ML19093A170

1 & 2 - ORO-4067-7 Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River, Virginia, Part Vi. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters

ML19093A170
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	05/31/1976
From:	Fang C, Parker G Virginia Institute of Marine Science
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AT-(40-1)-4067 ORO-4067-7
Download: ML19093A170 (122)

Text

76° 75° 76° 75° an Engineering Number 109 ct AT-(40-1)-40 73° r¥<

ClENCE 62 ERDA Repo t No. OR0-4067-74° 73°

.... \\

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government.

Neither the United States nor the United States Energy Research and Development Ad-ministration, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liabil-ity or responsibility for the accuracy, complete~ess or use-fulness of any information, apparatus 7 product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.

Mention of commercial products, their manufactu~ers, or their suppliers in this publication does not imply or connote approval or disapproval of the product by the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration.

Printed in the United States of America Available from National Technical Information Service U. S. Department of Commerce.

5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price:

Printed Copy $6.50 Microfiche $2.25

THERMAL EFFECTS OF THE SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON THE JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA Part VI.

Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters by C. S. Fang and G. c. Parker Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 109 Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 William J. Hargis, Jr.

Director May 1976 ERDA Project AT-(40-1)-4067 ERDA Report No. OR0-4067-7

TABLE. OF CONTEN'l'S List of Figures e

• e e e ft a e. e e e e e

e 9, a 9

e, e e e

e ea a e e ea ea. e e

e iii List of Tables **************************************

Acknowledgements 0

~

• I.

II.

III.

IV *

v.

Summary...*............. *...... *.............

Introduction. o o,,. ******** o *******************

Sampling System. and Instrumentation *********

Field Results 1975..***...*.******.****.**.*

Comparison of 1975 Results with Previous V

vi 1

4 7

11 Years ************** " ************, * * * * *. * * * * * *

• 3 9 VI.

Statistical Predictions of Temperature Distributions ********** ~ ********************

51 VII.

References

~

• e *

~ * *

• Appendix A.

Isothermal Plots for the Summer Study Results of 1975 ****....*****.*...*.***.

Appendix B.

Area With.in Pract.ional Excess Temperature Isotherms (8/8 0 ) fo~ 1975 ii 60 62 110

II-1

• IV-1.

LIST OF FIGURES.

1975 transects (solid lines), dashed lines indicate 1974 transects.

Transects 11, 1, 2, 3, and 4 same for both years *********..***

Surry power production on days monitored (19 75).......................................

IV-2.

Area within excess temperature isotherm versus 8/8 0, fractional excess temperature, 1975 data..........................................

• IV-3.

Area within excess temperature isotherm versus fractional excess temperature IV-4.

IV-5.

IV-6.

IV-7.

IV-8.

(8/8 0 ), 1975 data *.*.**.****.**.**..*..****.*

Plume centerline temperature decay, August and September 1975 data *.*.*****..***********

Thermal plume on August 21, 1975 *.********.**

Vertical sections AA', BB' *******************

• Thermal plume on September 3, 1975 **.********

Vertical sections AA', BB ****************** * **

6 15 18

20.

24 26 27 30 31 IV-9.

James River freshwater discharge (1975) ****.*

33 IV-10.

Monthly average surface (a) and bottom (b) salinity and dissolved oxygen for 1975.......

38 V-1.

V-2.

V-3.*

V-4.

V-5.

Monthly average ambient surface water temperature (1971-1975) *.*.***************.*.

Monthly average a) air temperature, b) dew point temperature for 1973, 1974, 1975 *******

Monthly average freshwater discharge **.******

August 19-20, 1975 Ichthyology trawl data.***

Comparison of areas within excess temperature isotherms for August 1974 and August 1975, power production greater than 1400 MW..*.. ~**

iii 40 41 43 45 47

List of Figures (cont'd)

V-6.

Area within excess temperature isotherm e, 19 7 5 data................... **................

4 9 VI-1.

VI-2.

VI-3.

Fractional excess temperature (8/8 0 ) versus the ratio surface area (a)/discharge flow rate (Q) *******...* e *************************

Correlation between predicted areas using equation and the actual areas ************.***

Correlation between actual area and predicted area, using plume data from 19 7 5 *****************************************

iv

.54 56 58

IV-1.

IV-2.

IV-3.

IV-4.

V-1.

LIST OF TABLES Basic Environmental and Plant Data for 1975 Surveys....................,...............

12 Centerline Temperature and Distance from Outfall Data...... a *************** ~..

• 21 Salinity Concentrations at Stations 1, 2, and 3 *........................... *.............

3 4 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations for Stations 1, 2, and 3............................

Monthly Average Salinity *.*************.********

V 36 44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express appreciation to Dr. Hargis and Dr. Zeigler for their advice and

, guidance during this study.

The authors also wish to thank Mr. Phil Dillard and Mr. James Cumbee for their field work and service ~o all instruments

• Funding for this study was provided by the Division of Reactor Research and Development, u. S.

Energy Research and Development Administration; their support is greatly appreciated.

Special thanks are due to Dr. George Sherwood of the Energy Research and Development Administration for his advice and crit:.ical review of the manuscript.

Our thanks are expressed to Dr. M. Brehmer and the Virginia Electric and Power Company for supplying certain plant operation data and* a review of this report.

Sincere appreciation is extended to Ms. Shirl.ey Crossley for her good humor and patience in typing this manuscript, and to Ms. Terry Markle and Ms. Connie Altemus, who prepared the figures

• vi

I.

SUMi.'!ARY AND CONCLUSIONS Five years of thermal monitoring (two years pre-operationa.1 and three years post-operational) at Surry Nuclear Power Plant have resulted in a large data base from which the thermal impact of the power.plant can be evaluated.

The following are some of the major findings and observations resulting from this monitoring *

1.

During the three year period of operation of Surry Nuclear Power Plant water temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the outfall were monitored closely to deter-mine the thermal plume.

The plume usually stayed close to the southern shoreline of the James River and excess surface temperatures covered less than 30 percent of the river in the survey area adjacent to the discharge point.

2.

Maximum excess temperatures of 12°F (6.7°c) were recorded in the immediate vicinity of the outfall in 1973 and 1974.

In 1975 primarily due to a combination of mechani-cal problems at the station, maximum excess temperatures as high as 16.7°F (9.3°c) were measured in the immediate vicinity of the outfall.

The highest surface temperature ever recorded near the outfall was 99.9°F (37.7°c) on August 21, 1975.

All excess temperatures decreased rapidly as distance from the outfall increased, and temperatures outside a distance of 1000 yards.(914 m) were rarely greater than s°F (2.8°c) above ambient temperatures.

1

3 *.

4 *

5.

6

• 7

• Because cooling water is drawn from downstream of Hog Point and discharged upstream, the salinity was higher near the outfall than for the ambient water in th.is area.

On several occasions this resulted in a "sinking" plume particularly when the salinity of discharge water was over 1 ppt higher than the ambient salinity.

During ebb tide, the thermal plume tended to stay close to shore and extended around Hog Point, while on flood tide the thermal plume headed upstreaM and away from shoreo In some instances, there was vertical thermal stratifi-cation along the monitoring transects which had a maximum gradient of approximately 4°F {2.2°c) over 6 feet

{1.8 m) of depth.

The minimum value of dissolved oxygen measured during the 1975 sampling period was 3.72 mg/1 which was measured twice during August 1975.

August monthly averages for the three stations had a maximum of 5.11 mg/1 and a minimum of 4.61 mg/I.

The major cause of differences between the hydraulic model and prototype excess temperature areas was probably the scale distortion of 10:1, vertical to horizontal, in the model.

As a result of this distortion, the model did not properly reproduce entrainment in the near field, which is the major process affecting the 2

8 *

9.

10.

plume in this area.

This resulted in a larger predicted excess temperature area than has been observed in the river.

A statistical multiple regression analysis was used to predict the plume temperature distributiono The results were variable, probably due to the complexity of circulation in the tidal James.

Predictions were somewhat better with higher loading.

More reliable predictions probably would be obtained by this method in a lake environment

• The hydrothermal data taken over the past five ye~rs at the Surry site indicate that the thermal disc~arge was rapidly assimilated in the river.

Outside the

'mixing zone' for the discharge, in this case the area within approximately 1000 yards (914 m) of the discharge opening, water temperatures were not higher than those which could occur naturally in the area.

During the survey years water with excess temperatures of 1°F (0.6°c) never crossed the width of the river at its narrowest point.

This excess temperature was rarely found to cover half of the width.

3

II.

INTRODUCTION The generation of electrical energy from a steam source results in an energy loss as described by the laws of thermodynamics.

The thermal energy not utilized is rejected from the process in the form of heat transferred to the water circulating through the condensers of a power station.

This heat is ultimately transferred to the atmosphere by conduc-tion and evaporative cooling either in closed-cycle systems, eg cooling towers, or in once-through systems, from the su~-

face of the receiving water body

• In order to make responsible decisions dealing with the appropriateness of the method for transferring the reject-ed heat to the atmosphere, it is necessary to thoroughly understand the hydro-thermal dynamics in a body of water receiving power station discharges and to know the effects of the excess temperature on the indigenous populations of aqu~tic life.

The present investigation involves a field survey which has been in operation since 1971.

The field data consist of two years of pre-operational data and three years of post-operational data.

The objectives of this investigation are to:

1)

Compare pre-and post-plant operation data to determine the physical effects of the thermal discharge on the survey area *

2)

Compare field results with predictions of temperature distributions made with the 4

James River hydraulic model to determine the applicability of the hydraulic_ model to far field temperature predictions.

3)

Evaluate the design of_ the established monitoring program and to make reconunen~

dations as to modifications which can improve the system.

The sampling program focuses on the region of the James River near Hog Point, Virginia, site of the Virginia Electric and Power Company's (VEPCO) Surry Nuclear Power Plant (Figure II-1).

The Surry Power Plant (Surry) consists of two 788 MW nuclear reactors, the first of which began commer-cial operation in December of 1972, the second in March of 1973.

The power plant uses the once-through cooling method.

Water is drawn into the intake canal on the downstream side of Hog Point, pumped through the condensers and out through the discharge structure into the James River estuary, up-stream from Hog Point.

The shoreline distance between intake and discharge points is about 5.7 miles (9.17 km) and the intake canal is about 1.7 miles (2.74 km} long.

Each unit requires 840,000 gpm (52,987 liters/sec) of river water to supply condensing *and service water needs

• The maximum design temperature elevation of this water as a resultof passage through the condensers is 14.9°F (8.3°c).

This report includes the survey results for the fifth year and a summary of the study conducted during the la.st five years.

5

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f STATION I

II I

I I

L - - --

TOWER 4

'\\'" ----

\\

\\

\\

9

\\

10 COBHAM BAY Q.

SCALE 2000 FEET 4000 TOWER 2 i STAIION 11 c*43*

TOWER 3 2

\\

DATE:

TIME:

TIDE:

PLANT OPERATION UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

AIR TEMP:

DEW POINT TEMP:

Figure 11-1. 1975 TRANSECTS (SOLID Li(JES). DASHED :..:~ES INDICATE ~974 TRANSECTS, TRANSECTS 11, 1, 2, 3, A~:~ SAME FCR 5~Tn YEARS, 6

III.

SAMPLING SYSTEM AND INSTRUMENTATION A detailed description of the sampling.program for the first four years of the study was given by Parker and Fang (1975).

• The following is a summary of*the sampling system and instrumentation taken from former annual reports

• This investigation used a moving boat sampling scheme.

The parameters measured were water temperature at depths of 0.5, 3, and 6 feet (0.15, 0.9 and 1.8 m) air temperature at 3. and 6 feet (0.9 and 1.8 m) above the water surface, and dew point temperature.

These data, along with salinity and dissolved oxygen samples taken* at fixed stations and meteorological data from nearby Ft. Eustis, were deemed sufficient to identify natural variations in river conditions and to isolate thermal effects of the heated water discharge

• The sampling frequency was determined by both the time scale and length scale of variations that one expects to find in the field parameters.

In the far field region of the survey area, i.e., that region which is not affected by the physical characteristics of the discharge, thermal gradients we~e assumed to have time scales on the order of minutes and length scales on the order of tens of feet.

With a moving boat sampling system, the length scale is the most important factor in determining a sampling frequency.

During 1971, 1972, 1973, samples were taken every 6 seconds, which spaces sampling points approximately 50 ft. (15.2 m) apart at a constant.boat speed of 5 knots.

Analysis of the data for this period indicated that sampling distances could be 7

.~

made farther apart in the far field region and should be closer together in the near field.

During 1974.and 1975, samples were taken every 10 seconds for a spacing of approximately 85 feet (25.9 m) in the far field and every 3 seconds with a spacing of approximately 25 feet (7.6 m) in the near field.

Thus the total amount of data taken was reduced, with no significant loss of detail in the far field region and with increased detail in the near field region.

The designed survey frequency was two surveys per week during the periods March-May and mid September-November and three surveys per week during June~mid September.

These frequencies provided for reasonable confidence in monthly averages of the data, with greater confidence during.

the summer when small water temperature variations are impor_. *

• tant because the water temperatures are closer to the critical values for organisms in the river

• The sampling runs originated at Tower 2 and continued southward and ended at buoy C51 (Figure II-1).

The transects were chosen to closely approximate those monitored by Carpenter & Pritchard (1967) in their hydraulic model experiments.

During each sampling run, surface and bottom water salinity and dissolved oxygen (DO) samples were taken at the three fixed stations (Figure II-1), and brought back to the lab for analysis

• 8

This monitoring program allowed approximately 650 samplings of all sensors to be taken during the one hour and forty minutes required to traverse the designated transects.

After the data were reduced, isothermal maps were made by equally spacing the data for each transect between the end points of that transect.

The isothermal lines were then drawn in by hand.

One of the* problems associated with this approach was that the data were not synoptic; that is, data were taken over a finite amount of time rather than instantan-eously at all points.

This led to inaccuracies in isothermal plots drawn from the non-synoptic data due to the plume movement dictated by tidal currents.

These inaccuracies were held to a minimum by starting sampling runs approxi-mately 45 minutes before predicted slack water.

In this way slack water occurred at approximately the middle of the run, with the entire run occurring during the period of minimum tidal currents in the river.

A.

Boat Instrumentation A detailed description of the design and operation of boat instrumentation, as well as calibration procedures, regression equations fitted to calibration data, and derived calibration curves, can be found in an earlier progress report (Bolus, et al. 1971).

Photographs of equipment utilized can be found in a later report (Chia et al. 1972)

• Calculated instrumentation accuracy is considered from an 9

instrument and systems viewpoint in yet a later report (Shearls et al. 1973), as well as boat position error

• The basic information gathering and recording system aboard the boat is shown in Figure 2 of 1975 annual report.

Instrument accuracy is repeated in Table I (p. 16) of that same report.

Sampling was done aboard the R/V Bernoulli, a 26' twin engine cabin cruiser.

This boat, being faster than the R/V Investigator (which_ *was. used earli.ertf permits lI}ore rapid movement between the study area and the marina, saving time spent in transit.

Time spent servicing tide guages, the tower system, and taking water samples is held to a minimum also

• 10

. \\:=

~-*

IV.

FIELD RESULTS 1975 Surry Operation*a1 Status During 1975, 43 surveys were made at Surry between*

3 June and 15 September.

Basic environmental and plant data for these surveys are presented in Table IV-1.

Surry power generation was 90 percent of capacity or greater for the period 5 August - September 1975.

(See Figure IV-1)

This represents the longest period of continuously high power production since post-operational*

monitoring began in 1973, and offers an excellent opportunity to determine equilibrium conditions for the river during what has historically been the period of highest ambient water temperatures in this area.

Field data from this period are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Horizontal temperature Distribution Isothermal plots of the 1975 field data are contained in Appendix A.

The change of transects for the 1975 field effort (Figure II-1) has enabled better definition of the plume in the near field region and in the Cobham Bay area.

The isothermal plot for August 27, 1975, during early flood, for example, showed a narrow plume parallel to shore on the upstream side of the outfall.

Approximately 1 mile (1.6 km),

upstream of the outfall, the plume turned sharp.ly and headed perpendicular to shore for another mile (1.6 km).

This config""'.

uration of the plume had not been previously identified by the 11

\\

Table.IV-1 Basic Environmental and Plant Data for 1975 Surveys Ambient Month Day Tide Power Wind Wind Water Discharge Air Dew Point Prod.

Speed Direction Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

(MW)

(MPH)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

June 3

L 749 6-7 SSW 79.0 90.5 81.0 64.0 5

H 746 10 SSW 78.6 87.5 80.0 67.0 6

E 751 12-16 w

78.7 88.2 77.3 67.0 9

H 741 5

s-sw 77.5 84.2 72.0 54.0 10 H

751 10 SE 76.6 84.3 76.0 55.0 12 L

751 12 s

75.0 81.7 73.0 67.0 16 L

741 lb SE 80.0 87.0 86.0 69.3 18 H

973 0

80.8 90.1 80.0 72.0 1--'

19 H

1287 8

NNW 80.7 92.4 84.0

• 72. 3

[\\.)

23 H

1505 5

SW 82.9 94.0 80.3 60.6 25 L

749 5

SW 81.6 88.3 79~0 67.0 26 F

750 10 NR

• 02;1

• 89.*o

• 01*.*3 B4*.*o Average 872 7.9 79.5 88.1 79.2

.65.8 July 1

L 1518 5-10 NE 80.2 92.0 76.7

-54 0 "]-

2 F

1497 5-10 w

80.0 95.3 82.0 72.0 3

H 1509 5-10 w

78.9 91.6 74.6 6-2. 6 8

H 735 0

82.0 87.7 81.7 68.7 9

H 730 5-10 SW 81.7 89.7 85.4 72.4 10 H

735 5

SW 82.1

• 90.4 84.3 71.0 15 L

1485

• 5-10 NNE 80.0 95.3 79.7 73.7 17 L

1485 10-15.

s 80.6 97.3 82.3 72.0

Table IV-1 (cont'd)

Ambient Month Day

• Tide Power Wind Wind Water Discharge Air Dew Point Prod.

Speed Direction Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

(MW)

{MPH)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

July 18 H

1491 0-5 SW 80.6 94.2 75.0 71.2 (cont'd) 21 H

1484 7-10 w

83.7 95.8 83.3 70.9 22 H

1491 0-5 SW 84.8 97.7 85.7 73.5 25 L

745 15-20 s

82.9 91.2 81.0 76.4 28 L

745 0-5 s

83.1 88.6 81.7 72.5 29 L

736 10 E

83.7 92.0 82.7 73.5

.31 L

730 5

.. E ff 6.*. ff

• 9T. 4 83.6.

59.2 Average 1141 6.9 82.0 92.7 81.3 69.6 I-'

w August 5

H 1482 10 WNW 86.l 98.3 84.0 74.0 6

E 1467 10 SW 85.7 98.6 84.3 74.0 7

H 1504 8

NW 83.8 95.6 72.0 63.0 12 L

1507 6-10 NW 82.9 96.0 80.5 65.0 21 L

1467 5

E 85.4 99.2 79.7 73.0 21 H

1487 7-8 SE 86.3 99.9 83.3 70.7 22 L

1468 10-12 SW 84.3 97.6 79.6 72.6 26 L

1420 0-5 NW

85. 9.

99.3 86.3 71.1 27 F

1416 10-15 NNE 85.6 99.1 83.0 67.0 29 F

1428 8

.. E 0*6. 2

• * *99

• 6 *

. *93,3 *

• 64.o Average 1465 8.3 85.2 98.4 81.6 69.4

Table IV-1 (cont'd)

Ambient Month Day Tide Power Wind Wind Water Discharge Air Dew Point Prod.

Speed

• Direction Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

Temp.

(MW)

(.MPH)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

(OF)

September 3

H 1432 10-15 NNE 79.3 92.8 77.7 63.7 4

H 1442 5

E 79.9 93.3 78.0 66.0 5

H 1432 0

80.8 94.7 78.3 60.7 10 F

1424 5-10 NE 78.9 92.9 74.3 54.3 11 L

1456 10-15 s

77.9 92.2 80.7 68.7 15 H

1452 5-15 NE.

73.6 85.7

.6.5. 7 54.3 Average 1440 7.9 78.4 91.9 75.8 61.3 f-'

~

110 100 90 80

~

0 z 70 0

I-0 0

60 0 a:

a..

a: 50 lJ.J 31':.. -*...

0 a..

0 40 lJ.J N

i

~ 30

~

a:

0 z 20 10 0

5 10 15 20 25 5

10 15 20 25 5

10 15 20 5

JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure IV-1.

Surry power production on days monitored (1975).

15

moving boat sa,mpling survey, but had been identified in IR imagery of the outfall on March *1s, 1975.

(See* Parker and Fang, 1974.

pp. 60--68). The low slack water plume on August 1975, is typical of plumes at the s*a,me *tidal stage in pre...

vious years

• On August 22 the highest isotherm to reach.'

transect 11,.approximately 2 nautical miles (3. 7 km) down-stream from the outfall, represented an excess temperature 0

0 of 4. 7 F (2. 6 C)

• The highest isotherm to reach this area previously was on August 9, 1974, and represented an excess 0

0 temperature of 4.8 F (2.7 C).

The highest isotherm recorded at transect 11 during 1975 represented an excess*temperature of 6.4°F (3.6°c) on July 17, with 6.2°F (3.4°c) recorded on July 15 and September 11.

In all three of these cases, the isotherms were less than 2000 ft. (610 m) offshore at Hog Point.

The high slack water plume on August 5,. 1975, pro-vides another example of increased plume detail due to the new transects.

The 90°F {32.2°c) isotherm could have been drawn from data taken using 1974 transects, but the heated "patches" inside this isotherm would have been missed.

These patches could possibly represent eddies which have been previously identified from IR imagery of the plume.

22, The highest isotherm to reach transect 10, approx-imately 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km) upstream from the outfall, 0

0 during 1975 represented an excess temperature of 4.9 F (2.7 Cl on July 28, This survey was made during low slack water,.

16

indicating that the elevated temperature at transect 10 was due to natural heating.

The highest excess temperature in this.area at high slack water was 4.3°F (2.4°c) on July 19.

During 1974, the highest excess temperature in the area of transect 10 was 5.0°F (2.s0 c) on June 11.

The June 11 survey was made during an early flood tidal stage, with the plant operating at approximately 48% of capacity

• It appears then that in the transect 10 area, plume induced temperature rises are of the same order of magnitude as natural variations which occur in the area

• Area Within Isotherms After isothermal plots of a survey run were drawn, a planimeter was used to measure the area wiih isotherms *

,Only those isotherms which were "closed" around the outfall were measured.

A table of these areas appears in Appendix B.

A graph of the area within excess temperature isotherms as a function of fractional excess temperature, Figure IV-2, indicates that the area (A) within isotherms generally increases logarithmically with decreasing fractional excess temperature (8/8 0 ).

An approximation to a straight line fit to the data is represented by the line:

The data plotted in Figure IV-2 represent data for plumes with plant operation at greater than 90% capacity.

When the data 17

A=(6xl07)e -6.8(8/8 )

107 0

Cl.I E

fl O>

V 0

ro

'-0 Cl.I I-u..

<(

w 0::.

106 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0~

0.3 0,2 0.1 0.0 FRACTIONAL EXCESS TEMPERATURE (8/80)

Figure IV-2.

Area within excess temperature isotherm versus 8/8 0, fractional excess temperature, 1975 data.

e 18

are separated into low and high slack water plumes, as shown in Figure IV-3, it appears that the low slack water plumes were slightly larger than high slack plumes, although the differences were not significant.

The area data from 1975 indicate as a rough estimate that as the value of 8/80 approaches zero, the area within the excess temperature isotherm, 8, approaches 6.l07ft 2 (5. 6xl06 m2), which represents the maximum s*urface area affected by the plume.

Centerline Temperature Decay Plume centerline temperature decay was determined from isothermal plots for ten selected survey runs in.August and September.

The selection process was based upon the ease of determining plume centerlines from the isothermal plots.

Plume centerlines were drawn subjectively, and distance and temperature along the centerline were recorded.

The results of this tabulation are presented in Table IV-2.

A graphical presentation of the data, Figure IV-4, indicates an exponental centerline temperature decay approx-imately represented by the equation:

8180 = e -.0002d where dis the distance along the plume centerline.

Fractional excess temperatures at centerline distances less than 1500 ft9 (4 57 m) from the outfall show much less variation* than those at greater distances&

19

AREA

( FT2 =.3049 m2) 105

.02

.04

-06

.oa 10 6

.2 A

.6

.8 1c7 1.0 0

0.9 0

0 0

Q)

~0.8 0

w 0

~0.1 00 0 0

~

0 a:

~ 0.6 oo 0

0

.o 0

w 0

0 t- 0.5 0

0

.o 0

Cl)

Cl) 0 1.1.J

~ 0.4 0

1.1.J

~0.3 z

0 o LOW SLACK WATER j::

~0.2 HIGH SLACK WATER a:

0 IJ..

0.1 0.0 Figure IV-3.

Area within excess temperature isotherm versus fractional excess temperature (8/8 0 }, 1975 data.

Table IV-2 Centerline Temperature and Distance from Outfall Data Date 1975 Tide Ambient Water Disr.harge Water

-6/6 Centerline 0

Temp (°F)

Distance (ft)

Temp ( F)

Temp (Of) 0 Aug. 6 E

85.7

98. 6 -

98

.95 500 97

.87 750 96

.80 1150 95

• 71 1450 94

.64 2300 93

.56 2750 92

.49 3150 91

.41 3650 Aug. 7 H

83.8 95.6 95

.95 300 94

.86 500 93

.78 800 92

.70 1400 91

.61 1600 90

.53 1700 89

.44 4450 88

.36 4800 87

.27 4850 Aug. 12 L

82.9 96.0 96 1.0 400 95

.92 650 94

.85 850 93

• 77 1000 92

.70 1200 91

.62 2200 Aug. 21 H

86.3 99.9 99

.93 650 98

.86 1100 97

.78 1250 96

. 71 1350 95

.63 2200 94

.57 2450 92

..42.

• 2700 21

Table IV-2 (continued)

Centerline Temperature and Distance from Outfall Data Date 1975 Tide Ambient Water Discharge Water

.e;e Centerline Temp (OF)

Temp (OF)

Temp (OF) 0 Distance (ft)

Aug. 21 L

85.4 99.2 99

.. 99 250 93

. 91 600 97

. 84 850 96

" J :

1650 95

• 70 4100 94

.62 4150 93

.55 4200 92

.48 4250 91

.41.

4300

90.

.33 4600 89

.26 5000 88

.19 5100 Aug. 27 F

85.6 99.1 99

.99 400 98

.92 650 97

.84 1200 96

• 77 1850 95

• 70 2600 94

.62 3600 93

.55 5100 Aug. 29 F

86.2 99.6 99

.95 250 98

.88 400 97

.81 600 96

.73 750 95

.66 1550 94

.58 3300 93

.51

.6050 Sept. 3 79.3 92.8 92

.94 300 91

.87 550 90

. 79 800 22

Table IV-2 (continued)

Centerline Temperature and Distance from Outfall Data Date 1975

.Tide Ambient Water Discharge Water

.e/e0 Centerline Temp (OF)

Temp (6F).

Temp (OF)

Distance (ft)

Sept. 3 89

• 7,2 1050 (continued) 88

.65 1400 87

.57 2050 86

.50 3100 85

.42 4000 Sept. 4 79.9 93.3 93

,98 450 92

,90 600 91

.. 83 750 90

• 75 1100 89

.68 2350 Sept. 10 78.8 92.9 92

.94 350 91

.87 550

. 90

.79 950 89

• 72 1350 88

.65 2100 87

.58 3300 23

0.6 0

(I)

~ Q5 a:

I-

<t ffi 0.4 e-.0002d a..

e;e

!E

=

0 I-en en

(.)

~ 0.3

...J

<t z

0 i==

(.)

<t a:

u..

0.2 0.11-....i.....,.,,.,~..i.....,.,.1!:,,,.-....... ~,..,,,.....i....~............. -='*'....... ~=*':=~--=:*,:~---;~~----

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Figure IV-4.

DISTANCE (d) FROM OUTFALL (FT)

Plume centerline temperature decay, August and September 1975 data.

24

The graph indicates that generally 8/8 0 reaches a value of 0.5 within 3500 feet (1066 m) of the outfall.

This indicates that a major portion of initial plume mixing with ambient water occurs within 3500 feet (1067 m) from the outfall.

Vertical Temperature Stratification Figure IV-5 shows a portion of the isothermal plot for August 21, 1975, at high slack water.

On this date the plant power production was 1487 MW, winds were SE at 7-8 mph

_(11-12.8 kph).

Four transects, AA', BB', B'C, and DD', have been shown in vertical cross section to the maximum sample depth of six feet in Figure IV-6.

Transects AA' and BB' show a maximum stratification of approximately 2°F {1.1°c) over six feet {1.8 m).

Transect B'C, across the mouth of the transect, shows a hot core of 100°F {37.8°c) water at 3 foot {0.9 m) depth at the outfall

• The maximum stratification along this transect is approx-imately 5°F (2.8°c) over the 6 foot (1.8 m) depth.

The plot of transect B'C also shows a sharp temperature gradient on the downstream (B') side of the plume, with a more gradual gradient on the upstream side.

Transect DD', 1200 ft. (365 m) offshore and parallel to B'C, shows that plume temperatures at the centerline have dropped to 95°F (35°c).

The strongest areas of stratification are on the extreme upstream {D') and downstream {D) ends of the transect.

Figure IV-5 shows that these regions are near sharp temperature gradients at the 25

TOWER 4 86.2

~

• +*

86 /

/

al s9TOWER 3 SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Figure IV-5.

Thermal plume on August 21, 19750 26

• -----------:------:..~-------*.---------:.~-----:-.::;::-----.-=------~.----.----.----.--

A' 89 A

!:_0.5 89,46 89,46 88,74 85,88 i= 3.0 89,28 89*10 88.65 85.70 85,61

a.

~6.0 87, 87-39 87.48 85.70 85,43 s'

88 87 l;: 0.5 88*47 88,20 88,29 88.20 87,13 86,15 86,32

,: 3.0 87,48 88,20 88*20 87,04 86,15 86*41 f-a.

~ 6.0 87,48 87.13 87,57 87*66 86*68 85,79 86*32 Figure IV-6.

Vertical sections AA', BB'.

95 92.36 90*54 e'

88,65 Figure IV-6 (cont'd).

Vertical sections B 'C, D_D'

• surface.

In these regions the temperature gradient is a maximum 6°F (3.3°c) over 6 feet (1.8 m) of depth *.

On September 3, 1975, (Figure IV-7), at high slack water, the power plant was producing 1432 MW power;. winds were from the north-northeast at 10 to 15 mph (16-24 kph).

Two transects, parallel to shore and at right angles to the plume, are indicated.on the figure and the vertical temperature distributions along the transects are.shown in Figure IV-8.

Along transect AA', the heated core of water in the

• middle of the plume is again apparent.

Temperature gradients are strongest on the downstream (A,B) side of the plume for both transects.

On the upstream (A',B') side of the plume on each transect there appears a slug of cooler water which has been entrained by the plume.

Along transect AA', the entrained water is represented by the section to the A' side of the plume with temperature less than ao°F (26.7°c).

This slug appears on transect BB', although it is warmer and.

only extends to 3 feet (0.9 m) at this transect.

Temperatures in the center of the plume have decreased from 93°F (33.9°c) to 88°F (31.1°c) between the two transects, a distance of slightly more than 1100 feet (335 m)

• The vertical stratification along the two transects has a maximum of approximately 4°F (2.2°c) over 6 feet (1.8 m) of depth.

In this case, the.maximum stratification occured near the center of the plume, with little vertical stratifi-cation at the edges of the plume.

29

TOWER 5 *

• +*

/;(

80 81 SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Figure IV-7.

Thermal plume on September 3, 1975.

30

A 1

34 A

£0.s 83,66 7929 i=3.0 83,75 79.29

!is.o 83,66 79.38 C

V B

79.47

= 7955 i= 3.

79.47 79,47 0..

l1J 6.0 79,38 79.47 C

B5 Figure IV-8.

Vertical sections AA', BB'*

Fre*shwater Dis:charge, Salinity, and Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater discharge for the James River, measured at Richmond, is shown for the summer of 1975 in Figure IV-9.

The freshwater discharge during this period was typical except for the. high discharge around the middle of July.

Salinity concentration at stations 1, 2 and 3 (See Fig II-1) are presented in Table IV-3~ dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented in Table IV-4.

Monthly average surface and bottom salinity and dissolved oxygen are graphed in Figure IV-10.

Average surface and bottom salinity (Fig IV-10-a) reached maxima of 2.6 and 2.8 parts per thousand (ppt), respectively, during the month of September.

Average outfall salinity, approximately 4.5 ppt, was considerably higher than the salinity at the three stations, and this high salinity discharge again increased the salinity at station 3 to a value higher than that of station 1, several miles downstream.

(See Parker and Fang, 1975, p. 73).

This effect is apparent only for the surface waters.

At the bottom at station 3, salinity was slightly lower than at station 1.

Dissolved oxygen during the period June to September 15 attained a minimum value of 3.72 ppt twice during the month of August.*

August monthly averages for the three stations had a maximum of 5.11 ppt and a minimum of 4.61 ppt.

September values were only slightly higher than those for August.

• This value was observed once at station 1 and once at station 3, both times at the bottom.

32

60

..,e 50

,;t" a,

C\\I 0

"' I-

~ 40

"' 0

,c -

ILi

(!)

a:

ct

c 30 u

(I) 0 a:

IJJ >

a:

20 10 OL....!.5.....JIOL....L.15--l.20-2L5--.L5....JI O-I.L.5--,&20.....,21.,,5-~5-10~~15~21.,.0-2~5--~5-"1~0 ~15~20~2!=

• M AY JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure IV-9.

James River freshwater discharge (1975}

• 33

~.

Table IV-3 Salinity Concentrations at Stations 1, 2, and 3 Salinity (ppt)

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Discharge Month Day Surface Bottom Surface Bottom*

Surface Bo.ttom

. Surface June 3

0.162 0.128 0.087 0.087 0.096 0.130 0.712 5

0.165 0.210 0.101 0.094 0.528 1.947 2.208 9

1.612 2.865 1.344 1.504

• 2. 507 2.564 4.300 10 2.473 3.187 2.540 2.546 2.428 3.805 4.822 12 1.149 1.212

0. 42_4 0.421 1.183 1.106 5.513 16 1.203 1.240 0.588 0.640 2.416 2.458 4.410 18 1.487 2.774 1.601 2.181 0.762 1.533 4.049 19 1.709 1.821 1.321 1.450

2. f,06 2.689 4.616 23 1.495 1.612 1.460 1.753 2.151 2.220 3.948 w

25 1.238 1.057 0.381 0.416 0.907 1.880 3.360 26 1.671 1.519 Average 1.306 1.602 0.985 1.109 1.558 2.033 3.794 July 1

2.685 3.611 1.603 1.586 1.922 2.467 5.077 3

1.390 4.673 0.944 0.930 2.160 2.150 5.500 3

2.520 3.720 0.910 2.240 3.070 3.370 5.800 8

3.686 4.543 3.373 3.490 4.231 4.562 6.305 9

3.500 4.002 4.074 3.314 3.955 4.657 6.327 10 3.560 3.780 2.980 2.990 4.180 4.190 5.960 15 0.328 0.227 0.108 0.140 0.261 0.745 2.528 17 0.185 0.104 0.094 0.099 0.282 0.116 1.052 18 0.723 0.310 0.261 0.108 0.474 0.363 0.673 21 0.133 0.130 0.125 0.118 0.182 Q.167 0.315

Table IV-.3 (cont'd)

Salinity (ppt)

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Discharge Month Day Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surfac.e July 22 0.187 0.140 0.138 0.130 0.210 0.190 0.305 (cont'd) 25 0.123 0.120 0.078 0.080 0.226 0.160 0.823 28 0.142 0.145 0.079 0.073 0.101 0.152 1.238 29 0.125 0.113 0.078 0.078 0.410*

. 0.365 0.910 31 0.284 0.147 0.082 0.078 0.629 0.363

1. 388 Average

1. 300 1.710 1.000 1.030 1.490 1.600 2.950 August 5

2.026 2.734 1.703 1.869 2.573 2.540 4.873 6

2.416 3.025 1.420 1.592 2.169 2.725 5.023 7

2.982 3.431 2.232 3.305 3.274 5.471

. w 12 1.272 1.362 0.334 0.363 0.690 1.434 3.630 U1 21 2.000 2.190 0.870 0.850 1.230 2.030 5.170 21 3.220 3.480 2.440 2.620 3.060 3.650 5.530 22 1.520 1.550 0.470 0.470 1.220 2.010 5.000 26 2.239 2.546

1. 724 1.697 3.481 3.864 5.208 27 2.071 2.667 1.249 1.217 1.580 2.389 5.231 29 2.235 3.534 1.730 1.724 3.018 3.817 5.767

• Average 2.200 2.650 1.330 1.460 2.230 2.770 5.090 Sept.

3 2.606 3.611 2.062 2.789 4.237 4.105 5.935

_.4 3.249 3.283 2.274 2.392 3.391 3.723 5.461 5

3.154 3.305 2.169 2.247 2.862 3.277 5.170 10 1.146 1.226 0.913 0.958 2.241 2.136 3.120 11 0.941 1.032 0.370 0.370 0.874 1.425 3.487 15 1.937 2.425 0.958 1.539 2.301 2.166

3. 914*

Average 2.170 2.480 1.460 1.720 2.650 2.810 4.510

Table IV-4.

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations for Stations 1, 2 and 3.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/Q.)

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Month Day Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom June 9

7.07 6.38 7.20 6.83 7.22 6.77 10 6.62 6.47 7.10 6.98 6.33 6.49 12 6.86 6.64 6.01 6.64 6.87 5.53 16 7.42 6.84 7.37 7.00 7.64 7.05 18 6.50 7.48 7.17 6.52 6.87 6.50 19 6.83 6.91 7.10 6.64 7.11

6. 8.6 23 6.71 6.13 6.88 6.71 6.88 6.52 25 6.83 6.92 7.04 6.29 7.31 6.60 26 7.04 6.83 w

Average 6.88 6.73 7.00 6.70 7.03 6.54

°'

July 1

7.56 7.29 7.25 6.95 7.74 7.92 2

7.14 6.65 7.23 6.94 7.82 7.82 3

7.74 6.86 7.74 6.96 7.74 7.35 8

6.92 6.65 6.40 6.33 6.75 6.24 9

6.90 6.12 6.77 6.46 7.47 6.52 10 6.87 6.47 6.77 6.56 6.85 6.58 15 6.16 6.18 4.93 4.78 6.22 6.43 17 4.39 4.22 4.42 4.07 5.08 4.13 18 5.38 4.42 5.07 4.13 5.36 4.91 21 4.09 4.98 5.32 5.02 5.81 22 5.71 5.29 5.67 5.16 6.01 5.72 25 5.79 6.18 5.54 4.77 6.* 37

.6. 23 28 6.23 6.06 6.12 5.62 6.56 6.31

Table IV-4 (cont'd}

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i)

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Month Day Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom July 29

-6.64 6.08 6.18 5.98 6.41 6.35 (Cont'd}

31 6.60 5.89 6.33 5.74 7.37 6.78 Average 6.27 5.96 6.12 5.70 7.00 6.34 August 5

5.77 5.57 6.19 7.42 6.71 5.85 6

5.01 4.51 5.53 5.07 5.87 5.53 7

5.25 5.07 5.79 5.45

• 4.18 5.55 12 4.55 4.63 4.47 4.29 4.65 4.57 21 4.50 4.40 4.30 4.02 5.13 3.72 21 4.82 4.46 5.79 4.42 3.80 3.92 w

22 4.88 4.64

4. 96

• 4.70 5.22 5.41

-..,I 26 4.46 4.26 4.85 4.32 4.75 3.96 27 4.95 4.85 4.61 4.55 4~55 5.25 29 4.65 3.72 4.61 4.85 5.14 5.31 Average 4.88 4.61 5.11 4.91 5.00 4.91 Sept.

3 5.52 5.20 5.00 4.90 4.52 4.60 4

5.30 4.40 4.92 4.70 4.66 4.40 5

4.60 4.56 4.52 4.60 4.96 4.50 10 5.19 4.76 4.90

5. 78 5.92 4.90 11 4.82 5.10 5.02 5.19 6.08 5.59 15 4.80 5.10 5.'68 5.98

'S. 02

. 'S. 80' Average 5.04 4.87 5.01 5.19 5.19 4.97

100 9.0 8.0 7.0 0

e 6.0

~

>-t-5.0 z

...I : 4.0 3.0 8 STATION I

(;) STATION 2 0 STATION 3 2.0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN OUTFALL SALINITY

________..r:,

1.0

-~....:..

~

SALINITY A.

10.0 9.0 8.0 0

in en 7.0 O t:

ITI 6.0 o 0

)(.

5.0 ~

z 4.0~

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0--------------------------0.0 9.0 8.0 7,0 0 6.0

~

~

. > 50 t-z

~ 4.0 U) 3.0 2.0 1.0 JUNE 8 STATION I

(:] STATION 2

(:) STATION 3 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER DISSOLVED OXYGEN

. ~

~-*

8.

9.0 8.0 7.0 0

en 6.0 ~

r <

ITI 5.0 o 0

)(

4.0 G>

ITI z 3.0 ii

. 2.0 1.0 o.o _____...._ ____..__ ___ _.... ____..__ ______ o.o JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER Figure IV-10.

Monthly average iurface (a) and bottom (b) salinity and dissolved oxygen for 1975.

38

V.

COMPARISON OF 1975 RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS YEARS Ambient Water Temperatures For the past three years, ambient water temperature in the James River around Surry has been established by averaging temperatures taken at Tower 2, Tower 4, and can buoy 1C51 1 (Figure II-1).

These locations were chosen because they were apparently far enough from the outfall to escape plume effects and would, because of their spacing along the river, represent a typical longitudinal temperature variation for the estuary.

Figure V~l shows the monthly average ambient surface water temperature for June through September for the five survey years (1971-1975).

The average ambient temperature for August 1975 was the highest for the five survey years.

August was.also the first month of continuous, greater than 90% of capacity power production during the survey period.

The high ambient temp-

.,.erature during August was due to either a heat buildup as the river reached equilibrium with the plant thermal dis-charge, or naturally higher ambient water temperatures for the month.

Higher ambient temperatures in the area could be the result of higher air temperatures, higher dew point tempera-tures, or higher freshwater discharges.

Figure V-2 shows a comparison of monthly average air temperatures and dew point temperatures.

Figure V-2a indicates that 1975 air temperatures were within the ranges found during 1973 and 1974.

Average dew point temperature (Figure V-2b) for July 1975 was approximately 39

85 5

I&. 80

~

1975 LL.I a::

I-ct a::

LL.I

a.

~

LL.I I-a::

1974 2

Lt.J I-1971 ct

s::

75 10,._,,~~~....... ~~~~

...... ~~~

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

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER Figure V-1.

Monthly average ambient surface water temperature (1971-1975).

40

90 80 ll..

~ 70 LL.I a::

!;i 60 a::

LL.I n.

!E 50 LL.I I-ll..

0 40 30 90 80

~ 70 LL.I a::

~ 60 a::

w

n.

~ 50 I-40 A

M A

M A.

J J

A s

0 N

D MONTH 1975 B.

J J

A s

0 N

D MONTH Figure V-2.

Monthly average a) air temperature, b) dew point temperature for 1973, 1974, 1975.

41

!e I

I 3°F (1.7°c) higher than 1974 and s°F (2.a 0 c) higher than 1973 values for the same month.

Monthly average freshwater dis-charges for 1973-1975 are shown in Figure IV-3.

The figure shows that July 1975 average freshwater discharge was higher than 1973 and 1974 values.

The high July value is due primarily to heavy rains during the middle of the month.

Salinity values for 1975 also reflect the higher freshwater discharge for 1975, as seen in Table V-1.

This table shows that average salinities at all stations during July and August of 1975 were lowcJ-: than 197°1 values.

July 1973 salinity values were approximately the same as July 1975 values, and Figure V-1 shows that ambient temperatures for July 1973 and July 1975 also were close.

The data indicate that there were significant differ-ences in dew point temperature and freshwater discharge in 1975, compared to 1973 and 1974 values.

These factors could have been responsible for naturally higher ambient temperatures in the area.

As a check, water temperature data taken at VIMS pier, Gloucester Point on the York River for the summer months of 1973, 1974, and 1975 were plotted in Figure V-4.

The VIMS pier is geographically close to the survey area, and temperature factors affect the York and the James Rivers in a similar manner.

The data shown in Figure V-4 represent the monthly averages of the daily high and low temperatures.

Figure V-4 shows that 1973 and 1974 water temperatures at VIMS pier follow approximately the same pattern as those in the Surry area.

August 1974 ambient temperatures at Surry e

42

30 28 26 24 22 20 12

,c 18 Cl)

II. 16 0

z 11.J 14

(!)

a:

ct 12

c 0

Cl) 0 10 a:

11.J

= 8 a:

6 4

2 0

J A

M J

. MONTH I'

ij/*:;

A s

0 N

D J

F M

Figure V-3.

Monthly average freshwater discharge.

43

Table v-1.

MONTHLY _AVERAGE SALINITY ( ppt)

Station I

II III

• i'Io"nth Year Surf Bot Surf Bot Surf.

Bot 1973 1.15 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 June 1974 1.00 1.15

0. 50

• 0.65 1.16 1.35 1975 1.31 1.60 0.98 1.11 1.56 2.03 1973 1.54 1.86 0.99 1.02 1.66 2.41 July 1974 3.40 4.15 2.40 2.80 4.00 4.34 1975 1.30 1.71 1.00 1.03 1.49 1.60 1973 3.34 4.26 2.26 2.72 3.46 4.32 Aug 1974 3.25 3.60 2.50 2.90 3.75 4.00 1975 2.20 2.65 1.33 1.46 2.23 2.27 1973 3.98 4.44 3.57 4.05 4.32 4.64 Sept 1974 2.00 3.00

1. 55 1.78 2.20 2.50 1975 2.17 2.48 1.46 1.72 2.65 2.81 44

84 82 IL.

~80 LL.I a:

~

a:

LL.I

a.

!l:

LL.I I-78 76

~

SEPTEMBER Figure V-4.

Average water temperature at the VIMS pier for summer months (1973-1975).

were slightly higher than those for August 1973, while they were slightly lower at VIMS pier.

July and S~ptember values in 1973 and 1974 exhibit the same relationships for both areas.

The average water temperature for August 1975 at the VIMS pier was 2.1°F (1.2°c) higher than the August 1973 average temperature and 2.8°F (1.6°c) higher than August 1974 average temperature.

The VIMS pier data indicate that the August 1975 water temperatures were significantly higher than 1973 or 1974 August temperatures and support the *conclusion that the elevated ambient temperatures at Surry for August 1975 were due primarily to naturotl conditions.

Comparison of Areas Within Isotherms Areas within excess temperature isotherms for August 1974 and 1975 are compared in Figure V-5.

Water temperatures are generally at their peak during August, and, as has been mentioned previously, August 1975 power production was continuously higher than 90% of capacity.

These factors suggest that August 1975 data would represent conditions under maximum temperature loading for the river.

The figure indicate~ that excess temperature isotherms enclosed larger areas during 1975 than during 1974, and that the differences were greater for lower values of fractional exces.s tempera-ture.

The line drawn in Figure V-5 shows an approximate best fit line for the 1975 area data; this.line represents an approximation for the isotherm area versus fractional excess temperature relationship under equilibrium conditions (See 46

~

-..J 1.0 I

0.9 0 0.8

(!)

~

• e 0.7 e

eo8 w

a:

..... 0,6

<l

00. 0 a:

~8 IJ.J 0

a..

!!: 0,5 0

0 LLJ 0

0 0.4 0

(J)

Cl) 0 0

LLJ u

0 0

X 0.3 0

w 0

0 0

<l 0.2 z

0 0

u 0.1

<l G) 1974 AUGUST a::

LL 1975 AUGUST 0.0 10 106 (07 AREA WITHIN ISOTHERM ( FT 2 )

Figure V-5.

Comparison of areas within excess temperature isotherms for August 1974 and August 1975, power production greater than 14 00 MW.

108

Parker and Fang, 1975, pp. 33-34) at the Surry plant.

The equation for the line shown in Figure V-5 is g~ven by:

where A is the area within fractional excess temperature 6/6 0

• This equation and the line representing it were not calculated mathematically and are given only as approximations.

An exact equation for such a relationship obviously does not exist and for this reason, approximaticns were deemed sufficient for the analysis.

The equation indicates that -as 8/60 approaches zero, the area within the excess temperature 7

6 approaches 8.8xl0 square feet (8.2xl0 square meters).

This area represents the maximum area affected by the thermal discharge under equilibrium conditions, with close to maximum

(>90%) power production.

Comparison with Hydraulic Mo~el Data Previous comparisons (Parker and Fang, 1975) b.etween prototype data and hydraulic model experimental data obtained by Pritchard and Carpenter (1967) indicated that the area predictions based on hydraulic model results were, in some cases, an order of magnitude higher than prototype conditions.

Figure V-6 shows a comparison between 1975 isotherm area data and the lower limit of hydraulic model data.

The 1975 data are restricted to days where power production was greater than 1400 MW.

Prototype areas were significantly less than hydraulic model predictions.

A detailed discussion of 48

108

..... I07 N....

I&.

2 a::

1.1.J e

t:

o*

0

~

~

t:

==

ct LLI a::

ct e

e *

• 106 ee* * **

0 0

0.... -

105 0

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 II 12 13 14 EXCESS TEMPERATURE (OF)

Figure V-6.

Area within excess temperature isotherm e, 1975 data.

4:9

the differences between hydra.ulic model and prototype areas were due, it is felt, to scale distortion of 10:1 vertical to horizontal in the model.

As a result of the distortion, the model did not properly reproduce entrainment in the near field, which is the major process affecting the plume in this area *

. 50

VI.

STATISTICAL PREDICTIONS OF TE!-'.IPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS Hydraulic and mathematical models of thermal discharges are tools which can be used to predict temperature distributions under various field conditions.

In some cases, statistical analysis of extensive field data also can be used as a tool to derive a predictive equation which gives.

reliable results under vari~ble field conditions.

This method has been.applied in w,eather forecasting for many years, with good results.

Pore, et al. (1974) have used a statistical screening procedure described by Miller (1958) in order to predict storm surges due to extratropical.storms for the National Weather Service.

Description of the Method The screening procedure selects from a large set of possible predictors only those few which contribute signifi-cantly and independently to the forecast of a predictand.

In this procedure a forward method of multiple regression is used, in which significant predictors are picked in a stepwise fashion, one by one.

In this manner a small number of predictors can be selected which contain practically all the linear predictive information of the entire set with respect to a specific predictand.

Shown below is the manner in which a predictand (Y) is expressed in terms of the predictors cx1, x2,.** etc.)

51

1) y = Al + BlXl

2) y = A2 + B2Xl = ClX2

3) y = A3 + B3Xl = C2X2 + D1X3

4) y =An+ BnXl + cn-lx2... +NX n where A1, A2, A3, etc., are constants, and B1, B2 Cl, etc.,

are the regression coefficients.

The first regression equation contains the best single predictor (x1).

The second regression equation contains the first predictor (x1 ) and the predictor (X2 ) that contributes most to reducing the residual after the first predictor is considered.

This procedure is continued until the desired number of predictors is included or until the additional variance explained by adding predictors reaches some cutoff value.

A more detailed description of the selection of predictors by screening is given by Miller (1958)0 The choice of parameters to be used as predictors is dependent on the physical processes which affect the predictand.

Some preliminary screening runs were made using Surry data to see if this method could be applied to thermal discharges.

Area within a given excess temperature isotherm was used as the predictand

• Asbury and Frigo (1971) suggest that there is a relationship between A;Q and 8/8 0, where A is the area with the isotherm of excess temperature e, Q is the discharge flow rate, and 80 is the initial excess temperature at the discharge.

The curve obtained by Asbury and Frigo is 52

I

• shown in Figure VI-1 along with 1974 plume data from Surry.

The Surry data consistently fall below the Asbury-Frigo curve.

This would indicate that there is stronger mixing at Surry than at the sites analyzed by Asbury and Frigo.

This result was expected since the sources of.data used by Asbury and Frigo were plume measurements from power plants located on the Great Lakes.

An estuary such as the James exhibits stronger mixing than a lake due to the os9illatory tidal currents. Another factor contributing to the higher mixing exhibited at Surry was a higher discharge flow rate than for the Great Lakes data.

The maximum flow rate at Surry was 3740 cfs, while the maximum flow rate for the Great Lakes data was 1872 cfs.

The least squares fit to the Surry data represented by the line A/Q = 51.3 (8/8 0 ) -2.61 in figure VI-1 indicates that Log (8/8 0 ) should be used as one of the predictors and that the predictand should be of the form Log A?

Other predictors that were included in the analysis were ambient water temperature {AWT), plant operation (PO),

air temperature (AT), dew point temperature (DPT), wind speed (WS), and wind direction {WD).

These variables, along 53

U1

i

:,.

1.0 0

~

0 CD -

0 0

ILi a:

I-c:t a::

ILi

a.

!E L&J I-en en

~0.1 X

ILi

...J

,::i: z 0

fi ct a::

LL.

0 0

0 0

ASBURY-FRIGO CURVE 0/

0 0

0 101 102 103 104 A( FT2) /

Q ( FT!/SEC)

Figure vr-1.. Fractional excess temperature (8/80 ) versus the ratio surface area (A)/discharge flow rate (Q).

Surry data.

with the ones mentioned above, comprised the input data for the screening program.

Once the variables were read into the computer program, additional variables were created by combination or modification of the initial variables to represent various heat exchange mechanisms.

The heat exchange mechanisms represented in dimensionless form were:

Back Radiation:

Conduction:

Evaporation:

(NflT + 8 + 4 6 0 ) 4 (AT -

AWT -

8)

WS (AT -

DPT)

Initial runs of the statistical screening program indicated that the best fit equation had a multiple correla-tion coefficient equal to 0.71.

In order to decrease the variance in the data, only those plumes for which plant power production was 1400 MW or greater were used in the procedure.

The equation that resulted from the analysis of the remaining data was:

Log Area= -5.886 -

3.428 log (8/8 0 )

0.047 (WS) +.008 (PO)

The three predictors, log 8/8 0, wind speed (WS), and plant operation in MW (PO), were the most significant in explaining the variation of the data.

The multiple correla-tion coefficient using the above equation was 0.94 and the standard error was 0.19.

Figure VI-2 shows the correlation between the predicted areas using the above equation and the actual areas.

This figure shows that the correlation is best 6

2 for areas less than 4.0 x 10 ft. These areas generally 55

N I-IL.

' <t I.LI a:

<t 2

107 9

8 2

1a6 9

8 7

6 5

4 3

2 l~it.-~~~~..!--...... ~~~.i.-.~~~~~~-*~""""~~l~l~~-ll!'--,!1,-..~1-,!,1---!,-1~1:-*-l~~I 10s 2

3 67 s 106 2

3 4 s61ss 107 2

3 4 ss1os108 PREDICTED AREA

( FT 2 )

Figure VI-2.

Correlation between predicted areas using equation, Log Area= -5.886 3.428 log (8/8 0 }

0.047 (WS) +.008 (PO) and the actual areas~

56

'I I

O O

)

correspond to excess temperatures of 5 F (2.8 C or greater

• After a prediction equation has been developed, it must be used with an independent set of data in order to verify its accuracy.

Figure VI-3 shows the correlation between actual area and predicted area, using plume data from 1975.

Figure VI-3 indicates that the equation do*es not yield accurate results using 1975 data.

The dashed lines in Figure VI-3 indicate an order of magnitude difference between predicted and ac-t.ual area u solid lines a factor of 5 difference.

It can be seen that the predicted area is, in most cases, within an order of magnitude of the actual area.

Several factors may be contributing to the errors of the prediction equation using 1975 data.

These are:

1)

Power production was at a more continuous and higher level during 1975

2)

Ambient temperatures were higher in August 1975 than for 1974

3)

Average wind speeds were higher in 1975 than 1974 In general, the list of factors indicates that changing environmental parameters can have an effect.on the accuracy of the prediction equation.

This type of analysis may yield more accurate results if a larger number of factors are included as predictors.

The large number of factors that can affect plume size, such as tidal current, wind direction, de*w point temperature, and 57

l\\l I-LL.

en

~

a::

LLl I I-0

~

u, z

00 I-i 4 w a::

ct 0 w I-(.)

5 LLl a::

a.

108 5

2 107 5

2

/

/

2

• . /..

"/

. /

. /

. /...

/.

C, Cl Cl e

2

/.

/

/

/.*

/. *

/

• 106 2

5 107 AREA WITHIN ISOTHERMS ( FT 2) 5

/

/

/

/

/

PREDICTOR EQN:

/

/

/

LOG (AREA)= - 5.886-3.428 LOG(8/E\\:,)

-0.047(WS)+0.008(PO) 1<1;.']11:i:-e VT-3, C0!'."r'? 1.ation between actual area and prP.dicted area, using plume data from 1975.

others,.indicates that a large number of predictors must be considered.

This type of approach may not be appropriate for a hydraulically complex site such as Surry, but might yield much more accurate and reliable results when applied to a lake site. It is felt that this type of multiple regression analysis is useful in determining the important parameters affecting plume dimensions, even if the resulting equation is not to be used as a predictive equation

• 59

VII I REFERENCES Ashbury, J. G. and A. A. Frigo.

1971.

A Phenomenological Relationship for Predicting the Surface Areas of Thermal Plumes in Lakes.

Argonne National Laboratory, Special Report ANL/ES-5

• Bolus, R. L., S. N. Chia and c. S. Fang.

"The Design of the Monitoring System for the Thermal Effect Study of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River", VIMS SRAMSOE No. 16, Gloucester Point, Va.

October 1971.

Chia, S. N., c. S. Fang, R. L. Bolus and w. J. Hargis, Jr.

1972.

"Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River, Virginia, Part II.

Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of the Environment Prior to Plant Operation", VIMS SRAMSOE No. 21, Gloucester Point, Va., February

• Miller, R. G.

1958.

The screening procedure.

Studies in Statistical Weather Prediction, Final Report, Contract No. AF 19 (604)-1590, Hartford, Connecticut

• Travelers Weather Research Center.

Parker, G. c., E. A. Shearls, and C. s. Fang.

1974.

"Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River, Virginia.

Part IV.

Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters During the First Year of Plant Operation.

Va. Inst. of Mar. Sci., Special Rep. 51

• 464p.

60

Parker, G. c. and C. s. Fang.

1975.

Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power Station.

A report prepared for Virginia Electric & Power Company, Richmond, Vi~ginia, Part V, Special Report 92.

Pore, N. A., W. s. Richardson, and H.P. Perrotti.

1974

• Forecasting Extra-tropical Storm Surges for the Northeast Coast of the United States.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TDL-50.

Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants.

1967.

Temperature Distribution in the James River Estuary which will Result from the Discharge of Waste Heat from the Surry Nuclear Power Station.

A report prepared for Virginia Electric & Power Company, Richmond, Va.

79 p.

Shearls, E. A., S. N. Chia, w. J. Hargis, Jr., C. s. Fang, and R. N. Lobecker.

1973.

Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River, Virginia.

Part III.

Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of the Environment Prior to Plant Operation.

Va. Inst. of Mar. Sci. SRAMSOE No. 33.

355p.

61

Appendix A Isothermal Plots for the Summer Study Results of 1975 Note:

Temperature at O

• 5' depth unless otherwise noted

• 62

APPENDIX A List of Figures

. T*ide Depth*

Figure A-1 June 3, 1975 LSW 0.5 ft Figure A-2 June 3, 1975 LSW 3.0 ft Figure A-3 June 3, 1975 LSW 6.0 ft Figure A-4 June 5, 1975 HSW Figure A-5 June 6r 1975 Ebb Figure A-6 June 9, 1975 HSW Figure A-7 June 10, 1975 HSW Figure A-8 June 12, 1975 LSW Figure A-9 June 16, 1975 LSW Figure A-10 June 18, 1975 HSW Figure A-11 June 19, 1975 HSW Figure A-12 June 23, 1975 HSW Figure A-13 June 25, 1975 LSW Figure A-14 June 26, 1975 Early Flood Figure A-15 July 1, 1975 LSW Figure A-16 July 2, 1975 Flood Figure A-17 July 3, 1975 HSW Figure A-18 July 8, 1975 HSW' Figure A-19 July 9, 1975 HSW Figure A-20 July 10, 1975 HSW Figure A-21 July 15, 1975 LSW

• NOTE:

Temperature at 0.5' depth unless otherwise noted

• 63

,APPENDIX A (Continued)

List of Figures

. Tide Depth Figure A-22 July 17, 1975 LSW Figure A-23 July 18, 1975 HSW Figure A-24 July 21, 1975 HSW Figure A-25 July 22, 1975 HSW Figure A-26 July 25, 1975 LSW Early Flood Figure A-27 July 28, 1975 LSW Figure A-28 July 29, 1975 LSW Early Flood Figure A-29 july 31, 1975 LSW Figure A-30 August 5, 1975 HSW Figure A-31 August 6, 1975 Early Ebb Figure A-32 August 7, 1975 HSW Figure A-33 August 12, 1975 LSW Figure A-34 August 21, 1975 LSW Figure A-35 August 21, 1975 HSW Figure A-36 August 22, 1975 LSW Figure A-37 August 26, 1975 LSW Figure A-*38 August 27, 1975 Early Flood Figure A-39 August 29, 1975 Early Flood Figure A-40 Sept 3, 1975 HSW Figure A-41 Sept 4, 1975 HSW Figure A-42 Sept 5, 1975 HSW Figure A-43 Sept 10,. 1975 Flood Figure A-44 Sept 11, 1975 LSW Figure A-45 Sept 15, 1975 HSW 64

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 NORTH TOl/1/J::R 5 11>

C'51' f I

78.6

• 79 COBHAM BAY s~,J~

0 2000 4000

1

=

I FEET 65 TOWER 2 ~-6

/

80 ~

/82'... __

~

)1 83

/1/k.. 83-

/ t("~82~

I ::1 TOWER 3 I I \\ \\

I \\ \\

I I \\

I /

I I I

i I

YI;,,

I Va;/

/ 84

~

SURRY NUCLEAR

• ~

POWER PLANT

~~

INT~

DATE:

.JUNE 3, 1975 TIME:

1515 - 1549 DST TIDE:

Low SLACK W;, TER PLANT OPERATION 749 M\\1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND: 6-7 MPH SS!*/

AMBIEl'JT WATER TEMP:

79°F AIR TEMP: 8J.0°F DEW POINT TEMP: 64. ooF DEPTH:

0.5 FT.

Figure A-1.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 78.5 e

79

/

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 f!l:Cl!iC.~.::=~-.r:====::::=i FEET TOWER 4 0

I 66 C'43' #

TOWER 2 78*9 02 B1 L

-~

e1 TOWER 3 DATE:

Ju:,E 3, 1975 TIME:

1515 - 1649 DST TIDE:

Lo*,: Su.cK ':!ATER PLANT OPER.i\\ TION 749 j,;;1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WINO:

6-7 :1PH SS\\*/

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 78.7°F AIR TEMP: 81.0oF DEW POINT TEMP:

64, o°F DEPTH:

3.0 FT.

Figure A-:-2 *.

TOWER 4 JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH TOWER 5

• C'51' t 78.5 0

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

---

~--==*=======->

FEET 67 TOWER 2 ~A 79---

~.

80-

/

81....--

~

I/

C) ('-

ToV:ER 3

,( Ii

))

79 DATE: JurlE 3, 1975 TIME:

1515 - 16119 DST TIDE:

Lm1 SLACK 1*/A TER PLANT OPERATION 749 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND: 6-7 MPH SS\\1 AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

78.3°F AIR TEMP: 81. o°F DEW POINT TEMP: 64, ooF DEPTH:

6.0 FT.

Figure A-3.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH C'51' f

---

79 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~--====::c:.==:-::r..-* --

_==-=:J FEET TOWER 4 80 TOWER~j 68 TOWER 2 7e.s *

"\\

c(/

• TOWER 3

("

e TOWER 6 DATE:

JUNE 5, 1975 TIME:

927 - 1058 DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK HATER PLANT OPERATION 71l6 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10 MPH SS\\/

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 78.6°F AIR TEMP:

80.0°F DEW POINT TEMP:

67, o°F

JAMESTOWN I

ISLAND NORTH.

0'51' f.

79.4

• TOWER 4 79.4 TOWER 5

• C.

COBHAM BAY

~.

0 SCALE 2000 4000 J

FEET I

69 0'43',

TOWER 2 79.o

• INT AKE CANAL DATE:

JUNE 6, 1975 TIME:

1029 - 1220 DST TIDE:

EBB.

PLANT OPERATION 751 rf,*/

. UNIT 1:

Uf\\JIT 2:

WIND: 12-16 MPH W AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

78.7°F AIR TEMP:

77, 3oF DEW POINT TEMP:

67, o°F Figure A-5.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 77.4 TOWER 2 78.'i

78 C'43', ~

78--?

/11~

/Ii:\\,\\

TOWER 3

/

\\

"-;9 NORTH TOWER 5 11 c*sr t OWER6

i____

79 c

-. A 78 '\\__--r r-,,.,

.. ~ /

79

/

/

84.2

~

INTAKE CANAL DATE:

JUNE 9, 1975 TIME:

1159 - 1340 I:ST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK !*l,HER COBHAM BAY PLANT OPERATION 7.'.Jl M!1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5 MPH 14-S\\1 AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 77.5°F AIR TEMP: 72, ooF

___E __ =SC~=~c

~rDEW POINTTEMP, 5'.0'F

///

Figure A-6.

FEET

{.

70

JAMESTOWN TOWER 4 77.2 NORTH TOWER 5

• 77 C'51' f 76.8

/.

__//

C" COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~c====x---~~::=i FEET 71 TOWER 2 76.7 *

/

/

C'43',

77

/

78 J

TOWER 3.

DISCHARGE CANAL DA TE:

JUNE 10, 1975 TIME:

1230 - 1407 DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK !*IATER PLANT OPERATION 751 M\\1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10 f1Pf/ SE AMBIE~JT WATER TEMP: 76.6°F AIR TEMP:

75. o°F DEW POINT TEMP: 55°F Figure A-7.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH TOWER 4 75.2 TOWER 5 1>

75~

C'51' t

~

COGHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~-::::t __

r;-____ L_---=:J FEET 72,

,,5 c*43*,

75~

/

76---

0~

/'17 TOWER 3

/

/

!/"

/ I t'

1' I I I I I.

• It It JI

/I

/I

//

76 /

I 15,1;11 INT AKE CANAL DATE:

JUNE 12, 1975 TIME:

1014 - 1200 DST TIDE:

Lm1 SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION 751 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

12 MPH S AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 75.0°F AIR TEMP: 73.0°F DEV\\/ POiNT TEMP: 57. ooF Figure A-8.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f 78.9

• _____.-/ 80 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 FEET TOWER 4 80,5 8

TOWER 5

• 73 TOWER 2 ~.&

..J a,...____ :

82 __ *,

TOWER 3 81 DATE:

JUNE 16, 1975 TIME:

1404 - 1544 DST TIDE:

Low SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION 741 i"N UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

JO /'!Pf! SE AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

AIR TEMP: 86.0°F 80,0°F DEW POINT TEMP: 69, 3of lt'+:<JUre A.~9- **

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 80.1 TOWER2 79.8 * (

~fl 83 TOWER 3 NORTH TOWER 5 11 C'51' f 82.4

• 83 DATE:

JUNE 18, 1975 TIME:

0830 - 1013 DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK 14ATER COBHAM BAY PLANT OPERATION 973 r,w UNIT 1:

UNiT 2:

WIND:

CALM AIR TEMP:

80, o°F J*~ AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 80.8°F DEW POINT TEMP: 72.0oF SCALE

..___.!_= 2~~~00 Figure A-10.

FEET

/

74

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 79.4 82

/

TOWER2 I' C43',

J 8~

~~

/>--."TOWER 3 BJ

\\

B4 TOWER 5'e I

NORTH C'51' t B2.0 *

---

B2 TOWER 6 INT AKE CANAL DATE:

J'.!NE 19, 1~~5 TIME:

0911 - n:: :ST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK,.,,HER COBHAM BA y PLANT OPERATION

2 57 M\\*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND: 7. 5 f~9 :, Nil\\*1 AMBIENT WATER TE'.1P: gl)jlF AIR TE 1,1P:

~.:;.'.l°F

~

DEW POINT TEMP: -2. 3'.iF ac~-~:;~~-~=~~00.

1)f Figure A-11.

FEET 1 J 75

JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t TOWER 4 NORTH TOWER 5 *

---

B3 84 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~=r--==***~=:.:--::::J FEET 76 82'---

82--

c*43*,

/;"

TOWER 3 I r~-

1 I

/

/

/

r

\\,

HOG POINT 84 DISCHARGE CANAL

~

INT AKE CANAL DATE:

JUNE 23, 1975 TIME:

12!J6 - 1345 ~ST TIDE:

~ I GH SLACK HATER PLANT OPERATION 15Q5 M\\*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND: 5 MPH SW AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 82.9°F AIR TE~.':P: 3J. 3°F DEW POINT TEMP: SC, 5oF Figure A-12.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f 0

COBHAM BAY SCALE 2000 FEET 4000 TOWER 4 81.4 TOWER 5 11 77 TOWER 2 ~.5 c*43*,

DISCHARGE CANAL SURRY NUCLEAR INT AKE CANAL DATE:

Jur;E 25, 1975 TIME:

0925 - 1105 DST TIDE:

Lm-1 SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION 71J9 M,-1 UNIT 1:

U~~IT 2:

WIND:

5 '.~DH S\\*I AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

31, 6°F AIR TEMP:

79. Cl°F DEW POINT TEMP:

67. o°F Figure A-13.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 0

81.9 *

/

COBHAM BAY SCALE 2000 FEET TOWER 4 82A TOWER 5

• 82 I

78 TOWER 2 BJ-'

83 c*43* v_.:.--_

( ( /-,.

/

84 1

TdwER 3 85 I

I 84 j

I

~3 I

.I /

• 4owrn 6 I

I INTAKE CANAL.

DATE:

JUNE 25, 1975 TIME:

102~ - ::SB DST TIDE:

EARLY Fl.:J::i PLANT OPERATION 750 M'*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2*

WIND:

10 MPH '!:

Ar,1BIENT WATER TEMP:

82.1°F AIR TEMP:

31,3:f DEW POINT TEMP:

7:1.o°F Figure A-14.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH C'51' f 80.J

• COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~.:-=--~--z::::::.:.:-*.:.:x..=.::_--:-=.:x:

FEET TOWER 4.

BOA TOWER 5 11 79 c*43*,

TOWER 2 79.9 *

~

80---

INT AKE CANAL DATE: JuL v L 197:i TIME:

11!00 - 1536 DST TIDE:

Low SLACI< !*It. TER PLANT OPERATION 15J.8 M\\*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5-10 MPH NE AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 30.2°F AIR TEMP: 76,7°F DEW POINT TEMP:

54.7°F Figure A-15.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH C'51' f 79.6 *

/

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~- :---:--=r **-** *-c----.==.:::i FEET 80 TOWER 4

---

so-80.2 c*43:f

~

~ER3 f,82 I

/

,/

TOWER 5 \\//. Jl HOG POINT 80 80

/ 82 I

81

~

INTA~

DATE: JuL Y 2, 1975 TIME:

l.'J!J9 - 1630 DST TIDE:

Fuon PLANT OPERATION 11J97 f~'.*!

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND: 5-l 'J :*1PH AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 80.0°F AIR TEMP: 22, o°F DEW POINT TEMP:

72, ooF Figure A-16.

I

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH C'51' t 78.6

• COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

---

~----==~-..:.=::_=c.:==::~

FEET TOWER 4 79.2 TOWER 5

• 79 TOWER 2 79.o

• c*43*,

60

)

TOWER 3

(

i I I I 19

\\

~

DATE:

JLY 3, 1975 TIME

S'.lli - 0956 [ST TIDE:

'-lGH SLACK 14,;".'~'<

PLANT OPERATION E~~ :*i\\ol UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

- : 0 ::P~ 't/

AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

78.9°F AIR TEMP:

74, E:F DEW POINT TEMP: 62, :: f Figure A-17.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f B2.6

• TOWER 4 80.6 83 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 ac:m:~:.::--===:r:_--=- :.i - -*** -..x::*-~

FEET TOWER 2 82,9

• 82 ----

81-c DATE:

JULY 8, 1975 TIME:

1157 - 1329 DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION 735 r*1'.1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

CALM AMBIENT WATER TEMP: S2. '.;o F

/\\IR TEMP:

31. 7°F DEW POINT TEMP:

68, 78f Figure A-18.

82

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~--.

-"'**-*---- l..7., __________ l FEET TOWER 4 81.3 83 J

c*43*,

TOWER 2 81.9

• TOWER 3 DATE:

,JULY 9, 1975 TIME:

l21i9 - 1419 :sr TIDE:

~ I GH SLAC~ *.;:, TER PLANT OPERATION 73~ ~1\\-1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5-10 1*;PH S\\1 AMBIENT WATER TEMP: S1.7°F AIR TEMP: 85, 4°F DEW POINT TEMP: 72, 40F Figure A-19.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f

• 1. 83 81.9

• _/

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

• .a:~==z=...-=.:..-** :x:::=.-:: =c:-=:=::i FEET TOWER 4 81.9 I

TOWER 5

• 84 83 TOWER 2 82.6 83~

--::-~=--*--- TOWER 3 DATE:

JULY 10, 1975 TIME:

~338 - 1503 :~:

TIDE:

YI GH SLACK 1,IA 7~'<

PLANT OPERATION 7;3 ?!*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5 (*;PH S1,/

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: S2.1°F AIR TEMP:

31i. 3of DEW POINT TEMP: 7:. :J!=

Figure A-20.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f 80.2 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

• -=-=-=--.ac:=====c-::c=

FEET TOWER 4

/

81 BO.I 85 TOWER 2 79.6

• 82-81--

a,. __

~BO C'43* #

INT AKE CANAL DATE:

JULY 15, 1975 TIME:

1237 - 1414 DST TIDE:

Low SLACK HATER PLANT OPERATION 1485 M:*I UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:.

WIND:

5-10 MPH WlE.

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 30.0°F AIR TEMP: 79. 7°F DEW POINT TEMP:

73.7°F Figure A-21.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' f 79.9

• COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 ac:-=:ar:=::*--~.--..:.c:*----::::c..~

FEET TOWER 4 80.2 TOWER 5

• 86 C'43',

TOWER 2 81.6

• DATE:

JuLY 17, 1975 TIME:

1508 - 1645 I:ST TIDE:

Lo,1 SLACK !*IA TER PLANT OPERATION l~:35 MH UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10-15 MPH S AMBIENT WA.TEA TEMP: 80.6°F AIR TEMP:

82.3°F DEW POII\\JT TEMP:

72, ooF Figure A-22.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 81 TOWER 2 79.1

• 81~

c*43*,

NORTH TOWER 5 e C'51' t 81.9 I

DISCHARGE CANAL

~ SURRY NUCLEAR

~RPLANT IN~

DATE:

,JULY 18, 19;-'5 TIME:

0916 - 1052 ~ST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK '.*iATER COBHAM BAY PLANT OPERATION 1491 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:.

WIND:

0-5 t1PH SW AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 80.6°F AIR TEMP:

75.0°F 0

SCALE

~

DEW POINT TEMP:

71. 2 F

-=--,£~ ____,.252,0~=-~_£00

• Figure A-2 3.

~ET I

87

I

• JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 86 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

---

:a::::..:=:=i=-=-=:c:==:.i::..:=:::=.1 FEET TOWER 4 13 88 TOWER 282D

• BJ INTAKE CANAL DATE:

JULY 21. 1975 TIME:

1149 - 1325 [ST TIDE:

HlGH SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION 11.;~'.J M',~

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

7-10 MPH H AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 83.7°F AIR TEMP: 83, 3°F DEW POINT TEMP: 70. 90F Fi:gure J\\":.""24 ~.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 TOWER 2 87.0 88--

88 87---

86 c~

8685 8~*

TOWER 3 C'51' f

'NORTH 84.5

• 86 88

-~

IN~

DATE:

JULY 22, 1975 TIME:

1252 - 1429 DST

'TIDE:

HIGH SLACK '*/ATER COBHAM BAY PLANT OPERATION 1491 M\\*/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

0-5 MPH S'./

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: q4,8°F AIR TEMP: 85.7°F SCALE

'DEW POINT TEMP:

73.5°F

~=--}OOO ~Q,00 1

Figure A-25.

FEET

/t.

89

TOWER 4 JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t f

NORTH 82.6

• COBHAM BAY

~

SCALE 0

2000 4000

~-:Jar.-... *-::-:-r_. --~-I.... --....1.--::J FEET TOWER 5 e 90 TOWER 2 83.3 *

"~

686 ~

c71/.,-

roV:ER 3

\\

)i I

I OArE:

JuLY2:i,.J975 TIME:

1002 - lllJl DST TIDE:

LOI-I s _.:.cK -

EARL y FLOOD PLANT OPERATION 74:i M\\-/

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

15-r '*'.PH S AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 82.9°F AIR TEMP:

3~, J:iF DEW POINT TEMP:

76,,(lF

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH c*sr t 85 85.4

• 86 ~87 COBHAM BAY SCALE o __.

_ 2000 4000

-=-:-:aa; ___ ::i ____ :z:::::; __.:r==::::::::J FEET TOWER 4 83.1 TOWER 5

• 83 84---------

TOWER 2 82.D.

83---.

'£

/-

{.:' 83.

8

~*

c:)

/::

~R3 84 85 J

]

(

J DATE:

JuLY 28, 1975 TIME:

1137 - 1313 ;ST l

91 TIDE:

Low SLACK :It rm PLANT OPERATION 745 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

0- 5 MPH S AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 83.J°F AIR TEMP: 81, 7°F DEW POINT TEl\\.1P: 72, 50F Figure A-27.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t NORTH 82.6

• 83

/

TOWER 4 83.S COBHAM BAY 0

SCALE 2000 FEET 4000 92 BS INTAKE CANAL DATE* JULY 29, 1975 TIME*

236 - 1419 DST TIDE:

~8W SLACK - EARLY FLOOD PLANT OPERATION736 MW UNIT t UNIT 2:

VVll'-JD:.'J r*1PH E AMBIEi\\T WATER TEMP: 83.7°F AIR TE'.'P:

82, flF DEW POINT TEMP:

73. 50F Figure A-28..

JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t NORTH 86,8

• COBHAM BAY SCALE TOWER 4 86.5 TOWER 5

• 86 0

2000 4000

..-..ac:nc-;::--==:1:.:..::.:..=_::x=. *--.L=====:J FEET 93 87

3

~~ls 86., ~c_

~* \\ 6 '~ER3 87 HOG POINT DISCHARGE CANAL

~

SURRY NUCLEAR

~L.ANT

~

INT AKE CANAL DATE:

JULY 31. 1975 TIME:

13311 - 1509 [ST TIDE:

LOI'/ SLACK \\1ATER PLANT OPERATION 730 M\\1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5 '.~?H E AMBlaH WATER TEMP: 86, ':J°F AIR TEMP:

83, 6°F DEW POINT TEMP: 5~.2oF

); Figure A-29.

/..

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 86.7

• COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 ac.c=-=-=._-:---~ -=-~-=-:..~

FEET TOWER 4 8

86.0 TOWER 5

• 94 I

SURRY NUCLEAR DATE:

AUGUST 5, 1975 TIME:

1049 - 1223 DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK HATER PLANT OPERATION 1482 MW UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

JO MPH \\-/r!W AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 86.1°F AIR TEMP: 84. o°F DEW POINT TEMP: 74.0°F

1 Figure A-30.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 86.2

~"

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

-=m:.-=-:--*--=r_. -*-* ___..J.==:::::i FEET TOWER 4 85.6 95 TOWER 2 85*3

• 85..;...---

85~

86 C'43 u87~

(

/;

88 TOWER 3 98.6

. ya,scHARGE CANAL

,I"'

/

~

SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INTAKE CANAL DATE:

AUGUST 5, 1975 TIME:

1220 - 1356 DST TIDE:

EARL y EBB PLANT OPERATION 1467 :-::;

UNIT 1:

. UNIT 2:

WIND:

10 ?PH S11 AMBIENT WATER TEMP: :3.7°F

. AIR TEMP: 2:1, 3°F

/

DEW POINT TEMP: 74.o0 :=

Figure A-31.

I

JAMESTOWN ISLAND

/

f NORTH C'51' t 83.8

• 84

/

COBHAM BAY TOWER 4 85

\\ I 84.5 TOWER 5

• 96 TOWER 283.3 e

C"43",..

r---.S"

~\\_BJ~Ov:EA3 85 84 B5 VS HOG POINT

~

N 1 AKE CANAL--::

DPTE.::

iiUGUST7, 1973 Ti!',1E*

1239 - l!H3 :~T T!Df::.

ir:aH SLACK ':IAER PLM~ T OPERATION * :::-;:: *:*.1 UNIT 1:

UNIT 2: -~-....

WIND:

'3 '.*:PH '*fr/

AMBIENT WATER TEMP*

r.-;: f=

AIR TEMP*

72, ~oF DEW POINT TEMP:

~', JJF Figure A-32

I

• JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t TOWER 2 ei,7 BJ TOWER 4 NORTH 82.6

• BJ

__-//

COBHAM BAY TOWER 5 *

/

I BJ

• 43* #

(

I I

(

I I

• .91/90 92 cr-09 J

,/9 9

• )6

,-./*~*

9*5 96 * * --~:, DISUlAri\\JE CANAL

. \\\\

I

/

-~ SURRY NUCLEAR I

I I

POWER PLANT I

~~

I I

~~

84

/

11'1 l'AKE CANAL

/

l)A.TE:

AUGUST 12, 1975

/

TIME:

1107 - 1244 DST 97

le JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t NORTH 84.8

• COBHAM BAY SCALE TOWER 4 II 86.0 TOWEf1 5 e 2000 4000 FEET 98 TOWER 2 85*4 *

/

f 8

5

, 1; 87-:::==

c* 43*

1

~

19--:.".

_.-!Ir ;8g ~

( ( r / / *--

i (

88 TOWER 3

lll HOG POINT INT AKE CANAL DATE

i,UGUST 21, 1Ci75 TIME:

,:,315 - 09!J8 rsT TIDE:

LOI*/ SLACK \\'/ATER PLANT OPERATION u~m 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5 :'.P~l E AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 85.4°F AIR TEMP:

79, 7°F DEW POINT TEMP:

73. =JF Figure A:-34.

TOWER 4 86.2 JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH TOWER 5 a C'51' t 88 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~:.~.::-..:====c=

C.....=:-=:l FEET 99 TOWER 2 86*3

• 86-------

C'43'~

86 86 1

.,TO;ER~

/

87

/) )

89 TOWER 6 DISCHARGE CANAL INT AKE CANAL DATE:

AUGUST 21, 1975 TIME:

1306 - 1440 JST TIDE:

41 GH SLACK **:,nm PLANT OPERATION

'. ', \\; ;* '"

• UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

7-8 MPH SE AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

35,3oF AIR TEMP:

83. 3°F DEW POINT TEMP: ~J. 7°F Figure A-35.

!e I

JAMESTOWN C'51' t NORTH 84.1

• T©WER 4 0

84.4 84 TOWER 5 e COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000 FEET 100 TOWER 284.5

• c*43*,

DISCHARGE CANAL..

INT AKE CANAL DATE:

Au::usT 22, 1975 TIME:

IJ339 -

• 1015 DST TIDE:

L:::\\*; SLACK 11ATER PLANT OPERATION : * *. ** '"

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

1 ':!- ~2 MPH S:*1 AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 84.3°F

. AIR TEMP: 79, 5oF

,, 'DEW POINT TEMP: 72. 6°F

)

Figu:rre A-36.

/

TOWER 4 I

85.5 JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

TOWERV NORTH C'51' t 87.8 *

~87 87~

COBHAM BAY OS~~

w:w::w:::: =-====>

/

FEET J,.01.

86 I TOWER 2 85.3

• 86/.

8~*

C'43:,

~

<1~

. 88 )P*', TOWER 3

)

91 I

87

~

SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INT AKE CANAL DATE:

riUGUST 26, 1~75 TIME:

1035 - 1224 :ST TIDE:

Lo1-1 SLACK HAER PLANT OPERATION

.', ~ 0 '.*:':*."

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

J-5 MPH N\\-1 0

AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 35,g F AIR TEMP:

86, 3°F DEW POINT TEMP:

• l°F Figure A-37.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t NORTH 85.5.

• COBHAM BAY SCALE TOWER 4 85,3 TOWER 5

• 0 2000 4000 FEET 102 TOWER 2 86.D..

871:

88 TO ER 3 DATE:

AUGUST 27, 1975 TIME:

1150 - 1319 DST TIDE:

t.o\\RL V FLOOD PLANT OPERATION.

1-~ : 6 '.*'.'\\*.'

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10-15 MPH NNE AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 85,6°F AIR TEMP:

83, o°F.

DEW POl~H TEMP:

67, o°F Figure A-38.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH c*sr t COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

---

==-=-c:-=-====---=--===:,

Ff:ET TOWER 4 TOWER 5

• a 10~

87 7c'*'n ea-89 _J;ER3 88 89 87 INT AKE CANAL DATE:

AUGUST 29, 1975 TIME:

1344 - 1517 DST TIDE:

EARL y FLOOD PLANT OPERATION l '! '.: £;....

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

8 MPH E AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 86.2°F AIR TEMP: 83, 3°F

~

DEW POINT TEMP:

64, o°F

1 Figure A-39.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND NORTH C'51' t 79.2 *

---

so COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000

,4000

-=-::n:: -:::::..:;:=:::-::::.:r---==:x=::::::::i*

FEET.

TOWER 4 79.7 TOWE:R 5 e

• 104 TOWER 27ij.S INT AKE CANAL DATE:

SEPTE'.'3ER 3, 1975 TIME:

1045 - 12l4 DST TIDE:

HIGH S_ACK WATER PLANT OPERATION i.'.. 32 :-'.'.-.'

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10-15 .?H NNE AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 79.3°F AIR TEMf:

7~. 7ciF DEW POINT TEMP:

63, 7°F Figure A-40.

TOWER 4 JAMESTOWN ISLAND C'51' t NORTH

. COBHAM 13A Y SCALE

-=-=::..0===2~00~~-~oo FEET 79.9 105 TOWER 279.1.

. C'43' t TOWER 3 DATE:

SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 TIME:

l1!1Q - 1307 DST

. TIDE:

HIGH SLACK HATER.

PLANT OPERATION.. ] :', :, *:, ~

• UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5 ~iPH E AMBIENT WATER TEMP* 79,goF AIR TEMP:

78, ooF

_DEW POINT TEMP: 66.0::F

. Figure A-41.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND

• roWER 4 81.1 NORTH

. /82 TOWER$*

C'51' t 81J 82 83

~

• ~.

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~-

.==i::=:=-::z:_.

FEET 106 TOWER 2eo,1

• c*43*,

~Bl__.!

/ ~---

82

~~ TOWER3 83 a/(

JATE:

SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 TIME:

1237 - 1405 DST TIDE:

H l GH SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION l.:'+ ~~2 HT

\\JNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

CA~M AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

80.SoF :*.

AIR TEMP: 78, 30F DEW POINT TEMP: 5'), 70F Figure A-42.

I' --

JAMESTOWN.

ISLAND NORTH

. C'51' t 78.0 *

---

79

. ~

~~/

COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

=

. FEET TOWER 4 79.2 79 107 TOWER 2 79*3..

79~-

• • c*43*, *

. 79~

~~-

-~

OWER3 DATE:

SEPTEMBER lC, 1975 TIME:

1312 - 1446 :sr TIDE:

FLOOD PLANT OPERATION :_.'.::'.-', \\'.'/

UNIT 1:

• UNIT 2:

WIND:

5-10 MPH NE AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 78,8°F AIR TEMP.

74, 3°F DEW POINT TEMP: 5-, 3°F Figure A-43.

JAMESTOWN ISLAND TOWER 4 78.6 NORTH TOWER 5

• C'51' t 77.7 *

/i~

L_78/

COBHAM.BAY SCALE 0

2000

. 4000 FEET 108

• TOWER 2 77.&

• C'43',

DATE:

SEPTEMBER l.l, 1975 TIME:

.1235 - 1418 :sr TIDE:

• Low SLACK WATER PLANT OPERATION

., Sf. ',.. '

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

10-15 MPH S AMBIENT WATER TEMP: 77.9°F AIR TEMP: 80, 7°F OEW POINT TEMP: :: flf Figure A-44..

JAMESTOWN ISLAND f

NORTH C'51' t 73.4..

73 COBHAM BAY SCALE 0

2000 4000

~===--=r*--=i::::~

FEET TOWER 4 73.8 TOWER 5

• 109 TOWER 2 73.7

• c*43*,

(

c-TOWER 3 72 DATE:

SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 TIME:

0930 - 11 % DST TIDE:

HIGH SLACK :1ATER PLANT OPERATION l ~, ::, 2 '.*'.'.:

UNIT 1:

UNIT 2:

WIND:

5-15 MPH tlE AMBIENT WATER TEMP:

73. 6°F AIR TEMP:

65, 7°F DEW POINT TEMP:

5~, 30F Figure A-45.

~ppend:i,x B Area Within Fract:i,onal Excess Temperature Isotherms (8/8 0

)

for 1975 110

Date Slack e

60 6/60 Area Mo/Day o;p Op Ft.2 6/23 H

5.1 11.1

.459 7

.17xl0 6 6.1

.550

.46xl0 6 7.1.

.640

.28xl0 6 8.1

.730

.19xl0 6 9.1

.820

.14xl0 7

• .-.7/1 L

5.8 11.8

.492

.14xl0 7 6.8

.576

.12xl06 7.8

.661

.93x10 8.8

.746

.65x10:

9.8

.831

.28xl0 6 10.8

.915

.19xl0 7

• .. 7/3 H

1.1 12.7

.087

.49x10 2.1

.165

.32x10J 5.1

.402

.65xl0 6 6.1

• 480

.56xl0 6 11.l

.874

.23x10

• .. 7/15 L

8.0 15.3

.523

.36xl07 9.0

.588

.13xl0 7 10.0

.654

.83xl06 11.0

.719

.79x106 12.0

.784

.56xl0 6 13.0

.850

.46x10:

14.0

.915

.28xl0 7

.7/17 L

10.4 16.7

.623

.30xl06 11.4

.683

.46x106 12.4

. 743

.28xl0 6 13.4

.802

.23xl05 16.4

.982

.92xl0 8 7/18 H

3.4 13.6

.250

.13xl0 7 4.4

.324

.46xl0 7 5.4

.397

.22xl0 6.4

.471

.16xlo7 7.4

.544

.83xlo6 8.4

.618

.37x10~

9.4

.691

.23xl0 10.4

.765

.19x10~

1L4

.838

.14xl05 12.4

.912

.92x10 7/21 H

4.3 12.1

.355

.7lx10~

5.3

.438

.32xl0 6.3

.521

.27xlo7 7.3

.603

.llxlO 7 8.3

.686

.10xl0 7 9.3

• 76-9

.51x106 10.3

.851

.14xl06 11.3

. 934

.46xl05 111

Date Slack 8

80 8/80 Area Mo/Day Op Op Pt.2 7/'2,2 H

7.2 12.9

.558

.32xl0 7

8. 2.

.636

.97xl06 9.2

.713

.42xl06

. 10.2

. 791

.32xl0~

11.2

.868

.19xl0 12.2

.946

.92xl0~

8/5 H

1.9 12.2

.156

.19xl0 8 2.9

.238

.12x10 8 3.9

.320

.82xl07 6.9

• 566

.15xl0 6.

7.9

.648

.79xl0 6 8.9

.730

.37x10 9.9

.811

.28xl0~

10.9

.893

.19xl0 11.9

.975

.92xl0~

8/7 H

4.2

. 11. 8

.356

.46xl0 5.2

.441

.2lxl0 7 6.2

.525

.56xl0:

7.2

.610

.42xl0 8.2

.695

.23xl06 9.2

.780

.19xl0~

10.2

.864

.14xl0 11.2

.949

.92xl05 8/12 L

8.1 13.1

.618

.83xl06 9.1

.695

.46xl06 10.1

.771

.42x106 11.1

. 84 7

.23xl0~

12.1

.924

.19xl06 13.1 1.000

.14xl0 8/21 L

5.6 13.8

.406

.44xl07 6.6

.478 7

.25xl0 7 7.6

.551

.20xl0 7 8.6

.623

.15xl0 7 9.6

.696

.12x106 10.6

.768

.42xl0 11.6

.841

.23xl0:

12.6

.913

.14xl0 5 13.6

. 9 86

.46xl06 8/22 L

• 7 0 7 13.3

.579

.60x106 8.7

.654

.5lxl0 9.7

.729

.42xl0 6

• 10. 7

• 805

.28xl0~

11. 7

.880

.14xl0 12.7

.955

.92xlo5 112

Date Slack.

e 80 e;e 0 Are' Mo/Day OF*.

OF Ft

• 8/26 L.

5.1 13.4

.381

• 56:xl0 7 6.1

.455

.48xl07 7.1

• 530

.26xlo7 8.1*

.604

.18xl0~

9.1

• 679

.13xl06 10.l

.754

.65xl0 11.1

.828

.28xl06

• 12.1

.903

.19x10~

'13.1

.978

.14xl0 7 8/27 EF 7.4 13.5

.548

.24xl0 7 8.4

.622

.16xl0 7 9.4

.696

.llxlO 10.4

• 770

.60xl0 6 li.4

.844

.28xl0:

12. 4.

.919

.14xl05 13~4

.993

.92xl0 9/3 H

5.7 13.5

.422

.3lxl0 7 6.7

.496

.16x10 ~

. 7. 7

• 570 o88x10 8.7

.644

.56x106 9.7

.719

.37x10~

10.7

• 793

.23x10 11.7

.867

.19x106 12.7

.941

.92x105 9/4 H.

7.1 13.4

.530

• 60x10 7 9.1

• 679

.l8x107 10.1

.754

.46xl0~

. 11.l

.828

.28xl0 12.1

.903

.19x106

• 13.1

.978

.92xlo*5 9/5 H

8.2 13.9

.590

.17xl0 7 9.2

.662

.88xl06 10.2

.734

.56xl0~

11.2

. 806

.28x106 12.2

.878

.19xl05 13.2

.950

.92xl0 7 9/10 F

8.2

. 14.1

.582

.1ox106 9.2

.652

.69xl0 6 10.2

.723

.46xl06 11.2

.794

.28xl06 12.2

.865

.19x10 13.2

• 936

.92xl0 5 113

Date Slack 8

~?

8/80 Area Mo/Day Op Ft.2

.21x10~

9/11 L

8.1 14.3

.566 9.1

.636

.14x10 10.1

.706

.83x10:

11.1

.776

.60x10 6 12.1

.846

.19xl05 13.1

.916

• 92x10 14.1

• 986

.46x105

• 9/15 H

5.4 12.1

.446

.73x107 6.4

.529

.13xlo7 7.4

.612

.65x106 8.4

.694

.51xl06 9.4

.777

.32x10~

10.4

.860

.92x10 11.4

.942

.46xlo5 114