,., °', \

VOllllt[ UT( 9'5.IC'5 I

\

,IWUlATU imu IOU9IM"'

IAT(llfOllO J

• TM(

OllCKH8t (1Cf5S TfM,, I,,.,

VOLUH UT( * "!119.ICFS WATllrOll ITATtOI 1000 0 t000 rooo )JOO 4000 50()0 SCALI IN HU LOUISIANA F1vv,.

POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Wt;t 1 .. ~ford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SPRING RIVER FLOW CONDITION 5 Electric Station

llYll PLOW1 . ... . . .,

LITTLI QYl'SY STATION UlllT l,Z IS Dl9CHAllU EXC[59 TUP.

• 11 .4

VOLUIU un I 140 .1 C'I IA TUfOllO I MO 1

• TAa(

OtSCMUIOf ~ StlllUlATU (ICflS U*'*' lt'f VOLUtll UTI I tsS .IC'S ,., ltlV(lt ~ftT

,/

lllTME OtSCMAllt[

llCEH HM'.

• II.I ' '

VOLUlll[ ltATf. UH c,.

WATll,Olt ITATIOI 1000 a ...... 0 1000 SCAL[

iooo IN FEET

!OCJO 4 000 'OlO

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

'.~'JUI SI AN A flgvre POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SUMMER RIVER FLOW CONDITION 6 Electric Station r~* .. ~ H~-*"'"'Tt'" . ¥. F p c;uyq I us ' I o:poepµ u a;q I as. th; a;;$ (4) ?,*HP4C?Ai4#,4 R,41$,. AIStl .. ,,. A 1+,;;s,z: . q $5 CS$¢ SQ 4#. Ql,4$1114 as;.CAC¥tllPfl<< * ., .

~ . ..... ~ ., ,, *

• 41'. * *. l I # I , .1-.t ... , * *. . 1: , , * ' i

'I l,

~ j

~ ..

_, J

'.! ~

.iJ )'j

"- /,

'\*.\

f~

o(.

• r* :.

~" '.',,,

f'f ,

L

~~ .

f *:

MYll PLOW* Ut...... t~;

j~:.~

'f llTTU >*{

GYPSY

-. t~

r**

STATION UNIT 1,za5 DISCMAUf DCE55 TEllP. I 11.4.,

VOLUME IUTf

• 140 .TCfl iB t~:

~:, ;

\~

DllCMUlf~

flCBI HllP.* 1t*'

YOLUltf UH* 9'9.IC'S

.., SltlULATU iun It 10U1tOi1 ltT l.

t i .

~~-

I."

~;

'-J r

I' ~* '

IATlllfOllD J <~'

)

• TM£ ~

OISCMUI! )

llCfSS TEllP. 11t1*r VOLUlllf Ufl t 11151 CfS _f; s..-

',j '

• WATll,011 ITATIO* ~~, .

1000 0 IOOO fOOO SCALI 111 HfT

~ 4000 9000 .t,, ~*

~ '; :

~

~'1:.

w

~-

-- ~*

LOUISIANA fl1vre POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE p. -

Waterford Steam Electric Station COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE FALL RIVER FLOW CONDITION 1 t '.

I

~~* ":

f;*

H

,l!

• ~J J

\. r::i

~*

l fUV[R 'LOW; 205,000 ch t~

'.('

I LITTlt: IYPSY STATION I {EXCESS TEMP I 21. 7°,. ..

015~HUG£ VOL. RATE, 1448 CFS C::::" !"'!"! '*

"'-i

~..as;.\- .. -* ** " a:c.s """" * * * * :c:

.. . . . . . . .. . .. t:

DISCHARGE . . . . .. ... . ..

~

="' 1 *,

[EXCESS TEMP.* 19.,°F l r

~

VOL. RATE : 963 CFS UNIT 3 I

WATEft'O"D STATION 1000 0 4000

~ I I I I SCALE IN FEET ~

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS ("F) AT THE SURFACE figure ~

BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOiARGE - SEPTEMBER 9, l976 fr Waterford Steam Electric Stotion LOW FLOW CONDITION e

{

\¥ fUVE" 'LOW: 205,000 ch POWER LINE I

GYPSY STATION fEXCESS TEMP.

• 21.7° f l VOL. RATE I 1448 CF'S DISCHARGE EXCESS TEMP.* 19.5°F

{ VOL. RATE I 963 cFS WATEltfOltD STATION 1000 0 4000 rw""-"" . I I ...----

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA fl9vN POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 9, 1976 LOW FLOW CONOtTIOH 9 Electric Station

t***

ltlV!lt fLOW: 100,000 ch

~?INE~

I - _r-LITTLE GYl'SY STATION

~I 1

i OISCHA,.GE{EXCESS TEMP.* 21*' . . . .

~*~;. * ,.... VOL. RATE I 1448 CF'S Iv-DISCHARGE

[EXCESS TEMP.

• 19.3 °f

°lVOL . RAT£ 1963 CFS

"?( I UNIT 3 DISCHARGE i N. "' . ,. *

• o o * *

• o I

• o

• d __....

WATEltf09'D STATION 1000 0 4000 f'V""""..ool"'i* _ I I F"'=

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA flture POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTI-1ERMS (°F) AT THE SURFACE BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOiARGE - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 Waterford St*°" LOW FLOW CONDITION 10 Electric Station

-l I

ftlYEft 'LOW: !09,000 ch POWER LINE I

LITTLE GY..SY STATION I ... . .

DIS CHARGE {EXCESS TEMP. i 210 F

\ ~ VOL. RATE

1448 CFS WATERFORD l ANO 2 OISCHARGE =; I

. . ~

DISCHARGE~...... . ~.. . >.. ;.. =

I ....

JExcESS TEMP.* 19.3 ., I tvoL. RATE

• 963 CFS EXCESS TEMP.

• IS . 1° F WATERFORD 3 { VOL. RATE

• U3~ CFS WATERFORD STATION 1000 0 4000

~J1 I I ~

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA Fl9ure POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT TH! SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 LOW FLOW CONDITION II Electric Station ~

~

ll

CROSS-STREAM DISTANCE, FT.

0 500 1000 1500 0 ""' '

-10

-ZO

-40

-50

~

• a:

60 2

c

~

-70

-10

-100 RIVER 'LOW: 200,000 cf*

-110

• 1uvATIOlil tc~( 0.AOOERAHO TO l'l-T OCMONITIUTION 0' UCUI llOTlHJW C.-OU UCTIOlllL EL.-119FT .(MSL)

-120 Wac&. *vu tac* acne* CO*fT"<~ ,_,.. COll'O'V* * .., ,..,.

Vt&. .... C..O** °" .. GHt(( . . llM* o-.t.a.*a. L4. .. ......... ,, ..

• v- tt M"'[)lll()4.,,..,...C

._,,.._,,.,,. * *rJ *o .- rt - a .1.0 "'..-. " ' ro Mt .. o o* ,,,. ***- i.* .... ,..

LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. COMBINED THERMAL PLUME CROS->SECTION AT Waterford Steam LITTLE GYPSY FOR TYPICAL LOW FLOW CONDITIONS 12 Electric Station

36(9&>----------------...-----------------------------

30(eet1--~~~~~~--1--~~~~~~-+-~~----~~-...

w a:

I-

< 2Sfnt a::

w

~

~

w wO

~~ 20(88) a.

w

...J co

~

1&<&*>

E a:

w 10(&0t 19 * * * * * *~ I I I

"'--COLDWATER 1(41)

, ,, FISH SPECIES 0(32) 6(41) 10(50) 11(99)

AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

• ~ (fO)

I ' I IOU"Cl1 UI INVl"ONMINTAI. '"OTICTIOM AQINCV, QUALITY c"'TI"'" '°" WATI" - 11n LOUISIANA Fivvre POWER & LIGHT CO. ALLOWABLE THERMAL PLUME TEMPERATURES FOR THE MINIMIZATION OF Waterford Steam COLD SHOCK IN THE EVENT OF PLANT SHUTDOWN 13 E loctric Station

1

• I I  !: --

I

~

I

• ~

II II.I

~

~

z c c_,

II.I CL

~

c c

IC c

...c_,z z l&I 0

I u u

tI*-*-.....

.I I

- ' \ / \ / \ , M07.I II.JAii/ ldd!SSIS'Slll M07.:I 11.JA l ll lddlSSISSl/11

• -*-- - . --**----*--* --~ - <** --~* - t -* ----- --- -- * -.....-- - - *- -----*- -- .--- -- -- ---- - *** ~ -- - ----- -- ----

~-

\t--.:... .*

l..,- /

//llSSISSIPPI RIVCR FLOW~

--n *-r-44-**--------

OllQtMGI: ITIM:'l\IM

-1

--- - I r;- ~

.- , __ I .*- I I I

=\ \ t - - ~* J .. . ,...

lllCMAllll CAllAL L

T , *  ::i-l -~

SECT. A-A

~

- ._c_~

~

\ !j I IUL **-__ I

~I 11111:11!1 ,..

r-r

~

0 SECT. 9-9 f .... , l .....

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE 1

PLAN (NOT TO SCALE)

LOUISIANA FIGURE POWER & LIGHT Co. Ct,.CULATINO WAT!.. SYSTEM Wa1erloro S1eam Dl9CHA .. OE ST .. UCTU .. E AND CANAL 15 E lee Irie Station

/

.~

..~,,. .. Mtl Mllllll'"'I lllVUI -,~

.... 711 v*~ ::_ .*

...a: -

i,.-...

,, ,, UNIT I MAIN

,,..._, .. UNIT I - C"'CUlAT....

WATlll OllCHNIOI

.... w .... . . - . ......

OllCI

...ROI

,~

1\1/,,:,

i~

....::i COMOENHll I I I I CM l

,r~

~ l>-c a:

.i WATI!ll OUl?* 1.004

'ADJ ~;

~d')1

>-< I~ .

~ ~! _, * *°"'

UNIT 3 TUl'llllNI i I

\.,/

ii ~

....._ ... z ~ ... CLOIEO COOLING WATER IYSTEM ' ~

"< a:

......... u~~ r\. ! ~ff UM Ot!NfllATOll ILOWOOWM 1,...0

.,,,;~l if.: .

J

'.\~.;~

<a:o <

a: IYITIM HUT IXCHANGl!RI

, ~i ~ .. ,,

Tu I I

,/f/t/.

" .. ~

~

M'tAC OOOllltO TOWIM ti "

~,,;* ,~..ii HAL WATEll "°11 CIRCULATll\/G WATfll

~

P\JMPS ANO ICAHN WAIH~

"lTI .. PLUIM

• " lTl .. PlUIH WATHI ~

I "

If. CH AllLH

'A llSH WATI! WOllltl I

1'111,,.AllY WATER

• _... lll'llT I Pf\IMAllY I I UNIT I WAITE

~\

It '

\

MAllAOEMl!NT

---

~

TIIEATMENT

'LAllT i WATlll VIII i1 I IYITEM l!*

IOAOfll I

t t MAKl!VI' DIMINEllAUZl!ll 21 II I MANAOEMl!lf1' IYITEM 'f::.

~K \

~

WATEll UNIT I IYITEM o I TVll81l\/E llDO .

ANO REACTOR IEllVICI HCOM>AllY 1'ri:~.,.!J**; .,*',,.\

IUltOINQ WATlll UHi a . ~ ;~. **:~

~r AUXlllAllY lltOO.

flOOll DlllAINAOf IYITEM PlC)Oll OllAINAOI IYITEM

$ I _.,~. fi

~

\

WATUI

~:::

r ~~*:'.:

It t t I

• § \,.lll!H:~:ATIOft ITIAM Ol!Nl!llATOft ii YARD OILIWATtfl lfRVICI llUllOll\/Q ...

z ,.._ WAURroAO, *I ILOWOO\lfl\/ SYSTEM-REOENEllATION ANO PllTER FLUSH WASTU, l!'fe.

I

.* l".*:.* ..rff,

(

rJ ;:\

" ~'

Oll)WATEll METAL CLEANING ~

..."'a:

lfl'AllJATOll H'AflATOlll Cl WAnE PONO '.* l'f j i: .. ~ ~'

llttCHAllQI _t 147

• t OllCHAllOI f'i. '!

11'* * ' *t OVTfAlL -

l OUTFALL

~~ . ' .

OOI TO THE

• AllPEN1' CANAL l'7 oot

'° I

Jn ~

~

• . ~l . ,;.

c: I* *;:

ri..~ * ..

,. DISCHARGU TO WI'.-..~:*

UNIT) UNIT I

- WATEAmRD,. 2

~

~f~. :i

~

OUTFALL 001*

vii" \'

"OTAllLE ANO IANITAllY WATER IYITEM IEWAOI!

TREATMENT PLANT LOW VO LUME WAITE TREATMENT FACILITY UNIT 1ANO2 CIRCULATING WATl!ll DISCHARGE I ".

,;: (

i ..

NOTll1 1. HOWi "'THOIJIANO GALLONS 1'1!111 DAY. LOUl51AH4 POWER & LIGHT CO. ~~ ~. ~ :

I. l'lllM*llY WAT(R VSE IYITEMI AllE THOU IYITl!MI WHERE WATER COMl!l IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH "OTFl\/Tl*l IOURCES OF RADIOACTIVITY.

I. IECONOARY WATFll UH SYSTEMS ARE TllOSE SYSTEMS WHF.RE TH! WATEll DOH Woterfonl 5,_..., El.ctrlc Stoll.it ~ . :t NOT COME IN OlllECT CONTACT WITH ANY POTENTIAl SOURCES OF llAOIOACTIVITY. SCHEMATIC OF WATER l'LOW, WATERFORD UNIT 3

4. WAITE MANAGEMENT IYITEM TREAn LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTES.

I. Pllll nOllAOI! AND THI AUOC1ATID IYITEM Dt!MAHOI NOT IHOWN. FIGUR! 16 i *J.. (;**

• , II I

(

NOTE:

O)MBINED DATA FROM TARBERT LANDING AND RED RIVER LANDING 193'J-1976.

1200 1100 1000 900 i;

u.

(,)

800

§ z

u.I 0

700 a:

c 600 f§ Q

z 500 w

~

400 300 200 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DURATION (% TIME)

EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED VW'\.fa. I ~ ,...._._,._A//lf [)AT*

• tv*ACf Ytl ...,.,._

Ill .& efo.()-c,.~ ........Ct, &,At()<6 River resulting frooi heated water released by the Waterford 1, 2 and 3 and

)7 Little Gypsy Steam Electric Generating Stations was conducted for the

)8 Construction Permit Environmental Report. This analysis was based upon J9 mathE'.Dlatical models available at that time and fiP.ld data obtained 1n sur-10 veys performed during the period 1970-1973. Since 1973, results of the 11 hydrothermal field program, \lihich is part of the Waterford 3 Preoperational 12 Monitoring Program, have become available. Consequently, Louisiana Power 13 & Light Company authorized Ebasco Services Incorporated to re-evaluate the 14 Waterford 3 thermal plume predictions in light of the more detailed hydro-15 thermal data base and recent advances in thermal field predictive techniques.

16 In addition, Dr. B.A. Benedict, formerly of Tulane University (New Orleans, 17 Louisiana) and presently of University of South Carolina (Columbia, South 18 Carolina), was consulted during the preparation of this report.

19 20 This report discusses the methodology used to select an appropriate model-21 ing approach, describes the models utilized and presents the results of 22 thermal plume distribution predictions of the combined Waterford 3, Water-23 ford I and 2 and Little Gypsy circulating water discharges. General de-24 scriptions of Waterford 3 and the surrounding environment can be found in 25 ER Sections 2.1 and 3.4.

26 27 A-1

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316( ' ) DATE PRINT ' 12/05/78

~ *

• C 0 N T I N U A T I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 3

~8 1.2 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS a) Methods for thermal predictions were developed tmder low river flow n conditions and seasonal average river flow conditions. For the low river flow case, field measurements at Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 were utilized as representative of the effects of these plants 14 at low flow (approximately 200 kcfs). The Prych-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) 15 model( 8 ) was used to predict the Waterford 3 thermal distribution 16 during low flow.

17 18 b) The Edinger and Polk model( 9 ) which is a farfield 100del, was em-19 ployed for the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges during

.o 1 seasonal average flow conditions. The PDS model, a nearfield surface jet-type model, was used at Waterford 3 when the discharge behavior

.3 was jetlike; otherwise, the Edinger and Polk model was applied

• 4 5 c) Comparison of the model results with field data indicated that model 6 selections give conservative estimates of the combined thermal plume 7 extents.

8 9 d) An analysis of available field data suggests that interaction of the 0 existing Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy plumes is limited; flow 1 along the river channel appears to prevent significant mixing of the 2 two plumes.

3 4

A-2

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 31~'~) DATE PRINTT"T\ 12/05/78

[ (

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 4 01 e) Recirculation between intake and discharge of Waterford 1 and 2 is 02 not significant, and will not affect the farfield thermal plume 03 distribution. However, recirculation between the Waterford 1 and 2 04 discharge and Waterford 3 intake will occur, and was taken into ac-05 count by the modeling approach utilized.

06 07 f) The combined thermal distribution was predicted for average river

()8 flow during each season and for a typical low river flow condition l)9 (200 kcfs). The results are presented in pictorial form on Figures lO A-12 to A-15, and Figures A-16 and A-17, respectively.

ll L2 g) The maximum plume dimensions of the combined thermal field during L3 low flow conditions are summarized below:

l4 LS L6 Maximum Plume Dimensions Isotherm Isotherm l7 l8 Cross-sectional Area 4.2% 1.1%

L9 Cross-stream Extent full river width llOO ft

( 1800 ft)

Longitudinal Extent (ft) 7200 ft 2700 ft t4 t5 Dimensions of the combined thermal distribution at seasonal average flow conditions are present ed in Table A-11.

~7 A-3

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316'~) DATE PRINT'C'I") 12/05/78 t *

• C0 NT I NUAT I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 4 28 h) A comparison of the study results with predictions made for the 29 Construction Permit Environmental Report shows that there are dif-30 ferences in plume configuration. In effect, the revised ioodeling 31 results show a slightly smaller cross-sectional area affected, but 32 with a larger surface plume.

33

~4

~5

~6 17 18 19 10 11 12

.4

.5

.6

.7

.a 9

0 1

2 3

4 A-4

PRoJECT WATERFORD-3 3lf ) DATE PRINT-' 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 5 01

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT WATERFORD 02

>3 This section reviews the existing hydrodynamic and hydrothermal conditions

)4 in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford site.

)5

)6

2.1 DESCRIPTION

OF THE EXISTING FLOW FIELD

)7

)8 2.1.1 FLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

)9 lO An analysis of Mississippi River flow conditions was made utilizing flow ll data taken by the Corps of Engineers at Red River and Tarbert Landings over l2 a 35 year period (1942-1976). Figure A-1 presents a statistical analysis l3 of river flow based on monthly averaged flows grouped by season. For this l4 study, winter, spring, summer and fall were defined by three month periods l5 starting with January.

l6

.7 Seasonal average flow rates were previously obtained from Corps of En-

~8 gineers data over a 40 year period (1936-1975). They were obtained by

.9 utilizing the median value for each season. The results are:

'.O

'. l Winter: 580 kc f s

'.2

'. 3 Spring: 650 kc fs

4

5 Summer: 280 kcfs

.6 7 Fall 240 kc fs A-5

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316'~) DATE PRINTY"T) 12/05/78

• C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 5 28 29 A river flow of approximately 200 kcfs was taken to be a typical low river 30 flow condition for predictive purposes. This is consistent with the stu-31 dies conducted for the Construction Permit Environmental Report. The pro-32 bability of occurrence for flows less than 200 kcfs (for all months) im-33 plies an annual recurrence interval of about 6.7 years. On a seasonal 34 basis, flows less than 200 kcfs would be expected to occur most frequently 35 during summer and fall, when the recurrence interval is 4 years.

36 37 2.1.2 STREAMLINE ANALYSIS 38 39 .

F igure A- 2 s h ows a contour map d rawn b y t h e Corps o f Engineers

. (1 5 ) using

~o 1973-1975 hydrographic survey data. The shaded area indicates where the river bottom elevation exceeds -100 ft MSL. This indicates that over a long period of time, bed material has been transported downstream along the river channel where maximum bottom shear stress exists. Also, since (22) higher river discharges per unit width were empirically observed to be located along the deeper portion of the river, it is expected that a major fraction of the river flow follows the river channel. This flow starts near the Little Gypsy (east) shore upstream of the river bend and bears to the Waterford (west) shore as it moves around the bend .

.9 0 This characteristic flow pattern was confirmed by the three sets of drogue 1 experiments conducted by LP&L. On September 11 and 13, 1976, drogues re-2 leased upstream of the river bend were tracked around the river bend (Geo-3 Marine, 1976( 7 )). Pathlines (or streamlines, assuming steady flow) traced 4

A-6

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 3lf' *) DATE PRINT-" 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 6 n by drogues released near the river channel are reproduced in Figure A-3.

On .

• 1 ar d rogue experiments August 8 an d lo , 1977 , simi . <23 ) were carrie. d (24) .

out, and on September 20, 21 and 22, 1977, drogue surveys covering the entire river width were conducted. Streamlines for drogues released near

)5 the river channel in these surveys are reproduced in Figure A-4. Both figures confirm the flow characteristic expected from the bottom contour

)7 distribution.

)8

)9 The circulating water discharges from both Waterford 1 and 2 and Little lO Gypsy affect river flow characteristics in a zone bounded by the shoreline ll and the river channel. These discharge effects are, however, of a second-l2 ary nature. Typically, station dis charge flow rates are approximately one percent of the river flow. The Waterford 1 and 2 discharge effect on the

.4 ambient river flow is expected typically to be tne lowest during low flow

.5 conditions (200,000 to 350,000 cfs) since the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge

.6 is of a vertical drop type. With the exception of the area in the immed-

.7 iate vicinity of the discharge, the perturbations on the natural flow are

.8 expected to be minimal .

.9

o Under the scmie anbient conditions, however, the Little Gypsy surface jet

'.l discharge (in the offshore direction) not only displaces natural flow

2 strecmilines near the surface but also entrains ambient water. Addition-

'. 3 ally, the flow field is affected by buoyancy spr e ading due to the thermal

4 content of circulating water discharge. As a result, the surface area 5 affected by the discharge grows as the jet momentum decays. The process 6 c ontinue s until the river flow momentum dominat e s and th e n wash e s out the 7 dis charge flow effect.

A-7

>ROJ.ECT WATERFORD-3 316< 11.) DATE PRINTFO 12/05/78 r *

• C 0 N T I N U A T I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 6 Figures A-5 and A-6 present drogue studies conducted near the Little Gypsy discharge, and Figure A-7 presents the results of a drogue study conducted near Waterford 1 and 2. Streamlines traced by drogues on Figures A-5 through A-7 confirm the flow characteristics described above.

The data show that streamlines do not cross the main river channel.

In summary, a major portion of the river flow follows the deep channel, which is close to the Little Gypsy (east) side upstream of the river bend and bears close to the Waterford (west) shore downstream of the river bend.

Effects due to circulating water discharges from Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 are limited to areas on either side of the river channel stream-lines. Thus, the flow field can be viewed as being comprised of two near-shore zones and a main channel zone which tend to separate flows past the Water ford site.

2.1. 3 BACK EDDY CURRENT AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 The results of several field studies <2- 7 , 23

• 24 ) have indicated the presence of a back eddy current in the vicinity of the Waterford l and 2 intake and discharge structures. The field studies employed tracer dyes, velocity and temperature measurements, and droguP. tracking to delineate iO and characterize the back eddy phenomenon.

il 12 A-3

PROJECT WATERFORD;~ 116(a) DATE P 0 INTED 12/05/78

{ (

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-140 2AGE 7 01 nie back eddy current is strongest (always less than 1.0 fps) during 02 periods of low flows and does not exist for river flows exceeding approxi-03 mately 600,000 cfs. nie back eddy appears to vary greatly with wind speed 04 and direction. The eddy characteristics are also very dependent upon 05 shoreline configuration. The west bank undergoes continual change as ma-06 terial is deposited during low flows and eroded at high flows. In addi-07 tion, the construction effort at the Waterford site has produced signifi-08 cant alterations to the shoreline in the back eddy area.

09 10 The area affected by this current extends approximately from the Waterford 11 1 and 2 outlet structure on the downstream side, to 400 ft offshore of the 12 west bank, and 2000 ft upstream.

J 14 2.2 AMBIENT RIVER WATER TEMPERATURES 15 16 Monthly average Mississippi River water temperatures from the Ninemile 17 Point Generating Station for the period 1951-69 were presented in the Cons-18 truction Permit Environmental Report. These data yield average seasonal 19 river temperatures of 47.7°F, 69.7°F, 84.3°F and 63°F for winter, 20 spring, summer and fall, respectively. ntese seasonal average river temp-21 eratures were used as input data for the thermal plume predictions (Table 22 A-8).

23 24 Additional temperature data measured at the Carrollton Gage were obtained 25 from the Corps of Engineers. The Carrollton Gage is located about one mile downstream of the Ninemile Point Generating Station. Data were ana-27 lyzed for the period 1961-77. Daily temperatures were ranked within each A-9

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

• C0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 7 28 season in descending order and a cumulative frequency distribution was pre-29 pared. The results, which are shown in Figure A-22, depict the annual 30 frequency of occurrence of the ambient water temperature data.

31 32 2.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS THERMAL SURVEYS 33 34 Since 1970, a hydrothermal field program has been conducted by LP&L to in-35 vestigate the dispersion characteristics of the Mississippi River in the 36 vicinity of the Waterford site. The field program surveys were conducted 37 before and after operation of Waterford 1 and 2. (Little Gypsy was in 38 operation in each case.) Results of the surveys have been presented in a

- (1-7 23 24) 39 series of reports ' '

41 The characteristics of thermal plumes surveyed at Waterford 1 and 2 and 42 Little Gypsy are summarized in Table A-1. The following observations 43 can be made:

44 45 a) The Waterford I and 2 thermal distribution affects a smaller surface 46 area than Little Gypsy discharge. This is partly.due to the lower 47 heat release rate and partly to a higher river discharge rate (see Figure A-2) on the Waterford side.

49 50 b) The largest surface plume was observed during the September 9, 1976 51 survey.

52 54 A-10

>ROJECT WATERFORD-3 3lft 1 ) DATE PRINTF11 12/05/78 JATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-140 PAGE 8

)1 The thermal plumes with maximum extent during each survey (using the lowest

)2 excess temperature contours reported) are overlayed on Figures A-3 and

)3 A-4. Figure A-3 depicts the extent of thermal plumes observed with a

)4 river flow of about 200 kcfs. In spite of identical station discharge and

)5 river flow conditions existing on both September 9 and 10, 1976, the extent

)6 of the combined thermal distribution in the river was much less on Septem-

)7 ber 10. Differences in weather conditions are a possible source of expla-

)8 nation. There was a 6.3 mph southerly wind on September 9, which would

)9 have a cooiponent in the up-river direction. On September 10, there was a lO 12.3 mph westerly wind, which would have a large down-river component.

ll This difference in wind speed and direction could have significantly af-l2 fected plume dispersion, particularly in regions of relatively low river l3 velocity (e.g. offshore of the Little Gypsy discharge canal).

l4 l5 The comparatively small thermal plume observed on November 2, 1974 and l6 depicted in Figure A-3 resulted because both Little Gypsy and Waterford l7 1 and 2 were not operating at full load during the survey period. The l8 stations were operating at about 68 percent and 26 percent of full load, l9 respectively. This is in contrast to the 97 percent loading condition for w both stations on September 9 and 10, 1976.

n

~2 Figure A-4, \or'hich depicts the surface of thermal plumes observed during

~3 river flows of about 300 kcfs, shows that the plumes were similar on all

~4 three survey days.

~5

~6

~7 A-11

WATERFORD-3 316' ) DATE PRINT~~ 12/05/78

{

r *

• C0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-140 P GE 8

~8 2.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN EXISTING FLOW AND THERMAL FIELDS

~9 JO One feature of the measurements shown in Figures A-3 and A-4 is the ll similarity in lateral extent of the thermal plumes frcm both Waterford 1 l2 and 2 and Little Gypsy. A line of demarcation appears to exist near the location of the river channel indicated on Figure A-2. In Figures A-3 and A-4, this line appears to have been traced by a drogue placed near the river channel location upstream of the bend. Along this line of demarca-16 tion and within a zone (or corridor) about 200 feet wide, low excess temp-eratures (lower than 1° to 2°F) persist for some distance downstream before dissipating. It is also along this corridor and downstream of the Little Gypsy discharge, that the Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 thermal plumes interact. Because a large fraction of the river discharge flows within the main channel, residual heat transported laterally into the cor-ridor from each shoreline is rapidly diluted. Thus, the river channel acts as a heat energy sink by diluting and convecting the heat downstream. This condition restricts the interaction of heated water from the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges .

.6 A-12

'ROJ'ECT WATERFORD-3 316' -) DA TE PR INTfn 12/05/78

>ATE 12/05/78, TYPIST: gw Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 1 ll 3.0 MODEL SELECTION AND CALIBRATION

)2

>3 3.1 MODEL SELECTION

)4

)5 The model selection process involved a review of existing mathematical mo-

)6 dels followed by an assessment of their applicability. Because of the

)7 complexity of the flow regime and differences between discharge structures,

)8 models were evaluated for each station discharge. After appropriate models

)9 were selected in a preliminary review, a detailed calibration was performed lO for each of these models. It should be noted that the temperature distri-ll butions for the existing plants during low flow conditions were based on l2 actual measured data; predictive models were applied to tne Waterford 3 l3 discharge and the existing discharges under seasonal average conditions.

l4 l5 3.1.1 MODEL SELECTION FOR EXISTING PLANT DISCHARGES l6 L7 The following models were evaluated for predicting excess temperature dis-LB tributions at Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy:

L9 zo a) Little Gypsy: Prych/Davis/Shirazi(B,l 2 )

n Z2 Edinger/Polk( 9 )

Z3 Z4 Lau(lO) (modified for three-dimensional field)

ZS Z6 Prakash(ll) (see review by Benedict)

Z7 A-13

>ROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 316( ) DATE PRINTfn 12/05/78

(

r ** C 0 N T I N U A T I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAr;:* l Pritchard 2 Model(l 2 )

~9 b) Waterford 1 and 2:

n NRG recommended model(l 3 )

13 14 15 16 Prakash(ll) 17 18 Edinger/Polk( 9 )

19 These models were calibrated, on a preliminary basis, to the field data available from hydrothermal surveys (1-7 ' 23 ' 24) . Data from these sur-veys were also used to determine the approximate behavior of the heated discharge as it passed through the outlet structure. At Waterford 1 and 2, the discharge flowed over a weir crest and down into the river, to approxi-mate a surface point discharge with little horizontal momentum. This con-dition is in contrast to the Little Gypsy discharge, which exhibited sur-face jet characteristics near the canal outlet location.

The results of the preliminary calibration analysis indicated that the

o Edinger and Polk farfield model was the most appropriate model for pre-dieting both the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy thermal distributions.

i2 i3 A-14

PRO.::ECT WATERFORD-3 3lbr <!) DATE PRINFD 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 2 01 The rationale for selecting the Edinger and Polk model is summarized below:

02 03 a) The Edinger and Polk model yielded reasonable solutions in a com-04 plex flow regime. The other models investigated either required 05 greater computational effort in return for only marginal improve-06 ment in response or could not adequately reproduce field observa-07 tions.

08 D9 b) Regarding the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge, no model reviewed satis-10 factorily estimated the upstream heat transport. Consequently, in ll predicting seasonal average conditions, all of the heat was assumed L2 to be transported downstream, a procedure which would yield con-L3 servative results. As previously stated, temperature distributions L4 during low flow conditions were based on actual measured data, which LS depict the upstream heat transport.

l6 l7 c) From the preliminary calibration effort, it was concluded that im-l8 plementation of a suitable nearfield model for the Little Gypsy l9 jet discharge would require considerable additional field data and w development effort. Since the primary interest was to include the n effects of the Little Gypsy discharge on the Waterford 3 discharge,

~2 it was decided to forego development of a detailed nearfield model

~3 and utilize a farfield model.

~4

5 3 . 1.2 MODEL SELECTION FOR THE WATERFORD 3 DISCHARGE

6

7 The Wat e rford 3 discharge behaves like a surface jet 'When the river flow is A-15

PRO.JECT WATERFORD-3 316f '\) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

• *

• C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 2 28 less than 300-350 kcfs; at higher flows, the jet is weak and the Edinger 29 and Polk model is applicable. In order to model the nearfield region of 30 the Waterford 3 discharge under jet-like conditions, several site specific 31 requirements must be included in the model:

32 33 a) Jet entrainment due to vector velocity differences between jet and 34 ambient fluids, 35 36 b) Three-dimensional field, 37 38 c) Buoyancy effects due to the discharged heat, 39 d) Dynamic effect of the ambient current (drag and shear effects),

and e) Allowance of ambient momentum entrainment.

The Prych-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) model was selected for the Waterford 3 dis-charge because it met all of the above requirements and has performed sa-tisfactorily in similar applications.

,9

3.2 DESCRIPTION

OF SELECTED MODELS

• O

• l 3. 2 .1 EDINGER AND POLK MODEL 2

3 The Edinger and Polk model gives analytical predictions of an excess temp-4 erature field produced by a point source located at a river bank. The heat A-16

PRQJECT WATERFORD-3 316(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78 DATE' 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page*! n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 3 01 source is assumed to release heat continuously at a constant rate into a 02 waterbody with a constant mean velocity, infinite depth and width, and con-03 stant lateral and vertical diffusivities. The effect of longitudinal dif-04 fusion is assumed small compared to longitudinal convection and no heat 05 is lost to the river bank or atmosphere. A detailed discussion of the 06 solution to the governing equation is presented in Reference 9; a summary 07 description is given in Table A-3.

08 09 3.2.2 PRYCH-DAVIS-SHIRAZI MODEL 10 11 The PDS model treats the tqree dimensional surface jet by the integral ap-12 proach. Using assumed profiles for temperature and velocity along with the L3 entrainment and drag functions, the 3-D equations of mass, momentum and L4 energy conservation are reduced to a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary L5 differential equations that are solved numerically.

l6 l7 In addition to the classical type of entrainment that is due to vector lS velocity differences between jet and ambient flows, the model allows for

~9 entrainment due to ambient turbulence in the mass flux equation. The mo-mentum flux equation is formulated to include bouyancy forces, shear forces between jet and ambient flows, drag force due to cross flow, and en-trainment of ambient momentum. The heat flux equation includes heat loss;

'.3 this term in the equation was ignored for conservatism. The rate of

4 spreading of the jet 1s expressed as the sum of a non-buoyant and a buoy-5 ant component. The form of the buoyant component is derived by consider-6 ing a moving density front such as exists when oil is spreading over water.

7 A-17

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 3lq . ) DA TE PRINT,.." 12/05/78

• C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-141 28 A summary description of the PDS model is given in Table A-3; a detailed 29 discussion of this model can be found in References 8 and 12.

30 31 3.3 MODEL CALIBRATION 32 33 3.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

34 35 The two selected models contain several site specific adjustable physical 36 parameters. Before the models are utilized for predicting thermal impacts, 37 the adjustable physical parameters have to be calibrated against site spe-38 cific thermal measurements obtained under known plant and river discharge 39 conditions. The calibrated parameters can then be translated to other dis-

~o charge conditions of interest for thermal predictions.

The adjustable parameters are the effective convection velocity (U ), la-e teral diffusivity (K ), the vertical diffusivity (K ), and the extent y z of upstream intrusion (L). U is an effective velocity at which the e

discharged water is transported downstream through a non-uniform velocity region. K and K are coeffecients that account for lateral (cross-y z stream) and vertical turbulent heat dispersion. L is the distance over which the heat is transported upstream of the Little Gypsy discharge.

iO Table A-2 depicts the procedure used to obtain model input data required il for calibration. Because river flow data were not available at the site, information from both Tarbert Landing and the Carrollton Gage were employed A-18

ROJECT WATERFORD-3 316( DATE PRINTF~ 12/05/78 1ATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 4

,1 to construct the site rating curve. River cross-sections were constructed 12 frooi contour maps published by the Corps of Engineers (l 5 ), and river

>3 temperatures were obtained from station intake temperature records. Heated

>4 discharge temperatures were obtained from plant operating logs; plant dis-

)5 charge type (behavior) and velocity were estimated from site river stage

)6 and plant operating data.

)7

)8 3.3.2 CALIBRATION PROCEDURE FOR THE EDINGER AND POLK MODEL

)9 10 a) General Procedure 11 12 As discussed earlier, Little Gypsy and Waterford l and 2 thermal 13 plumes interfere only in the limited region along the river channel.

14 In this region both plumes are quickly mixed with water at ambient 15 temperature and transported downstream. For this reason, the Edin-16 ger and Polk model was separately calibrated against the thermal 17 plumes at each plant. Interference from other thermal plumes and 18 corridor boundary effect are assumed negligible. Dilution in the 19 corridor is ignored; thus, the model provides a conservative result.

20 21 The procedure summarized below was utilized to calibrate the Edinger 22 and Polk model against field data for the Waterford 1 and 2 and Lit-23 tle Gypsy discharges. For conservativeness, the field surveys with 24 the largest surface plumes were utilized to estimate model para-25 meters.

26 27 1) For each given isotherm of interest, the observed maximum ex-A-1Q

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

• • • C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N K

• DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 4 28 tent in the longitudinal, lateral and vertical directions was 29 recorded as xm' ym, and zm, respectively.

30 31 2) Based on these values, equivalent diffusivities (K , K) y z 32 and the effective convection velocity (u ) were calculated e

33 according to the following expressions:

34 35 36 37 38 39 u

e - At At 0

e ry z 4~

m ID y 2 r.o K

y - eu 4

e

-x 111 Ill eu e

z 2 m

+2 K.. z - 4 x ID where:

discharge excess temperature (°F)

.1 t excess temperature in the field (°F) 2 p plant discharge rate (CF~)

3 4 e Napierian base, 2.718 A-20

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316 1 ~) DATE PRINTFD 12/05/78

(

DATE 11/ 16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 5 01 An effective convection velocity, U , was used because the discharge e

02 momentum tends to change both the apparent diffusivities and the 03 1 ongi tudinal convection velocity. In ad di ti on, there is a variable 04 ambient velocity field at the river bend. The requirement of a single 05 convection velocity in the Edinger and Polk model necessitated the 06 establishment of an effective convection velocity that can account for 07 the plant discharge momentum effect and the cumulative effects of 08 the variable velocity field on heat dispersion.

09 10 3) For each selected t, there is a unique set of parameter values 11 (K , K , u ). This indicates the variability in the am-y z e 12 bient water characteristics associated with different zones of 13 ~t's. However, the mathematical model allows only a unique 14 set of these values for the entire thermal field of interest.

15 A guideline in selecting a set of these values as calibrated L6 model parameters is to preserve conservatism. A physical L7 parameter that can be used as a guide is the volumetric measure l8 given by:

L9 2

2 At 0 ) 4Q p 1

x y z * ( At u er2

!l mm m e

'.2

3 4 Conservatism was achieved by maximizing the volumetric ~~tent of a 5 given excess isotherm. The above expression indicates that a set of 6 (K y , Kz , ue ) g1v1ng the minimum value of ue .r;-;

l~y~z is a 7 conservative set.

A-21

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316fq) DATE PR TNTED 12/05/18

• C0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 5 28 29 Before the model is utilized to predict thermal impacts under vari-30 ous plant discharge and ambient conditions, the calibrated diffusi-31 vi ties and effective convection velocities must be translated from 32 the field survey conditions used in the previous steps to a general 33 form applicable to any set of plant and river conditions.

34 35 According to Elder (l]) diffusivities can be expressed in the 36 functional form:

37 38 39

~o where:

u = river velocity, and H = river depth averaged.

The proportional constant was obtained from river velocity and river depth observed during a survey and the corresponding diffu-sivity calibrated under the same conditions. The calibrated effective convection velocity was expr e ssed as a fraction of the average river velocity.

• l 2

3 4

A-22

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316f~) DA TE PR IN TED 12/05/78 DATE

• 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 6 01 b) Calibration of the Little Gypsy Discharge 02 03 1) Estimation of Model Parameters 04 05 Field survey data used for calibration were taken on July 31, 1973 <4 >, November 2. 1974 (5)

• September 9, 1976 (7) 06

( 7) 07 September 10, 1976 , August 4, 1977( 23 ) August 5, 23 08 1977 <23 >*and August 9, 1977( ). The data from September 9, 09 1976 were used to calibrate the model and estimate model para-10 meters. Data from the remaining surveys were used in compari-11 sons of predicted and observed plume characteristics.

12 13 Calibration results using the 1973 data are presented on Figure 14 A-8. It presents a comparison of the predicted lateral loca-15 tions (y) of surface excess isotherms given by 16 17 ln At o ~ .. ) ]Js

~ xr~

18 [ (

- 0 19 w

u with those observed as a function of longitudinal distance (x).

~2 It is seen that prediction of both the 1.5 and 2.5°F surface D excess isotherms is adequate while the prediction for 3.5°F is

~4 conservative. Since a major portion of the data in the vertical

~5 plane is located in a jet region, which cannot be calibrated by

~6 a farfield model, only the observed maximum vertical penetration

~7 of a given excess isotherm was incorporated in the calibration A-23

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 31~ 1 - ) DATE PRINn:n 12/05/78

• *

• C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 6 28 procedure. Calibration results for the 1973 survey data in-29 dicate that depth penetration of the isothP.nns was properly 30 predicted.

31 32 The field survey on September 9, 1976, yielded the largest sur-33 face plume observed at Little Gypsy. Consequently, these survey 34 data were used to estimate a conservative set of model parameters 35 to be used for predictive purposes.

36 37 The result of calibrating the Edinger and Polk model against the 38 largest plume surveyed on September 9, 1976 is presented on 39 Figure A-9. Comparisons are seen to be adequate for 6° and

+o 8°F but the model predicts conservatively for 10° and 4°F.

+1

• 2 As indicated 1n Figure A-9, longitudinal plume extent includes excursion of heat about 550 ft upstream of the Little Gypsy dis-charge canal. The extent of this excursion can be explained by a theory of wedge intrusion presented by Polk, Benedict and Parker (l 6 ). According to the theory, an arrested surface density layer is created upstream of the discharge point if the ambient current (u ) is weak enough. The P..xtent of upstream w

~9 intrusion (L) can be expressed (see Figure A-10) in terms of iO the densimetric Froude number at the discharge point, i.e.,

• l u

Fw * "'

3 4

A-24

PROJECT WATERFORD-?i ~16(a) DATE PRINTED 12 / 05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 7 01 "*1 ere:

02 03 ap = density difference between ambient and discharged 04 water, 05 06 p = density of the ambient water, and a

07 08 Hw = river depth where the wedge is formed.

09 10 On September 9, 1976, the river stage was 2.3 feet, Pv -25 11 feet and 4.11/~ - 0.00389/0.99555. In order to have L-550 feet, 12 uw is estimated to be about 0.9 fps. Averaged river velocity

,J was about 1.5 fps on this day. Since the wedge intrusion was 14 formed near the river bank and behind the river bend, it is 15 judged that this intrusion was formed against a weak current of 16 about 0. 6 u

• u .

a w 17 18 Tile estimated model parameters from the Little Gypsy discharge 19 are summarized in Table A-12. For Little Gypsy, Table A-12 20 shows that the effective downstream ronvection velocity of the 21 thermal plume (u ) is lower than the velocity upstream of the e

22 wedge intrusion (u ). Tile effective downstream convection at w

23 the discharge was retarded by the off-shore component of the 24 river ronvection (generated by the river bend) and the off-25 shore orientation of the pl ant discharge .

... o 27 A-25

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

• C 0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-14 1 PAGE 7 28 2) Comparison of Predicted vs Observed Plume Data 29 30 Table A-4 shows a comparison between the calibrated model pre-31 dictions and observed thermal plume characteristics for the 32 September 9 and JO, 1976 surveys. The larger spread in the 33 observed values indicates variability contributed by factors 34 not included in the model, such as wind effects and local hy-35 drodynamic flow conditions. The comparison shows that the mo-36 del predictions are conservative.

37 38 The model was used to predict the thermal plume distributions 39 observed on August 4, 5 and 9, 1977. The predicted surface J areas were larger than those observed. However, as might be 41 expected fr001 the field data on Table A-1, predicted cross-42 sectional areas were smaller than those observed. The observed 43 cross-sectional areas enclosed by a 5°F excess isotherm were 44 as high as 1.45 times that of the predicted values. Comparison 45 of the 1977 field data with that of 1976 indicates that there 46 was unusual vertical penetration and lateral constriction of 47 the Little Gypsy plume in the 1977 survey. This phenomenon 48 might be partially explained by the onshore (towards Little 49 Gypsy) winds setting up an opposing surface current which op-50 posed buoyancy spreading and promoted vertical heat transport.

51 52 A general characterization of model behavior was obtained by

_,j comparing predicted and observed fractions of river cross-54 section affected by any given exc e ss isotherm for all of the A-26

, PROJECT WATERFORD-( iJ6(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78 l

DATE 12/05/78, TYPIST: gw Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 8 01 available field observations. The ratio of the maximum plume 02 cross-sectional area to the river cross-sectional area is given 03 by the expression:

04 OS 06 07 1.84 [_b1_]

~ predicted 08 09 where:

10 11 6t 0

= excess temperature at the discharge, 12 J at = a given excess temperature, 14 15 Qp = plant discharge rate, 16 17 = river discharge rate, 18 19 = the maximum plume cross-sectional area enclosed 20 by a at' and 21 22 = river cross-sectional area.

23 24 The predicted ratios were evaluated for all seven hydrothermal 25 surveys spanning the period of 1973 to 1977. For each survey,

... o four excess isotherms (10°, 5°, 3.6°, l.5°F) were selec-27 ted for the analysis. These values were then compared to those A-27

- PROJECT WATERFORD-~ 116(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

(

• C 0 NT I NUA T I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 8 28 values observed (Table A-1) and the result is presented in 29 Figure A-20. The 45° line in the Figure is the line of per-30 feet prediction. Tile plot shows that the predictive model esti-31 mates cross-sectional areas conservatively in most cases.

32 33 c) Calibration of the Waterford 1 and 2 Discharge Plume 34 35 1) Estimation of Model Parameters 36 37 The Edinger and Polk model was calibrated against plume data 38 from the survey of September 9, 1976. This survey yielded the 39 largest surface thermal plume size of those observed. Figure

.J A-11 shows a pictorial comparison of the predicted (fitted) and 41 observed data. Using identical values for the parameters K ,

y 42 K and u , estimates of isotherm depth penetration indica-z e 43 ted similar extents as those observed. The model parameters 44 obtained from this calibration are summarized in Table A-12.

45 46 2) Comparison of Predicted vs Observed Values 47 48 Table A-5 shows a comparison between the calibrated model predic-49 tions and observed thermal plume characteristics for the September 50 9 and 10, 1976 surveys. The larger spread in the observed values 51 indicates variability contributed by factors not included in the 52 IJY)del. Tile comparison shows that the model predictions are conser-

.)3 vative.

54 A-28

WATERFORD-3 316f~) DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

( (

DATE- 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 9 01 3.3.3 RECIRCULATION EFFECTS AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 02 03 Despite the upstream excursion of heat on September 9, 1976, recirculation at 04 the Waterford 1 and 2 intake was observed to be approximately O.S°F. Com-OS bining all available data, the excess temperature at the Waterford 1 and 2 06 intake could be about on the order of 1°F. The recirculated heat will 07 raise the discharge temperature; the field temperature downstream of the dis-08 charge, however, will not necessarily rise.

09 10 While the nearfield temperatures will be affected, the farfield temperature 11 will not rise at all. When estimating the farfield temperature, the only 12 parameter of importance at the plant discharge is the rate of heat released 13 downstream. This heat release will not be greater than the heat release 14 rate under a no-recirculation situation. Given a heat release rate of 15 H Btu/hr and a B fraction of discharged heat being recirculated, the heat 16 released downstream into the farfield, Hd Btu/hr, can be computed as 17 18 =

19 where n is the number of the recirculation process. As n approaches infin-i ty, the Hd- H, because B < 1.

t3 This analysis shows that recirculation of the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge back to its intake will not increase the farfield temperature. Conse-

'.S quently, the effect of Waterford 1 and 2 recirculation on the Waterford 3

'. 6 thermal field will be negligible. Recirculation between the Waterford 1

'. 7 and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake is discussed in Section 4.3.1 of this A-29

PRO~E C T WATERFORD-3 316f~) DATE PRINTf.D 12/05/78

• c. ~ ~ T I NUA T I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-141 PAGE 9 28 Appendix.

29 30 3.3.4 PDS MODEL CALIBRATION 31 32 No data -were available at Waterford 3 or at Little Gypsy (when the velocity 33 ratio of jet to ambient current velocity 1s higher than 2.5) for cali-34 brating the PDS surface jet model. However, the PDS model has been cali-35 brated by the Environmental Protection Agency against both laboratory and 36 field data.

37 38 The ambient turbulent diffusivities required by the model were obtained (2) 39 frcm dye release data For all combinations of plant and river dis-

+o charge conditions investigated, the PDS model was used only for Waterford 3 discharges during average summer, average fall, and typical low flow condi-

+2 tions . The effective convection velocity at Waterford 3 was assumed to be the same as the average river velocity . The estimated model parameters are shown in Table A-12.

A-30

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 3l~f -) DATE PRINTfn 12/05/78

\

DATE 12/05/78, TYPIST: gw Page? n SD-142 PAGE 1 01 4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THERMAL FIELD PREDICTION 02 03

4.1 INTRODUCTION

04 05 Once the calibrated mathematical models and their translated adjustable 06 parameters were available, the following procedure was employed to obtain 07 predictions of thermal distribution in the Mississippi River at Waterford:

08 09 Step 1: Compile the required input data 10 11 Step 2: Characterize heat recirculation effects 12 13 Step 3: Characterize plume interference effects L4 LS Step 4: Utilize the appropriate predictive modeling approach l6 for the specific river conditions under study.

~7

.8 Each of these steps is discussed in the following paragraphs .

.9

'.O 4.2 COMPILATION OF REQUIRED INPUT DATA

1

2 The input data required for the predictive models were derived from the J following sources:

4 5 1) River flow frequency analysis (Appendix Section 2.1.1) 6 7 2) River water temperature data (Appendix Section 2.2)

A-31

PROJECT WATERFORD-J 31. f 'f DATE PRINT~--.* 12/05/78

• • • C 0 N T I N UA ~ L0 ~ k ~ DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 1 28 29 3) Plant operational modes and discharge conditions 30 31 4) River cross-section profile and rating curves 32 33 5) Plant discharge structure designs.

34 35 Table A-6 depicts the procedure utilized to determine the model input data.

36 37 The sets of input data used to predict the combined Waterford-Little Gypsy 38 thermal field are presented in Tables A-7 and A-8.

39

+o 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF PLUME RECIRCULATION AND INTERFERENCE EFFECTS

+2 4.3.1 ASSESSMENT OF RECIRCULATION EFFECTS

+3

+4 Assessment of the thermal effects due to operation of Waterford 3, Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy must consider the effects of recirculation.

Despite the occasional upstream excursion of heat passing the Waterford 1 and 2 intake location, intake temperature measurements have indicated

o little recirculation. The Waterford 1 and 2 intake is submerged at il -26.5 feet (MSL). Similarly, at the Little Gypsy intake (submerged i2 at -11.8 feet), the effect of upstream wedge intrusion of the heated discharge was measured to be negligible. As dis c ussed in Appendix Section 3.3.3, recirculation at Little Gypsy or Waterford 1 and 2 intake is judged to A-32

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316,f - I DATE PRINTEn 12/05/78

(

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: p ,"ige 'i . DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 2 01 have negligible effects on the farfield temperature distribution near the 02 Waterford 3 discharge.

03 04 At the intake for Waterford 3, however, recirculation from the Waterford 1 05 and 2 discharge is expected to occur. For a river stage of less than 06 15 feet, the Waterford 3 intake opening ranges from -1 to -35 feet below 07 MSL (see ER Section 3.4.2.2). For estimating purposes, the Waterford 08 3 intake is conservatively assumed to withdraw the entire water column above 09 -35 feet elevation. Given a discharge at Waterford 1 and 2, the Edinger 10 and Polk solution at the Waterford 3 intake location can be integrated over 11 the water column of depth d i, to estimate the Waterford 3 intake excess 3

12 temperature,At i. The result is:

3 13 d3~

L4 erf LS

~4t 0 1 J4x3iu:z t3i

• 2~K.y ~4xu:z l6 x3i

~ 1f z dli l7

,8

o

1 where:

2 3 = plant discharge rate (cfs) 4 5 .1t 0

= plant discharge excess temperature (°F) At t.*a t er ford 1 and 2 6

7 lateral, vertical diffusivities (ft 2/sec)

A-11

PROjECT WATERFORD-3 316(~) DATE PRINTfn 12/05/78

(

• *

• C 0 N T I NUAl I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 2 28 At ~aterf ord 29 u effective convection velocity (fps)} 1~2 e

30 31 s distance between Waterford 1 and 2 discharge 32 and Waterford 3 intake= 1700 feet 33

}4 = (river stage +35) = depth of Waterford 3 intake

}5 (feet)

In deriving the above expression, the intake location was assumed to be at the river bank. Because the actual intake location is about 150 feet off-S9 shore during low river flow conditions, the above estimate should be con-servative.

As a result of the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge, both the Waterford 3 intake and discharge conditions are altered; therefore the estimates of the combined thermal impacts at the Waterford 3 discharge include these recirculation effects (see Appendix Section 4.4).

7 4.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF PLUME INTERFERENCE EFFECTS 9 If the Waterford 3 discharge, a surface jet, penetrates across the river 0 channel (or corridor), the discharge plume would be affected by the Little 1 Gypsy discharge plume located near the opposite bank. Therefore, estimates 2 of the combined thermal field impacts include assessment of interference 3 effects from the Little Gypsy dis charge (See Appe ndix Section 4.4).

4 A-34

PROJ'ECT WATERFORD-3 316f ~) DA TE PR INTfn 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE S.0-142 PAGE 3 01 4.4 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION FOR COMBINED THERMAL FIELD 02 03 This section describes the mathematical treatment used to estimate the 04 combined thermal plume effects from Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3, and 05 Little Gypsy. Effects of plume recirculation and interference are in-eluded in this formulation.

)8 Through a given point in the thermal field, the total heat transported as a

)9 result of operating the three generating plants simultaneously was assumed LO to be the sum of all heat transported through the same point by the Ll independent operation of each plant. This is expressed by the following l2 equation:

l3 l4 u At - UA AtA + UB AtB + uc Ate

.5

.6 where:

.7

• * +UC*

8 9

u = combined longitudinal velocity

- ul + UA + u,.

.0 = river velocity 1

2 *

• uA' u , uC *

• excess longitudinal velocity due to operation of 8

3 plant A, B and C 4

5 6

7 A-35

PROJ"ECT WATERFORD-3 316( r ' DA TE PRINT,Fn 12/05/78 I

Ir *

• C 0 NT IN U AT 1. 0 N  : *;: *)c

.:. J " NO. SD-142 PAGE 3 28 29 30 31 ., combined excess temperature, and 32 33 = excess temperatures caused by the thermal discharges at plants A, B and C.

35 36 The above expression can be written in terms of the velocity ratio JB J9 At * [ (l + RA)4tA + (1 + R)At B B +(l+Rc)At~]/[1+RA+Rs+Rc)

For the present application outside of dynamic discharge effect of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy, RA = R8 = 0, RC = Rw 3

• A~12' At B

.. AtLG' and At c= Thus, the ~t expression becomes iO Atw3 + Atw12 + AtLC + 1\,3 Atw3 At*

2 1 + 1(,,,3 .

3 4

A-36

PROJ'ECT WATERFORD-3 316' - ) DATE PRINTfn 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 4 01 ~

3 is the longitudinal velocity ratio of the Waterford 3 discharge jet to 02 the ambient river flow. It was estimated from the PDS model results.

03 04 The thermal plume interference between Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy OS was found to be limited within a narrow river channel region of about 200 06 (~tW feet, as discussed in Appendix Section 2.4. Thus, the quantity 12 +

~tLG) ~tw 07 can be denoted by 121 G which takes on either the value

)8 ~tLG depending on whether the field point of interest is on

)9 the Waterford 1 and 2 side or on the Little Gypsy side of the channel, res-LO pectively. The combined excess temperature is estimated by the expression L1 l2 l3 At - AtW12LG + Atw3 + 1\,3 Atw3

.S 1 + Rw3

.6

.7

.8 9 The large volumetric flow along the river channel, which effectively

o separates the two existing discharge plumes, is expected to reduce excess

1 temperatures as computed above. This additional dilution realized locally 2 at the plume/river channel boundary was ignored.

3 4 4.5 THERMAL PREDICTIVE APPROACH 5

6 The mathematical formulation in Appe ndix Section 4.4 was utilized to pre-7 diet combined thermal effects of all discharges. To use the formula, thermal A-17

PROJ*ECT WATERFORD-3 316/ ~) DATE PRINT.Fn 12/05/78 I (

• • • CONTINUATION** OISK, r rENO. SD-142 PAGE 4 28 impact of each discharge has to be estimated. The following section des-29 cribes the approach used under the different ambient conditions investigated.

30 31 4.5.1 PREDICTIVE APPROACH - LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS 32 33 1) Existing Plants: Contributions from Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy 34 were estimated directly frooi field survey data of 35 September 9 and 10, 1976, when the river flow was 36 approximately 205 kcfs.

38 2) Waterford 3: The Waterford 3 plume was estimated using the PDS model 39 since the discharge exhibited jet-like behavior at low river flow.

4.5.2 PREDICTIVE APPROACH - SEASONAL AVERAGE RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS

1) Existing Plants: For all average seasonal conditions, the discharge from Waterford 1 and 2 is a vertical drop type and the

.6 Little Gypsy discharge is a weak jet; consequently,

.7 the Edinger and Polk model was applied to each plant .

-8 9 2) Waterford 3: For winter and spring average flow conditions, when the 0 Waterford 3 discharge is a weak jet, the Edinger and 1 Polk model was applied.

2 3 For summer and fall average flow conditions, the 4 Waterford 3 discharge acts like a strong jet. Under A-38

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316/ ) DA TE PR INTF n 12/05/78

! (

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 5 01 these conditions, the PDS model was applied to predict 02 the nearfield thermal distribution. Beyond the model's 03 range (where jet momentum has practically vanished),

04 the Edinger and Polk model was used to estimate

)5 farfield excess temperatures.

5.0 RESULTS OF PREDICTIONS

)8

)9

5.1 INTRODUCTION

.0

.1 The results of predicting thermal impacts from heated discharges released by

.2 Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3, and Little Gypsy operating under average and 3 typical low river flow conditions are presented below. Individual and com-

.4 bined impacts from Waterford 3 and both existing plants were estimated and 5 compared.

6 7 5.2 INDIVIDUAL DISCHARGE EFFECTS 8

9 In order to assess the impact of each of the three discharges separately, 0 the thermal characteristics of the 5° and l0°F excess temperature 1 isotherms were estimated for the typical low flow condition of ap-2 proximately 200,000 cfs.

3 4 As discussed earlier, the observed thermal characteristics at Little Gypsy 5 and Waterford 1 and 2 discharges can be considered as approximating indi-vidual thermal plumes. For the Waterford 3 discharge, the thermal charact-7 eristics of the surface jet were estimated by using the PDS model. The A-39

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(a) DA TE PR IN TED 12/05/78

(

Ir * ** C 0 N T I N U A T I 0 N ..

• DISKETTE NO. SD-142 28 results are separately tabulated on Tables A-9 and A-10 for two excess 29 temperatures, l0°F and s°F, respectively. Because of a lower rate of heat released to a portion of the river with a high volumetric flow, thermal n impacts at Waterford 1 and 2 discharge were limited to lower isotherms and therefore information on the 5 and I0°F isotherms were either missing or incomplete.

15 Relative contributions to the heat load in the river by Waterford 3, Little Gypsy, and Waterford 1 and 2 were 8.01 x 10 9 , 5.9 x 10 9 , 4.12 x 10 9 17 Btu/hr, respectively. Despite the highest contribution from Waterford 3, 18 fractions of the river cross-section and surface area affected by Waterford l9 3 are quite small compared to those of Little Gypsy. This is the result of the efficient jet mixing (with cooler ambient water) provided by the much higher discharge velocity (6 fps) at Waterford 3.

.3 5.3 COMBINED THERMAL EFFECTS OF ALL DISCHARGES 5 The characteristics of the combined thermal field were predicted by the 6 method detailed in Appendix Section 4.4 and are tabulated on Table A-11.

7 The corresponding surface plumes are depicted on Figures A-12 through 8 A-17.

9 0 The following general observations can be made from Table A-11:

1 2 1) The predictions are conservative.

3 4

A-40

PROJECT WATERFORD-('t 16 (a) DATE rTNTED 12/05/78

\

-DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 6 01 2) Seasonally averaged, the combined thermal impact is at a minimum in 02 the spring and approaches a maximum in summer and fall.

03 04 3) Comparison of results between low flow and average flow conditions 05 must consider that plume estimates for the existing discharges for 06 low flow conditions were based on survey data and utilized predictive 07 models for average flow conditions.

08 09 Figures A-12 through A-15 depict seasonal variations in surface excess 10 temperatures for the combined thermal field assuming (conservatively) full 11 station load throughout the year. The variations in the Waterford 3 dis-12 charges, temperature and flow rate are the result of using a different 13 number of circulating water pumps, according to the river temperature 14 (see ER Section 3.4.2.1). The rate of heat discharged, however, is the 15 same for the entire year.

16 17 For average winter and spring conditions when river flows are highest, all 18 discharges behave like the non-jet type. Owing to a lower river flow condi-19 tion, thermal impacts are more extensive for both average summer and fall 20 seasons. Due to the jet-type discharge, the Waterford 3 plume under those 21 conditions is expected to penetrate across the river channel and join with 22 the Little Gypsy thermal plume during these seasons (see Figures A-14 and 23 A-15). However, since the jet-type discharge promotes rapid initial mixing 24 of heated water, the Waterford 3 contribution to the total thermal field is

?.5 expected to be small during the summer and fall seasons.

26 27 Figures A-18 and A-19 depict representative surface isotherms for the A-Li. 1

. PROJECT WATERFORD-> ~16(a) DATE PRINTED 12/05/7 8

• *

• C 0 NT I NUA T I 0 N ** DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 6 28 Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges observed during the 1976 29 field surveys on September 9 and 10, respectively. These distributions 30 were assumed to be the existing thermal impacts under the typical low river 31 flow conditions. The predicted thermal impacts of the Waterford 3 discharge 32 were added to the existing thermal field to produce the combined surface 33 field shown in Figures A-16 and A-17. A comparison of Figures A-16 34 through A-19 shows that the extent of the Waterford 3 discharge contribution 35 to the combined thermal field is relatively small.

36 37 Figure A-21 depicts a cross-section of the river at the Little Gypsy dis-38 charge canal and includes isotherms of excess temperature for the low river 39 flow conditions. As shown, the proportion of the cross-section occupied by isotherms of 5°F or more is small, and the effect is restricted to a 41 shallow surface layer. The cross-sectional distributions for average 42 seasonal conditions display similar features.

43 44 5.4 COMPARISON WITH EARLIER PREDICTIONS 45 46 Previous thermal predictions at Waterford were performed during preparation 47 of the Construction Permit Environmental Report in 1972-1973, and were based 48 on field data from surveys taken during the period 1970-1973.

49 50 Table A-13 shows a comparison of maximum plume dimensions for the combined 51 field obtained from this study and those prepared in 1972 for the Construc-52 tion Permit Environmental Report (Supplement 3). From the iTable, the revised

)3 models predict the thermal distribution to be located in a shallower surface 54 A-42

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(") DATE PRINTED 12/05/78

(

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 7 01 region than before, which results in a smaller river cross-section affected and a larger surface plume.

)4 The differences can be generally ascribed to a revised modeling approach that

)5 used recently developed solution techniques, and availability of a larger

)6 data base. For the case of Little Gypsy, where plume size differences were

)7 largest, the additional field survey data covered a much wider range of river

)8 and plant discharge conditions. As a result, it was observed that the

)9 Little Gypsy plume behavior was very responsive to changes in river flow LO rate and meteorological conditions.

ll l2 l3

'. 4

.5

.6

.7 8

9

o J

2 3

4 5

6 7

A-43

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316/{ ' DATE PRINY"' 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 8 REFERENCES

)2

)3 1. Texas Instruments, 1970. Apparent Surface Radiometric Temperature -

Little Gypsy Plant, Company Report.

)5

)6 2. Ebasco, 1971. Effect of Heated Water Discharge on the Temperature Distribution of Mississippi River, Company Report.

)8

)9 3. Ebasco, 1973. Interim Report - Waterford SES Hydrographic Studies on lO the Mississippi River, Company Report.

ll l2 4. Geo-Marine, Inc, 1973. 3D Thermal Plume Measurements, Company Report.

l3 l4 5. Geo-Marine, Inc, 1974. 3D Thermal Plume Measurements, Company Report.

lS l6 6. Ebasco, 1974. Waterford SES - Summary of Hydrologic Studies, Company l7 Report.

l8

.9 7. Geo-Marine, Inc, 1976. First Operational Hydrothermal Study -

Waterford SES, Company Report.

~l

8. M A Shirazi and L R Davis, 1974. Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction -

Volume 2 - Surface Discharge. Environmental Protection Agency Report

!4 #EPA-R2-72-005b.

!6 9. J E Edinger and EM Polk, Jr, 1969. Initial Mixing of Thermal Dis-

!7 charges Into a Uniform Current. Vanderbilt University Report #1.

A-1..1..

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(~) DATE PRINT~D 12/05/78

• C0 NT I NUA T I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 8 28 29 10. Y L Lau, 1971. Temperature Distribution Due to the Release of Heated 30 Effluents into Channel Flow. Canadian Department of the Environment 31 Report #TB55.

32 33 11. A Prakash, 1977. Convection-Dispersion in Perennial Streams, Journal of

~ Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE EE2. (See review by B A 35 Benedict included in this article.)

36 37 12. W E Dunn, A J Policastro and R A Paddock, 1975. Surface Thermal Plumes:

38 Evaluation of Mathematical Models for the Near and Complete Field, 39 Argonne National Laboratory Report #ANL/WR-75-3.

~ I

13. U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1976. Regulatory Guide 1.113:

Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I, NRC Report.

14. E YT Kuo, 1976. Analytical Solution for 3D Diffusion Model. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE EE4.

15. U S Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. Mississippi River Hydrographic Survey - 1973 to 1975 - Black Hawk, La, to Head of Passes, La. US Army Engineering District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

A-45

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(Q) DATE PRINT~O 12/05/78

( (

DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page? n DISKETTE No.*: SD-142 PAGE 9 01 16. EM Polk, Jr, BA Benedict and FL Parker, 1971. Cooling Water Density 02 Wedges in Streams. Journal of Hydraulics Division, HYlO, ASCE.

03 04 17. J W Elder, 1959. Dispersion of Marked Fluid in Turbulent Shear Flow.

05 Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 5, Number 4.

06 07 18. E A Prych, 1970. Effects of Density Differences on Lateral Mixing in 08 Open Channel Flows. WM Keck Laboratory Report #KH-R-21, California 09 Institute of Technology.

LO Ll 19. EA Prych, 1972. A Warm Water Effluent Analyzed as a Buoyant Surface l2 Jet. Hydraulic Series Report No. 21, Swedish Meteorological and l3 Hydrological Institute.

l4

.5 20. F M Henderson, 1966. Open Channel Flow. MacMillan Company, New York .

.6 7 21. H B Fischer, 1969. The Effect of Bends on Dispersion in Streams.

8 Water Resources Research, Volume 5, No. 2.

9 0 22. Ogbazghi, Sium, 1975. Transverse Flow Distribution in Natural Streams 1 as Influenced by Cross-Sectional Shape. MS Thesis, University of Iowa.

2 3 23. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1977. Second Operational Hydrothermal Study, Water-4 ford SES, Company Report.

5 6 24. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1977. A Current Drogue Study in the Vicinity of Louisiana Power and Light's Little Gypsy and Waterford l and 2 Ge ner-A-46

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 316(-) DATE PRINTE:n 12/05/78

• C0 NT I NUAT I 0 N *

• DISKETTE NO. SD-142 PAGE 9 28 ating Stations, Company Report.

29 30 25. Louisiana Power & Light, 1972. Environmental Report: Construction 31 Permit Stage for Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No. 3.

32 33 26. D W Pritchard and H H Carter, 1972. Design and Siting Criteria for 34 Once-Through Cooling Systems Based on a First Order Thermal Plume 35 Model. AEC Report #C00-3062-3.

36 A-47

"ft'~~rvrw-~ ~101a1 DATE PRINTED r 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: PagP.7 n DISKETTE NO. SD-143 PA~ 2 01 TAllLE A-l 02 OJ CHARACTERISTICS OF THERMAL PLUMES MEASURED IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS 04 OF THE WATERFORD l AND 2 AND LITTLE GYPSY DISCllARGE-S~~

05 06 07  ! 11othP.rm Characterl1tic1 08 l River Condition*

Plant Conditionft DurinR SurvP.y Io 0

r hothPna 5° r llotherw 09 \

10 X-SPC- Die- Die- X-SPC-  % of Sur- x-s .. c-- % of Sur-II RivP.r River t ion al charge rherge t i<mal RivP.r face t lonal RlvM fac!!

Flow StagP ArP.a Flow AT X!Dd Xmu Y111 ArP.a X-SP.r- Arl!a Xmd X.u Y* Area x-sec Area H (c fl) (ft) ( ft )

2 (ch) (OF) (ft) (ft) (ft) 2

( ft ) ti on (Ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( ft 2 ) tlon (Ac) 14 Date Plant lS

• 16 9/28/70 L C 2 75. 000 4,4 14. 25xl o4 1,448.2 23.2 870 240 690 NA NA 11. 7 2,340 360 840 If A If A 43.0 17 18 7/31/73 LC 380,000 6. l 14.5xl04 1,448. 2 16.6 700 100 250 350 o. 24 l.8 1, 350 100 400 l ,Q90 o. 7' 8.0 19 20 11/02/74 LC 210,000 3.0 14. Oxl o4 1,285.7 17.0 280 200 400 I, 770 I. 2 2.4 1,400 230 840 3,450 2.4 1. I 21 22 9/09/76 L C 205,000 2.3 14. 0x104 1,448.2 21. 7 1,600 370 800 1,540 I. I 34.8 6,600 420 1,400 4,230 3.0 188.0

~

23 24 19110/76 L C 200,000 2.2 14.0xl04 l,448.2 21.0 1,500 350 700 700 0.5 22.8 2,700 450 l ,200 2,930 2.1 54.0 25 26 8/04/7 LC 260,000 3.4 14.0xl04 1,451.0 19.7 700 400 820 3,888 2.8 17 .4 1,450 420 l ,000 7,850 5.6 38.3 I

27 4 28 8/05/7 7 LC 260,000 3.4 I 4.0xl0 1,451.0 19.8 1,400 330 750 4,000 2.9 26.5 4,560 400 900 8,400 6.0 90.6 29 30 8/09/77 L C 270,000 3.5 14. lxl04 1,451.0 21. 5 1,260 800 670 3,100 2.2 23.6 3,800 920 950 4, lll 2.9 66.7 31 32 11/02/74 Wl and 2 210,000 3.0 14.0xlo4 481. 2 16.5 NA NA NA NA NA N A N A fl A fl A If A If A RA 33 34 \ 9/09/76 WI and 35 2 205,000 2.3 14. Oxto4 962.5 19.5 NA NA NA NA I NA NA 3,200 2,500 500 If A RA RA 36 , 9/10/76 1Wl and 2 200,000 2.2 14.0xl o4 962.5 19. 25 1,000 NA . 350 NA NA N A 1,500 1,000 400 R A If A RA 37 38 39 I I*/04/77 WI *** 2 260,00 3.4 15.6xl04 958.0 19.4 900 150 313 313 0.2 3.1 1,160 240 500 62' 0.4 9.2 40 t 8/05/77 WI and 2 260,000 3.4 l 5.6xl o4 958.0 19.2 850 0 250 250 0.2 3.0 1,080 1,060 330 500 O.l 12.9 41 i 42 1 8/09/7 7 WI and 2 270,000 3.5 15. 7xto4 958.0 19.7 890 0 1,625 1,625 1.0 3.6 l, 100 I, 180 390 488 O.l l l. 5 43 44 45  :'l A - N<) t Av ail ab I 4'!

46 LG - LittlP Gypey I, 2 and l 47 Wl and 2 - W1t~rf"rd 1 and 2 48 Xmd - l>ownetrl! .. Extl!nt 49 Xmu - Up1trl! .. Extl!nt 50 Ym - Latl!ral Extl!nt 5l Ac - Acre 52 B

54

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-) 316(a) DATE PRINTED  : 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, T!PIST: Page? n DISltETT! NO. SD-143 PAGE 3 01 TABLE A-1 (Cont'd) 02 OJ CHARACTERISTICS OF THERMAL PLUMES MEASURED IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS 04 OF THE WATERFORD 1 AND 2 AND LITTLE GYPSY DISCHARGES 05 06 07 Ieotherm Characteri1t1r1 08 09 0 lO J.6°r hothen1 I . 5 r hothena ll 12 lJ x-s.-c- X-Ser-14 II t ion al  % Surface tlonal  % Surface 15 ' Xlld Xmu Y* Area of River Area Xmd Xmu Ym Area of River Area 16 I 17 Date I Plant (ft) (ft) (ft) ( ft 2 ) X-Section (Ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) 2

( ft ) x-section (Ac) 18 i9 20 I 9/28/701 L c 3,510 450 1,080 RA NA 83.7 4,560 570 1,860 "A RA 158.8 21 7/31/731 L C 2,600 100 850 3,930 2.7 36.7 9, 700 200 2,450 7,890 5.4 263.8 22 23 11/02/741 L G 3,800 280 l ,000 4,320 3.0 22.9 5, 230 280 l ,040 10,600 7.4 90.6 24 i 25 9/09/761 L C 8,000 550 l,500 4,930 3.5 266.3 RA NA RA RA RA RA 26 27 9/10/761 L C 3,200 550 l ,300 3, 770 2.7 70.8 5,200 600 2,000 5,420 3.9 P4.3 28 29 8/04/771 L C 2,420 470 1, 130 8,125 5. 8 52.1 3,550 450 l,340 10,025 7.2 81.6 30 31 8/05/77 1 L C 6,500 400 920 9,050 6. 5 113 . J RA 490 1,150 11,500 8.2 RA 32

)) 8/09/77 L c 6 ' 200 910 1,000 4,250 3.0 118.0 RA 1,050 l, 130 N A RA RA 34 1 35 l11/02/74i WI and 2 NA RA RA RA RA NA 1,800 800 440 RA RA 7.3 36 I 4,900 2,950

)7 9/09/76 1 WI and 2 800 RA NA RA 5,400 5,300 900 2,480 I. 7 139. l 38

)9 9/10/76 1 WI and 2 4,000 I, 100 500 RA NA RA 7,700 1,700 600 5, 190 3.6 48.0 40 41 8/04/77 1 WI and 2 1,280 I, 250 520 97S 0.6 17.7 1,570 1,420 630 2,700 l. 7 27.0 42

4) 8/05/77 J WI and 2 1,200 1,080 360 1,625 1.0 13.8 4,600 2,040 520 3,350 2.1 59 . 0 44 I' 45 8/09/77 ! WI and 2 1,300 1,630 350 l, 300 0.8 19. 7 1,400 2,220 450 4,575 1.9 29.J 46 47 48 NA - Not avai 1 able 49 LG - Little Gyp1y I, 2 and 3 SO WI and 2 - Wa t erford 1 and 2 51 Xmd - Downstre11111 Extent 52 Xmu - Upstre .. Extent 53 Ym - !Ateral Ext~t 54 Ac - Acr11

• • - *~

~ * ~ *_ , ____:.

0 IS C , :.?i.(iE AATE/VELOC ITY AT TARBERT LAMOtMG (CO~PS)

• DELAY TIME ESTll".ATE 8ETWEEN TARBERT DAILY STAGE AT LANDING AHD CARROLLTON GAGE SURVEY DATE CARROLLTON GAGE IRIVER STAGE AT CARROLLTON I RATING CURVE AT '

CARROLL TON GAGE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY USING CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA AND RIVER MANN IUG' S COEFFICIENT CROSS-SECT! ONS FROM CORPS AT DISCHARGE SITES j SITE RATING CURVE RIVER DISCHARGE AT SITE GRAPH CONSTRUCTION:

CROSS-SECTIONAL t AREA AHO RIVER DEPTHS VS SU.GE IVER STAGE AT SITE PLANT OPERATION RECORD:

I - INTAKE TEMPERATURE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE P4EASUREMENTS y DISCHARGE STRUCTURE DESIGN AMBIENT CONDITIONS: PLANT AVERAGE RIVER VELOCITY DISCHARGE CONDITIONS:

AVERAGE RIVER DEPTH DISCHARGE TYPE RIVER TEMPERATURE DISCHARGE VELOCITY EXCESS TEMPERATURE I

HODEL CALIBRATION LOUISIANA TABLE FLOW DIAGRAM: INPUT DATA POWER & LIGHT Co.

Waterford Steam COMPUTATIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION A-2 Electric Station

PROJECT WATERFOR.t'-3 ,' (a) DATE PR- ~ED 12/06/78 DATE 12/05/78. r :-? IS'.!' : '. ~ * ;i , ., .. ? n DISKETTE NO. SD-144 PAGE 1 c TABLE A-3 02 03 COMPARISON OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL CHARACTERISTICS 04 05 PD~ Mnd@ l EdiMer/Polk Mod@l 06 Field Nearfield Farfield 07 08 Longitudinal Yes Yes 09 10 Dimensions Lateral Yes Yes 11 lnC'luded 12 Vertical Yes Yes 13 14 Mathematical Approach Integral Analytical 15 16 Steady State Steady State 17 18 Free Jet Semi-infinite Medium 19 20 Model Homogeneous & Uniform Homogeneous & Uniform 21 As sum pt ions Ambient Flow Ambient Flow 22 23 No Wind Effects Continuous Point 24 Source 25 2: Calibrated by EPA Calibrated with the 27 Model Verification Against Laboratory Site Specific Field 28 and Field Data Data 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5J 5,

53 54

PROJECT WATERFORD-3 )'~(a) DATE PRlNTED 12/06/78 DATE 11 /16/78, TYPIST: jm p( ? n DISKETTE NO. SD-144 ( PAGE 2 o: TABLE A-4 o.

03 COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED THERMAL PLUME CHARACTERISTICS 04 05 ON-SEPTEMBER 9, JO OF 1976 - LITTLE GYPSY 06 EDINGER!POLK MODEL 07 08 A At x A 09 10 (oF) ym (Ft) m (Ft) c (Ft 2 )

(Acree)

Predicted/

Observed 11 12 1536 - 1587 9248 - 9876 7766 - 8024 266 - 294 Predicted 13 5 14 1200 - 1400 3150 - 7020 2930 - 4230 54 - 188 Observed 15 16 1086 - 1122 4624 - 4938 3861 - 4077 94 - 104 Predicted 17 10 18 700 - 800 1850 - 1970 700 - 1540 23 - 35 Observed 19 20 21 22 23 24 y : Maximum Lateral Extent m

25 2> x : Maximum Longitudinal Extent m

2' 28 A : Maximum Cross-Sectional Area c

29 30 A : Surface Area 8

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5'.'

5~

54

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 7 {a) DATE PR," 'ED : 12/06/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: jm Page? n DL;KETTE NO. SD-l'l4 PAGE 3 0 TABLE A-5 02 03 COMPARISON BET'WEEN PREDICTED AND 04 OBSERVED THERMAL PLUME CHARACTERISTICS 05 oN srnEl1if~foC5Ff976=-wATERFoRD 1 AND 2 06 EDINGER!POLK MODEL 07 08 x A A

~t 09 (OF)

Ym (Ft) m (Ft) c (Ft 2 )

(Acres)

Predicted/

Observed 10 11 12 1,307 10,267 6,608 252 Predicted 13 1.5 14 600 - 900 5400 - 7100 2480 - 5190 48 - 139 Observed 15 16 716 3,080 1, 980 41 Predicted 17 5 18 400 - 500 1500 - 3200 -- - Observed 19 20 21 22 23 24 y : Maximum Lateral Extent m

25 2 x : Maximum Longitudinal Extent m

27 28 A : Maximum Cross-Sectional Area c:

29 30 A : Surf ace Area 8

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5) 5~

53 54

I WATER QUALITY STANDARDS i

WATERFORD 3 SELECTION:

OPERATIONAL MODES AND SEASONAL ~IVER FLOW DISCHARGE CONDITIONS AND TEKPERATURE SITE RATING CURVE DISCHARGE RATE AND DISCHARGE GRAPHS:

EXCESS TEMPERATURE STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIO"AL AREA DESIGN SITE STAGE AND RIVER DEPTH VS STAGE DISCHARGE OUTLET DIMENSIONS PLANT DISCHARGE CONDITIONS: AMBIENT CONDITIONS:

DISCHARGE TYPE (AND OUTLET RIVER VELOCITY DIMENSIONS), DISCHARGE VELOCITY. RIVER DEPTH EXCESS TEMPERATURE RIVER TEMPERATURE PREDICTIVE MODEL

---~~~~~~------~,----------------------------------~---~--~--__,

LOUISIANA FLOW DIAGRAM: INPUT DATA TABLE POWER & LIGHT Co.

Waterford Steam FOR PREDICTION A-6 Electric Station

.t'KWt.CT  : WAilRFORD-J J 16( a) DATE PRINTED t 12/05/78 DATE 12/05/78, TYPIST: gw Page? n DISKETTE NO. 1 SD-143 PAGE I 01 TABLE A-7 02 03 INPUT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THERMAL ANALYSIS 04 TYPICAL LOW FLOW CONDITIONS OF ABOUT 205,000 CFS 05 06 07 A. River Conditic>nl 08 09 10 River X-Sec Area (I04Ft 2 ) River Flow Velo. (fp1)1V 11 River River Aver:11ge

• 12 Di echarge Ratl! Site St agl! River: Temp 13 (cfa) (Ft) <"F) LC WI and 2 W3 LC WI and 2 WJ 14 15 205,000 2.J 85 14 14.5 17. 1 I. 5 1.4 1. 2 16 17 18 19 20 8. Plant Di Kharge Conditiona 21 22 r Velocity: vj Velocity Ratio Outlet Depth Outlet Width E1tceaa Tmp 23 Di 1ehargf! Rate 24 (ch) (fp*) (Ft) (Ft) (op)

<v/va>

25 26 27 28 LG I WI and 2 W) LC W3 LC W) LC WJ LC WJ LC wt and 2 W) 29 30 1448 l 963 2235 2.4 6. 1 1.6 . 5.1 8.J 7.3 72.6 50 , .. 7 19.5 16.1 31 l 32 33 LG: At Little Cyp11y Di echarge 34 WI and 2: At Waterford I and 2 Diacharge 35 WJ: At Waterford 3 Diacharge 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

l:'KWtl,;T  : WATERFORD-3 316(a) DATE PRINTED  : 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: Page7 n DISUTTE NO. SD-143 PAGE 4 01 TABLE A-8 02 03 INPUT CONDITIONS FOR THERMAL ANALYSIS - AVERAGE FLOW CO"DITIONB 04 OS A. Ri ver Condi tlon1 06 07 08 River X-See Art'!a(to4 rt 2 ) Rl*t'!r Flow Vet. (fp*)1V 8

09 A*er ag.-. Ri *er Average 10 Di eeharge Site Ri vt'!r St agt'! River TP.lllp* w w 11 12 Season Rate (efa) (Ft) ( OF ) LG l and 2 WJ LC 1 and 2 WJ 13 14 Winter 580,000 10.4 47. 7 15 . 3 17 . 5 19 .o l.8 J.J J. l 15 I 16 17 I I Spring

. 650,000 l l.8 69.7 15.7 17.8 19.2 4.1 3.7 3.4 18 I 19 I 20 Summer 280,000 4.0 84.J 14.2 15.9 17.5 2.0 1.8 1.6 21 22 23 Fall 240,000 J.O 63.0 14.0 15.2 17 . 2 I. 7 l.6 1.4 24 25 26 II. Plait DiKherge Condition*

27 28 29 JO l Di Kharge Rate (e fe)

Velocity : V.

(fpe) J Velocity Ratio CV/V 8 )

Outlet Dt!!pth (Ft)

Outlet Width (Ft)

!lieu~

( F)

T1!'91p 31 32 Sea*on LC w W) LC WJ LG W3 LC WJ LG W3 LG w WJ JJ 1 end 2 l and 2 34 JS j Winter 1444 956 1384 l. l 1.8 0.29 0.58 16.4 15.4 81.5 50 18.4 19 26.0 36 37 38 Spring 1444 956 2114 0.9 1.9 0.22 0.57 17.8 16.8 91.6 65 18.4 19 17.0 39 40 41 SWDJDer 1444 956 2235 1.9 5.0 l.O 3.1 10.0 9. 0 76.0 50 18 . 4 19 16. l 42 43 44 45 l Fall l 1444 956 1831 2.2 4.6 I. J ).) 9.0 8.0 74.0 50 18.4 19 19.7 46 47 LC: At Litt I ti! Cyp*y Dhehargf!

48 w 49 l and 2 : At Watt'!rford I and 2 Di Khargt'!

50 SI WJ : At Watt'!rfor.d 3 DiKh1rge 52 53

• ll11ed on tf'lllperltUTt'! d1t1 t*ken 1t Nln,...llt'! Point Ct'!ner1tlng Bt1tlon, We*t~go, Louleiana, 1951-1969, glven ln T1ble 2.4-14, 54

PROJECT WATERFORD-) 316(a) DA TE PRINTED 12/06/78 DATE 11/16/ TYPIST: j* Page? n DtSiETTE NO. SD-144 p* ~ 4 01 TABLE A-9 02 03 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL THERMAL DISCHARGE IMPACTS - ZONES OF EXCESS TEMPERATURE EXCEEDING I0°F 04 TYPiCAL LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS OF 200,000 CFS 0) 06 Hax imUfll '

07 Survey Longitudinal Lateral Surface x-section  % of the Rl*et 0

08 Oat .. SnrPad (ft) q, rud (ft) Art!a Carreel Area (ft ) X-Section Area 09 LG w 1&2 w) LG w 1.1.7 w '\ I. r. w 1.1.7 w '\ I. G ' w 1&2 w3 L G w 162 w)

JO 11 9/ 9/76 1,970 - 40 800 - 179 34 .8 - 0.2 1,540 - 347 I. I - 0.2 12

)) 9/10/76 1,850 1,000 38 700 350 177 22.8 - 0.2 700 - 342 0.5 . 0.2 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LG - Little Cyp1y Diecherge "nte: For Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy, 25 therraal dierharge impacts vere extrapolated 26 W 1&2 - Waterford I and 2 Discharge from field 1urvey data obtained during the 27 typical Inv flow condition. The POS *ode\

28 Wl - Waterford l Diecharga wae ueed for Waterford 3 predictlone. ftn 29 entry indicate* lit~le or no exce11 temper-JO ature* exceeding 10 F.

JI 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4) 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

PROJECT  : WATERFORD-) 316(a) DATE PRINTED 1 12/06/78 DATE 11/'~'78, TYPIST: j* Pagel n DlS~tTTE NO. I SD-144 ~AGt 5 TABLE A-10

' OJ 02 03 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL THERMAL DISCHARGE IMPACTS - ZONES OF EXCESS TEMPERATURES EXCEEDING 5°F 04 TYPICAL LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS OF 200,000 CFS OS 06 Hu iiawa

-. 07 Survey Longitudinal Lateral Surhc:-e X-Sect i'.'2  % of the River 08 Date Sr>read (ft) s,read (ft Area ( aC're*) ...... ( f* \ Y-~ .,.

• I -- £ *~ *

. 09 LG w 1&2 wJ L G w 1&2 wJ L G w 1&2 w] w w '\ c:

I. C: i11.1 I. "' 111.1 10 JI 12 9/ 9/76 7,020 5,700 325 1,400 500 524 188 - I. 9 4,2Jq - I, 287 3.0 - 0.8 l3 14 9/10/76 3, 150 2,500 316 1,200 400 525 54 - I. 9 2,930 - 1,277 2. I - 0.1 15 16 17 18

" I9 20 2l

' 22 23 24 LC - Little Cypay Diacharge Note: For Waterford I and 2 and Little Gyp1y, 25 thermal diaC'harge impact1 were extrapolated 26 W 1&2 - W1terford I and 2 Diacharge from field survey data obtained during the 27 typical low flow condition. The PDS model 28 Wl - Waterford 3 Df1charge wa1 u1ed for Waterford 3 prediction1. No 29 entry indicate* little or no exce11 te*per-30 ature1 eitC'eeding 5°F.

31 32 33 34 3) 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4'.>

46 47 48 49

)0 51 52 53 54

YKUJK~T  : WATERFORD-3 316(a) DAT! PRilff!D 1 12/05/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPlST: Page? n DIS!t!TT! "O. I SD-143 PAGE 5 r

01 TABLE A-11 r 02 OJ COMBINED THERMAL IMPACTS or WATERFORD I, 2 AND 3 AND LITTLE GYPSY DISCHARGES 04 ("

OS 06 07 08 l I0°F 50P' 3.6°r *r 09 n. Tm 1'11 10 ~ Xm Y111 (l,000 Ac/Ar Vol A1 ..... XII Y11 ( l, 000 Ac/Al" Vol Al 1a x. Y* <1,000 Ac/Ar Vol A1 r.

11 Se aeon {ft) (ft) (ft) 1ec) (%) (Aft) (Ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1ec) (%) (Aft) (Ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1ec) (%) 'Aft) (Ac) 12 13 ,.,

14 15 16 Prf!d i ctl'!c{ I Average Sen1onal Ri*er Flow Condition* (eee Teble A-8 Appendh A-1 for the Definition)! f'I 17 18 Winter 6.0 1,800 635 2.0 1.5 14.7 28 7.0 4,000 1,000 3.8 3.0 73 87 8.5 5,700 1,400 5.3 4.8 U4 137 19 20 Spring 21 3.4 1,900 610 1.8 0.9 12.0 27 4.8 J,400 l, 150 4.8 2.2 59 73 5.6 5,000 1,40C 5.4 3.4 124 126 "

22 SUlllll!e r 6.8 3,000 870 6.5 2.2 89.0 59 9.9 6,200 1,700 14.0 4.5 472 174 11. l 8,400 Wr 20.3 8.0 l, 136 367 t .

23 24 Fall 7.1 J,600 1,000 9.7 2.6 l 32 .o 81 9.7 7,600 1,700 20.6 6.6 852 257 11.0 10,800 Wr 31.8 10.0 1,897 4'9 25 c 26 Survey ITvPtcal Low River Flow Cond1t1ons of 200,000 cf~

27

/1 28 29 30 9/9/76 9/10/76 2.5 J.O 2,700 1,850 l, 100 700 7.7 6.0

l. l 0.1

<150.0

<63.0 50 8.0 25 12.0 7,200 3,300 Wr l ,JOO 24.0 10.0 4.2 <l,752 2.2 <888 219 74 11.0 14.0 8,900 5,300 Wr 1,40(

30.0 17.0 2.7 3,641 l,694 331 121 H

n l3 l4 Zm

• liaxi1111.1111 vel"ticel tpread IS Xm

• liaxim1.111 lnngitudinal epl"f!ed 16 Ym

• l'll!Ximum latf!l"41 8pl"f!ad 17 TID

• Maximum tuvel tim,.. (a pal"til'le drift time thl"ough th,.. lc*ngf'tt plume length)

-i 18 Iv::

• Kaximia cl"o**-*ectional Uf!a for a given excl'!ll tf'11pel"aturl'!

19 Ar

• Cros*-*ectional area of thl'! ri*eT at Watf!rford J di*charge IO<'ation

.o Vol

• VoltllDI! O<'cupil!d by exce11 t1'!91peTature1 higher than that indicated

'1 Ae

• Surf ace ar,..a

,2 Wr

• Rivf!r width (about 2,000 !t for *er811'1 Stmllftr/r.11 1eHon1 and for typical low flow 1euon1)

,3 Aft

• Acre-rt (equah 43,560 ft ) ( ;

• 4 Ac

• Acre

• ~

6 7

c 8

9 0

c l

2 3

c 4

0 c

l' ROJECT  : WATERFORD-3 -* Ci(a) DA TE PR~ ' i:'ED 12/06/78 DATE 11/16/78, TYPIST: jm p,v~? n DISKETTE NO. SD-144 PAGE 6 TABLE A-12 o..

03 COEFFICIENT FOR PREDICTIVE MODEL PARAMETERS 04 05 A. Diffusivities and Effective Convection Velocitie*

06 07 Lateral Diffusivity *Ky *a uH 5/ 6 (Ft 2 /sec) y 08 09 Vertical Diffusivity

• Kz *a uH 5 / 6 (Ft 2 /Sec) 10 11 Effective Convection Velocity

• u

• 8u (FPS) e 12 13 River Velocity

• u (FPS) 14 15 River Mean Depth

• H (Feet) 16 17 18 Coe ffident s 19 Plant G.y O.z

~

20 21 Little Gypsy 0.92 0.00002 0.2 22 23 Waterford l & 2 1.63 0.00004 0.5 24 25 Waterford 3 0.29 0.00010 1.0 2f

2. B. Uestream Wedge Intrusion at Little Gypsy Discharge 28 29 Froude Number

• 0.6u 30 31 32 33 Hw s Water depth at the Wedge

• 25 + (River Stage -2.3) (Ft) 34 2 35 g *Gravity acceleration (Ft/Sec )

36 3 37 fl p

• Density difference between discharge and river water (lb/Ft )

38 39 Pa

• River Water Density (lb/Ft 3 )

40 41 L

• Wedge length (Figure A-10) (Ft) 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 57, 53 54

PROJECT  ! WATERFORD-) 316(a) D.\T! PRINTED I 12/06/78 DATE 11/16/7~ - TYPIST: j* PageT n DISKETT! NO. I SD-144 PAC:g 1 01 TABLE A-IJ 02 03 COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS WITH EARLIER PREDICTIONS 04 AT LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS 05 06 hothera of HAJt Cro*1-Sertiooal 0

07 !xce** Te*perature, F Area Affected 1 % Max Lateral Extent, ft Hex Longitudinal Extent, ft 08 09 OL-ER 1 CP-ER 2 OL-ER CP-ER OL-ER CP-ER 10 Study Study Study Study Study Study 11 12 4.2% 5% 1800 1800 7200 l) 14 10 1.1% 3% 1100 590 2700 JllOO 900 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Operating Licen*e Stage !nviron*ental Report 25 26 2 Con*trurtion Perait Stage Environmental Report, Exhibit* 22 through 24, 27 Supple*ent ), Dere*ber, 1972.

28 i

I

.I r'

f r'

RECURRENCE INTERVAL *YEA "

50 20 10 5 4 3 2 4000 I I 3000 2000

• JAN*FEB*MAR (WINTE")

(/')

....

• AP"*MAY*JUN (SPRING)

• I v

I JUL - AUG *SEP a OCT -NOV *DEC (SUMM[")

(P:ALL) * * **** ***

• "'. *at

• 0

(/'> o ALL MONTHS I

• * * ... :* 0

~ 1000 __ _...,..._.... l

~ 900 0

800

~ -*~ - .

D

• - a II

-;:. 700 0

~ 600

-** i --*

0 - 0 _!.I

• • r I

~ 500

......* *'*' 0 I I **

0

.10

"\:JO

...... ...* .!J

, 0 I 400 ** - 19 0 I tlo

~- 0 a.* ..

0 Da 300 0

0 a

I 1a

• D

~

I 0 0

• a

• IJ 200 ... 0

,_ *I l aO o 11~-Du -

• • • • • rJlD**

4 0 1 ID D I I I I 0

I 0 0 oDaCID 0 0 D D Cl D

• 0 c 10 i .01 0.05 0.1 02 0.5 c:

I 2 ~ 10 20 30 40 ~ 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99 .9!1 I PftOBABILITY  % FOA FLOW LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO I

LOUISIANA fltvre POWER & LIGHT CO. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW STATISTICS - BASED ON AVERAGE Waterford Steam MONTHLY FLOWS FOR PERIOD 19~2 THROUGH 1976 A-1 Electric Station

ST. OiARLES PARISH

.I (1

j, I

I

,f

• OTI 1 IHAOID A"[A II( l'lllH*TI DU'THt l"(Af(ll THJ.* 100 ft IK... 1*~

.JrHK>I, c:- ---.... ,.,.,,,,.,,,._

• '1 *."'£~"3, -*c .......-.-..._

IDVICl Uf AJIMl CO .... OI bfQf .. fftlt. F~ " -t-~-=.q" ~ =--, -:~ --=-.

"f* OlllfA..ltl L.A.. ...... Sll.IJllPJ IJVtl HfCfl(;G~KIC ....,lt'V(T - . , .

1'0 .. 71 - 111.. Jr.Cl HA*. LA TO Mt.Aiia 01 '.t..Slfl, LA* . . . . .

LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. MISSISSIPPI RIVER DEPTH Waterford Steam CONTOURS AT WATERFORD A-2 Electric Station

• . \J*

LEG!ND:

9/11/78 (220 kch) }

I

- - - 9/13/78 (230 kch)

¥*'"'" 9/9/78 (206 kcf s )

• • • • • • • 9/10/7e (200 kcfs)

- * - 11/2/74 c21 o kch )

l TRACES OEICRll!D IV RIVER CHANNEL DftOOUllt MEASURED !XTREMITIES OF TI1EAMAL P'lUMH (RANGI OF EXCEU TEMPERATURE: 1* TO f°F) -t

.. DROGUE RELEAS! POINT POWER LINE I

I

..J-

• -*-*---*-----*~

~~

Ir

. a -

~ s -

,000 0 .,.

~ I r I I SCALI IN HIT WATERFORD STATION IOURClt

• OfO-MA"INf, INC, 1174. ID TMlllNAL ftlUMI MIAIURIMINT9, Cf:M#'MY 1"10ftT.

t OfO-MA"INf, INC, 1t71. " " " OPlftAT.0..AL HY°"°1l41fWAL ITVOY - WATlft*

FORD SES, COMPANY "fl"Ofn, LOUISIANA flpre POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterford Steam Electric Station

SUMMARY

OF DROGUE ANO PLUME DATA FOR 200 KCFS RIVER DISCHARGE

'\S LEGEND:

....... __ .- ~

• • • • • • • a19m 11*m1 MEASURED THERMAL 'LUM!

BOUNDARIES (SURFACE)*

- * - e15m

"'. -*11m

• t/20m TRACES DESCRIBED IV ftlVU* CHANNIL DROGUES*

DROGUES RELEASED N!Aft Ltn1.I GYPSY DISCHARGP*

.. DROGUE "!LEASE POINT POWE" LINE ftlVU* FLOW: 300,000 Cl'I I

I I I

~----

• 1

~- ********* .... ****

.-~

&

..-:,:-,.,.~ ~"""'°. . . .~~....;;.

e."1'~

. .* * . \

I .. I

• -........) ********** **:

--~*-- x x ...

0 ...

-Otll04Aft01 I I

kl.-J1 I t ICALI IN PllT I I IOUltClt UNITI

• 010-MAlllNl, INC, 1171. *CONO OHttAT10NM HTDtl01M19M ITUO'r, WAT'ltlf'OllO WATERFORD ITATION IU, COWANY llPOllT.

• 0!0-MAl'l!Nt. INC, ,..,,, A CU'"""T OtlOOUI nuoor '" 'ntl V.CtlH'n 0, LOUt*AllA l"OWl!ll ANO llOHT't lfTTll OY~rt ANO WATllll'OltO' MD I _,.lttATINe l'TATIONI.

COWANY llfl"OllT.

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT'CO.

Waterford Steam

SUMMARY

OF DROGUE AND PLUME DATA FOR 300 KCFS RIVER DISCHARG!

Electric Station

• -~

....~ *~ *'

I LEG!NO:

~:.

• DAOOU!I (t/20ml ..

TRACES OHCfUBED IV RIVER CHANN!L OftOOUH CIMl'PW' POWER LINE 11' DROGU! A!UAI! POINT y *~

I GYftSY STATION DISCHARGE UNIT WATERFORD STATION IOUIM:l1

• OIO .... .t.llll'H, INC, ,17'1, llCOND Ot'lllATION-. M'l'Dfl01"1*M ITUO", WATtllll'OllO lfl. COMl'ANY lll!POllT, 1000 0 '4000

!W""W"L_:_- - I I ...,.__ *

• Ol!O...,AllllN(. INC, 1171, A CUll .... T ~QUI l'T\IO'I "'THI "'C"'I" Ofl LOUl*UA l'OMlll ANO LIOHT'I LITT\.I OY'l"IT ANO WAT111POllO ' MO I ....111AnN* nATIONI.

SCALE IN FEET COMf'ANY llff'OlllT, LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.

DROGUE STUDY RESULT# 1 (l0:3S - 13:07, SEPTEMBER 20, 19m A-5 Waterford Stearn Electric Station

\- ... ~OENO:

I OftOGUES (1/20/77) ..

- T"ACH DESCRIBED BY RIV! .. CHANN!L OftOGUll C8t41tTn*

POWER LINE '!il DROOU! RELEASE POINT y ~

I I GYPSY STATION

~ *

• 0

.~

--~** 11 A t e ~

6

,= ** ;*,;*,. ;, . .

• * - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ft ___.,... '

DISCHARGE .* *, 1 w * * ,+

UNIT I

WATERFORD STATION IOUllCt:

• Ol!O-M ... llllNf, IN c, SI'S, COMP ... NY

,.n. llCONO

~llT.

Of'lllA'nO .. AL HTDll01"IMIM ttucrr. WATIM'OM>

1000 0 '4000 *

• Ol"O-MUINf, INC, ,.11, A CUltflfNT OllOOUI ITUD\' tlll THI YtCtN11'\' Of lOUt*MIA 5iiil""'W"'5. - l --- -T--~==~

l'OM:lll .._ND llOliT'I LITT\.I GYl'rt A"D .-TPPOllO ' MD I etlH"Al1"Q ITATIO"I.

SCALE IN FEET COW ... NY lllPOllT, LOUISIANA fl ..,.

POWER & LIGHT CO. DROGUE STUDY RESULT # 2(14:10 - 16:35, SEPTEM8Ellt 20, 19m Woterford Steam A-6 Electric Station

r r&.

'\JY

~ *1 l

3 l!GINO:

'6 '. * *

• OROOU!I (l/2111'7l ..

TRACH DHCRIBED BY RIV!R CHANN!L m.ooutl Clllfm 41

. . OROOUI Rll!AI! POINT LITTL [ IY'5Y STATION UNIT 3 WATERFORD STATION IOUlllCt1

• O!O... A~NI, INC, IU, COWANY llff"Oln',

,.n. MCONO Of'tlllAM*M MYOlllOTMlfMA.l m""* WA"""°lllO 1000 0 4000

• 0 OIEO-MAIUN!, INC, ,.71, A CU"""'1' 04IOQUI l'ftlDf '" TMt "'Ct"'" OP &.OVt* MA P"\ir'_..r"C- :J [ J ] f'OWfll ANO llOH'rl llT'T\I QTf'f' MID WATllllPOlllD t MO I .... lttATU** STATtONI, SCALE IN FEET COMl'ANY llllf'OllT.

LOUISIANA Fivure POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterford Steom DROGUE STUDY RESULT 113 (lS:ll - 17:33, SEPTEMBER 21, 1971) A-7 Electric Station

Cf)

I/)

w u "

w ex:

w>-

c.::> "'(

a: w

"( CIC -

lot..

x Cl. 0

-..u=-~

l.!>~w .

er: cat- !!

~-

~

. ::c 49U LONGITUOINAL DISTANCE ('T) -

• If)

..... Ci 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 ~ I d 2.5 o~

t:"';:\.

~er

""u:z 4(

I/) 2000 0~

0

"'(

ex

""c....

..I 3.5 ' }

2.5 F PREDICTED WITH

{I(' I 175 'T'/SEC IC~ * .0011 ,T 1 /SEC 0 1.5 F ** I 1.29 , , ,

IU,_V!Y DATA LOUISIANA fl9Vfe POWER & LIGHT CO. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED & OBSERVED (7/3ln3)

Waterford Steam EXCESS SURFACE ISOTHERMS (*F) - LITTLE GYPSY SES A-8 Electric Station

0 w..

o t;.

IOF 8F 6 ir

,,UDICT£0 WITH

{

1 I 52 FT 1 /SEC K' I .001 FT 1/SEC I lq

.... x 4, *

• I 0. 21 ,T /S!C i N ~

..,...'o SU"V!Y OATA

~

~

• \

lot.I

(,!)

cc ~

x:

J u

V> 14, 0

ui LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE (FT J 0 3000 4000 ~000 1000 8000 ta.000 11/X)O 1.4..

loJ u

z I-V>

0 x

< 2000 er w

c_,

LOUISIANA fltvre POWER & LIGHT CO. COMF>ARISON OF F>REDICTED & OBSERVED (9/9fl6)

Waterford Steam EXCESS SURFACE ISOTHfRMS (.F) - LITTLE GYPSY ses A-9 Electric Station

1.0 0.9

""0:. 0.8 w

(0 0.7 J

~

z o.s F crit1col

• 0 .7~ ~

w 0

> ~

0 o.~

a::

~

0.::

w 0.4 0 .3 I'-'

~

<f) z

""0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 RELATIVE WEDGE LENGTH, L/Hw LOUISIANA F1evre POWER & LIGHT CO. VARIATION IN RELATIVE WEDGE LENGTH Waterford Steam WITH DENSIMETRIC FROUDE NUMBER A-10 Electric Station

-........ SUftVf:Y DATA

""'c...>;z:

I-V>

Q ll(

XI 2.5

• F

}

PlltEDICTED WITH

{

Kv

• rt .4 50 'T /SEC KJ *0.00" 50 'T /lfC

'*

• o.sn

z GO 0

< 2000 CIC I-

<C 1000 r x x x

• Ai*4.IS*'

JC

,r L , 1 , , ~ , * ,

• e 1 ', , ~

• 3800 3000 2000 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 gooo 4fo119*F WATERFORD 5 WATERFORD I a 2 INTAKE 0*962.,CFS DOWNSTftEAM DISTANC[ f 'T)

DISCHARGE Tin1e5*1 Tout*I04*,

II LOUISIANA fif'1'9 POWER & LIGHT CO. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED & OBSERVED (9/9n6)

Waterford Steam EXCESS SURFACE TEMPERATURE (*F) - WATERFORD 1 '2 A-11 Electric Station

I

.... "'"' ....... ~*~\

llTTll GYP'n STATION Ullll t,ZIS 019Ct1ARG£

[!{CBS H*'* I 18 .4°F VOLU*[ UH I 144S .1CF9 OISCMUQ(---'.. SIMULATU

°it1VE1t IOUNOAltf WATfl!rOllD J IUAll[

DISCMUO[

_...,.,,," ~

UC£SS Hiii'.

• u*F VOLUlllE Ull t 1'94 .4C'I WATr*ro** tTATIOI 1000 0 1000 2000 SCALI . IN HU 5000 4000 !KlOO LOUISIANA Fi9ure POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Woterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE WINTER RIVER FLOW CONDITION A-12 Electric Station

..... P\.OW1 . . . . . . .

\

l..ITTLE GYP5Y STATION

• UNIT 1,2 I ! 019CHAllG£ OC£S!I TEii,, ' 11.4°,

VOLUME RATE

• 144! .1C'9 OIS(HUI[

ocrss

-A_*-,\

ru!'!!~'--~ \

V0lutl£ UH* t55.IC'5 .., SlltUlATU it I Y(Ill IOUllOUY IATU,0111> l lllT A/!£ OISCHU0£ (ICOS TE*'* I 11*,

VOLUll[ UT( * "fll! . ecrs WATllfOID STATIOW sooo

......... 0 1000 1000 !000 3000 .. 000 SCALI 1t* HH LOUISIANA fitvf'9 POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED excess ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Wo-terford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SPRING RIVER FLOW CONDITION A-ll Electric Station

I i

\,

llYH 'LOW1 . . . . . m LITTl[

GYPSY STATION UNIT l,2l5 019C:HUG£ EXCESS TE*'* I . . . . . ,

voLuME un

• 140.rc,s OISCMUQf~ SllfVl AHO

[IC[SS Hl,.*1t*r "IV[" IOUltOUT YOLutf[ UTl*tsS .IC" &*,

,,,, ./

IATrlU'OflO J lllTME OtSC:MUQf UCESS HM'. r 11.1*,

YOLUMf: llATI I IUI CFI WATll.,Oltl STATIO*

......... 0 1000 IOOO fOOO 5000 3

4000 E

9000 ICALl Ill HH LOUISIANA flp,.

POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (°F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Stearn COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SUMMER RIVER FLOW CONDITION A-14 El&ctric Station

.....w- .. .,... . ....... . .

• YUPLOW1 M ......

LITTLI GY1'5T STATION UNIT l,Za9 019CHUG£ (lCBS H*P. I 18 . 4.,

VOlUU UTt

• 144S.TC'9 OISCMUOf~ SlllVl ATU

[IC£55 HU1.

• tt*,

VOLU*[ UU

• t9S .IC'5 .., iu Vl 11 IOUllOA ltf

,,./

fU[ltfOllO i lllTME OISCHAllG(

lXCE5S TE*P. t 197*,

VOlU*t UTI

• 18:51 C'9 WATlll,Ollt tTATtO*

......... 0 1000 IOOO !000 ~ 4000 9000 SCAll Ill HU LOUISIANA flfWN POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED excess ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE FALL RIVER FLOW CONDITION A-15 Electric Station

\'~ *,

i

.. RIV£" ,LOW: t00,000 th POWER LIN[

I LITTLE GYPSY STATION I fEXCESS TEM~ 21. 7° F 1 ..

l VOL. RATE 1448 CF'S I

DISCHARGE EXCESS TEMP. 1 t9.5°F

{ VOL. RATE I 963 FS c EXCESS TEMP.

• 16.1° F

{ VOL. RAT[ I 2235 CF'S WATE~FORO STATION 1000 0 4000 tw"'0"5

~ T~ =,----,::==~

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA fievre POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (°F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 9, 1976 LOW FLOW CONDITION A-16 E lectrie Station

........~-. --*.........

t

\  :!

ftlVEft 'LOW: 200,000 ch

,OWE:R LIN[

I LITTLf GYPSY STATION I EXCESS TEMP. 1 21° F'

. _DIS.CHARGE { VOL. RATE: 1448 CF'S

.' f : :.

. '  :........\ .

• ? _.. .... .s .... .... 11n::a .s 111.11:* a::J .t:r*J** . *

• UNIT OtSCHARCE ...... ' ... .., ... . ..

~XCESS TEMP* 19.3°F f ....

UNl;M

{ ExcEss TEI"

• 16.1° r VOL. RATE I 2235 CFS WATERFORD STATION G

1000 0 4000

~ I I I I SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA *. .. F1eu,.

POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS ("F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINOEO Fl ELD - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 LOW FLOW CONDITION A-17 Electric Stat ion

\ I l

RIV[" 'LOW : 205,000 ch i i

~?IN[,

j _ r~1TTL[ GYPSY srAr10N fL.~ I Dl!CHARGE {EXCESS TEMP 121.7. o F

~ '-l:z:

VOL. RATE

• 4- .. - ... il:SN.IU  :::::: a 1 1448 CFS j I .. '"

e *<:::::'.'.'.: * *

• '" * "~

DISCHARGE 7" ' - . & * * * * * * * * *

[EXCESS TEMP. 1 19.5°F l VOL. RATE 1 963 CFS UNIT 5 WATEftFORO 9TATION 1000 0 4000 P'\::r'~ -- 1 I F=

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA fl pre POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (0 F) AT THE SURFAC~

Waterford Steam BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOiARGE - SEPTEMBER 9, 1976 A-18 LOW FLOW CONDITION Electric Station r

\*.,

ltlV!lt 'LOW'. 200,000 ct1 LITTLE GYPSY STATION I * '

• I ~ - -'

• I

• I DISCHARGE "3 I

....,. * ' ,gt f ** * , * . * * , * * * * , , * * .

• v

• ~*~

{EXCESS TEMP.

• 19.3 °F m~~~E, 70

=

\.VOl. RATE '963 CFS UNIT 3 WATE"'o"o STATION 1000 0 4000 OleCiir!

~--

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA flpN POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (°F) AT THE SJRFACE BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOiARGE - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 A-1' Waterford Steom LOW FLOW CONDITION Electric Stmion

...~ . . . . . ..............

IO

- J( 1131111

"'~ 19~ /

A

• llll/14

'llt/11 v

• / ** '1110111 114111 ~ -\

"'""

• ll'J/11 0

a:

v * .,,,.,,

w

> 10 I /

~

...~

6 A

• t

...a:

0 4

v

• 0 w

f 6 A J(

I L O-r--------------,--------------r------------_,...--~---------.-------

0

' 10 l'J OISOV!D ,,,ACTl()ff "' i.1vu C..099 - HCTION ,.,.,

ro LOUISIANA Fivure POWER & LIGHT CO. COMPARISONS BETWEEN PREDICTED & OBSERVED FRACTIONS OF Waterford Steam RIVER CROSS.SECTION (~)AFFECTED BY A GIVEN EXCESS ISOTHERM A-20 Electric Station

\ ( ." ~ ,..

"* ,....., .. I , ' #'td*t .... b 'd ftdH

( (

CROSS-STREAM DISTANCE, fl.

0 too 1.000 0

-10

-ZO

-30

-40

... 60 L

z 2

...c -70 1111

~

-80

-90

-100 RIVER FLOW: 200,000 cfa

-110

• flfVATtON SCALE EXAOOEltATlO TO PERMIT OEJ.AO l'<STRATION Of UCEll ISOTI<ERM CROSS S{CTIONI.

EL. -119 FT .(MSL) tovac.t *ltfl

• C llO H UC?l() .. CO ~i T lll.I C 'fO 'lllOW CO/\i fO V,_ tlA..I' rte*

VI it.Mn t C

• I C f l" G

• liif ( ll\ .. t

• C. ... lA."'l . lA , " WI J.!t< H*P il' t "rvc* ~ l O ll() C llAJ'MIC tt.J* V t* - l*1) lO , , , .

• It.. 4 C f. H .t...,.. , l"-. TO HI .&.O O f 11'.aU.f

• lA tt)a LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. COMBINED TH ERMAL PLUME CROSS-SECTION AT Waterford Steam LITTLE GYPSY FOR TYPICAL LOW FLOW CONDITIONS A-21 Electric Station

100 90 80 ............

~

~ 70 --.......

0 i'o....

..., tO a:

a:

w

~

E

~o 40

---r------... ~

w tr 30 w

I-4

~

..... 20 z I w

CD 2

<C

• 10 0 .01 0.09 0.1 Q.I 0.9 t t

• tO to so *o so eo 10 eo tO ti .. " "' "*' *"

"'IOUlNCY (%) Ofl A ANNUAL TUl,.lftATUIU !XCE!DINQ Oft !OUALINI THI Tlll,.lftATUftl INOIC_,..10 DATA SOU.-CI t COfllH OP IMH*lllltl LOUISIANA Fipre POWER & LIGHT CO. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS 8ASEO ON DAILY RIVER Waterford Steam TEMPERATURE TAKEN AT CARROLLTON STATION (1961THROUGH197n A-22 Electric Stotion

..... "~r'tt~~ -.i~

• f.11 **1ftt .._.,,. .,_, '*"'*"'*~-... ****11..-.*...._..-.-..-------