ML20079N097

Demonstration Under Section 316(a) of Clean Air Act, Waterford Steam Electric Station,Unit 3

ML20079N097
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/30/1979
From:	LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NUDOCS 9111110078
Download: ML20079N097 (179)

Text

.

1 ADUISiANA POWER & LIGHT Demonstration Under Section 316;a; of the Clean Water Act o

WATERfDRD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

.o UNIT NG.3

y m ~ ;;,

O .

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DDt0NSTRATION UNDER SECTION~316(a)

-0F THE CLEAN WATER ACT WATERFORD'.

STEMI ELECTRIC STATION - -

. UNIT NO. 3 April, 1979 0:

' .._..--...-._L_. _..._--l

. . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ . .

DEMONSTRATION L'NDER SECTION 316(a) 0F THE CLEAN WATER ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 B. PLANT DESCRIPTION 2 II. MASTER ECOSYSTEM RATIONALE 4 III. , BIOTIC CATEGORY RATIONALES 7 A. PHYTOPLANKTON 8

1. Decision Criteria 9 B. HABITAT FORMERS 10 O

C. . ZOOPLANKTON AND MER0 PLANKTON .10 -

1. Zooplankton 11

2. Meroplankton 12

3. Decision Criteria 13 D. SHELLFISH / MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES 13 1

1. Threatened, Endangered or Commercial Species- .13

2. .Importance of Shellfish /Macroinvertebrates 13

3. Decision Criteria 16 O

. . _ - ~ . . . _ . ~ . . . . - .. - . . - - . . . - - . - . . . - . . . . - - - .. - ~ . . -

E. FISH 17

1. Threatened , Endangered , Sport and- Commercial Spe:ies 17

2. Fish Spawning and Nursery Potential 18

3. Zone of Passage 20

4. Potential for Cold Shock 21 22

5. Decision Critiera F. VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE 23 IV. ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGIC DATA 25 A. ENGINEERING DATA 25 B. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION 27 C. DISCRARGE OUTFALL CONFIGURATION AND OPERATION 29 D. PLUME PREDICTION METHODOLOGY 31 V. CONCLUSIONS 35 Tables Figures Apppendix A -

Waterford Hydrothermal Study l

1 l

l O

v  !

l 1

l l

l

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

LIST OF TABLES

)

1. Contribution of Cyanophyta to the Phytoplanktcn Community

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

3. Average Zooplankton Densities, Numbers per M by Station by Date in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3

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

5. List of Maccoinvertebrates and Shellfish Taxa 1973 to 1976

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

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

8. Averago Ichthyoplankton Organisms per M by Family and Month in Samples Collected During the Waterford Environmental Surveil-lance Program (October 1975-September 1976) (Year III)

9. Average Numbers of Ichthyoplankton per M Collected in the Waterford Vicinity l 10. Small Fish Found in the Mississippi River

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

I

12. Summary of Cooling Water System Operational Modes l

O v

- . - .- ~ . . . . . - . - . ~ . - - - . . .- . _ . - - . .

l l

l l I.IST OF FIGURES

1. Waterford 3 Vicinity Map l

2. Sampling Areas in the Mississinpi 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 Surf ace, Combined Field -

Average Spring Flow Condition

6. Predicted Excess Isotheras ( 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

8. Excess Isotherm ( F) at the Surface, Before Waterford 3 Discharge, September 9, 1976 - Low Flow Condition

9. Execss Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field -

September 9., 1976 Low Flow Condition

10. Excess b otherm ( F) at the Surface, Before Waterford 3 Discharge September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition

11. Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field -

September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition

12. Combired Thermal Plume Cross-Section at Little Gypsy for Typical Low Flow Conditions

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

13. Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface Before Waterford 3 Discharge - Extreme Low Flow Cor.dition

14. Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface Af ter Waterford 3 Discharge - Extreme Low Flow Ccndition

15. Combined Thermal Plume Cross-Section at Little Gypsy (RM 129.2) for the Extreme Low Flow Condition

16. Jombined Thermal Plume Cross-Section at RM 128.5 for the Extreme Low Flow Condition

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

18. Circulating Water System, General Plan O

19. Circulating Water System, Discharge Structure and Canal

20. Schematic of Water Flow, Waterford 3 1

21. Mississippi River Flow Duration Curve O

I. INTRODUCTION l

A. FURPOSE AND SCOPE This assesstent is submitted ir support of Louisiana Power & Light Company's application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, filed pursuant to 40 CFR 125 with the U S Environmental Protection Agency, P,egion VI, on October 16, 1978 and in support of the requec to EPA that an alternative thermal limitation be established under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act for cooling water discharges. In order to facili-tate review of this application, this document has been prepared in accord-ance with the guidelines developed by the U S Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to 40 CFR 122. This assessment is baser; upon an ovaluation of the design of the discharge facility and the nature of the Mississtppi-River near Waterford.

7 The site specific data base utilized in the determination of thermal impacts on the river has been provided by the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, which is reported in the Waterford 3 Operating License Stage Environmental Report (OLER). Fcr the purposes of this analysis, the data necessary to demonstrate t'te low potential impact of thermal discharges f rom Waterford 3 have been reproduced. As t,ppropriate, related analyses, methodologies, additional data, etc. are cross-referen-ced in this document to the OLER. For purposer of this submission to EPA under Section 316(a), additional analysis has been performed and is reported in this submission.

I

This document includes

1. A brief description of pertinent systems at Waterford 3 contributing 2

to-the cooling water discharge, a

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

O

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

4. A description of the following items as pertains to plant thermal discharges: plant engineering data, Mississ,ippi River hydrology; discharge outfall configuration and operation; and plume prediction methodology,

5. Formulation o' conclusions based on the above.

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-hs1f mile downstream from Waterf ord I 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 l the project area.

The net electrical output of this nuclear-fueled unit for the rated power level is 1154 MWe. Makeup water for all systems, with the exception of the l Potable- and Sanitary Water System and the service water system, in the l

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

l l The main condenset Circulating Water System, the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System and the Steam Generator Blowdown System heat exchangers of Waterford 3 all operate in the once-through (open cycle) mode. For these once-through systems, evaporative losses are assumed to be negligible.

I Cooling water discharges from these systems, along with certain plant process waste waters, are comhjned and discharged to the Mississippi River in the Circulating Water Systen discharge. The water is discharged to the river utilizing a surf ace discharge through a canal which is tapered to

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

provide a jetted discharge for improved dispersion of tiie spent cooling water during lower river flows. Chlorine (used only on an intermittent basis as necessary) 1 added to the circulating wat.er to prevent biological fouling of the condenser tubes.

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

O ,

t 3

-l 1

l l

l II. MASTER ECOSYSTEM RATIONALE This cectir.a summarizes the basis for the conclusion that the balanced indigenoa population of the Mississippi River will not be disrupted by thermal discharges from Waterford 3. This section also briefly discusses the findings, detailed in Section III, concerning the acreage and cross-sectional area affected by th3 excess temperature of the discharge, as well as the ecological characteristics of the organisms present. These factors indicate : bat the ecosystem should be considered one of low potential for impact f rexn 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 in low densities, averaging approximately 260 cells /cm3 , 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 n 'faterford 3- range from approximately 400 to 4000 organisms /m , and ichthyoplankton densi-ties ate all significantly less than 1 organism /m .

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

A commercial fishery exists in the Mississippi River for catfish, fresh-water drum and rive'. shrimp. From Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, this fishery took 1.2 r.illion 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.

.l .

Benthic species cf beneficial commercial value do not occur in the river neat Waterford. However, the asiatic clam (Cyrbicula), one of the dominant benthic otganisms in this area and a food for indigenous fish, has been found to be a nuisance species in oth,tr parts of the country f orcing econ)-

mic losses for their control. The Corbicula population is not expected to be significant1, af fected by the thermal discharges betause of the very small area of its habitat which will be influenced.

f l

The species found in the Mississippi River near Vaterford 3 do not include any of those listed en the U S Fish and Wild 11te fervice threatened or endangered species list for 1979.

The thermal characteristics of the Mississippi River ecosystem, as des-cribed in more detail in Section 111, will be af fected by the combined dis-charge plumes of Waterford I and 2. Waterford 3 and the Little Gypsy Generating Stetton. Plumes are shawn in Section IV tor the combined dis-chatges of these plants during average seasonal flon, typical low flow and extrsme icw flow conditions. The plume confi3 uration and detailed support-ing data indicate that, with all generating stations operating at peak ,

power output and for average seasonal river flow cunditions, a zone of passage conservat vely estimated to exceed 90 percent of the river area will exist. Even under the assumed extreme, worst case conditions (fall, 100,000 cis), a zone of passage exceeding approximately 83 percent of the river cross-section will exist between Waterford and Little Gypsy.

l l

The benthic community near Waterford is relatively sparse. Also, the river cross-sectional configuration at Waterford places a very small percentage of this community's hrbitat withir. the area af f ected by the thermal dis-l charges. It is estimated that the benthic habitat on the Waterford shore in contact with water heated greater than 2 C (3.6 F) above embient conditions under average seasonal and extreme low flow conditions with all units operating would be approximately 1 acre (maximum for winter season) and 2.6 acres, respectively.-

One of the major factors evaluated in regard to fish populations was cold shock. However, the relatively small volumes of the river affected

_s.

t

. , ~ ---...,.,,,...~-..-.-~n-,,. , , - , -+-,,v----e--,--,-,~n ,-.-.-,,,,.n--.--em a , n--w.- .. + ,~ ,,n.,-e nn+,,n-

i

?

indicate that a significant problem f rom cold shock to fish is unlikely. I For example, if Waterford 3 abruptly shutdown when ambient river tempera- {

tures tiere a minimum (41'F), cold shock would be linited within a volume of 3.2 acre-feet. [

For the reasons presented above, the balanced indigenous population cf the Mississippi River biota will not be disrupted by the thermal discharge of i Waterford 3. This conclitsion is substantiated by the following ecosystem }

characteristics low productivity at basically all trophic levels, the absu:ce of rare and endangered species, the nonuniqueness of the area for i fish spawning and nursery habitat, ar.d the very limited contribution of [

this area of the river to the commercial fisheries resources of the region.

The combination of these ecological characteristics with the samil volume of river to bc thermally af fected and the lack of potential for significant effects from cold shock demonstrates the low potential for adverse impact I from the operation of Waterford 3.

c a

f t

n O

l l

l

() III. BIOTIC CATEGnRY, RATIONALES i

l This section describes the data available for each of the biotic categories and presents rationales for demonstrating that the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford 3 is considered a low potential impact area. 1he l ,

data utilized were collected from the Missirsippi River during the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program. This program was initiated in 1973 to provide a basis to predict the expected biological impacts f rom the thermal discharges of Waterford 3.

+

i 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 velocit; 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

O categoriest s

i

- phytoplankton ,

k

- habitat formers I

- zooplankton and meroplankton

- sho11 fish - and macroinvertebrates i

- fish l

l l

- vertebrate wildlife __

l l

l Section 2 2.2.1 of the Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage presents a more detailed discussion of the aquacic ecology of the lower l Pdssissippi River near Waterford.

I- , . . . . . - . ..- ,-, - . - . - - . .,- ,

i

in each subsection, data are compared to the decision criteria for impact

potential as detailed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Section 316(a) Guidance Manual, dated May 3, 1977(2) .

t A. PHYTOPLANKTON In the lower Mialmaippi River, turbidity, turbulence and suspended solids limit the productivity of the primary producers (e.g., phytoplankton).

l

High river suspended solids concentrations (Figure 3) and turbidity limit light pets. *. ration to very shallow depths. Also, shallow areas of suitable substrate .or benthic (attachcd) algae production are rare. Therefore, production of "tychoplankton", or algae which find their way into the plankton community by sloughing of f of various substrates on which they grow, is limited. The system may be considered a detrital-based one, typi-cal of large, commercially-traveled rit its such as the Mississippi. Recent estimates of primary productivity suggest that the Mississippi River in the 1 vicinity of Waterford is less productive than other rivers which have been studied and substantially less productive than most lakes I ').

, 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. The mean (average) and median (50th percentile) densities we+e 260 and 150 cells /cm , respective 1y II) .

These densities can be compared to those found in lakes, where phytoplank-ton usually occur in much higher densities and consequently _ are a more i significant contribution to the food web than in rivers. For example.

l phytoplankton densities typically range f rom 500-8000 cells /cm3 in some j

l lakes which have been studied ($) .

l It'is estimated that' an organism entrained into the Waterford 1 and 2 plume I and then traveling through _ the Waterford 3 plume to the 2 C AT isotherm would be subject to excess temperatures above 2 C (3 6 F) for approx-imately one hour, on the average. The duration of this exposure at these i temperatures is not expected to cause any. change to the phytoplankto..- com-munity. Blue green algae (Cyanophyta) ensprising many nuisance species, are also not expected to increase above their present, low proporations in the phytoplankton community. Table 1 presents the measured densities of

_ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ..-. ._ . _ . _ . _ . _ ~ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _

s Cyanophyta in the Mississippi River near Waterford. )

[)

During extreme low river flow conditions of 100,000 cfs (6ee Section IV for f discussion of Hydrologic information), exposure to excess temperatures greater than 2'c (3.6 F) could be up to 9 hr. This 9 hr exposure time consists of two hours expusure to excess temperatures greater than 10 F1 five hours exposure to excess temperatures ranging from 5-10'F and two hours exposure to excess temperatures ranging from 3.6-$ F. These 3

exposure times are applicable for a planktonic orgsnism entrained in the most upstream location of the Waterford I and 2 plume snd traveling to the most downstream location of the combined plume from Waterf ord 3 and the Little Gypsy Generating Station. Under these conditions, it might be expected that some localized increase in blue-green algae populations could occurl however this condition is expected to occur at intervals roughly twice as long as the assumed 40 year life of the Waterford 3 plant. During such times, a maximum of 17 percent of the river cross-section will experience temperature increases in excess of 3 6'F. This represents an increase of 7 percent over that which the river presently experiences due O to Waterford 1 and 2, and Little Gypsy, under similar extreme low flow  ;

conditions.

1) Decision Criteria l

It is felt that the phytaplankton category should be considered one of low potential impact becauset a) A shift towards nuisance species of phytoplankton is not likely .

to occur; l

b) There is very little likelihood that the discharge will alter the indigenous community f rom a detrital to a =phytoplankton '

based system; and c) Appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous population is not likely to occur as a result of phytoplankton community changes

() caused by the heated discharge.

9

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

B. HABITAT FORMEiS Habitat formers are defind as "...any_ assemblage of plants and/or animals characterized by a rela sVdy issile 'ife stage with aggregated distribu-tion and functioning as.

1) A living and/or formerP, Itving substrate for tht. attachment of epibiota (e.g., a coral):

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

3) A biological mechanism for the stabilization and modification of sediments, contributing to the development of soil (e.g., salt cord grass);

4) A nutrient cycling path or trap (e.g., a marsh): or O 5) Specific 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 Environtrental Surveillance Program, to be devoid of habitat f ormers( ' .

C. ZOOPLANKTON AND MEROPLANRTON The Environmental protection Agency states that " areas of low potential impact for zooplankton and meroplankton are defined as those characterited by low concentrations of commercially important species, rare and endan-gered s9ecias and/or those forms- that are important components of the food web or where the thermal discharge will af f ect a relatively small propor-tion of the receiving water body"( ).

O

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...._ _ ~.-

1) Zooplankton None cf the species of zooplankton collected in the Mississippi River near l Waterford (Table 2) are commercially important, threatened or endanger-ed ( ", it is also believed that zooplankton in the vicinity of this site j are of limited importance in the food web.

Table 3 presents the average densities of all zooplankton sampled near-3 Waterford 3 during the Environmental Surveillance Program.

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  ;

a lower Mississippi River 50I, and the small mesh-sized net normally l 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 m) utilized.

Nevertheless, the 0.243 mm mesh size is well suited for sampling zooplank-l ton large enough to serve as prey for many juvenile and adult fish, Gal-

braith(10) found that yellow perch and rainbow trout usually fed on zoo-p1 kton larger than 1.3 mm. Lyakhnovich et al(I ) found that similarly

sized zooplankton were preferred by carp. Also, Vineyard et al found that bluegill sunfish responded towards daphnids ranging from 0.75 m to 3.75

mm, with a preference exhibited for the larger sizes (I ) Allan(I } .

reported that yellow perch were most -interested in prey 1.3 m or larger, i and least interested in prey less than 0.5 mm; comparable values for rain-

. bow trout were . l.6 m and 0.9 mm. Alewives, which are planktivores, showed

!- most and least interest, respectively, in zooplankton 0.7 mm and 0.2 m in

length. Thus, the above findings suggest'that estimates of zooplankton abundance presented in this document (Table 4) provide a measure of the potential contribution of zooplankton as forage for_ the fish community near

$ Waterford. The significance of this contribution can be assessed by com-paring the densities of large zooplankton in the Mississippi River to den-sitien reported for other ecosystems. Zooplankton are generally regarded 1

) . _ _

..cevs. e g ew mev ....p y6- ,g t.- .y.ey g.,_e,v,._% 7,-9-pni-p 7_.y.m,_r- ne%.yL.qg, -q ^-

--*g> -g y a-ygyp-g ut h+ w w w-g vy-*P __,Aww.w Mym-g -wer q e p g-, g r -- y-

I I

to be an important component of quiet water systems. Crustacean zoo-plankton were reported to range between 2000 and 24000/m , 2000 and 3 3 55,000/m , 2000 and 2v0,000/m in Lakes Huron , Ontario and Erie, res-pectively I . In a survey of 340 lakes and ponds in the Canadian Rockies, Anderson (l5) found that the mean density of crustacean zooplank- I 3

ton in the " sparsely populated" water bodies to be 28,000/m and tre mean of " densely populated" water water bodies to be 170,500/m3. The densities of cladocerans and calanoid copepods sampled by Lane (16) in Cull Lake, Michigan; Cranberry Lake, New York; and Lake George, New York were 6,000 to 13,000/m , 20,000 to 26,000/m3 and 15,000/m3 ,-respec-tively. In contrast to these reported values, average annual zooplankton densities at Waterford 3 never exceeded 2500/m 3, and, the average month)y density over all stations (see Figure 2) never exceeded 3500/m 3. Table s 3 and 4 present a summary of zooplankton densities.

Combining the above data with thermal tolerance information presented in the Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage ( , the impact to the zooplankton community appears negligible. In summer, for example, when ambient river temperatures are highest, averaging 84.3 F, the 5.6 C (10 F).1T isotherm only af fects 2.2 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river (combined discharges of Waterford 1 and 2 Waterford 3, and Little Gypsy under average summer river flow conditions).

Travel times through the portions of Waterford 1 and 2, and Waterford 3 plumes experiencing such temperatures are expected to be slightly greater than one hour. Under extreme low flow (100,000 cfs) conditions, it may take up to 2 hr for a planktonic organism to traverse the 10 F M area, but the a

ambient river temperature at the time when this flow.oecurs, fall, is F

lower, averaging 630F. This lower temperature can be expected to have a compensating ef fect on the longer exporare time.

2) Meroplankton Meroplankton refers to organisms which are planktonic during only a portion of their life cycle (e.g. clam larvae). In-the-Mississippi River, fish, 2 shellfish, and the macroinvertebrate river shrimp (Macrobrachium ohione) have meroplanktonic life stages. These life stages form the meroplankton

- -+4--s=-v,a re-,e,.w a w wrw'-w--+--erg **errw-w=mwer-t w'='=~e-**--g^ve-- ---w*- iv--,tr e..w--mMe -y.e-n g er **h w.. y e rg g +. m gy-v y-w*-W"FT**T-5 '-""*-4'-"'TY" Y-2* r***-*'9F"*' **'r"#-

- - . _ . . _ ~ -- - .......-..- - -_. . - . - -. -

. . - . . . _ ~ -

i community, and they are considered in the appropriate sections of this report (Sections III.D and 111.E). Ilowever, it will be shown that the t Waterford portion of the Mississippi River is of no special significance in the maintenance of their population.

3) Decision 1riteria The Waterford 3 discharge plume occupies a relatively small portion of the receiving waterbody. Also concentrations of important food chain and/or commercial invertebrates are low, and no rare and endangered species have been reported. This suggests that the area should be considered one of low -

impact potential, and that the following decision criteria she uld be recog-nized as being applicables a) The heated discharge is not likely to alter the abundance and composition of the zooplankton community in the Mississippi River from those ranges of values typically found prior to plant operation.

O b) Changes in the zooplankton and meroplankton community in the river at Waterford 3 that could potentially be caused by tne heated discharge will not result in appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous fish and shellfish population at Waterford 3.

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

D. SHELLFISH / MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES

1) Threatened. Endangered or Commercial Species The taxa of shellfish and macroinvertebrates found in samples from the Mississippi River near Waterford are given in Table 5. None of the taxa are considered to be threatened or endangered only two taxa, river shrimp

. _ . _._ _- . _.~. _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _. _

l O (Macrobrachium ohione] and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) have the poten-tial to be commerically important II7' 30' 19) .

However, the occurrence of blue crab is marginal near Waterford, because the Waterford area is distant f rom water with a salinity high for spawning of this species (20) ,

River shrimp is found in higher numbers. Spawning of river shrimp takes place near the Waterford site.

Both f emales "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 ( ) .

Another study of the lower Mississippi River at a location 400 miles away also found evidence of reproductive activity ( . 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. Commercial landings of river shrimp are largely restricted to the Mississippi and Atchafalya Rivers ( ) .

In 19'1, 900 pounds of river shrimp (worth $297) were taken in commercial catches from the lower Mississippi River between the river mouth and Baton Rouge. By 1975, 4200 pounds valued at $2940, were taken )

As these statistics represent the total catch along 230 river miles, the commercial fishing effort is low, and it would seem that 1 the market for this species is not substantial. This is supported by Viosca(

) who states that ,M _ohione is being replaced as a food item by

)

i larger sea shrimp and M_ acanthurus. River shrimp may be marketed as bait, but statistics on this market are not presently available.

To summarize, the Mississippi River near the Waterford site is not unique in l terms of macroinvertebrate habi. tat. Because the Waterford 3 discharge will affect only a small portion of the habitat for river shrimp, no effect on this commercial she11 fishery is expected.

(  ;

O y w- e= -wTwer- y-g yvwr e v 1-4-ty-g-e'n +- ~v="--y- ---yg,w.y -fy-v-- w-y'- y 9.'-y-'.$rT-- ymg -

y -wryre---Nw-=-rysw--yy-- y-n w e (-'.--r- * 'v e +'w* *

2) Importance of Shellfish /Macroinvortebrates An indication of the potential importance of the benthic community to the ecosystem can be provided by determining its standing crop. A measure of standing crop is ash-free dry weight - le. that weight which represents living biomass, exclusive of such material as shell and water. The Envi-vironmental Prote: tion AgencyI2) suggests a value of I gm ash-free dry weight per square meter of benthic substrate as one decision critoria for a low impact potential to the benthic community. At Waterford, recent data (Table 6) indicate that this value was exceeded at Station A, (Figure 2) in February 1978 (due to patches of Corbicula), Stations A g and BC in April 1978 (due to sludge worms or Tubificid abundance), and Station B gin 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 habi-  !

tat. Absence of organisms from Station D g in February and April 1978 suggest that scouring due to spring floods washed the organisms away. Also, Station B is the only station within the Waterford 3 discharge plume, and it should only experience temperature rises of less than 2.8 C (5"F), as shown through comparison of Figure 2 with Figures 4-7, unless extreme low flow conditions prevail. Under extreme low flow conditions, temperatures may be between 5 and 10'T above average ambient which would be within the range of ambient river temperatures occurring during the average summer season.

Corbicula is often considered a nuisance species (24,25,26/, but it does serve as a food for fish. Corbicula is frequently found in the stomachs of blue catfish, freshwater drum. sturgeon, and redear sunfish I2') .

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

However, as discussed in the following sections, there is little potential that the benthic community including the Corbicula population, will be af fected significantly by the Waterford 3 plume.

Corbicula is_very resistant to high temperatures. When acclimated to 30 C (86 F), the incipient lethal limit (i.e. temperature at which 50 O vercent > the ree latten can live fer an inderinite verted) was reund to se P

e v -myr -o ,,v,v.-,-,,y,----ww.-,y v ,v m,i-,-= .,weww- - +-------+.e-,rrw-,w.,rs,e -,v m ,e,-ey, r- y, n -rw w e-- e w-e--,. -r m t w-rev-+--we-w--w,- e- w -&w--,---- e.'r e--+,s~,m**sev -'.wt

i 340 C (93.2 F) for long-tertn exposures, while 43 C (109.4, was re-O quired to kill 50 percent of the test organisms in 30 minutes (25) . On the basis of this information, little or no impact to the benthic wanunity and no impact to the dominant organism, Corbicula, is foreseen. During the typ- l ical low flow conditions (200,000 cf s), the 2"C excess isotherm of the i Waterford I and 2 thermal plume extunds 3 f t (1m) below the surf ace of the river and contacts up to 2062 m2 (approximately 1/2 acre) of river bottom. The addition of Waterford 3 will not significantly increase this exposure. During average spring and winter flow conditions, the addition 4

of Waterford 3 will increase the area of the bottom in contact with the 2 C (3.6 F).iT isotherm by approximately 1 acre. During the potential extreme low flow conditions of 100,000 cfs, 2 acres of benthic ares on the Waterford shore would be af fected by ternperatures in excess of 2*C above ambient under present conditions (i.e. that ef fected by -the operation of Waterford I and 2, and l.ittle Gypsy). Waterford 3 is estimated to in-increase that total area to 2.6 act 's. Altogether, this is a very small portion of the benthic h4 3 itat avail. ble in this area of the Mississippi River.

3) Decision Cr_iteria The decision criteria for low potential imc2ct on shellfish and tacro-invertebrate category may be summarized as tellows: ,

l a) Although one major known shellfish wacroinvertebrate species ,

of existing or potential value doea occur at the site (river shrimp), its distribution is wide and *here is no evidence to l

predict that the Waterford discharge will harm the population.

b) Shellfish /macroinvertebrates (Corbicula)t may serve as food for _

finfish.- However, these organisms are not expected to be affected by the Waterford 3 thermal dischate because they are resistant to heat a d little of the plume will impinge on the river bottom.

O l

t f - , _ - . - . _ - . - - - .- _ - - - . - . - ..-. - __-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ - . _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _____ _ _ _ .-. - - ..

c) Threatened or endangered species of shellfish /macroinverte-l d brates do not occur at the site. 1 l l d) In certain instances, the standing crop of Corbicula and/or sludge worms exceeded I gm ash-f ree dry weight per square meter; however, this is considered insignificant for two rea-sons: (1) the apparent destruction (by flood conditions) of Corbicula in 1978 at a station where it wcs abundant the prior f all is indicative of the instability of this community, and (ii) the thermal plume should af fect only a small part of the river bottom (in the vicinity of Waterford).

e) The site probably serves as a spawning and/or nursery for Corbicula and river shrimp, bu'; is certainly not in a unique area within the range of these species known habitat. Further, little of the habitat is significantly af fected by the plume.

E. FISH O

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 Wild-lif e ServiceI7) as threatened or endangered.

Some of the species found in the vicinity of Waterford 3 have some commer-cial value. Between Baton Rouge and the river mouth, 80,300 lbs of f resh-water 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 5I7) . Those fish of commercial importance found at the Water-ford site are not likely to be significantly af fected by the thermal dis-charge from Waterford 3. As described in the Macroinvertebrate/ Shellfish section, the thermal plume is restricted co a relatively shallow surface layer in the river. Since the commercial species are primarily bottom feeders t ' 0) , and thermal changes will cccur on the surf ace of the r!ver, temperature ef fects to these species are expected to be minimal.

i 17-

- y-- *-v,

=,,y e, w w- -

,, evy. y yyww wn.-v,.wyy* y py-e-yv* y wreWv- v--=s'w--

Furthermore, 2.e two primary commercial taxa, catfish and freshwater drum, have high thermal tolerances. Sport fishing in the lower Mississippi River is not common (6) . This is probably a result of the industrial development of the river bank and heavy commercial river traf fic, which tend to make small boat operations hazardous. Also the generally low productivity of the Mississippi River typically makes sport fishing some-what unattractive from the viewpoint of catch per unit ef fort.

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 (ictalurida) and most suckers (catastomids); the shallow backwaters and flooded areas preferred by pikes (esocids)- some of the shads (clupeids) and sunfishes (centrarchids); and the vegetated are" preferred by other sunfishes and perch (percids)5 ' 0' 9' ) To th< .

extent that sheltered locations are available (including cans, sne ,, etc),

a limited number of catfish may spawr. near Waterford. Other sp cies that may be capable of spawning in this portion of the river includ freshwater drum, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, river cerpsucker and skip; ek her-ring (27,29,M) . However, the spawning habitat appears not te be optimal even f or these species. This is supported by the low densiti s of ichthyo-plankton taken during the Environmental Surveillance Program Tables 8 and 9).

Some fish larvae sampled during the Environmental Surveillance Program must have been produced upstream 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 turbad, turbulent, high velocity river conditions and few would be expected to survive, regardless of the Waterford and/or Little Gypsy thermal plumes.

With the exception of freshwater drum, the eggs of those species expected

, to spawn near the Waterford site are demersal and/or adhesive. Because of the buoyant character of the thermal plumes, most should not be exposed to large increases in water temperature.

.18-

1 However, increased mortality of buoyant freshwater drum eggs, especially during the summer months. might occur. In view of the low numbe rs of eggs and larvae collected in the river and the high fecundity of drum (approxi-mately 200,000 to 350,000 eggs per female (27) no significant reduction ,

in the number of adults is expected.

Juvenile stages of certain species will occur at Waterford 3. In the ,

i Environmental Surveillance 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 growth rate and their size at time of maturation. For example, the majority of bay anchovy taken were probably mature, as the maximum length reported for this species ,

is 100 mm(32) . On the other hand, the channel catfish that were less than 100 mm were probably young-of-the-year because the average total length of this species at the beginning of its second year of life has been reported to be 102 mm( ').

The dominant small fish (Table 10) were the blue catfish, gizzard shad, O threadfin shad and f reshwater drum. Some reported lengths at Age I for these species, respectively, 119-150 en(29.) 130 m (average)I ') , ,

102-130 mm(29) and 130 mm(27) ,

Based on these values, it would appear that many of the small fish of these

! species f ound in the river near Waterford 3 were young-of-the-year. These l

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.

I i

Predictions of low potential impact to the adult . fish comunity resulting -

l l

f rom exposure to the Waterford 3 plume are based on - the fecundity, breeding l

l habits ad thermal tolerances of dominant species, and the generally non-unique character of the Mississippi River near Waterford.

l Fecundity (eggs / female), along with such parameters as growth rate, long-evity, age at first spawning, etc., is related to a species success in

'r'a w wa 4- y-u-g-mp- y-y- -$-'9y"u-'#wy v-gr %-g-'iwe%'-t-+--% yWe gy r-p- e y-g p-- e,r,,-y,e-ppeywyo-y--- qy y i.,p wyy g-y9 ,99 9 . wry >

exploiting and coping with its environaent. The high fecundity of f resh-water drum has previously been centioned. m testo shad are even more fecund, with Age 11 females containing an average 378,9$8 eggs and Age Vi females containing an average 215.331 eggs per female I ') . In addition, some females spawn during their first year of life. Typically, threadfin shad spawn at younger ages and consequently contain fewer eggs (6,700-12,400 per 102 m female). Members of this species frequently spawn when less than a year old, thereby increasing chances of reproduction be-fore death. Two peaks of spawning activity usually occur each yearI29) ,

increasing the chances of favorable conditions f or survival at the time of spawning.

Catfish are less fecund. A fourteen ounce catfish was reported to contain 3100 eggs, a four pound catfish 8000 eggs,18 inch catfish f rom 6000 to 8000 eggs, and a 660 mm individual contained 34,500(27,34) . Although catfish fecundity is low compared to shads (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 O for low fecundity by allowing an individual to spawn many times.

Thus, the dominant species (catfish, shad, drum) are well adapted to' varia-tions and stresses of the Missisippi River. In addition, the species which appear to use the river near Waterford 3 as a nursery exhib',t high thermal tolerances. Threadfin shad embryos can survive long-term exposures of 34 C (93.2 F)( ) .

Catfish can tolerate temperatures up to 38 C (100.4 F) and can survive temperatures up to 36 C (86 F)( 6) In .

actuality, only about 1 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river at Waterford 3 would experience temperatures above 35 C (95"F) during the hot, typical low flow period in fall. It is expected that most fish would

-avoid such an area, irrespective of their capabilities to rolerate such elevated temperatures.

3) Zone of Passage The predicted extent of the combined thermal plumes from the Little Gypsy,

___ _____--_-------- __...---,--------------------._u.- - - - -

Waterford I and 2, and Vaterford 3 steam electric stations under average seesonal flow conditions are given in Figutu 4-7. The predicted thermal plume during typical low flow conditions before and af ter the addition of Waterf ord 3 is approximated in Figures 8-11. The cross-sectional profile (ligure 12) indicates that a zone of passage will exist under the plume (at 2 C) across the entire river width. This zona of passage will aver-age 93.9 percent of the river cross-section during all averege seasonal condttions. The zone of passage during typical low fic.t condition 1 allows

• for passage through more than 90 percent of the river cross-sectional area.

Figures 13 and 14 present the predicted surf ace thermal plumes for the 3

extreme low flow condition of. 100,000 efs for the before and af ter Water-ford 3 discharge cases, respectively. Also, Figures 15 and 16 illustrate  ;

the predicted thermal plume cross-sectional profile at River Mile 129.2 and 128.5, respactively for thia 100,000 cfs condition. Each of these figures is based on full load operation of all the power generating units at both the Waterf ord and Little Gypsy stations. During these rare occasions, the zone of passage at the Little Gypsy-Waterford transect is conservatively O estimated to be approximately 83 percent of the river cross-section.

4) Potential for Cold Shock Cold shock is a physiological response to a sudden decrease in water temperature. During the period 1951-1969, the lowest average monthly recorded Mississippi River water temper.sture at the hine-mile Point.

Generating Station (25.6 miles downstream of the Waterford 3 site) was ,

8 C (46 F). This occurred during January and February. A' minimum temperature of 5 C (41 F) was reported for January, and 4.5 C (40 F) for February ( }. _ To estimate the potential for cold shock, the graph shown in Figure 17 'was utilized.- According to this graph, a AT of '

10 C (18 F) over 5 C ambient (41 F), or a AT of 15 C (27 F) over 10 C ambient (50 F). should not cause cold shock. During winter I operating conditions, Waterford 3 will create a plume with a volume of 3964 m (3.2 acre-feet) inside the 10 C (18 F) AT isotherm. The resulting j temperature- would then be at least 15 C. (59 F), in that area If an .

1

'sW---1grv i W e *

• im- e*(.*w' t y- r .g' t'P-- 3*""-b4*-9M'itt %+ @*'"4 P t@ F " 't W Wy--" V9Mt9--Te-'-$'TMp-t ag tes-re ce g "w ~ g g sma- hee-gsym -a e M

• 4 4 *M +3s- eyp vpr e#wpg ed-,-**--ny agr ee-, e t

l 1

unscheduled shutdown were to occur on a day when ambient river temperatures I

[

were at their lowest, and if the temperature decrease during shutdown within the 10'C (18 F) plume was rapid, and the other gener. ing units were abruptly shut down, the more thercelly sensitive fish within the plume could experience cold shock. The simultaaeous occurrence of these conditions is extremely unlikely.

5) Decision Criteria l Summarizing the above information, it may be concluded thatt a) 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.

b) The thermal plume (enclosed by the 2 C (3.6 F) AT isotherm) occupies only a small portion of the typical low fluw water column (3-6%); under extreme low flow conditions, 17% of the water column is af fected by temperatures above 2 C, and only 4% of the area e.v.periences temperatures equal to or above 5.6 C.

c) No special fish spawning habitat is available in the Mississippi River near Waterford 3. The ref o re , the Waterford 3 discharge should not significantly affect the resident fish populations except in localized areas within the immediate

, vicinity of the discharge which may be avoided by fish in summer and f all.

i-

+

d) Under reasonable circumstances, the-Waterford 3 discharge will not cause fish to become vulnerable to culd shock. - In the event that conditions were conducive to cold shock, an esti-mated 3.2 acre feet could be involved.

O

. . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ .-__._,.___.__,.,-~_m . _ . - _ . .-

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ ~ _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ __

e) Threatened or endangered species were not found to be present, and therefore cannot be a f f e c t ed by t he thermal plume.

F. VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE The zone of potential impact from the discharge of Waterford 3 to verte-brate 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, colloquially known as the batture.

The Waterford site is conside. red to be a low potential impact area for-vertebrate wildlife f or the f ollowing reasons:

1) The narrow configuration of the limited area available ts habitat which may be aff ected preciddes the presence of major concentrations of wildlife species.

2) No unique wildlif e et.aent rations occur on the river shoreline in the site area.

l 3) The normal potential impacts to the semi-aquatic ve rtibrates associated with once-through thermal systems, such as cold shock, should not measurably af f ect other vertebrates in this climate.

The Waterford 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage O) i identifies no major wildlife resources along the river at the site. The l

stressed industrialized environment already limits aquatic food resources to such wildlife groups as fish-eating ducks, watersnakes, etc. Addition-ally, the river is swif t, deep, and generally turbid at the site and- there-fore not conducive to wildlife usage.

1 O . . . - - . , . , - ..

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

i i

1

No known rare and endangered vertebrate wildlife species would be measur- '

ably impacted by the cooling system. In addition, the relatively warm climate in the Waterford 3 area would minimize potential cold shock of l i

possible bank-dwelling vertebrates, such as muskrats (ondatra zibethia_)  !

and nutria (Hyocaster copypus,).  ;

.i B

.i

?

t O  :

f ]

+

O.

24-

=W W 9 Vi* '%WgWWvt*-9"FP*-ypM*rT+'- m T y-wg*M-*--T-T-$g' +4-ey-qp+gs- <eaq

V. 'NCINEERING AND HYDROLOGIC DATA

[)

q A. ENGINEEklNG i'./A The Circulating Water System (CWS) provides once-through (open-cycle)

• cooling water for the main condenser, the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System hest exchangers and the Steam Generator Blowdown System Heat exchangers. The water supply source f or the CWS is Mississippi River wa t e r .

r 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 18 and 19 present a plan drawing of this system and a schematic drawing of the discharge structure , respectively. The CWS operates with either two, three or f our 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 O ef ficiencies across the main condenser (which requires approximately 97%

of the CWS design 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 a ' ont Mississippi River (intake) water temperatures. For the purposes of the analyses con-tained herein, Waterford 3 is assumed to be operating at maximum load con-

j. ditions. Table 12 summarites the anticipated annual operation of the intake pumps as dictated by the CWS requirements. The design CWS discharge flow amounts to approximately 97 precent of the design Waterford 3 discharge.

i l

l 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 con-tinuous scour in the condenser tubes which. can control fouling from nui-sance organisms.

25-

^*ypy

- y-- -g r- - g g - or

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

I a

As a result, no routine chlorination is expected to be needed for the main condenser cooling water. When chlorine i t, utilized, the free available chlorine prior to discharge will be controlled to restrict the concentra-tion f rom 0.2 to 0.5 ppm and vd1 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 pour.ds per million gallons of CWS water at a f ree available chlorine chlorine concentration of 0.2 ppm and an available chlorine content of seventy percent in the reagent added.

The travel times af ter heat addition in the CWS are a function of both th'a number of intake pumps in operation and the river stage (i.e. at high river water levels, the travel time through the discharge structure and discharge canal is longer). The travel times af ter heat addition in the CWS are a maximum at average high river water level (AHWL) conditions and are 330, 393, 532 seconds for the four, three and two pump modes, respec-tively.

Figure 20 presents a schematic diagram of water une at Waterford 3. Plant process wastewaters consisting of primary water treatment plant filter flush wastes and treated wastewaters from both the Waste Management System and the Boron Manngement System are combined and discharged with the CWS discharges. The primary water treatment plant filter flush water quality is essentially 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. ef fluents from each of these systems average approxi-mately 2000 gpd. These treated effluents are collected in storage tanks, sampled for radioactivity and, if found acceptable discha ged on a batch basis. The storage tanks have capacity to store a volume equivalent to approximately 10 days vaste production. . Therefore, batch releases from i each system will be approximately 20,000 gallons. Treated _ ef fluent con-l centrations of radioactive substances in these discharges will conform with the' limits listed in Table 3 of the Waterford- 3 NPDES permit appli-

-cation. These wastewater streams comprise the remaining 3 percent of the Waterford 3 discharge.

J

d 7

B. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION 1

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 tri-butaries 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 cf s for the winter, spring, summer and fall seasons, respectively. Each season consists of three consecutive months starting in January. Figure 21 presents a plot of the mean Mississippi River discharge versus the percent of time equaled or exceeded.

As can be noted from Figure 21, the lower limit for the average monthly river flow tuymptotically approaches 100,000 cfs. In fact, the Old River Control Structure, as well as construction of upstream storage reservoirs on tributaries, are designed to sustain a minimum flow of 100,000 cfs during low flow periods, i.e. the probability of a low flow below 100,000 cfs at thir, station is practically zero, as exhibited in Figure 21. This flow is assumed to be at least as severe as that associated with a one in 100 - year drought. Therefore, it is quito possible that a flow of 100,000 cf s will not occur during the planned 40 year operational life of Waterford

3. However, for the sake of conservatism, the " worst case" analysis.for the prediction of thermal impacts from Waterford 3; contained herein; is based on an extreme low flow of 100,000 cfs. Since it would be expected that this minimum flow would occur in the fall (see Appendix A; Figure A-1), the analysis is based-on ambient fall river temperatures and the associated discharge conditionc for Waterford 1 and 2. Waterford 3 and the Little Gypsy Station.

For the pu-,soses of the analyses performed in this study, a typical low flow in the Mississippi River at Waterford is assumed to be 200,000 cfs.

O

_ ._._.m

, The probabur.ty of occurrence of flows less than 200,000 cf s (f or all I

months) Art. plies both an annual recurrence interval of about 6.7 years, and a flow which is exceeded approximately 85 percent of the time. This flow is considerei to be a reasonable lower limit upon which estimates of thermal impacts should be based since it can be expected that low flow of similar magnitude would be experienced during the planned operational life i of Waterford 3.  !

Current speeds can be expected to fluctuate as the flow and stage in the river changes. Long-term information on current velocity at the Water-ford 3 site it not presently available. However, long-term stage and dis-charge information is available from the records of the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District: and from these data, cross-sectional average velo-cities (i.e. current speed) can be determined for the river at the Water-ford Site. Section 2.4.3.4.1 of the Operating License Stage Environmental Report presents the methodology used to calculate these currento at the Waterford Site. The actual velocity distribution is controlled by the channel geometry, and, can be expected to vary greatly along the cross-O section. The following briefly summaries the current velocities for the four average seasonni flows, the typical low flow condition, and the ex- '

treme low flow condition:

River River Current flow Flow Site Stage Speed l Condition -(1000 efs) (ft) ( f ps ')

l

{ Winter 580 10.4 3.1 Spring 650 11.8 3.4 Summer 280 4.0 1.6 l

Fall 240 3.0 1.4 Typical Low Flow 205 2.3 1.2 Extreme Low Flow 100 0.5 0.6 l Thermal stratification, for depths up to 30 feet 'in the vicinity of the

-discharge, does not appear to occur. Table 11 presents the range of >

l ambient monthly river temperatures which occur at the Waterford 3 site.

l l

r 7

_ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . , - - . . , _ . _ . . . . - _ . _ . . . . - _ _ , _ _ _ , - _ . , . _ . . - ~ - . , . . . . - . .._;_-..~._-,,,-.._.

i l

I.ince the bri of the lower Mississippi River is below sea level, salt water f rom the Gulf of Mexico intrudes as a wedge under the f reshwater discharge.

The extent of the saline front flow upstream of the river auth, as well as the depth c. :he top of the wedge, is highly dependent on tidal strength and river flow volume. The saline front generally does not extend above I New Orleans. However, in two instances of relatively long duration of low flow (approximately 100,000 cis), the front was found to extend up ta River River Mile 115 and eeyond.

I For observations made since 1929, the maximum salt water intrusion occured in October 1939, when the wedge was detected at River Mile 120. Flow dur- ,

ing the period was approximately 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 Jr.:eractions between the plant discharge and the saline wedge.

C. DISCHARGE OUTFALL CONFIGURATION AND OPERATION The discharge at Waterford 3 consists of two components; a discharge structure and a discharge canal. Figure 15 presents a drawing cortaining the diraensions of both the discharge structure and canal. The discharge structure consists of a concrete seal well with outer dimens' ions approxi-mately 52 feet by 45 feet. Cooling water leaves the seal well by over-flowing 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 dis-charge structure. The height of discharged water uaove 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 typical of those presently in use at other LF&L plants on the Mi. sis-i sippi River.

A sheet pile formed discharge canal conveys water from the discharge struc-ture to the river. The bottom portion of the canal at the river f ace 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 t.he canal sheet pile is at elevation l$.0 feet MSL where the canal is 81 f eet wide and at elevation 10.0 feet MSL where the canal is contracting. At the river face of the discharge canal, there is a single rectangular opening for the discharge of water to the river.

Velocities of the discharge flow are af fected by the rate of discharge flow and the seasonal variations in river stage. The f ollowing data pre-sent the average discharge velocities for the river flow conditions inves-tigated:

Average Average CWS Discharge Piver Discharge Flow Flow StNe Velocity Condition (cfs) _( 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 1831 3.0 4.6 Typical Low Flow

• 2235 2.3 6.1 Extreme Low Flow 1831'* 0.5 6.7

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

• • Extreme low flow conditions would be expected to occur during the fall season, and therefore the discharge flow is the same as the f all con-O dition.

D. PLUME PREDICTION METHODOLOGY To establish the existing thermal characteristics of the river, thermal distributions resulting from operation of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy were estimated under extreme low, typical low, and seasonal average river flow conditions. Because of the availability of field measurements at typical low flow conditions, 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 Edinn er and Polk farfield mathematical model was utilized for the existing plants to estimate the thermal discri-butions under the seasonal average river flow conditions. This model was also utilized for the analysis of the Waterford I and-2 discharge during extreme low flow conditions. The near field model of Prych-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) was utilized to estimate the thermal distributions of the Little Gypsy discharge under the extreme low flow conditions. Thermal plume predictions for Waterford 3 under typical low flow and extreme low flow conditions were based on the PDS nearfield jet medel (see Appendix A for model description). Both the Edinger and Polk and PDS models were employed to estimate Waterford 3 thermal ef fects under the four seasonal average flow coaditions. When the Waterford 3 discharge will act as a strong surface jet (river flows less than 300,000-350,000.cfs), the PDS model was applied; at higher flows, the jet will be weak and therefore the Edinger '

and Polk model was used. Rationales for model seicetion 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 etfects occuring at the river bend, steps were taken to develop a modeling approach that would yield representative, though conservative, results. For e example, all plants were assumed operating at full load, the models were calibrated agsinst the largest plumes observed; and surf ace cooling was neglected.

O

() Figures 4 through 16 present the results of the thermal predictions.

major features of the predictions are the following:

The

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

2) Based on the seasonal average, the combined thermal effect of all discharges (i.e. Waterford I and 2. Waterf ord 3 and Little Gypsy) is a minimurn level during the spring season and reaches a maximum during summer and f all,

3) During both the winter and spring seasons, when river dis-charges are high, dispersion of the thermal plumen 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. Th< Little Gypsy thermal plume, beiag in a relatively broad and quiescent flow field located behind a river bend, displays the larcast plume dimensions.

The thermal plume at Waterford 3 in c - .ast, takes a narrow and lengthly shape. This is caused primarily by the swif tly moving river flow.

4) 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 ef fect in the near-field of the Little Gypsy discharge, however, is expected to be more pronounced than at higher flows.

5) The Waterford 3 discharge at river flows less than 300,000 cfs is expected to exhibit surface jet characteristics. As such, 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 O-to transport the thermal discharge across the river channel and l

l L .._-_.m_ _. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - - _ . . . _ . - . - _ _ _ - - - ~ . . - . _ , _ , - -

cat:se 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 . tom areas, except in the immediate area of *ba lischarge.

6) the maximum plume dimensi ts of the combined thermal field '

during typical low flow conditions shown in Figure 9 are sumz.arlzed below:

s MAXIMUM PLUME Dimensionn 5 F Isotherm 10 F Isotherm Cross-Sectional Area 4.2% 1.1%

Cross-Stream Euent full river width 1100 ft (1800 ft)

Longitudinal Extent 7200 ft 2700 ft

7) Com;srison of results between typical low flow and average flow conditions must consider that estimates for the s.xisting dis-charges for typicol low flow conditions are wnd 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, seme predictivts of the combined field thermal plume distribution show sligm.iy greater effects for average flows than the corresponding typical low flow conditions.

8) Under the extreme low flow conditions, the cross-sectional area enclosed within the 5 F .iT is expected to be less than 15% of the river cross-section.

9) Bcth the Waterford 3 and the Little Gypsy discharges under the extreme low flow condition of 100,000 cfs are expected to ex-

'~

J hibit surface jet characteristics. As ?uch, the dilution of the discharged warm water with the cooler ambient river water is expected to be increased because of an inc.: eased rate of

. - . - . . . - - . . - - . - . - - - - ~ - . . . . . - - -_ - -.. . . . . - . - _ . - - . . - . . .-- -

jet entrainment of the cooler river water into the discharged water. The jet momentu:n of the Little Gypsy discharge, how-ever is also expected to transport the thermal discharge across the river channel and cause the merging of all dis-charges on the Waterford side of the river.

e O .

r i

O l

4

. . _ . . . - - ._ _. , - - . . . . . - ~ . , _ _ . _ , , , . . - . . - . . _ . . . _ - . - - . . . , . . . - - . ~ , . . , . _ . , . . . _ , . - . ..,.;_..-_.-..-,;

V. CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis presented in Section III of this document, it can be concluded that the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford should be classified as an area of low potential impact from thermal discharges of Waterford 3. Furthermore, in accordance with this classification, it has been shown in this report that the planned thermal discharges from Waterford 3 will not alter the balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. Therefore, persuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, it is requested that EPA esta-blish the following alternative thermal limitation for the Waterford 3 9

cooling water discharge " DISCHARGE OF HEAT SHALL NOT EXCEED .0- $ x 10 BTU PER HOUR".

l O l

O

~

l i

l REFERENCES O 1. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Repg,rt - Operatine License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. 1978.

2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency 316 '(a)

Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for Thermal Ef fects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements, USEPA Office of Water Enforcement. Permits Division, Industrial Permit s Btanch, Washington, D.C. 1977.

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

4. Geo-marine, Inc. Dallas, Texas, Personal Communication. 1978

5. Hutchinson, G.E., A Treatise on Limnology, Volume 11: Introduction to take Bioloey and Limnoplankton, J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

Il15pp. 1967.

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

Docket No. 50-382. 1973.

7. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Federal Register 41 (191): 43340-O 43358. 1979.

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

9. Likens, C. E. and J. J. Gilbert,

" Notes on-Quantitative Sampling of Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers", Limnol and Oceanogr 15 (5): 816-820. 1970, j 10. Calbraith, M. G., " Size-Selective Predation on Daphnia by Rainbow-Trout and Yellow Perch, Trans Amer Fish Soc 96 (1): 1-10. 1967.

11 Lyakhnovich, V.P. , G. A. Galkovskala and G.V. Kazyuchits , "The Age, Composition and Fertility of Daphnia Populatians in Fish Rearing Ponds", Tr. Beloruss. Navchno-Issled Inst Rybn. Khoz.

i 6:33-38 (Cited by Archibold, C.P. .1975) "Experimenta1'Observa-tione on the Ef fects of Predation by Goldfish (C Auratus) on the Zooplankton of a Small Saline Lake", J_ Fish. Res. Bd. Can.

32:1589-1594

12. Vineyard, G. L. and J. O'Brien, " Dorsal Light Response a. an Index of Prey Preference in Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)", J. Fish Res. Board Can 32 (10): 1860-1863. 1975.

-,n - -m., - , , , ~ , - - , a e,- , , - - - . - e,..-m-. - , , > , - - - -

n 1 --,

l

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

Ecology 55: 622-629, 1974 14 Wat son, N. H. F. , " Zooplankton o f the St . Lawrence Great Lakes -

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

15. And e r son , R. S., " Crustacean Plankton Communit 3, of 340 Lakes and Ponds In and near the National Parks of the v.nadian Rocky Mountains", J. Fish Res Board Can 31 (5): 855-869, 1974.

16. Lane, P. "The Dynamics of Aquatic Systems t a Comparative Study of the Structure of Four Zooplankton Communities", Ecol Monogt 45; 307-376. 1975.

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

13. Pennak, R. W., Fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States 1 Ronald Press, New York. 769pp. 1953.

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

20. Pearse, A. S. and G. Curter, " Salinity". In: Treatise on Marine Ecology and Faleoecology Volume 1, Ecology. The Geological Society of America,-Memoir 67: 129-157. 1957, i

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

Fishery Bulletin, 65 (1). 1965.

22. United States Atomic Energy Commissiot, Final Environmental State-ment Related to Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 50-416 and 417. 1973.

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

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

i 1963.

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

130-135 pp. 1976.

4 O

I

(

J L

A 4 ,-- ,-e 4-, .- .- , , ---- , , - vy--- .vww, , - - - , . , - , ,-c.,, ,, -m. - - ,-m,--. , , , . - -.--m-. v .~. --v- ..ws .- - . , , . - - . - - - , , , - - - . , -

26 Gros s , L. B. and C. Cain, Jr. , " Power Plant Condenser and Service Water Syst9m Fouling by Corbicula, the Asiatic Clam". In:

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

27. Sc ot t , W. B. and E. J. Crossman, Freshwater Fishes of Canada2 Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ot tawa. 966 pp. 1973.

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

29. Carlander, K. D., Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, 3rd Edition, The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 751 pp. 1969.

30. Scarola, J. F., Freshwater Fishes of New Hampshire, N. H. Fish and Game Department, Division of inland and Marine Fisheries, Concord. 131 pp. 1973.

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

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

33. Edsall, J. A., " Biology of the Freshwater Drum in Western Lake Erie", Ohio J. Sci. 67(6): 321. 1967 34 Davis, H. S. , Culture and Diseases of Game Fish, University of California Press, Berkeley. 332 pp. 1970.

35. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ouality Criteria for Water, Washington, D. C. 501 pp. 1976.

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

37. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage, For Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.

1972.

38. Personal Communication, U. S. Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. March 3, 1977.

O

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - l

.a.-. .w-,...eu w~.-..~w.a.-- --.u.n--uun.-.~.a.--.....---

. --n-~.~-n~n.. . . . . . . . ...e-- .., .-,.n~ ~ --- .

I t

1 3

Y

.l I

I f'

h TABLE.S '

i-

!O l

t

+

+

e O

(

__.-....,_...~.. _ .... _...,., .,,,, . . -_.,_,,,,. -,. ...m.

O = '

CONTRIBUTION OF CYANOPHYTA TO TV.

PHYTOPLANKTON C0!C1 UNITY Number of Total Cyanophytes Phytoplanktor t ..

Year Month (per 5 liters) (per 5 liter , .:

1973 Jun 0 136,000 Jul 0 289,000 s Aug 25,500 1,045,500 .

Sep 5,500 3,672,000 Oct 0 297,500 Nov 0 263,500 Lee 0 170,000 s 1974 Feb. 0 204,000 0 Mar 0 255,000 0 Apr 0 229,500 0 May 0 144,500 0 Jun 1,000 1,154,071 0 Aug 1,200 2,397,085 0 1975 Feb 4,000 2,506,003 0 Apr 1,200 1,189,642 0 Oct 23,007 283,753 6 Nov 0 122,704 0 Dee 7,669 299,082 3 1976 J an 0 761,744 0 Feb 0 598,182 0 Mar 0 Si2,871 0-Apr 0 7,234,078 0 May 0 1,602,740 0 Jun 7,685 2,633,497 0.5 Jul 7,685 2,200,946 0.4 -

Aug 30,676 3,044,593' l-Sep 38,425 812,893 5 l Source: Louisiana Power i Light Company, Environmental Recort -

, Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station,

Unit 3. 1978 O

, . - , , . . - - . . . + . ,,,-,r. ,n-- . . . - , . .. - ,. - - - ,

i O TAXA-OF ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED FROM 1973-1976 NEAR WATERFORD Coelenterata hydrozoa Nematoda Ro t i f e ra Erachienus Keratella Asplanchna Platyias cuadricornis Arthropoda Daphnia longiremis Daphnia magna Ceriodaphnia reticulata Molna braeniata i Bosmina longirostris l Bosmina coregoni i Alona sp l '

Alonella rostrata Alonopsis sp Camptocereus branchyurum Leptodora kindtli Ostracoda i Eurytemora affinis Diaotomus pallidus Diaptomus siciloides Diaptomus stagnalis Cycloos bicuspidatus l Cyclops vernalis l Ha rpac tic oid a Decapoda.

Amphipoda l Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report _- _

Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Ele tric Station -

Unit 3. 1976, i

4 i

(:) 3 AVERAGE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES *. NUMBER PER M . BY STATION LY DATE IN S '~

AMPLES COLLECTED IS THE VlCINITY OF WATERFORD 3 STATION Average Ae At Be Bt Etl Density YEAR DATE I 73 JUN 08** 2151.734 1580.130 1803.907 2005.236 2679.522 2044.106 73 JUL 17 126.281 140.528 97.441 214.526 158.607 147,477 73 AUG 22** 62.817 99.730 73.826 295.303 272.853 160.906 73 SEP 28 647.594 1385.887 1944.685 2087.479 1901,405 1593.410 73 OCT 25** 210.468 77.352 460.079 336.389 223.060 261.469 73 NOV 30 201.474 314.514 239.250 221.261 248.244 244.949 73 DEC 19 250.441 229.720 314.981 225.287 252.158 254.515 74 FEB 13 980.525 744.519 701.260 873.192 459.180 751.735 74 MAR 27 1475.952 1528.514 1384.779 1866.556 1448.072 1528.774 74 APR 20- 478.675 227.956 319.40* 391.012 488.194 381.048 74 APR 23 1181.860 1284.395 1576.604 1214.239 1118.899 1275.199 74 MAY 17 3890.018 1991.789 743,248 3291.852 2133.284 2410.038 Average Year I 971.487 800.420 804.96 1080.194 948.623 11 74 J UN 04 282.044 229.545 223.501 225.018 150.570 222.136

() 74 JUN 24 74 AUG 22 95.196 1727.880 4398.961 100.219 148. : U 2395.663

.9.412 7689.520 77.409 928.038 100.025 3428.012 74 NOV 13 483.673 1189.501 508.609 7873.902 2774.520 2566.041 75 FEB 26 756.809 247.172 399.953 416.015 '825.766 529.143 75 APR 23** 100.409 263.693 160.395 439.766 214.347 235.722 75 AUG 08 268.163 168.986 297.409 443.718 380.032 311.662 Average Year II 530.596 942.582 590.531 2452.436 764.383 III 75 OCT 30 123.350- -52.613 436.986 314.018 38.785 193.270=

75 NOV 20 62.821 83.003 44.854 20.066 75.966 57.342 75 DEC 22 32.400 108.214 59.537 28.711 208.136 87.400 76 JAN 30 5.173 18.819 5.151 9.339 3.593 8.415 76 FEB 26 .000 5.505 1.033 3.156 1.746 2.288 76 MAR 25 327.820 233.666 402,086 407.337 7.238 275.629 76 APR 29** 19.055 132.969 109.459 83.841 141.732 97.411 76 MAY 27 113.404 225.532 197.259. 153.344 182.504 174.408 76 JUN - 24 68.690 150.226 157.960 103.963 150.243 126.217 76 JUL 29 225.149 69.174 632.122 925.233 504.507 471.237 76 SEP 10 1434.406 527.145 1985.596 1571.616 1297.066 1363.166 76 SEP 26 622.113 528.958 79T.617 706.768 951.573 720.406 Average Year III 252.865 177.985 402.055 360.666 296.921

• Densities do not include exoskeletons or fish larvae

• • Sampled on more than one sampling day Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report -

O Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station.

Unit 3. 1978.

l l

O

• AVERAGE NU 0F DOMIllANT 2.00 PLANKTON (PER M )

'! DEPTRS AT ALL STATIONS

[ 5 , !NG YEARS INDICATED "

i Density

' umbers per m 3)

Taxa "'I974-1975 l975-1970 Clad oc era Daehnia sp 88 31 10 ,

Bosmina longirostris 121 59 65 Moina brachiata 0 0 65 Cerindaphnia 32 35 2 Diaphanosoma 0 7 2 Copepoda Calanoida 305 362 25.5 O Cyclopoida 369 579 141.3 Decopoda 4 3 0 All Zooplankton 975 1,034 317 4

Dominant was defined as 10% or more of the zooplankton co=munity O on any sampling date .

• • ~ Computed with data from Louisiar.a Power & Light Company (1978)( ) .

I j

O TABLE 5 (Sneet 1 of 2)

LIST OF MACROINVERTEBRATES nND SHELLFISH TAXA 1973 to 1976 Coelenterata Hydrozoa Hydra sp

$ 8 .,4 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Dugesia trigena Stenostromum sp Annelida .

Clitellata Branchiura sowerby Limnodrilus arvix Limnodritus maumeensis

() Hirudinea Erpobdella punctata Arthropoda insecta Chiromid ae Culcidae Anisoptera Hymenoptera Dermaptera Ephemeroptera Corixidae Coleoptera Trichoptera

. Crustacea Gammarus sp Callineetes sapidus Macrobraenium onione Isopoda

() Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Reoort -

Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. 1976, i

I

_ _ -_ _--- -_ _ . _ . )

. _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . - _ . _ . . . _ - . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ ' _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . .. _ _ _ _ -._ .. _ _ .. _._, ~ __

O TmE3 (Sheet 2 of *) '

LIST OF MACROINVERTEBRATES-AND SHELLFISH TAXA 1973 t o 1976 Mallusca Gastropoda Viviparus intertextus Amnicola sp Goninbasis sp Pleuricera sp_

Paraoholyx sp Pttysa sp Lymnaea sp Gyraulus sp Cochlinpa sp Bivalvia Corbicula manilensis Muscullum sp Pisidium sp O

n.

TABLE 6 (Sheet 1 of 4)

.C 1-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) OF BENTilIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3*

Date: August, 1977 Replicate No.

Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac Corbicula 0 2.48 0.67 0.50 0.91 Chironomids 0.01 0 0.04 0 0.01 Coleoptera 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.92 At Corbicula 0.11 0 0 0 0.03 Tubificids 0 0.02 0 0 0 Gyraulis 0.01 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.03 Ec Corbicula 0 0 0 0 0 Tubificids 0.01 0.02 0.15 0 0.05 Nematodes 0 0.01 0 0 0 Sum 0.05 Bt Corbicula 21.08 0.01 5.95 12.01 9.76 Chironomids 0 0 0 0.01 0 Gyraulis 0 0 0 0.01 0 Sum 9.76 Bt g No Specimens

• Collected with a Smith-McIncire Grab Sampler.

Sources Geo-Marine, Inc. Dallas, Texas. 1978(.4)

O

~ . . . . - . - _-- .. ~ ..-..- .~ .-.-- -

.- -- ---..-~ -.-. -... --.~ _-...- .

i TABLE 6 (Sheet 2 nf 4)

O ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 Date: September, 1977 Replicate Nn.

I Statinn _rganism O 1 2 3 4 Average.

Ac Corbleula 0.29 -0.39 0 0 0.17 0.65 Odonata O 2.60 0 0 Sum 0.62 At Chironomid s 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 Ephemeroptera 0.04 2.22 0.06 1.20 0.88 Tubificids 0.06 0 0.07 0 0.03 Odonata 0 0.15 0 0 0.04 Sum 0.96 Be Chironomids 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.01 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.01 Bt Corbicula 16.90 13.95 2.67 4.89 9.60 Sum 9.60 Bt No Specimens 3

i l O .

I a

i d

TABLE 6 (Sheet 3 of 4)

ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 ,

Date: February, 1978 Replica *e No.

Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac Corbicula 1.02 4.08 0- 4.74 2.46 Sum 2.46 At Tubifields 0 0.18 0.54 0 0.18-Odonata 0 0 0.11 0 .03 Sum 0.21 Be Tubi ficid s 0 0 0.18 0.26 0.11 Sum 0.11 Bt River Shrimp 0 0 0 0.81 0.20 Sum 0.20 Bt' Odonata 0 0 0 0.09 0.02 Sum F"UT O

O

____ _ _ . -. _ , _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ . _ _ ~ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . .

TABLE 6 (Sheet 4 of 4)

-O ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC l MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES- AT WATERFORD 3 Date: April, 1978 Replicate tio.

Statinn Orcanism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac No Speci.aens At Corbleula 0.14 0 0 0.63 0.19 Tunificids 1.03 1.11 1.37 0.68- 1.05 Sum 1.24 Be Tubi fic id s 2.68 3.26 0.43 3.39 ~ 2.44 Chironomids 0.01- 0 0.01 0 0 Sum 2.44 St Tubificids 0.13 0 0.43 0- 0.14 Chironomids 0.01 0 0 0- 0 River Shrimp 2.04 0 0 0~ 0.51 '

Sum 0.o5 St; Tubifields 0 1.35 0 '0.49 0.46 Sum 0.46 O

l l .

1 i

l O

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

O Tiett 7 (Sheet 1 of 4)

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PR15 SED WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1913 - SEPTEHSER 1976 Ac ipense r ifo rme s Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus albus (Pallid Sturgeon)

Scaphithynchus platorynchus : Shovelnose Sturgeon)

Polyodonitidae Polyndon spathula (Paddlef.sn).

Semionoti forme s Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus (Spe.tted Gar)

Lepisosteus osseus-(Longnose Gar)

Lepisosteus platostomus (Shortnose Gar)

Lepisosteus spatula ( Alligator Gar) l Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva (Bowfin)

Elopi forme s Elopidae Elops say us (Lady -Fish)

Anguillifo rme s

, Anguillidae l

Anguilla rostrata(American Eel)

Clupeifo rmes Clupeidae

Alosa chrysnehloris (Skipjack Herring)

Brevoortia patronus (Gulf Menhaden)

Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad)

-( ) Dorosoma petenense (Thread fin Shad)

Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. 1978.

m * - e = w -r- e.y- m y 6 -

W v- v -

9 y m p-

_ _ _ . __ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . - . _ . . . ~ - - -_ _ -. . _ _ .. _ . . . . . -- _.

() TABLE 7

. (Sheet of 4)

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VI"*"*.TY OF THE PROP 5sio wAliaF0an 3 ADRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976 Engraulidae Anchoa mit chilli ( Bay Anchovy)

Osteoglossiformes Hindanttdae hiodon atosoides (Goldeye)

Hindon te: gisus (Mooneye)

Cyprici fo rme s Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Carp)

Hybognatbus nuchali s (eilvery Minnow)

Hvonpsis aestivaiis Speckled Chub)

Hybopsis amblogs (Bigefe Chub)

Hybopsis storeriana (Silver Chty)

O- Noteoigonus crysoleucas (Golden Shiner)

Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner)

Notropis blennius IRiver Shiner)

Notropis imiliae (Pugnose Minnow >

Notropis fumeus (Ribbon Shiner)

Notropis shumardi 'Silverband Sniner) l Notropis venustus (Blacktail Shiner)

Pimephales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow)

Catostomidae l

Carpindes carpio (River Carpsuener)

Jarpindes cyprinus-(Qui'ilback) liriobus bubalus (Smallsnuth Buffalo)

Iptiobus eyprinellus (Bigmouth Buf f alo) l Silur iformes letaluridae i

letalurus furcatus -(Blue Catfish) letalurus melas (Black Bullhead) a Ietalurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead)

Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead) letalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish)

() Pylodictis olivaris (Flathead Catfish)

., .,. . . . - _ . , - . _ . - . _ - _... . -...,-- ,.. .. - -.e. . - . - _ . . --r

O t>> u 7 (Sneet 3 of 4)

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMSER 1976 Atheriniformes Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis (Mosquito Fish)

Atherinidae Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside)

Pe rci fo rme s Pereichthyidae Morone chrysops (White Bass)

Morone mississippiensis (Yellow Bass)

Morone ,saxatilis (Striped Bass)-

Centrarchidae Elassoma, zonatum -(Banded Pygmy Sunfish)

Lepomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish)

Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth)

Lepmis macrochirus (Bluegill)

Lepnmis megalotis (Longear Sunfish)

Lepomis mic rolophus (Redear Sunfish) l Micropterus punctulatus (Spotted Bass) l Micropterus salmoides (Largemough Bass)

Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie)

Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie)

Pereidae Pereina seiera (Dusky Darter)

Sti:ostedion canadense-(Sauger)

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater Drum)

Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet)

O

d E i -

i i

i-O ~'

(Sneet 4 of 4 )

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN-IllE VICINITY ,

OF THE PROPOSED WATERFORD 3 ,

APRIL 1973 - SEPTE.M.5ER 1976

Pleuronec t i fo rme s  ;

I ,

l Bothidae i>

i l Parallehthys lethostiema (Southern Flounder)

Soleidae

i. Trinertes maculatus i

r l

1 lO

~

r e

O I

l '

* T-~W N r1WW" N T W48Muk' s ww'# T W' ,=

)

f IABLE 8 i AVERACE ICHTHYOPLANETON ORGANISPtS ITk M bY FAMILY AND Ml44TH IN SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE WATERFukD ENVIRIHMEN1AL SUkVFillANCE PROI.R/df I tOCTutil R 1975-Sf PTEfthf k l '# 76 ) (YEAM III) '

t Family (ETdenti- Centrar- Cyprin-Dat e . ,fiable chidae Arta- Scimen-Clupeidae idae Esm idae luridae idae m>v 13 74 -

4

.019 - - - -

Feb 26 75 - - - - - - -

Apr 24 75 - - -

.002 - - -

Aug 8 75 -

.015 I

. 005 .00ts -

.004 -

Oct 30 75 - - - - - t Nov 20 75 - - - - - - -

!= c 22 75 - -- - - - -

Jan 30 76. - - - - - - -

Feb 26 76 - - - - - - -

Mar 25 76 -

.002

.008 - - -

1 Apr 30 76 .004 .008 -

.005 .002 .002 .003 May 21 76 .003 .007 -

.082 - -

Jun 08 76 .002 .003 .065 - - -

.029 i

Jun 24 76 -

.002 - - - -

i Jul  ?'76 - -

.004 - -

l

.082 '

Jul 29 76 .003 - - - - -

Aug 12 76 -- - - - - -

.003 Sep 10 76 - - - - - - -

6 Sep 27 76 - - - - - -

I Snurce : Imisiana Power & Light Company, Envirsmnental Report -

Operat ing License St age, Wat er ford Steas Elect ric St at ion, Unit 3. 1915.  !

I e

f

k y

^

E oO M

• ~

W l4e $. "3 :o $.

.R

-e 8 o $. % o 8 2

8

-

• 4ig J.

. ~ . . ~

8 8 5 $.

$. $. 5 3 $. $. $. $. g $. ,.5 .

~3 ~8 I. .8 n a. 1. i. s. a. a. a. a. l. S. i. a. E. I. E. E. -l. I. $. -

x a

t  ;

g 2  ; .5 .

~ e e  %

E C

• 5 o 2 W $, $. $. +8 $. $. $. o8 $. e8 8 8 G. = $. 5 $. a8 go. --$. 't e

G s s a

't*  ; n . .,

~

-2 1 [=G

. w *

• 5 a'

= . ..e.

- 1 %

a r

l

• a *

2 E #

u

$. 8o- - o.8 8 8 o. $. 8o. 6 o2 -o 2 82-8 * -

o. $ $. $. 8o. 1 3,.

w _

g i t 3 . *:w 1*I C

5 8 U ;;

W m y 2E g 8e e8 2e-- 0-g ~- " ' '

g 8 8 8 8 8 8 s ee e e e e e-8-8

^8 - . 8-e: 8 e:8 e 8 g a-e *;

E "5 m eu w 9p .

E B .a c a 3.

I n #

o *; E.

i . 5 a s .$a 8

A A-p8 R>R-M-kA-5 a m p u a; a m m > a z a 3 A 3 r2 2n

.J g A. a.

0 J

s e.a w 8 d I - E~8 8 8 $ E I N k 4'N $ $ < N U -m N U, Q .- N N k k-k k .

h I^

l. -

- _ . . . , , , - . . _ _--_-.,_,._s._

- _..4_r,-,4- - , , . , ~ , . . - - . , n .......A

__ .__ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ._. _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . - ._m ___ . _ _ . _ . _ .

l

, TABLE 10

, sMALL FISH

• IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER Species Number **

Bay Anchovy A Bigeye Chub P Black Bullhead P Black Crappie P Blacktail Shiner P Blue Catfish D Bluegill A Bullhead Minnow P Carp P Channel Cat fish A Emerald Shiner P Freshwater Drum D Gizzard Shad D Golden Shiner P Galdeye P Green Sunfish P Gulf Menhaden A Hogchoker P Immature Sucker P Longear Sunfish P j j. Mississippi Silversides P Moone ye P Mosquitofish P l Pugnose Minnow P l Pygmy Sunfish P Ribbon Shiner P River Carp. sucker P River Shiner P Shovelnose Sturgeon P Silver Chub P Silverband 9hiner P Silvery Minnow P Skipjack Herring A Smallmouth Buf f alo P Speckled Chub P l

Spotted Bass .P l Striped Bass P l Striped Mullet A l- Thread fin _ Shad D i Warmouth -P

' White Bass P White Crappie P Yellow Bass P Yellow Bullhead P l NOTES:

• Less than 100 1::m in length ** A - Ab und an t D - Dominant P - Present w e -..m- -- - - - - y v - + gyw-a

TABLE 11 MONTHLY WATER TEMPERATURE DATA FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WESTWEGO, LOUISIANA (1951-1969)

Temperature ( F)

Month Maximum Minimum Mean January 50 41 46 February 50 40 46 March 56 46 51 April 63 57 59 May 78 67 71 June 83 77 79 S4 July 87 81 August 90 81 86 September 87 76 83 October 78 71 74 November 71 57 63 December 57 47 52

• Measurements taken at Ninemile Point Generating Station, '

25,6 miles downstream f rom'Waterford 3.

Source: Louisianc Power & Light Company, Enviror. mental Report Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit-3, 1978, O

___ - - l

O O O TA111E 12  ;

i

. SUtelAlY OF COOL.ING WATEl: SYSTEM OPERATIONAL. MODES .

Average Range of CWS Discharge lluudier of Ambient Intake Months with lusign Temperature i Annual 7* 2 Intake Pumps Water Temperatures Average Intake Temperature of Tine Flow Increase In Operation (OF) In Range In Use (1000 CPM) (OF) 2 < 55 December to March . 30 622 26.0 3 55-70 April, Hay, October, November 25 843 19.2 i 4 > 70 June to September 34 1,003 16.1 i

(1) See Table 11 for range of monthly ambient Mississippi River water temperatures.

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

f.'

i 1

i-4 1

i i

O l

i

- .ti I i I s i

i

.i i

l i

t i

FIGURES I

l l

9 .

I

}

.h l-1 i

r j.

r t'

4 9

E 5

__ ________E__ -_ 5m_. e-. --.-. . >_ _, _ % .eme . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..wwn ,ny w g,y. wyrg .

l f

f N

O -

i j.

2: q -

.y . .--e p.l h; l.

3 '( . i k 't l l a

• g h #~ Yl*

/

..s %l N... ~ r *. M M

, 7 . M...'..'; ...

Ri. A ~~~~~ ""'

ST. CH ARLES

} ./ - - -

a h: P ARISH

' 'y

, i. V- .

p '; . ,

.t;

'4 5;

, ' . w .._

,[.. = Qq i l.

t g .

e f f L( . 6 si /

===j=r* = pi* '

,j j L.A.

\

.w ==

i. Kj

' . . . , :::n

~

to

. tJ , \ .<

g ,e g

~

y,, M- .; .. .e

• w. ^

,-[^ ' \.\. pg i j *

~ * * ' 2 :*p==== qggg .

..6 ~I j } fi ' CHANNEL I

- _ . .y > 's'

, s *

- p, 4.- . . . . ..

3 _,,7,,4 , r .

- - . \. i

.1 ,p..- j-y

..-t

,A l*=. .

r'::""'. ,=,7 . ~'

.^ .

m a./ -

. )-

/' ' \

+'.. .

j.

' ./

.. . ,/ ,' .

p.* ***

f*' j

.i N ,,, p@l' V~ I =-:t. . y ,

~

J, .k be 6.0@ ' . ,: .. ,

. o N" 5 4. 5:: g'*""*" . ); j ff I[

f

.'/.[...)Ph*% )p,r?%=1/;.hpp.9[ 'f/g%} q%,kff$

/.** N_ s* *%

%N.$:. .m s, O

. 'gt' g% :.y!4 e

j," . < / 8 hi / [' M[.Q.% .f b q- f-.

g 4 .) *q ..+!, - f N

~ N.. # p [# ,.','d' ,- - D ,

>' a.-

f. , ' , . , ff, WATERFORD

. ,4 + n w*: t ~ ,! . , d . *' 1

' '8.

.~

1 AND 2 /% b. ' ay 's -- I f {T

'N .

p^ V:

'# :-y' Pll ,1

, ? ls'?l* 9

' s, . '

. . A1, ,0 o _.3 iy~. -

o'A ~, ..

2 I. q- . - @:dh .m I ==

's s

'\

,f Il ..

., b.,

f 7., l

.M~ y! U -

N.

i . i'

• N ~*J e f U w% N m(Qig, ...~ ,j >or' '...~i .

'% m

! l .;

e al e.

V'.'

w ,, erm N M> -

• a .. j ~

• 1' N0fte SMeet0 ArtA RipetSENTS CEPfMs satatte fM&M 100 f t %g , ,, .

.ene

[3 w .i w.

m ac e vaaa.,coarsosamoe=etes. . 7 -. --s - . - . - . - -

% EW O t t A8 8 L 4. ** tes saa tai.o*

S wg4 as90E}Q44#estC R4fNET = '9.

P Q

?Q

o. .'994 .u= St. ACs c. en sam S . to .esa0 LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. WATERFORD 3 VICINITY MAP Waterford Stecm i Electric Stetion

O O O t

- I

.)

f g

gr7 9

\

' ~

ph,

.p1

"' ~. A o *'

J  ? -7r.$?i \

/$ a l - >

tJ Ace i

o j o,.

+

w i .

0 i

t

' N

)

1 i

[\ '. \

/

r!c[ ,

K g (/ \. .,  ;-

s

/tN N

/,//

5 1

% e .

'~

,' , f 'n, , ,

l '

• A E ~

~~' . <3 1 / e Bc / L 1

.g/

<, s

! - 3  ; [ N.

' , arra on. - .. , _ f-anima s .;,. gwa stant j

s, , l

'~

N._

S _.

? *4 .,

,,,,s N) m _ <

l b6 .pE e]. 5%

B to -

j g Gill Nets

.s s

x, go- l'j By] x.s N Water Chemistry D, * '" ** '

A ,__ _.

Otter Trawls

~ - Midwater Trawls

---

Surface Trawls & Zooplankton LOUI5 LANA p;p,c POWER & LIGIT CO. t SAMPLit4G ARE A5114 Tile MI55155tPPI RIVER HEAR WATERFORD 3

~

Woierford 5: earn 2 Elect ic 5 osion

I O

I l ilijilij I l  ! i 4 l i i  ! iii l l I x

oco? - - - - - - -

- ~*

x l g 600 - ,

km- l -

1 ex L-i I .

I 400 H l -

E g 3xl- l -

t l 3

I h200 6 g k l 0 l 3 I O s c.

M so

,x -- 1 i I O b l 1

~

] 60 -

l g 5#

to -

ao - -

l 30

! I I ! 11111ll  ! 1 I  !  ! I I I i 1111 I .

i 05 e 2 5 io 20 30 50 to so so 45 se n 99 5 stectNr or f:vt INoict.tto sus *ENoto stoivcNr 4ts covatto on Eictt:to

• • • " T.1* ' J,"O "70.',*.' "'.

C. i.t? 'J."."#.f*L..."..'T.

I.L7." " .'. .** "' ** ""

LOUl51ANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. DURATION CURVE OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION Waterford Steam MI551$$lPPI RIVER AT RED RIVER LANDING, L A., 1949 63 3 Electrie Station

_ m - -w-an-i'

~

i O O O

@tv.

atvEE FLOs 360,G06 .s.

L if1L E

' GVPSV STAitoss f uusi e,2 5 5 Ds5CM ARGE

[ t uCE 55 It asp  : 88 4'F 40Lusst R AT E 2 4443 F C#5 BA((h([4rblA407 talAp{ _

. 'g n)*r hem a t t 0 OtSCMARGE E kCE 55 It asp: r3*r Wj- , j g.,

R'Wf 3I 90U880847

' ' 36*r vetuast R ATE 3 935 BCf 5 ~

j r

Say .s64

• • ' ?; ~ .

~

,N eAllkf 0ND 1 '

• s thlasE su* N, OtSCHAhGE S**

E 5CE 55 TE ue : 26*F WOt WWE N AT E : 838 4 4 CF S 364 wAitRFOnD 51 A l t 0 m son a ux> we >m .ox usu nr 1 i T- ---ra2% g.y i

5C At t is e,E, LOUISIAllA POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS 150TilERMS (*F) AT Tite SURFACE Waterford Sicom COMBit4ED FIELD - AVERAGE wit 4TER RIVER FLOW cot 4DITIOti 4 Electric 5:olion n

O O O

' /

aivan Ptow; 650.eus se.

Laf 7LE Ge ny STAiton 1

~ Westi 1.2 8 3 045CN A461

' E EC E SS TE asp, - es 4 *f W0tuut saf E

• 4443 TCF S eAltkf ose e ane 7 mtAst 80*F '

ws* F DISCnakGt .i SeEut att D E ECE 53 If WP IS*f

. VOtDept R ATE s 955 gCis Ig ,'-" j .g

1. 4tta 80ussent l'

3.,

% ~._

se

'%. s N\

enstemops 3 mian.1 80"F De5CHAkGf **'

EECi$$ifadP *sT'T W0t uut Aalt

• 2st) 3Cf 5 ss A waifa80kD 5tA140m

e000 g ,_ g.0,__ ._souO 20tM _ _ *AA) 40tM,_

_ . S__ a o Scat E :4 5EEi LOUISIANA p;p,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. ,

PREDICTED EXCESS ISOT!*ERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE t!aterford Steam COMBit4ED FIELD - AVERAGE sprit 4G RIVER FLOW cot 3DITIOtt 5

Electric Station a

O O O i

~

/ 'g

! I s ,/

aiwEn flow, ae.ous .a.

EttTLE 4.VPSV S T AllC N

/ utii I,2 8 3 085CMARGE

[ E sCE 55 IE MP s IS 4*F WOLUME aATE 3443 FCF 5 eA f tkickD i AmD 2

nIAal #

0:5(naaGE ~ 's f. , g, 5'"" 'II 8 '

E XCE SS TEMPa l3*F \ g\ ,

Sew ( N SLMDANf w0tuut R ATE s 955 8C75 *l0"'g- ,,,,

j 1**

om {,

rw

/

~~ ~ ~~~._._ _ _,_,a./

s All M GWO 3 et Ast 015CMARGE)

EECE SS TE WP

• 80 t*F votuut a AT E = 2235 C F S _ t w AiE A F0M 0 5TATICN 1000 p , ,,o n.aC 20u

,0 m3 -o),ts40p.====,4 93 SCAtE am FEEi LOUISIANA 9"*

PO'. ER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS 150TitERMS (*F) AT Tile SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBtr4ED FIELD - AVERAGE SUMMER RIVER FLOW cot 4D:TIOtt 6 Electric Station l

O O O s

gi..

1 I

atWE# FLOW 24 903.8.

L17itE EfPSV

$1 Af t04

/ unti f 2 4 3 Os$CN A6GE

[ EsCESS TEMP : 88 4*f W0tuME m ATE a a443 TCf 5 esit 6t ukb l Amol IslArt in DIStatahGE % 'g-Laut at t e E 3Cf $5 TE WP:I9*F e&1rs , ..,

soa r ,,,,, ggy,4,,,

WQtusf Raft 2 95$ 807 5 . 367 p.,.

. .N ' '

S*r 3 * *'

c'm~gh '.' % ,, ,,-

__. ,/

/

• • Itist GD 3 mlant

~~.**w._ _,,,

DISCnan6E EXCE55 TfuP -89T*F VGt UML R AIL s $858 Lf 5 wAffRFOkD STATION n,,,. _

3 . ._ . , _ , = = ,

stai t .= NET LOUISKtIA '

POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURFACE Woserford 5 team COMilit4ED FIELD - AVERAGE F ALL RIVER FLOW cot 4DITIOri 7 Electric 5 osion

O O O

'y y

RIVER Flow : 205,000 cis POWER LINE

\ $4

[ .

/

. LITTLE GYPSY STATION INTAKE -+ ,

1 A EXCESS TEMP : 21.7'F -

- ," \VOL. RATE : 1448 CFS INTAKE r- ~ -  :

/

^

UNIT 18 2 .

DISCHARGE '

2- --

DISCHARGE .

[ EXCESS TEMP. = 19 5'F j l (VOL. RATE:963CFS UNIT 3 J I

I W AT E R FOR D STATION I I

1000 0 40cA Puu1  :  ;  ! '

SC ALE IN FEET LOU 151ANA Figwee POWER & LIGIT CO. EXCESS 150TilERMS OF) AT Tile SURFACE BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOf ARGE - SEPTEMBER 9,19/6 Worerfoed 5:com LOW FLOW COfiDITIOtt O Electric 5:usion ,,

L______- -

O O O

, s :y.  :

RIVER FLOW : 205,000 cis POWER LINE POWER LINZ l.

. m :3 LITTLE GYPSY STAT 10M

' I l

IN TA K E ---

N [ EXCESS TEMP = 217*F .- - .

HARGE 36

[VOL RATE : 1448 CFS

~ ' ~

-' ~~

~- ~

INTAKE'

~

f I 6 3 WATERFORD S* 's 1 AtID 7 INTAKE' 10 '

l i .3 ,

"^ DISCHARGE DISCHARGE 3

[ EXCESS TEMP. :19 S'F [ XCE'SS TEMP': 16.I' F VOL_ RATE : 963 CFS VOL. RATE : 2235 CFS W AT E R FO R D. STATION

. 1000 0- 4000 t

w - . . . .

SCALE IN FEET LOUISIANA Figure PO ER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS OF) AT THE SURFACE Uoterford 5:aum COMBit4ED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 9,1916 LOW FLOW cot 4DITIOri 9 Electric 5:osion

i i

O O O ,

i

~

l -3  ! 'y

! l

\,

RIVER FLOW 200,000 cis  ;

i I

l POWER LINE t: t J-  !

f." i

~

j 2

rLITTLE GYPSY STATION  !

a t IN TA K E ---. ,

/

' \ EXCESS TEMP : 21' F VOL RATE: 1448 CFS INTAKE g'

.~~.7;_/

f '-

I

--r. 36* i 4, y  ;/ f 6* j UNIT 4 8 2 y

WTAkE _

DISCHARGE j ,.

j ~~

2  ;

DISCHARGE ;

EXCESS TEMP. 219 3*F /

j VOL. RATE :963 CFS UNIT 3 f:

j j W AT E R FO R D STATION i 3

1000 0 4 000 1

j Mec.a . . . .

SCALE IN FEET EXCESS ISOTilER*AS (-F) AT Tile SURFACE 9"

POWER & I IIT CO-BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOIARGE - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 1 Waterford Steam LOW FLOW COtJOITIOri 3 'O l Electrec Stonion - j {  ;

O O O

\

.y .

\.

RIVER FLOW: 205,000 cfs

[

POWER LINE POWER LINE J

i LITTLE GYPSY STATION INTAKE i

A EXCESS TEMP : 21*r 36' ,

VOL RATE: 1448 CFS INTAKE / s "r ce. - - .. . - -

'1'p' j

%,.  % v *

' S*

N'/

3 WATERFORD I AND 7 gp/ Q. \.

5*/ 39 -

DISCHARGE iINTAKEj . ,

/ s fEXCESS VOL. R ATE 2 963 CFS TEMP :19 3'F WAT E RFOR D 3 EXCESS TEMP : 16 l' F VOL HATE : 2235 CFS WAT E R FOR D STATION 1000 0 40X) rwuq - ~ . .__ . .

SCALE IN FEE t LOUISIAt3A y POWER & LIGitT CO. EXCESS ISODIERMS (1) AT Tite SURFACE COMBliiED flELD - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 LOW FLOW COi4DITIOt1 gg Walesford Stearn Electric Station _ _ _.

I

=

OtttANCt ACROS8 Rivim. 87 0 90 '000 '$an '930 O f ,y t ,

' 3 6** '&Otht au

""I" "

~ G L

• 0 6 FT. OSLI (AST SAhn (LitTL4 QVPSYi

. .I - aggy gANu !*Attm80R06 Ol81 ANCE A*mCSS alvim FT.

O MO 1000 1900 5 10 m .

i 1

tL.

• 0 6 77. ivtL) I WattR SL@8act 0 "

5ge 9 i goF g J

i 34 4tVt4 #Lo wi 200,000 ses

+10 L V_

10 N 30 .

.40 - I t

s. ./

g" h. -

O  :

iA &

h e

• 5 2 #

I so r E

% l l

.70 b i

.so w i

$1L 864vafion 6Ca64 08 Lcmst Caost lECTiomat peosikt 4 s&0Glaaf tD 90 6 fo rtanat etwowstaation of tuttle

sovngau CeossstCtions tag uma l.

Caoss tsCtionat Paositt som ac utive DtPTMof CaC48,8tCTion 498ECito 10V ag t, 100P an se caossstCtion constavCito snow

} Contous wapsapasus Comptopt=einstes j een oatgang ta -wssitairet asvge i avoaosa aP**C SJavt V .19711976 9 TACE t teams 4 A To weep of #a1845 LA '974 I

s110 %

l

. (L. 119 Ft.!wSLI

.t20 6 LOUIslANA pign,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. COMBINED THERMAL PLUME CROSS-5ECTION AT Waterford Steam LITTLE GYPSY FOR TYPICAL LOW FLOW CONDITIONS y Electrie Station

O O O SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 tio00 IIIIII I I I I u r si E sv PST 5T A TION UNIT 1. 2 & 3 DISEN ARGE EXCESSTEMP 14.4 F VOLUME RATE 1443.7 CF5 c \ SIMULATED

• river souNoART

/ p WATERFORD 1 AND 2 g g 3pp D15CliARGE f EXCESSTEMP 19 F \ 10"F

\  % F F N VOLituE RATC 955.8 CF5

\

WATERFORD3 XCE55 TEMP 19.F ' F -

\

VOLUME NATE 1838 CFS a I RtVER FLOW. 100,000 cfs LOUISIANA p;g, POWER a LIGifT CO. PREDICTED EXCEs5150TilERMS l'F) AT Tile SURF ACE 15EFORE WATERFORD 3 DISCilARGE - EXT REME LOW FLOW COtJDITIOr4 13 Waterford Steam Electric 5:ation .

O O O' >

l I

i f

c i l

t

'- i SCALE lu rtET [

LITTLE  !

1000 0 1000 2000 3XJO 4X10 5000 i GYP 3Y STATIOes IIIIII I I I I I

, UNIT I,2 & 3 DISCHARGE J EXCESS TEMP - 18.4-F L VOLUtsE RATF. - 14433 CF5 I 1f 3.6* F -

SD- g

[mVIR onoARr

" ^' E ",', c7 " *" *

,,3 c ,,

\\ 10*F \

3.6* F EXCESS TEasP 15 F g .

Vol UtsE RATE - 355.8 CF1 \ N A

\

10* F 'N' 5F -

LOCATION OF CHOSS SECTION [ WATERFORD 3 N*  !

I (1HANSECil lt L USTit ATED DISCHARGE i

(*e FIGuitE 15 EXCESSTEleP DJ -F -

f VOLuteE RATE ,1531 CF5 \

l

] RIVER FLOE: 100,9f,0 cis J

l LOCAisoes or CuoS551CTSON  !

0 liR ANSECil ti t UST R A T E D i IN f SGUME 16 1

I

< LOUISIANA Figwe [

l~

POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICT ED EXCLS$ 150 THERMS (61 A7 IHE .3RFACE AFTER WATERFORD 3  !

Waterford $scom DISOIARGE - Ers REME LOW FLOW cot 4DITIOtt g l Electric 5 osion  !

k

}

_m_m____ ~..... m ..m_.-- . - - . . _ . - - _ ~ . . _ . - . .m._.. - _ . _ ..m.. . . ~._...,_m .~m. .._.._ _ _ - --- __ . __.-._~

DitT ANCE ACMC45 RivtR. FT.

p

$%0 96t1 '930 3 .,, "'U"8U"0'

, .- 4 L.

• 0 4 FT,191U g " 3 5t iEO TMt 4 M

la8TSAh4tLITTit PITl gggy gggg ,ggf ggpomp)

. ego w DitT AN08 ACm05.5 Alyt8. FT,

$ 500 itkl0 1600 10 .- t -

J n&TlR SURPhOL l.(L 8 0 $ f t, sMiki OL ,,, -

S.,

, .,v i . , <,. ,00m. ,

$ g#p ._.-

4 __

.10 =

30 -

30 = '

.40 _*

s. ./

• $e $

p. a g 50 m b '

2"'

3 .ao -

A" 70 a I

.0-9.S.3.

844vaflO4 BCAL8 Of LOWE A CR084 58CTional Peositt ( A AGG8 8 a i t0 90 H T0 *t#Mit pe*sonstmatio4 0s */.ctna 680ThtmW CROS4 6ECT1044 54 0 WMtt CA086 $8Cf104&L P40Pl48 FC4 #5LATIV$

OfPfm 08 CR056 SGCTION GPsICTIO.

100

• 1M new g a cuoss sectiom cowstauCTF9 8 #04s 2470km MAP FADM til. Coars of 840433R3 l

l $se outa .nt u -wsnissim nevta

ww0aocaapust suavt v . It?S 1974 GLACE naat u 70 mea 0 op eastte u iste

.110 r*

- (L. 110 FT. (MSL)

.tn -

O LOUIS) AN A POWER., LIGHT CO. COMBINED THERM AL PLUME CROSS.SECTION AT Figure Waterford Steam UTTLE cvPsY (RM 129.2) FOR THE EXTREME LOW FLOW CONDITION 15 Electric Station e- y- wm o ,., _-, ,-_m_..- -

g , - . . -,,y,..., ,,,,4, m g , , ,,-y, -,w,_-- - - , , , .pn v ,yy y

O Cross STRE AM OtSTANCt. FT 0 200 400 400 000 1000 1?D0 1s00 I i 1810 0 1800 ?TO  ??00 ?th0 1 i i a i i 9

W_

3 g. WAttR(URFACE (f L .o g F T Mt L)

.0 -

, 8 GYP 3y;

.*, is0THE RM '

f:

WEST SANK sW47tpFOR01 I CROtl STREAM OtgTANct, FT 0 200 400 ADO 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 PM0 2200 24 I

k e I ( I I I i i 0- \ WAf tR %UR$ ACE gd ,, l&:

R i E  ;*6

- n i

? V .i' ae P

/</

~ s . -

_ , :z _ E

- /I > ! 6- l +

I l,s# j _

P -

P >

g gl.dl j pp

/ -

S  :-

~'  :

\ l's '

l f, ,

S ,E k s*.

E.ko._/. '

/

S _ - -

S z ~ -

y /.  ;

H.(  ?.

f y

~

- = ;i M -

+ 1' _

e~ ,=

ii jl;

- T ym.~.Ca h's

_ ~N

. e --

sA7

_ . m. -

~

o.

_ b h -

o o

o

'o m

o o o

%~

o

o. g Mt

~ - o - - o sII\gI\

_ ' "3 ygt@. o g

1 5

a y a w

~

roc 5 y-Z

) 4 CG - <> O n3-T9<mYO' E

e.e OCg$a m gn%E q)gh=

$t (

!lt

r#

l

... n - _

l 0 ,v0 200 300 i i i a FEET

. ( %) '

h m_3 A - - _ _ . _ . . .- - r g .. . .- . ._ - . _ _ . _ _ .

3

~-.._ _

_ myi

- += vs .. 9

---

t - . ,

- - - - - - - ,h . - -4"A

, ^'

-N 6TURS. .q

• Gt N.

~

l I di 4 ,,,

.. ]

E ) \

g one g r .

70018(* , ,,

ie _. - . n, i ,

1. e s w.m _ .

w p p, i - g --

._n .

. y c

..,e I

~. i m o . i DL04.

f

g o' V

' 'a a 3

_Y ' v'"

\y ,, ,_

~

, o 'g g i

r- l .- o ~

Q Ujs-- . s...,_. - g. ,

J SI di ' - -.._,

1. APERTURE

, g CARD

.'u,"$. I* Also Available On Aperture Card r

j .,

FIGURE

)UL ATING WATER SYSTEM i GENERAL PLAN is 17/////0078-0) . ~ . - - .

\

f M/S$1SS/PPI RIVCR f t.0C7 %'\/ >

>J * , /~~

f >

A O

1 C,

3 9

(

?O .

S- - i DISCHANGL CAN AL-I i /

A-

~4 O

1 I

DISCH ARGE STRUCTURE o

! e m l Le 5

~

R $

i m 2 m

r

,5 s sn' s ,

O ,

. .g

1. mh

! L"* . SP 0 ' W -- ei-- -~

2 6'+ 1 ed'- 3 :

~~ ,

l PL AN- (NOT -TO SCALE)

LOUISIANA ClF

-- POWER & LIGHT Co.'--

. Waterford Steam. - DlS C H)

~ . . . Electric Station F

1

~.

44 - 6.. . . . - - _ _ _ _ . ,

~

j$4.

.. . ., y .

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE ~.T ~"

= ..

..,-_ g-

.  ; =  :=  ; n =: -

= .

.=. :_ := _ -

L _.. -- 1 p 7 r

.+ j. .,

, , , , a, i j

\ -

+ !1." 9.

.a 2.. ,

---

.a.= L g

+

Lyf -y to to

_ _. . ._ . ] _....m..-._ . _)

rtet SECT A- A I

'SI APERTURE CARD Also Avallabic On Aperture Caid 1 ~~ .

,. *u

7,,, . _ _ .

u:y__

- 4 - a r .

,q _,r - -

, - .:= g =: - -- =.. ,

m . =.

~ =- -

--=-... .

, - =

i ,, . . .-. _ .~ ,= - . 1=. = =- _.-.-a __: -  : = -- . . . -

1 L. .__ _ _ .. ,

t 3

. . . o 3 to +

L t '

fitt SECT B-B DIS CH ARG E STRUCTURE tCUL ATING WAT E R SYSTEM FIGURE LRGE STRUCTURE AND CANAL 9/// N0078 -02 -

./ ,

.c MIS $fS$1PPI RIVER M~dTM 1,444,715 g _

g,4o4,144 UNIT 3 o n > MAIN CONDE NSE R g

w

= W g '

=

l I

, < a m $ 39.024 h 3h $ d E5 5

-- M E 1,440 STE AM GENER ATOR BLOWDOWN i L NO }N$t; SYSTEM HE AT EXCHANGERS

?e2 o m 35 N

E / fffsY 4 HVAC COOLING TOWERS SEAL WATER FOR CIRCULATING WATEP PUMPS AND SCREEN FILTER FL'1SH b WASH PUMPS _

)

d l i t ST CHARLES 36 WATER ORKS ^" 20 A ER A TREATMENT /

-+ PLANT iI I '

MAKEUI

' DEMINERAll I ! I WATER TURBINE BLDG.

o 3 SERVICE AND RE ACTOR f, r BUILDING AUXILI ARY BLDG.

FLOOR DR AINAGE w yl FLOOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM "

g SYSTEM gs t t S S O0 YARD SERVICE y BUILDING 04L/WATE R OlldWATER g ,

SEPARATOR SEPARATOR $

w l '

f147 60f I f TO THE 1 r 187 ' (

40 ARPENT CANAL 10 I t 23 1 r 10 UNIT 3 10 UNIT 3 WATERFORD

~_

POTABLE AND # SEWAGE - LOW VOLUP SANITARY TREATMENT WASTE TREATI 1

WATER SYSTEM PLANT F ACILIT) i NOT ES: 1. FLOWS IN THOUSAND GALLONS PER DAY.

2. PRIMARY WATER USE SYSTEMS ARE THOSE SYSTEMS WHERE WATER COMES IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH POTENTIAL SOURCES OF H ADIOACTIVITY,

3. SECONDARY WATER USE SYSTEMS ARE THOSE SYSTEMS WHERE THE WATER DOES NOT COME IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH ANY POTENTIAL SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVil

"~~ ~

4. WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TREATS LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTES.

5. FIRE STORAGE AND THE ASSOCIATED SYSTEM DEMANDS NOT SHOWN.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER ejgije r 'Ja'd UNIT 3 - CIRCULATING j j >

1,404.144 WATER DISCHARGE 1.444,648 DISCHARGE i l i l il II CANAL WATERFORD 3 7

UNIT 1 TUR0lNE ^ 39,024 CLOSED COOLING -

WATER SYSTEM 1,440 N

36 FILTER FLUSH WATER UNIT 3 UNIT 3 5- PRIMARY WASTE 2 l ^

WATER USES YSTE BORON

' 5 28 23 MANAGEMENT SER m l SYSTEM UNIT 3 I b SECONDARY ===d WATER USES a l 5

WATER FOR STEAM GENERATOR REGENERATION g[

BLOWDOWN SYSTEM-REGENERATION AND

(' FILTER FLUSH WASTES, ETC. APERTURE WATERFORD 1 & 2 g4pg

& METAL CLEANING WASTE POND

-*= f Also Available On Aperture Card 19 002 42 DISCHARGES TO IE + UNIT 1 AND 2 AE NT CIRCULATING WATER DISCH ARGE LOUl51 ANA POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterford Sleom Electric Station _.

ry^

SCHEMATIC OF WAT ER FLOW, l

/ g e WATERFORD UNIT 3 ,

FIGURE 20 P

O O O i

10 0 -

90

~

8G N

2 70 ~

_N

~

60 N

SO

- (

N C N y 40 w

g 30 W l N s 2;

& 20 M

e ri 4

10 0 01 0 05 O i 0.2 OS 8 2 S 10 20 30 40 SO 60 TO 80 90 95 93 93 99 8 999 33.39 j

FREQUENCY (%) OF A ANNUAL T E M PE R AT UR E E XCT EDING 08 EQUALING TaiE TEMPERATURE INDICATE D i

DATA SOU RCE : CORPS OF ENGINE E R$

LOUlSIANA p;p,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. Atit4UAL TEMPERATURE FREQUEt4CY Af4ALY$15 BASED Ot1 DAILY RIVER Wesesfo,d Steam TEMPERATURE T AKEf4 AT CARROLLTOf4 STAIlOff (1043 TstRoucas 19U) A-22 4

Electiic Station

O 1200 - NOTE:

CCMBINED DATA FROM TARBERT LANDING g)g _ AND RED RIVER L ANDING 19 30 19 T 5 OATA UTILIZED FOR THIS CURVE IS BASE 0 0N MONTHLY AVER AGE FLOWS 1000 -

900 -

G D

800-a E 700-h 600-a a

g 500 -

6 2

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 g g g g g  ;  ; g g g 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DURATION (% TIME)

EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED

~!:'n:::::.T.*:','at':' * "'

Q LOUISlANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO Waterfo6d Steam Mis $1551PPI RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVE 21 Electric Stetien

-a aa n .

s_u.s gg a a a.-- = - -~- -- - - - - - - -

ummpn-- - - ,,,w,wmvm,m-wmsa, h

t l

[

I b s

I 4

1 i t j

i

?

t' 4

I e

9 4

! a

+

y i

i i  :

s Y

n 6 k

(

t f

APPENDIX A .

l d

, I t

I l

l 4

I r

.t

.I d

i l

h 1 'O 9

.a i

.. t i-,.--c,---,.. ..~,...-,,,.m-m,,,_ - ,,, ,_ . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ . , . . . . , , . . _..,_:.

3 i

l 6

i i

i i

l 9 l

z

! I l

~

l I

I LOUISIAllA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY  !

l t

4 ,

k

! APPENDIX A l WATERFORD 3 - HYDROTHERMAL STUDY i

e l

WATERFOPS STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

" "sT NO. 3 '

f i

D APRIL 1979 5 6

_yw_ ,wymwww yrg eNw .y(iw w w y- p--m ,p-pgw g i, ,,9t ,q Mep W=%epwg

O APPENDIX A WATERFORD 3 HYDROTHERHAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS '

l.0 W

SUKMARY A-1 1.1 INTRODt1CTION - PURPOSE AND SCOPE A-1 1.2 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIC' A-2

2.0 DESCRIPTION

S OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT WATERFORD A-5

2.1 DESCRIPTION

OF THE EX'} TING FLOW FIELD A-5 2.1.1 TLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS A-5 2.1.2 STREAHLINE ANALYSIS A-6 2.1.3 BACK EDDY CURRENT AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 A-B 2.2 AMBIENT RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE A-9 2.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS THERMAL SURVEYS A-10 2.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN EXISTING FLOW AND THERMAL A-12 FIELPS 3.0

-MODEL SELECTION AND CALIBRATION A-13 3.1 MODEL SELECTION

'A-13 3.1.1 MODEL SELECTION FOR EXISTING PLANT DISCRARCES A-13 3.1.2 MODEL SELECTION FOR THE WATERFORD 3 DISCRARGE A-15

3.2 DESCRIPTION

OF SELECTED MODELS A-16 3.2.1 EDINGER AND POLK MODEL A-16 3.2.2 PRYCH-DAVIS-SHIRAZI MODEL A-17

-3.3 MODEL CALIBRATION A-18 3.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

A-18 3.3.2 CALIBRATION PROCEDURE FOR THE EDINGER AND A-19 POLK MODEL 3.3.3 O 3.3.4 RECIRCULATION EFFECTS AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 PDS MODEL CALIBRATION A-29 A 30

i O

TABLE OF C0hTENTS (Cont'd)

P,,agte 4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THERMAL FIELD _ A-31 PREDICTION 4.1 [NTRODUCTI,0N A-31 4.2 COMPILATION OF REQUIRED INPUT DATA A-31 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF PLUME RECIRCULATION AND ~ INTERFERENCE EffLLTS ~ ~ ~

A-32 4.3.1 ASSESSMENT OF RECIPCULATION EFFECTS A-32 4.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF PLUME INTERFERENCE EFFECTS A-34 4.4 MATHEMATICAL FIELD FORMULATION FOR COMBINED THERMAL A-35 4.5 THERMAL-PREDICTIVE APPROACH A-37 4.5.1 PRED!CT!*.*E APPROACH - LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS A-38 4.5.2 O PREDICTIVE APPROACH - SEASONAL AVERACE RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS A-38 5.0 RESULTS OF PREDICTIONS A-39 - -

5.1 INTRODUCTION

A-39 5.2

_ INDIVIDUAL DISCRARGE EFFECTS A-39 5.3 COMBINED THERMAL EFFECTC OF ALL DISCHARGES A-40 5.4 COMPARISON WITH EARLIER PREDICTIONS A-42 i

O

.a-. ...---

O 1.0

~

SU?.ARY 1.1

_ INTRODUCTION - PURPOSE AND SCCPE In 1973 an analysis of the thermal plume distribution in the Mississippi River resulting from heated water released by the Waterford I and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy Steam Electric Generating Stations was conducted for the Coastruction Permit Environmental Report. This analysis was based t ; ion mathematical models available at that t4.ne and field data cbtained in surveys parformed during the period 1970-1973. Since 1973, 5

results of the hydrothermal field program, which is part of the Waterford 3 i ieoperational Monitoriny Program, have beaome avails.le. Consequently, Lnuisiana Power & Light Company authorized Cbasco Services Incorporated to re-evaluate the Waterford 3 thermal plu:ue predictions in light of the more detailed hydrotheraal data base and recent advacces in thermal field predictive techniqu.s. In addition, 2r. B.A. Benedict, formerly of Tulane University (New Orleans, Louisiana) and presently of University of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina), was consulted during the preparation of this report.

This report discusses the methodology used to select an appropriate model-ing approach, describes the models utilized and presents the resutle of thermal plume distribution predictions of the combined Waterford 3. Water-ford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy circulating water discharges. General de-s scriptions of Waterfntd 3 and the sourrounding environment can oe found it.

G Section 2.1 and 3.4.

A-1

G 1.2 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS a) Methods R for thermal predictions were developed under low river flow conditions and seasonal average river flow conditions.

For the low river flow case, field measurements at Little Gypsy and Waterfora 1 and 1 were utilized as representative of the effects of these plants e at low flow (approximately 200 ke f s) .

The Prych-Davi s-Shi razi (PDS) model(0 was used to predict the Waterford 3 thermal distribution during low flow. ,

b) L' Edinger and Polk modelI9) which is a farfield ondel, was em- ~

ployed for the Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges during O

seasonal average flow conditions.

Tne PDS model, a neariteld surface jet-type model, was used at Waterford 3 when the discharge behavior was jetlike; otherwise, the Edinger and Polk model was applied.

c)

Comparison of the model results with field data indicated that model selections give conservative estimates of the combined thermal plume extents.

d)

An analysis of available field data suggests that interaction of the existing Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy plumes is limited; flow along the river channel appears to prevent significant mixing of the two plume s.

O A-2

O a)

Recirculation between intake and di scharge of Waterford 1 and 2 is not signi fic an t , and will not affect the f arfield thermal plume distribution. However, recircul: tion between the Waterford I and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake will occur, and was taken into ac-count by the modeling approach utilized.

f)

The combined thermal distribution was predicted for average river flow during each season and for a typical low river flow condition (200 kefs). The results are presented in pictorial form on Figures-A-12 to A-15, and Figures A-16 and A-17, respectively.

g)

The maximum plume dimensions of the combined themal field during low flow conditions are summa-ized below:

5F 10 F Maximum Plume Dimensions Isotherm Isotherm Cross-sectional Area 4.2% 1.1%

Cross-stream Extent full river width 1100 ft (1800 ft)

Longitudinal Extent ( f t) 7200 ft 2700 ft Dimensions of the cabined thermal distribution at seasonal average flow conditions are presented in Table A-11.

A-3

{

- _ _ _ ____ - - _ - - - - - - - - - }

r O

h)

A comparison of the study result s with predictions made for the Construction Permit Environmental Report shows that there are dif-fet ences in plume configuration. In effect, the revi sed modeling results show a slightly smaller cross-sectional area affected, but vi th a larger surf ace plume.

s O

O A-4

0

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT WATERFORD This section reviews the existing hydrodynamic and hydrothemal conditions in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford site.

2.1 DESCRIPTION

OF THE EXISTING FLOW FIELD 2.1.1 FLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS An analysis of Mississippi River flow conditions was made utilizing flow data taken by the Corps of Engineers at Red River and Tarbert Landings over a 35 year period (1942-1976). Figure A-1 present. a statietteal analysis of river flow based on monthly averaged flows grouped by season. For this study, winter, spring, summer and fall were defieed by three month periods starting with January. ' ~

l >

Seasonal average flow rates were previously obtained frca Corps of En-gineers data over a 40 year period (1936-1975). They were obtained by' utilizing the median value for each season, The rasults are:

Winter: 580 kefs Spring: 650 kefs I

i i

) Summer: 280 ke f s O

Fali  : 240 ke f s A-5

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

O A river flew of approximately 200 ke f s was taken to be a typical low river flow condition for predictive purposes. This is consistent wi th - t he stu-dies conducted for the Construction Permit Environmental Report. The pro-bability of occurrence for flows less than 200 kc fs (for all months) im-plies an annual recurrence interval of about 6.7 years. On a seasonal b asi s, flows less than 200 kefs would be expected to occur most frequently during summer and f all, when the recurrence interval is 4 years.

2.1.2 STREAMLINE ANALYSIS Figure A-2 shosa a contour map drawn by the Corps of Engin' ers using 1973-1973 hydrographic surtey data. The shaded area indicates where the river bottom e.levation exceeds -100 f t MSL. This indicates that over a

^

lor.g period of time, bed material has been transported downstream along the river channel where maximum bottom shear stress e.xist s. Also, since 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 Water ford (west) shore as it moves around the bend.

This characteristic flow pattern was confirmed by the three sets of drogue

,experimer.ts conducted by LP&L. On September ll and 13,-1976,. drogues re-leased upstream of the river bend were tracked around the river bend (Geo-Marine, 1976 ). Pathlines (or streamlines, assuming steady flow) traced A-6 m - - - - _ - _ _ _.____.m- . - _ . _ _ . - - . _ _ _m -. _

/~Si

%J by drogues released near the river channel are reproduc ed in Figure A-3.

On August 8 and 10, 1977, similar drogue experiments were carried out, and on September 20, 21 and 22, 1977, drogue surveys covering the enti re rivar width were conduc t ed. S t r e amli n e s for drogues released near the river chanael in these surveys are re p r od uc ed in Figure A-4 Both

.e 4, figures confirm the flow characteristic expected from the bot t om contour distribution.

The circulating water di scharges from both Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy affect river flow characteristics in a zone bounded by the shoreline and the river channel . These di scharge effects are, however, of a second-ary nature. Typically, station discharge flow rates tre approximately one percent of the river fl ow . The Waterford I and 2 discharge effect on the t')N ambient river flow is axpected typically to be tne lowest during low flow conditions (200,000 to 350,000 cis) since the Waterford I and 2 discharge is of a vertical drop type. With the exception of the area in the immed-i ate vi cinity of the di scharge , the perturbations on the natural flow are expected to be minimal.

Under the s ame ambi en t c ot.di tions , however, the Little Gypsy surface jet discharge (in the of fshore direction) not only displaces natural flow streamlines near the surface but alsn ent rains ambi en t water. Ad di t i on-ally, the flow field is af fected by buoyancy spreading due to the thermal content of circulating water discharge . As a resul t , the sur f ace area affected by the discharge grows as the jet aom+n tum dec ays. The process

(~' continues until the river flow momentum dominates and then washes out the V) di sch ar ge flow e f fec t .

A-/

_ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . ._ )

O 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 I and 2. Streamlines traced by drogues on Figures A-5 through A-7 confirm the flow characteristics described above.

The data show that streamlinas 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 upstrean of the river bend and bears close to the Waterford (west) shore downstream of the river bend.

Ef fects due to circulating water discharges from Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 are limited to areas on either side of the river channel strean-lines. Thus, the flow field can be viewed as being comprised of two near-O shore zones and a main channel zone which tend to separate flows past the Waterford site, 2.1.3 BACK EDDY CURRENT AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 The results of several field studies (2-7, 23, M) have indicated the presence of a back eddy current in the vicinity of the Waterford 1 and 2 intake and discharge structures. The field studies employed tracer dyes, velocity and temperature measurements, and drogue tracking to delineate and characterize the back eddy phenomenon.

O A-3

-- .- . . - . - - . . . - . . - - . . - -.. - _ _ ~ - - - ~- - .

d O The back eddy current is st ronge st (always less than 1.0 fps) during periods of low flows and does not exist for river flows exceeding approxi-4 mately 600,000-efs. The back eddy appears to vary greatly with wind speed and direct ion. The eddy characteristles are also very dependent upon shoreline configuration. The we s t bank undergoes continual change as ma-terial is deposited during low flows and eroded at high flows. In addi -

tion, the construction ef fort at the Waterford site has produced signifi-cant alterations to the shoreline in the back eddy area.

The area af fected by this current extends approximately from the Waterford I and 2 outlet structure on the downst ream side, to 400 ft of fshore of the west bank, and 2000 f t upstream.

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

Additional temperature data measured at the Carrollton Cage- were - obtained from the Corps of Engineers. The Carrollton Gage is locat ed about one I

mile downstream of the Ninemile Point Generating Station.

O lyzed for the period 1961-77.

Data were ana-I Daily temperatures were ranked within each A-9

O season in descending order and a cumulative frequency distribution was pre-pared.

The results, which are shown in Figure A-22, depict the annual frequency of occurrence of the ambient water temperature data.

2.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS THERMAL SURVEYS

• Since 1970, a hydrothermal field program has been conduct ed by LP&L tn -in-vestigate the dispersion characteristics of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford site. The field program surveys were conducted before and af ter operation of Waterford 1 and 2. (Little Gypsy was in operetion in each ease.) Results of the surveys have been presented in a series of reports l , 23, 24)

O The characteristics of thermal plumes surveyed at Waterford I and 2 and Lit tle Gypsy ara summarized in Table A-1. The following observations can be made:

a)

The Waterford 1 and 2 thermal distribution af fects a smaller surf ace area than Little Gypsy discharge. This is partly due to the lower heat release rate and partly to a higher river discharge rate _(see Figure A-1)- on the Waterford side.

b) The largest surf ace plume was observed during the September 9,1976 survey.

.t O

A-10

O The thermal plucie s ud th maximum extent during each survey (using the lowest excess temperature contours reported) are overlayed on Figures A-3 and A-4. Figure A-3 depicts the extent of thermal plumes observed with a river flow of about 200 kefs. In spite of identical station discharge and river flow conditions existing on both September 9 and 10, 1976, the extent

.v of the combined thermal distribution in the river was much lets on Septem-ber 10. Dif ferences in weather conditions are a possible source of expla-nation. There was a 6.3 mph southerly wind on September 9, which would h ave a component in the up-river direction. On September 10, there was a

!'. 3 mph westerly wind, which would have a large down-river component.

This di f ference in wind speed and direction could have significantly af-fected plume dispersion, particularly in regions of relatively low river velocity (e.g. of fshore of the Little Gypsy di scharge caval).

The comparatively small thermal plume observed on November 2,1974 and depicted in Figure A-3 resulted because both Little Gypsy and Waterford 1

g 1 and 2 were not operating at full load during the survey period. The stations were operating at about 68 percent and 26 percent of full load, f

respectively. This is in contrast to the 97 percent loading condition fo r both stations on September 9 and 10, 1976.

Figure A-4, which depicts the surf ace of thermal plur,es observed dering river flows of about 300 kefs, shows that the plumes were similar en all three survey days.

R-U l.- l l i

O 2.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN EXISTING FLOW AND THERHAL FIELDS One f eature of the me asurement s shown in Figures A-3 and A-4 is the similarity in le:teral extent of the *he rmal plumes frce both Waterford I 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, thia line appears to have been traced by a drogue pl aced near the river channel location upstrea:n of the band. Along this line of demarea-tion and wi thin a zone (or corridor) about 200 feet vide, low excess temp-oa:atures (lower than 1 to 2 F) persist for some distance downstream before dis?ipating. It in also along this corridor and downstream of the Little Gypsy discharge, that the Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 thermal plume s interac t .

Because a large fraction of the river discharge fl ows 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.

O A-12

l O 3.0 MODEL SELECTIO_N AND CALIBRATION 3.1 MODEL SELECTION The model selection process involved a review of existing mathematical mo-dels followed by an assessment of their applicability. Because of the c ompl exi t y flow regime and di f ferences between discharge structures, models were eva.cated for each station discharge. Af ter appropriate models were selected in a preliminary review, a detailed calibration was performed for each of these models. It should be noted that the temperature distri-butions for the existing plants during low -flow conditions were based on actual measured data; predictive models were applied to tne Waterford 3 discharge and the existing discharges under seasonal average conditions.

O 3.1.1 MODEL SELECTION FOR EXISTING PLANT DISCHARGES The following models were evaluated for predicting excess temperature dis-tributions at Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy:

a) Little Gypsy: Prych/ Davis /Shirazi(8,12)

Edinge r/ Polk (9)

Lau(10) (modified for three-dimensional field)

Prakash( (see review by Benedict)

A-13

O-Pritchard 2 Model(12) a o b) Waterford 1 and 2:

NRC recommended model(I )

Kuo(14)

Prakash(II)

Edinger / Polk (9)

These models were calibrated, on a preliminary basis, to the field data I

available from hydrothermal surveys (1-7 ' 3 ' 24) .

Data from these sur-veys were also used to determina the approximate behavior of the heated discharge as it passed through the outlet structure. At Waterford I and 2, the di scharge flowed over a weir crest and down into the river, to approxi-mate a surf ace point discharge with little horizontal momentum. This con-dition is in contrast to the Little Gypsy discharge,- which exhibited sur-face jet characteristics near .he canal outlet location.

The results of the preliminary calibration analysis it.dicated that the Edinger and Polk farfield model was the most appropriate model for pre-dieting both the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy thermal distributions.

O v

A-14

O The rationale for selecting the Edinger and Polk model is summarized below:

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

bl Regarding the Waterford I and 2 discharge, no model reviewed satis-f actorily estimated the upstream heat transport. Consequently, in predicting seasonal average conditions, all of the heat was assumed to be transported downstream, a procedure which would yield con-servative results. As previously stated, temperature distributions r

during low flow conditions were based on actual measured data, which depict the upstream hest transport, c) From the preliminary calibration effort, it was concluded that im-piementation of a suitable nearfield model for the Little Gypsy-jet discharge would require considerable additional field data and development effort. Since the primary interest was to include the effects of the Little Gypsy discharge on the Waterford 3 discharge, it was decided to forego development of a detailed nearfield model and utilize a farfield model.

3.1.2 MODEL SELECTION FOR THE WATERFOR9 3 DISCHARGE O

The Waterford 3 discharge behaves like a surface jet when the river flow is t.-15

O less than 300-350 kets; at higher flows, the jet _ is week and the Edinger and Polk model is applicable.

In order to model the nearfield region of the Waterford 3 discharge under jet-like conditions, deveral site specific requirements must be included in the model:

a) Jet entrainment due to vector velocity differences between jet and

=

ambient fluids, b) Three-dimensional field ,

c) ,

Buoyancy effects due to the discharged heat, d) Dynanic effect of the anblent current (drag and sheac ef feers),

and e)

Allowance of anbient 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.

3.2 DESCRIPTION

OF SELECTED'MODELS

-3.2.1- EDINGER AND POLK MODEL The Edinger and Polk model gives analytical predictions _ of an excess temp-erature field produced by a _ point source located at a river bank. The. heat A-16

1 O

source is assumed to release heat continuously at a constant rate into a waterbody with a constaat mean velocity, infinite depth nd width, and con-stant lateral and vertical di f fusivities. The effect of longi tudinal di f-fusion is assumed small compared to longitudinal convection and no heat is lost to the river bank or ttmosphere.

A detailed discussion of the solution to the governing equation is presented in Reference 9; a summary description is given in Table A-3.

3.2.2 PRYCH-DAVIS-SHIRAZI MODEL The PDS model treats the three dimensional surf ace jet b, the integral ap-proach.

IJaing assumed profiles for temperature and velocity along with the O entrainment and drag functions, the 3-D equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation are reduced to a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary di fferential equations that are solver' numerically.

In addition to the classical type of entrainment that is due to vector velocity differences between jet and ambient flows, the model allows for 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 ey2ation includes heat loss; this term in the equation was ignored for conservatism. The rate of spreading of the jet is expressed as the sum of a non-buoyant and a buoy-ant com ponent .

The form of the buoyant component is derived by consider-ing a moving density front such as exists when oil is spreading over water.

A-17

! O l

A summary desc ription of the PDS model is given in Table A-3; a detailed .

discussion of this model can be found in References 8 and 12.

l l 3.3 MODEL CALIBRATION 1

3.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The two selected models contain several site speci fic adjustable physical parameters. Before the models are utilized for predicting thermal impacts, the adjustable physical parameters have to be calibrated against site spe-cific thermal measurements obtained under known plant and river discharge conditions. The calibrated parameters can then be translated to other dis-charge conditions of interest for thermal predictions.

The adjustable parameters are the ef fective conve ' ion velocity (U,), la-teral dif fusivity (K ), the vertical diffusivity (K ),g and the extent of upstream intrusion (L). U, is an effective velocity at which the discharged water is transported downstream through a non-unifom velocity region. K and K, are coef fecients that account for lateral (cross-stream) and vertical turbulent heat dispersion. L is the distance over which the heat is transported upstream of the Little Gypsy discharge.

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

A-19

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

_ __ . . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _. _ . - _ _ _ . _

O to construct the site rating curve. River cross-sections were constructed from contour maps published by the Corps of Engineers (15) , and river tesperatures were obt ained from station intake remperature records. Heated discharge temperatures were obtained from plant operating logs; plant die-charge type (behavior) and velocity were estimated from site river stage and plant operating data.

3.3.2 CALIBRATION PROCEDURE FOR THE EDINGER AND POLK MODEL P

a) General Procedure As discusseo earlier, Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 thermal plumes interfere only in the limited region along the river channel.

In this region both plumes are quickly mixed with water at ambient temperature and transported downstream. For this reason, the Edin-ger and Polk model was separately calibrated against the thermal I

plumes at each plant. Interference from other thermal plumes and corridor boundary effect are assumed negligible. Dilution in the corridor is ignored; thus, the model provides a conservative result, The procedure summarized below was utilized to calibrate the Edinger

, and Pelk model against field data 'for the Waterford 1 and 2 and Lit-l t1e Gypsy discharges. For conservativeness, the field surveys with the largest surf ace plumes were utilized to estimate model para- -

meters.

O

1) For each given isotherm of interest, the observed maximum ex-A-19

O tent in the longi tudinal , lateral and vertic al di rections wa s recorded as x,, y , and z,, respectively.

2) Based on these values, equivalent di f fusivities (K , K )

y z and the ef fective convection velocity (u,) were calculated according to the following expressions:

• At 4Q p y , o e et e ry z em 2

1 O g y

eu 4

y m

x m

eu z2

= *

• K.2 4 x a

wh e re :

at, discharge excess temperature ( F)

At excess temperature in the field ( F) a pl ant discharge rate (Cis) s

, e Napierian base, 2.718 A-20

i

%)

An e f fective convection velocity, U , was used because the discharge momentum tends to change both the apparent di f fusivities and the longi tudinal convection velocity. In addition, there is a variable ambi ent velocity field at the river bend. The requirement of a single convection velocity in the Edinger and Polk mo.el necessitated the establishment of an ef fective convection velocity that c an account for the pl ant discharge momentum effect and the cumulative effecta of the variable velocity field on heat dispersion.

3) For each selected t, there is a unique set of parameter values (K , K,, u,). This indicates the variebility in the am-bient water characteristics associated wi th di fferent zones of At's.

However, the mathematical model allows only a unique set of these values for the entire thermal field of interest.

A guideline in selecting a set of these values as calibrated model parameters is to preserve conservatism. A physical parameter that can be used- as a guide is the volumetric measure '

given by:

2 '

2

• 4Q p o j 1

• mm 7 *m("at{f/ at ker2 \ gg y*

Conservatism was achieved by maximizing the volumetric extent of a given excess isotherm. The above expression indicates that a set of (K , K , u,) giving the minimum value of u KK gis a conserve.tive set.

A-21

l Before the model is utilized to predict thermal impac t s under vari-ous plant di scharge and ambient conditions, the calibrated dif fusi-vities and effective convection velocities must be translated from l

the field survey conditions used in the previous steps to a general form applicable to any sec of plant and river conditions.

According to Elder (I7) , di f fusivi ties can be expressed in the functional form:

K ~ uP S/6 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 dif fu-sivity calibrated under the same condi tions. The calibrated ef fective convection velocity was expressed as a fraction of the average river velocity.

A-22

O b)

Calibration of the Little Gypsy Discharge

1) Estimation of Model parameters Field survey data used for calibration were taken on July 31, 1973 IO) , November 2, 1974 (5)

, September 9, 1976 (7) ,

September 10, 1976 I7) , August 4, 1977 I23) , August 5, 1977 (23) and August 9, 1977(2 }

The data from September 9, 1976 were used to calibrate the model and estimate model para-meters.

Data from the remaining surveys were used in compari-sons of predicted and observed plume characteristics.

Calibration results using the 1973 data are presented on Figure A-8. It presents a comparison of the predicte.d lateral loca-tions (y) of surf ace excess isotherms given by

~

h IKx y in

[ 9 h

(y) =o u, , (M xr Ky K, /,

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

It is seen that prediction of both the 1.5 and 2.5 F surface excess isotherms is adequate while the prediction for 3.5"E is conservative.

Since a major portion of the data in the vertical plane is located i a jet region, which cannot be calibrated by a

farfield model, only the observed maximum vertical penetration of a given excess isotherm was incorporated in the calibration A-23

O procedure. Calibration result s for the 1973 survey data in-dicate that depth penetration of the isotherms was properly predicted.

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

The result of calibrating the Edinger and Polk model against the largest plume surveyed on September 9,1976 is presented on Figure A-9. Comparisons are seen to be ad equat e for 6 and p 8 F but the model predicts conservatively for 10 and 4 F.

O As indicated in 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 ( 6) . According to the theory, an arrested surface density layer is created upstream of the discharge point if the ambient current ( u,) i s we ak enough . The extent of upstream intrusion (L) can be expressed (see Figure A-10) in terms of the densimetric Froude number at the di scharge point, i.e.,

y - "w 9

A-24

O uhere:

Ap

= density dif ference between ambient and discharged water, 5

p, = density of the ambient water, and 11, = river depth where the wedge is formed.

Cs Sepcember 9,1976, the river stage was 2.3 - feet, P, ~25 feetandAp/pa ~ 0.00389/0.99555.

In order to have L ~550 feet, uy is estimated to be about 0.9 fps.

O G was about 1.5 fps on this day.

Averaged river velocity Since the wedge intrusion was formed near the river bank and behind the river bend,it is judged that this intrusion was formed against a weak current of about 0.6 u, = uy .

The estimated model parameters from the Little Gypsy discharge are summarized in Table A-12. For Little Gypsy, Table A-12 shows that the effective downstream convection velocity of the thermal plume (u,) is lower than the velocity upstream of the wedge intrusion (u ).

The effective downstream convection at the discharge was retarded by the off shore component of the river convection (generated by the river bend) and the of f-shore orientation of the plant discharge.

A-25

i O

') Comparison of Predicted vs Observec Plume Data Table A-4 shows a comparison between the calibrated model pre-dictions and observed thermal plume characteristics for the i

September 9 and 10, 1976 surveys. The larger spread in the observed values indicates variability contributed by factors not included in the model, such as wind ef fects and local hy-drodynamic flow conditions.

The comparison shows that the mo-del predictions are conservative.

The model was used to predict the thermal plume distributions observed i August 4, 5 and 9, 1977. The predicted surface-areas were larger than those observed . However, as might be expected from the field data on Table A-1, predicted cross- i l

sectional-areas were smaller than those observed. The observed ,

! cross-sectional areas enclosed by a 5"F excess isotherm were as high as 1.45 times that of the predicted values. Comparison

~

l of the 1977 field data with that of 1976 indicates that there was unusual vertical penetration and lateral constriction of the Little Gypsy plume in the 1977 survey. This phenomenon might be partiaHy explained by the onshore (towards-Little Gypsy) winds set ting up an onposing surface current which op-posed buoyancy spreading and promoted vertical heat transport.

A general characterization of .model behavior was obtained by-comparing predicted and observed . fractions of r? rer cross--

section affected by any given excess isotherm for all of the A-26

_ . _ ~ _ . . - _ _

available field observations, The ratio of the maximum plume cross-sectional area to the river cross sectional area is given by the expression:

t At, ,

(fe A

a 1.84 ag qR , #'R predicted diere:

At g =

excess temperature at the discharge, at =

a given excess temperature, O

=

Qp plant discharge rate,

=

QR river discharge rate, Ag m =

the maximum plume cross-sectional area enclosed by a at, and A =

R river cross-sectional aren.

The predicted ratios were evaluated for all seven hydrothermal surveys spanning the period of 1973 to 1977. For each survey, C four excesa isotherms (10", 5", 3.6", 1.5"F) were selee-1 V t ed for the analysis. These values were then compared to those A-27 l

I 1

I l

t O

values observed (Table A-1) and the result is presented in Figure A-20.

The 45" line in the Eigure is the line of per-feet prediction.

The plot shows that the predict ive model esti-mates cross-sectional areas conservatively in most eases.

c)

Calibra: ion of the Waterford I and 2 Discharge Plume 1)

Estimation of Model Parameters The Edinger and Polk model was calibrated against plume data from the survey of September 9,1976. This survey yielded the largest surf ace thermal plume size of those observed. Figure A-ll shows a pictori+1 comparison of the predicted (fitted) and observed data. Using identical values for the parameters K ,

K, and u,, estimates of isotnean depth penetration indica-ted similar extents as those observed. The model parameters obtained from this calibration are summarized in Table A-12.

2)

Comparison of Predicted vs Observed Values Table A-5 shows a comparison between the calibrated model predie-tions and observed thermal plume characteristics for the September 9 and 10, 1976 surveys.

The larger spread in the observed values indicates variability contributed by factors not included in the model.

The comparison shows that the model predictions are conser-vative.

O

-A-28

O 3.3.3 ,

RLCIRCU!ATION EFFECTS AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 Despite the upstream excursion of heat on September 9,1976, reeirculation at the Waterford I and 2 intake was observed to be approximately 0.50F . Com- '

bining all avellable data, the a:xcess temperature at the Waterford I and 2 intake could be about on the order of 1"F. The recirculated heat will raise the di scharge temperature; the field temperature downstream of the di s-ehatge, however, vill not necessarily rise.

While the nearfield tmperatures vi11 be dieeted, the farfield temperature will not rise at all. When estimating the farfield temperature, the only pat ameter of import . ee at

• .tu plant discharge is the rate of heat released down s t re am. This heat release will not be greater than the heat release rate under a no-recirculation situatian. Given a heat release rate of H Beu/hr and a B fraction of discharged heat being recirculated, the heat taleased downstrean into the farfield, Hd Stu/hr, can be computed as H

d

=

(l-B") H where n is the number of the recirculation process. As n approaches infin-ity, the H *d H, because B < !.

This analysis shows that recirculation of the Waterford I and 2 discharge back to its intake M11 not increase the farfield temperature. Conse-quently, the effect of Waterford I and 2 rectreulation' on the Waterford 3 thermal: flead will be negligible.

Recirculation between the Waterford I and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake is dise'ussed in Shetion 4.3.1 of this

.A-29  :

a -

Appendix.

3.3.4 PDS MODEL CALIBRATION

\

\

No data were wallable at Waterford 3 or at Little Gypsy (when th ratio of jet e velocity to anhient current *!oloeity is higher than 2.5) for call-brating the PDS surface jet model.

However, the PDS model has been cali-brated by the Environmental Protection Agency against both laboratory and field data.

\

The anblent turbulent diffusivities required by the model were obtained frctn dye release data 2) .

For all combinations of plant and river dis-charge conditions investigated, the PDS model was used only for Waterford 3 discharges during average summer, average fall, and typical low flow condi-tions.

The M fective convection velocity at Waterford 3 was assumed to be the same as tne average river velocity.

The estimated model paramatura are shown in Table A-12.

O A-30 i

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - - _ - . _ - - - . - _ - _ _ - - ----

i 1

'f i

h

() 4.0  !

METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THERMAL FIELD PREDICTION '

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Once the calibrated mathematical models and their translated adjustable parametars were availebte, the following procedure was employed to obtain predictions of thermal distribution in the Mississippi River at Wat erfo rd t Step 12 Compile the required input data Step 2: Characterize heat recirculation effects Step 3: Characterize plume interference effects O

S'.ep 4: Utilize the appropriate predictive modeling approach for the specific river conditions under study.

i Each of these steps is discussed in the following paragraphs, 4.2 COMPILATION CF REQUIRED INPUT DATA The input data required for the predictive models were derived from the following sources i

1) River flow frequency ' analysis ( Appendix Section 2.1.1)

O

2) River water temperature data ( Appendix Section 2.2)

A-31

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

(

O

3) Plant operational modes and discharge conditions

4) River cross-section profile and rating curves

5) Plant discharge structure designs.

Table A-6 depicts the procedure utilized to determine the mocel input data.

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

4.3

,1 ASSESSMENT OF PLtJME RECIRCULATION AND INTERFERENCE EFFECTS O 4.3.1 ASSESSMENT OF RECIRCULATION EFFECTS Assenssent of the thermal effects due to operation of Waterford 3 Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy must consider tho effects of a

recirculation.

9 Despite the occasional upstream excursion of heat passing the Waterford 1 and 2 intake location, intake temperatura measurements have indicated little recirculation. The Waterford I and 2 intake is submerged at

-26.$ feet (MSL). Similarly, at the Little Gypsy intake (submerged at -11.8 feet), the effect of upstream vedge intrusion of the heated discharge was measured to be negligible. As discussed in Appendix Section O 3.3.3, recirculation at Little Gypsy or Waterford I and 2 intake is judged to A-32

have negligible effects on the f ar field t eroparat ure di st ributiot; near the Waterford 3 Jischarge.

At the intake for Waterford 3, however , recirculation from the Waterford I and 2 disch&rge is expected to occur.

For a river stage of loss than 15 feet, the Waterford 3 intake opening ranges from ~1 to ~33 feet belov '

MSL (see ER Section 3.4.2.2). For estimating purposes, the Waterford 3 intake is conservatively assumed to withdraw the entire water column above

-35 feet elevation. Given a discharge at Waterford I and 2, the Edinger and Polk solution at the Waterford 3 intake location can be integrated over the water column of depth d3g. to estimate the Waterford 3 intake excess t m pe r at ur a ,a t The result is 34 p erf u e

~

\

Sp e d i e - 1

( 31 r E_ 3g/

X 31 K, r d 3g a

wh e re :

Qp =

plant discharge rate (ef s)

T

.it =

plant discharge e.xcess teniperatute ( F) i At Vaterford I and 2 Ky,Kg =

lateral, vertical di f fusivities (f t /see)

A-33

O u, =

ef fective convection velocity (fps)

At Vaterford 1 and 2 x =

3g distance between Waterford 1 and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake a 1700 feet d

3g

=

(river stage +35) =

depth of Waterford 3 intake (feet)

In deriving the above xpeession, the intake location was assumed to be at the river bank.

Bec.use the actual intake location is about feet off-shore during low rive.: flow condi tions, the above estimate should be con-servative.

O As a result of the Waterford I 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).

l t

4.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF PLUME INTERFERENCE EFFECTS 1

If the Waterford 3 discharge, a surface jet, penetrates across the river j channel (or corridor),

l the discharge plume would be affected by the Litrie

{ Gypsy discharge plume located near the opposite bank. The re fo re , estimates of the combined thermal field impacts include assessment of interference effects from the Little Gypsy discharge (See Appendix Section 4.4).

O A-34 l

4.4 MATHEMATICAL FORMl'LATION FOR COMBINED THERMAL FIELD This section describes the mathmatical treatment used to estimate the combined thermal plume effects from Waterf 3rd I and 2. Waterford 3, and Little Gypsy.

Ef fects of plume recirculation and interference are in-cluded in this fomulation.

Through a given point in the thermal field, the total heat transported as a result of operating the three generating plants simultaneously was assumed to be the sum of all heat transported through the same point by the independent operation of each plant.

This is expressed by the following equations u at = ug Atg+ug at 3

+u C 0 C where

, , 5 u =

canbined longitudinal velocity = u g+ug +u g +u C u

g

=

river velocity i i u,u,u g

i 3 C = excess 1 ngitudinal velocity cue to operation of plant A, B and C i

u g=up+ug A

U u3 = u, + u n' A-35 i 'Wni' __-____-.-__.m _ _ _ - . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _m

u C " "R * "C at = combi ned exc es s t emper at ure , and atg. At3, a t C =

excess temperatures caused by the thermal discharges at plants A, B and C.

• The above expression can be written in terms of the velocity ratio R3=uj/uR,R3= u3/ ug, R C " "C /uR* i8 ,

at = (1 + R4 )atA + (1 + RB) ACB + (1 + RC ) atC .

1+E.+AB+RC

/ . .

For the present application outside of dynamic discharge effect of Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy, RA " P'B "

• C W3' at = at OE W12' B" O'LG, and atC = aty). Thus, the at expression becomes at =

1+R y3 0 A-36 s

- _ . .. _ _ - . - - _ - - - _ _ _ - . - . - .- . - _._ _- . . - . _ = _ . . - . --

R.,, ) is the longitudinal velocity ratio of the Waterford 3 discharge jet to

() the ambient river flow.

It was estimated from the PDS model results.

The thermal plume interference between Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy was found to be limited within a narrow river channel region of about 200 feet, as discussed in Appendix Section 2.4. Thus, the quantity (at W12

+

attg) can be denoted by atW12LG " # ' "' #" * "# * ** "*

at W12 r at tg depending on whether the field point of interest is on the Waterford 1 and 2 side or en the Little Gypsy side of the channel, res-pectively. The ecubined excess temperature is estimatt d by the expression

+ 0 at = 08412LC + 0*W3 W3 W3_

i 1+R g3 i

The '.arge volumetric flow along the river channel, which effectively separates the two existing discharge plumes, is expected to reduce excess t emperatures as computed above. This additional dilution realit.ed locally at the plume / river channel boundary was ignored.

4.5 Tile.RMAL PREDICTIVE APPROACH __

i 1 The mathematical formulation in Appandix Section 4.4 was utilized to pre-(~ } diet combined therusl ef fects of all discharges. To use the formula, thermal A-37

- . . , , - _ . y y , -- _ * ..w pr

impact of each di scharge has to be estimated. The following section des-O cribes the approach used under the different ambient conditions investigated.

4.$.1 PREDICTIVE APPROACH - LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS

1) Existing Plants:

Contributions from Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy were estimated directly frna field survey data of

(

September 9 and 10, 1976, when the river flow was approximately 20$ kefs.

2) Waterford 3: The Waterford 3 plume was estimated using the PDS model since the discharge exhibited jet-lik<= behavio at low river flow.

i 4.5.2 PREDICTIVE APPROACH - SEASONAL AVERACE 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 Little Gypsy discharge is a weak jet; consequently, the Edinger and Polk model was applied to each plant.

2) Waterford 3: For vinter and spring averige flow conditions, when the Waterford 3 discharge is a weak jet, the Edinger and Polk model was applied.

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

_._____--.m_.____- .m._.-_-- .._.________s..-.m___. _._-.__u-.-__

___.__.-_._m - . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ __.._. _ _ _ . - . . . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ . _ .

1 i

these conditions, the PDS model was applied to predict I the nearfield thermal distribution. Beyond the model's

! range (where jet momentum has practically vanished). I the Edinger and Polk model was used to estimate farfield excess temperatures.

5.0 RESULTS OF PREDICTIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The results of predicting thermal impacts from heated discharges released by Waterford 1 and 2. Waterford 3 cnd Little Cypsy operating under average and typical loy river flow conditions are presented below. Individual and com-bined impacts from Waterford 3 and both existing plants were estimated and empared.

t 5.2 INDIVIDUAL DISCHARGE EFFECTS P

l In order to assess the impact of each of the three discharges separately, the thermal characteristics of the 5 and 10'F excess temperaturn '

isotherms were estimated for the typical low flow condition of ap- 1

! proximately 200,000 efs, t

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

results are separately tabt. lated on Tables A-9 and A-10 for two excess temperatures, 100 F and $"F, respectively. Because of a lower rate of heat released to a portion of the river with a high volumetric flow, the rmal impacts at Waterford 1 and 2 discharge were limited to lower isothems and therefore information on the 5 and 10 F isotherms were either missing or i nc ompl e t e .

I Relative contributions to the heat load in the river by Waterford 3. Little 9

Gypsy, and Waterford I and 2 were 8.01 x 10 , 5.9 x 109 , 4.12 x 10 9 Btu /hr, respectively. Despite the highest contribution from Waterford 3, fractions of the river cross-section and surfsee area af t'ected by- Waterford 3 are quite small compared to those of Little Gypsy. This is the result of the effleient jet naixing (with cooler ambieat water) provided by the much higher discharge velocity (6 fps) at Waterford 3.

5.3 COMBINED TilERMAL EFFECTS OF ALL TISCllARGES The characteristics of the combined themal field were predicted by the method detailed in Appendix Section 4.4 ar.d are tabulated on Table A-ll.

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

l The following general observations can be made from Table A-II:

1) The predictions are conservative.

O A-40 4

l

_ _ , , ,y,_ + -s~m r -,me-- '---*=T*~" - " ' " ^ ' " ~ ~ " ' '* *' '

2) Seasonally averaged, the combined thermal impac t is at a minimam in O the spring and approaches a maximum in summer and fall.

3) Comparison of result s between low flow and average flow conditions must consider that plume estimates for the existing discharges for low flow conditions were based on survey data and utilized predictive models for average flow conditions.

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

For average winter and spring conditions when river flows are highet ., all discharges behave like the non-jet t y pe . Owing to a lower river flow condi-tion, thermal impacts are more extensive for both average summer and fall- ,

seasons. Due to the jet-type discharge, the Waterford 3 plume under those conditions is expected to per.etrate across the river channel and. join with the Little Gypsy thermal plume during these seasons (see Figures A-14 and-A-15). tiowever, since the jet-type disch'arge promotes rapid initial mixing of heated water, the Waterford 3 contribution to the tot al thermal field is expected to be small during the summer and fall seasons.

~

Figures A-18 and A-19 deplet representat ive surf ace isotherms for the O

A-41

____._______w ____w. _----a -_

Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges observed during the 1976 /

field surveys on September 9 and 10, respectively. These dist ribut ions were assumed to be the existing thermal impacts under the tvpical low river flow ennditions. The predict ed thermal impacts of the Waterford 3 discharge were added to the existing thermal field to produce the cot.bined surf ace field shown in Figures A-16 and A-17. A comparison of Figures A-16 through A-19 shows that the extent of the Waterford 3 discharge contribution to the enmbined thermal field is relatively small.

Figure A-21 deplets a cross-section of the river at the Little Gypsy dis-charge canal and includes isotherms of excess temperature for the low river flow ennditions. As shown, the proportion of the cross-section occupied by isotherms of 5"F or more is small, and the ef fect is restricted to a shallow surface layer. The cross-sectional distributions for average seasonal conditions display similar features.

5.4 COMPARISON WITH EARLIER PREDICTIONS C

Previous thermal predictions at Waterford were performed during preparation of the Construction Permit Environmental Report in 1972-1973, and were based on field data from surveys taken during the period 1970-1973.

Table A-13 shows a comparison of maximum plume dimensions for the comb!ned ileid obtained from this study and those prepared in 1972 for the Construe-tion Permit Environmental Report (Supplement 3). From the Table, the revised models predict the' thermal distribution to be located in a shallower surface O

A ._. _.

i region than before, which results in a smaller river cross-section affected O and a larger surf ace plume.

1 i l

l The di f ferences can be generally ascribed to a revised modeling approach that i

used recently developed solution techniques, and availability of a larger l data base. For the case of Little Gypsy, where plume size differences were

f i  !

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

and place discharge conditions. As a result, i t was observed that the Little Gypsy plume behavior was very responsive to changes in river flow rate and meteorological conditions.

O i

t k

k O .

A-43 e tw+yv--yr- wy-v'* is yee=-4"-etrtw Mev1-- ,*-t'*, -rmwgwwp-M-T--wW'a+'=evtf--r 'q- t'et, e- F -g gM'T$*'e'g Mg w%-%g ysey n& g,Ny yygpq -9eis g g y9 gupgs-gy-p qw q g- 9 #,yy g w pe, qw-=-t se

O REFERENCES

1. Texas Instruments,1970.

Apparent Sur f ace Radioset ric Temperature -

Little Gypsy Plant, Company neport.

2. Ebasco, 1971.

Effect of Heated Water Discharge on the Temperature i Distribution of Mississippi River, Company Report.

3. Eb a sc o , 19 73.

Interim Report - Waterford SES Hydrographie Studies on the Mississippi River, Company Report.

4 Geo-Marine, Inc, 1973.

3D Thermal Plume Measurements, Company Report.

5. Ge o-M a ri ne , Inc. 1974.

[) 3D Thermal Plume Measurements Company Report.

0

6. Eb asc o , 19 74.

Waterford SES - Summary of Hydrologie Studies, Company Report.

7. Ge o-M a ri n e , Inc, 1976.

1 First Operational Hydrothermal Study'-

Waterford SES, Company Report.

8.

M A Stirati and L R Davis, 1974.- Workbook _of Thermal -Plume Prediction -

Volume 2 - Surface Discharge. Environmental Protection Agency Report

1. EPA-R2-72-00$b.

9.

J E- Edinger and E M Polk, Jr,1969. - Initial-Mixing of Thermal Dis-(J charges Into a Uniform Current. Vanderbilt Univei sicy Rept,rt #1.

A-44 9 - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ u

O 10. Y L Lau. 1971. Te mperature Distribution Due to the Ralease of Heated Effluents into Channel Flow. Canadian Department of the Environment Report # TBS $.

11. A Prakash, 1977. Convection

• Dispersion in Perennial Streams, Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE EE2. (See review by B A Benedict included in this article.)

12. W E Dunn, A J Pollesstro and R A Paddock, 1975. Surf ace Thermal Plume s:

Evaluation of Mathematical Models for the Near and Complete Field.

Argonne National Laboratory Report #ANL/WR-75-3.

13. U S Nuc lear Regulatory Commi .sion,1976. Regulatory Guide 1.113:

O Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Ef fluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpoie of implementing Appendix 1 NRC Report,

14. E Y T Kuo, 1976. Analytical Solution for 3D Di ffusion Mode.l. Journal of Env ronmental Engineering Division, ASCE EE4

15. U S Army Corps of Engineers,1976. Mississippi River Hydrographh Survey - 1973 to 1975 - Black Hawk, La, to Head of Passes, La. US Army Engineering District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

O A-45

_. .- _mm-_u__._.m..- .:.__ .- __ __

f

15. E M Polk, Jr, h A Benedict and F L Parker,1971. Cooling Wat er Densi ty Wedges in Streams. Journal of Hydraulics Division. HY10, ASCE.

17. J W Elder, 1959. Dispersion of Marked Fluid in Turbulent Shear Flow.

l 1

Journal of Fluid Meehanies, Volume 5, Number 4

18. E A Prych. 1970. Effects of Density Differences on Lateral Mixing in Open Channel Flows. W H Keck Laboratory Report #KH-R-21, California 'r Institute of Technology.

19.

E A Prych,1972. A Warm Water Ef fluent Analyzed as a Buoyant Surface Jet. Hydraulle Series Rnport No. 21. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.

O 20. F ?! Henderson,1966. Open Channel Flow. MacMillan Company, New York.

21. H B Fischer,1969. The Ef fect of Bends on Dispersion in Streams.

l Water Resources Research, Volume 5. No. 2.

22. Ogbazghi, Slum,1975.

Transverse Flow Distribution in Natural Streams as influenced by Cross-Sectional Shape. MS Thesis, University of Iowa.

l l

23. Ge o-Ma ri n e , Inc., 1977. Second Operational Hydrothermal Study, Water-ford SES, Company Report.

24. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1977. A Current Drogue Study in the Vicinity of

[} Louisiana Power and Light's Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 Gener-A-46

_ . . _ __ .- . . _ _ - - . . . . . . _ . _ , . _ . _ . - . . . ~ . . . _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . - . - _ _ _ . . - , _ . , _

ating Stations. Company Report.

25. Louisiana Power & Light. 1972. Environmental Report: Construction Permit Stage for Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No. 3.

26. D W Pritchard and H H Carter,1972. Design and Siting criteria for Once-Through Cooling Systems Based on a First Order Thermal Plume Model. AEC Report #C00-3062-3.

O

=

0 A-47

_.2________

Qgm- -- - u - , y m, . . -- - -

.-_mggg. _.my - _ -

y, 3 N

b

, O l

4 F

=

1 h

l 6

I

- s

'}

t r

I I

i t

I i

(

6 ii P

TABLES ,

p i

i

+

1 i

1 1

I I -

1 Il l .

t.

P h

4 I

I l

I s

I r

i  !

I i

i' O

I I. -

4 1

1 t

3

.wr w w

• w rrew y ,, o . -= ,w-w - -.w w ,r. .y- w e w4w m + c., c ,* + w ww. , , w v ,vv.r yww.v ., -n y,-,w.e

I 4 .

• 3

• 3 _w g

Im <g O.

~

r o.

4 m.

a.

O

~.

e E

< S< <E N. P. e.

-4 - "4 e e p P N M 4 - =

- 6 E A

.A < ~ 4 3 3 < < <

• 4 .

d. e. 4 HmM - E O. N

• N e e N E

m. .

8 R E o o S

[g - ^ o

< R R4 a 3

• 3 A ! . ~.

.,e... 6 o.

~. s,-~ . 3 - . < < ee 4

. N g E

~ 6 14 e

4 h

a s 7 3

e 8e . 8 3 3,

.o e. .

I 3 5 e s +$ S 4

+ ~E

• E jO -

S 8 2u *

• - 4 R,

.e 8.e E e

m e8o 8 3 u 3o 2 -

a -

6

! R 8 8,. ~. 1 24 2 8 . 8 3 m.

w n - _. .

4

e. . m ~.

8, - 2o 8

> - 4 n - 4 m m ~

m .a 30  % e . . ~ ~ e

v. f. 1

.; d 4 ad A 4 . .

4

' ie a e < < < - o e y<

. m w

4 5 <~ *. E -

u

~

% ~ n a a A A A

> ** >- a s W b a.

o -t <

4

,. I. e. ..I N. N. e. .

e.

w .c .c <

w w m o .

n. o.

a a a o o N.-

.a. 1 . - - o u u N a 4 . __

t . 2 M.- .

ua 1 A. E s u. = - ~ R o ~ o4 8~ .

. 8 < < w - - S-e r.

_ m

= = , a ~ ~.

t a .t

~

7 m a

< a w R 2 5- - 5 8 o .~ e ~ eo . --m SN a a. R a . ~ e W

f < >- e n e ~

a ~

.3 C w 4

,n

.4 N D

< e 1

_", 1. O-S u _8 8 R S S 2 $ =* .* .*

~ m - 4 - R.

maa -

E '

.'" A-O 8 ~2. 3 8 8~ 2 a

w d

i

.R ~

e.

,8,

~.

.22*

e$ ^ .

tJ a f 6.

- N. 4

o. . ~. . e 4

. . . - .- e. e. e. u. N. ~.

.m.

. 5 ., ., .s s o N ~_ _. _. u ~ . - n W WM

. A o 0 e

a. N. ~. N. N. o. o. o. o

. . N. e. e. o. e.

y

s. . ,. _l -.

Qk > 4

, 4 4

e.

N 4 . . , .., .,

4 e . n, u, .

e .

,., _w2 . 4 4 4 4 4 9 @ > @ 7

o. *2  %% _ % _ % _ *o %_  % W % %_ %W % W%_W %_W

- W a$P., &. N . e -M M se e W W W K

.n N. e. o. e. Q Q

.f . .. .

< - 4 O.

4 Q.

4.

O. ' O.

.,. e.e d. ~.

_.a - _ a. - - _ _

4 4 e + n h & ^ ,

4 t,)

4 aw

, e .av. . Q. M. N. 4. . 4 e. O. m. N. 4 4 e.

S w 4 4 m N N M M M M N

.. N M M M NN .s

- 2

..t

. g.

$. $, . 5* $. $. *.5 98 o.8 85 8o. *8 8 8o. $- .

.-1.

- w ft 2 _s -t C m22~ 8 N ~ 8 2~ S 2~ 2 8~ 8 3 3 2 N

4.-

_ 2,I 3 s N N N N N .

.u.s. & b .-

tr N N N N N N ' g> .b. we k e b

.d @ e. % L' e o u o o u o . . . . . . Aa3aaja. - A.

a o u

. .J .J ml .4 .J a .J 3 3 3 3 1 3 I I 4 0 0 4 $

3 m 4 4 4 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4 .O, 4 ~ ~ ~ N

-%  %  %  %  % 4  %  %  %  %

~ ~ %~ ~

.%  %. == N O= Q c e  %  % $

. N M O O P N e O 4 e e s Q  %  %  %  %

=  % C O O O = O O m ~ - e

% e  %  % .

>  %. N.  %.* .c Q = $

"" - e 9  %.  %.  %.

EA3 a2 >E 4

= 4.

l

. _ . - _ . . _ . , , -x- _ ~ - - . _ u =__ _ - , _ _ _. - _

1 4 .

l 3' .I. <= -

i . 4 . . 4 9 < *

.a. < e < < =. 0 0 0

• in w as p M. M.

& v E , t & 6. t> . ** 9 y.

l~ .A. e4 e e m J N e r.

t.

e4 5 E at J. 4 < P.

F* < et A e.

h

. N. .e. P.

m. sh A e ~ S

• N . s: 2 m N N 6 4 w

I.4 N- et a

E Q Q

dC l3 e4 e

N m

5 at < O O as. < 4 4 e g. R e.

a

+. 3 o. 2 O. A. g 3 .e. *

. .e ..c ~ O ,. O . .  %. e.

- - ~ r ~ -. 4 1

.  ?

R 4

• 8 < R i R 2 34 2* 8

. a, e R.

a >. . e s. .

- ~ ~ - -

5.

.m m t e.,

e -

a -

$_ja R. 8 2 < 8 R, R 8 8- 8 R

. .- R. R, z_ j m

3 -

. ~ ~

= #

O.

~.

3 ~.n n

tO ab

.S 8 R < 8 R < < 8 8 S

. ,. ~ ~ . ., .E 3. .R.

ao

~ - ., -

45 W .

Os

., wt <t s.

s .

. fa

.s b

,<, ~

. ~. ..

- . ~

. .. ~ . .

O

< < ~. .. ~. ,

o .O

. .A

. - ~ .S. .O . .. . -. . . - -

~

- as1 l E A r< s 7

.s e.O 2

..t tal 4 a y gg . < < < W gg< m. e a n..  %. O. e. h. . e. O. a. O.

, _ g 3 = ~ - - ~ e . - = , m O - O E O, .

$ M s :

o =.

t . -

U at t .. a. O O O O A O g a e t

". J M N m M N e O 4E A et et Q

. N.

>. et .%

xd. ..t i m w . .&. .- . e. n. e. . . O. n. . . . . N.

. n.

p > - m < < n . . < - -

I 1

v a e 1

=

v 2

,.* .a 8 3 8?

O 8 8- . R e.

R. 8 <. 8 .

8n P 3 R m m

M R. 8 8~ c9e R. .R 8, 2, <

S. 8 R 2 ,

.1 ,.

n

. ~

o.

R.. t NN

• 1.t.

,- O 9 8 8 R a ~. 8 .,R 8 8 < 8 8 8 8 2..m ew .*. c .I. .t Q ,.,. ,

M N M. M N

. e. ~.

4 @

3 d

. 8 ~. ~.

4 .a .*

m.

.o .A,Di . a3 Qw & S .-

.e o N N N N N N .w. 4 .

m 4 .' J m- o e w

. a t o o u o o u u o 3 -3 . i ..s3 da.d<.

- .J .J .4 .4 .J .4 .J .J 3 3 3 5 4 i e 4 4 4 b

3

~

m 4

~ ~ ~

4 4 A ~~N ~ I> ,, ,

,o,. e N N

%  %  %  % ~ . N.  % N.

& *e  %  %  %  %  %  %  %

N. N @ A p  %  %~  %  %  % .$

e O.

4 N P O 4 M $ g N M O O . O O O O O *. O Q O .

/ O  %  %  %  %  %  % N  % <Q

[ N. sk N

- e m

- N.  %.  %.

e e  %. N. N.

E .J 3 ag

p. 4 i

-. - - --. - .- - - _ ~ . - - - - . - . . . - _ . . - - . _ . - - . - - - . . - . . . . - - . .

l l

0iSCHARGE RATE /VELOCiTV AT TARBERT .AMDING (CORPS)

DELAY TlNE ESTIMATE BETVEEN TARBERT -

DAILY STAGE AT )

LANDING AND SURVEY DATE '

CARROLLTON GAGE CARROLLTON GAGE

\

i Alb .

STAGE AT CARROLLTON RATING CURVE AT . _- n CARROLLTON GAGE-CONSERVATION OF ENERGY USING CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA AND CROS T10NS MANNING'S C0 EFFICIENT AT FROM CORPS DISCHARGE SITES ,

O 1

SITE RATING CURVE RIVER DISCHARGE AT SITE

GRAPH CONSTRUCTION:

CROSS-SECTIONAL f

-AREA AND-

_ RIVER DEPTHS VS STME _ RIVER STAGE AT SITE PL ANT OPERATION RECORD: l i g_ INTAKE TEMPERATURE '

f DISCNARGE TEMPERATURE o

-TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS l~

l

~ DISCHARGE STRLCTURE DESIGN i

i AMBIENT CONDITIONS: NT AVERAGE RIVER VELOCITY- DISCHARGE CONDIT10NSI AVERAGE RIVER DEPTH . DISCHARGE TYPE RIVER TEMPERATURE DISCHARGE VELOCITY EXCESS TEMPERATURE e

7 I l MODEL Call 8RATl0N

LOUISIANA FLOW DIAGRAM : INPUT DATA TABLE POWER & LIGHT Co.

Waterford Steam

. A,2 Electric Station COMPUTATIONS FOR MODEL CAUBR ATION.

Y

+-,w ,,-w,--, ir,v-sm,-e, w<w 4,- g mmww,, r ee9 w w e -- - g- g ~

w -q--~ ~a s *

• m - sw w -w-re-,-- -,-f- +m-6--nq-*+ emg- n .,w- - --,,n.-a-~s

TABLE A-3 COMPARISON OF MATHEHATICAL MODEL CHARACTERISTICS I

! PDS Mndel Edincer /Pnik Mndel Field Nearfield Fartield Longitudinal Yes Yes timensions Lateral Yes Yes included vertical Yes Yes Mathematical Approach Integral Analyt ica l Steady State Steady State Free Jet Semi-infinite Medium Model Homogeneous & Uniform Homogeneous & Uniform Assumptions Ambient Flow Ambient Flow lin Wind Effects Continuous Point Source Calibrated by EPA Calibrated with the Model Verification O l Against Laboratory and Field Data Site Speelfic Field Data 1

O

TABLE A-4 O COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED THERMAL PLUM 1 CilARACTERISTICS ON SEPTEMBER 9, 10 0F s,6 - LITTLE GYPSY EDINGER / POLK MODEL Im * ^

m e s Predicted /

("F) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft2) (Aeres) Observed 1536 - 1587 9248 - 96'- 7766 - 8074 266 - 294 Predicted 5

1200 - 1400 3150 - 7020 ,

7930 - 4230 54 - 188 Observed 1086 - 1122 4624 - 4938 [86) - 4077 94 s 104 Predicted 10 700 - 800 1850 - 1970 700 - 1540 23 - 35 Observed y,: Maximum Lateral Extent x: Maximum Longitudinal Extent A: Maximum Cross-Sectional Area A,: Surface Area 2

C:)

d m___---.___ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - . . .- ._ - . . _ . .

TABLE A-5 l

l

' COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSEkVED THERMAL PLUME CHARACTERISTICS ON SEPTEMBER 9, 10 OF 19 76 - WATERFORD i AND 2 EDINGER /POLA MODEL at y, x, A A c s Predicted /

( F) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft ) (Acres) Observed 1,307 10.267 6,608 252 Predicted 1.5 _;

600 - 900 5400 - 7700 2480 - $190 48 - 139 Observed 716 3,080 1,980 41 Predicted 5

400 - 500 1500 - 3200 --- ---

observed y,: Maximum Lateral Extent x,: Maximum Longitudinal Extent

() A: Maximum Cross-Sectional Area A,1 Surface Area l

l l

l l

.O l

O WATER QUAllTY $TANDARO$

I 1'

WATERFORD 3 $ELECTIONI OPERATIONAL MODE $ AND $EASONAL RIVER FLOV Ol$ CHARGE CONDITIONS AND TEMPERATURE $1TE RATING CURVE l l I t DISCHARGE ggApg$:

DISCHARGE RATE AND STRUCTURE EXCE$$ TEMPERATURE $1TE STAGE CROS$-SECTIONAL ARE4 DE$1GN AND RIVER DEPTH V$ $TAGE O o DISCHARGE OUTLET DIMEN$10NS I f i f PLANT Ol$ CHARGE CONDITIONS: AMBIENT CONDITION $t Ol$ CHARGE TYPE (AND OUTLET RIVER VELOCITY DIMEN$10N$), DISCHARGE VELOCITY. RIVER DEPTH EXCES$ TEMPERATURE RIVER TEMPERATURE I f PREDICTIVE MODEL O

FLOW DIAGRAM : INPUT DATA TABLE POW R GHT Co Waterford Steam FOR PREDICTION A-6 Electric Station

t 1

8 6

W 1 p

m e

T )

2 F d 5 s

s

• ( n a 9 e 1 r t a w t.

H 7

G L 8 2

h t 3 d 0 i W 3

• W I t t

) 2 e F s e ( 6 y 3 f l

t C 2 t

(

W u L

1 O

Io.

- I V

S s d 6 e n SI FS e a I l

Y ( F B L

A 36 W r ,

N0 e A0 v C h t

s L 8 p 3 l% R 3 m 0 e W st 2 D ) 7 k r E T t F e (

THW l K

I t u C 3 1A t O L 8

FF e t )

S 7 Ns t

- Or A F 1 I M 7I 3 7 L f T 40 W 8 L DI (

a 9

A 4Ds a 3 1 T G A A e o W s

C r 5 G A 2 t N W a O 5 k )

I TL e d a SF e n 6 y V S a 8 I

I L w E 8

i t

/.3 l W (V D

t r lw G 6 e a L

ss L v 6 6 f A A i L 1 V

R fi :C a t P rY N T I

p n

u .I 3 ee gT V W 1

a ) 5  : ) 6 e rrF 8 y g ee s r y

v v '(

Ai t

s f h

a r (

R o ec gse l

e G 6 ri g V L aDr 2 h a c2h o c i ds e D ei n y mD e o g i sI3 a t p

- t ) a ydd St 3 d G rr w

a e(

F n 3 5

3 eff oo 2 o W 2 Rt C l rr s i 2 a ee n S e t t t o g e i a i

t .

t a LWW a R 2 t t t if b t e r e) d AAA n

o t

a a ge n 3 C R i rr a 6  : ::

0 D ac b( 9 C23 r re) 0 I L W e egs 0,

t n

c o W d v vrf a a n i

ac 5 D a R ikb( r 0

l P 8 I 2

a C 4 W

_ a .

L 6 A. _ D 8 1

e

. 1ll l 1

~

w ' ' ~

~ ~ _. -

, O.

e TAmLE 4-8 INPdT CDNDillONS FOR THERMAL ANALYSIS - AVERACE FLOW COstrif alytS A. River Canditions Average River Average Di sch arge Site River St age River Tem >* W W Season Rat e (cfs) IFt) (.*F ) If, I and 2 _ W3 LC I and 2 W3 Wi nter 580,000 10.4 47.7 1%.3 17.5 .s.O 3.s 3.3 1.1 Spring 650,000 11.8 69.7 l ', . 7 17.8 19.2 4.1 3.7 3.4 Summer 280,000 4.0 84.3 14.2 15.9 87.5 2.0 1.8 I.6 l

Fall 240,000 3.0 63.0 14.0 15.2 17.2 .l . 7 8.6 1.4 B. Pl o t Distharge Condi"icne Di scharge Rate "eloci*y: V. Velocity Ratin Our 3 cr Dept h (Atlet Width Laress Teep (c f s) (fps) I (V./V ) (Ft) (Ft) ( F) 3 a Se a son LG W- W3 1G W3 LG W3 8.C W3 ' LC W3 LC. W W3 I and 2 , _

I and 2 Ainter 1444 ,956 1384 1.1 1.8 'O.29 0.58 16.4 15.4 81.5 50 18.4 19 26.0 t

Spring 1444 956 2144 0.9 1.9 0.22 0.57 17.8 16.8 91.6 65 18.4. 19 17.0 Summer I;st 956 2235 1.9 5.0 1.0 3.1 10.0 9.0 76.0 50 18.6 19 16.0 Fall. f .44 956 1831 2.2 4A 1.3 3. 3 9.0 8.0 n.0 50 se.4 19 t9 T LC: A5 Li t tle Cypsy Di scharge W

I and I ; At Water ford I and 2 Di scharge W ): At Water ford 3 Di scharge

& bawd on temperat ure data 't aken at ' Ninemile Paint Cenerating Station, Wd st wago, loui si an a. 1951-f969, given in Table 2.4-14

- - - '- ' '- '- ~' ' '

_...;-..urm.1.:-.-

. .. ,..,x ,, ,

b - e f

TABLE A-9 o

TEMPENATURE EXCEEbil:G IJ F CdHPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL THERMAL DISCHARCE IMPACTS - ZONES OF EXCE57i TYPICAL LOW RIVER FLOW CohWITT5N rof 200,006 3 tianimum X-Section I of the River Lateral Surface Survey Longitudinal Area (acres) Area ( f t") A-Sar t ie n Aree Scread (ft) Spread (f t ) L6 W B62 W $

Date W l&2 W3 LC W &2 W3 LG lW 152 W I LG W 162 W3 LG I 347

- 0.2 179 34.8 - 0.2 1,540 - f.'

1,970 4L 800 -

9/ 9/76 -

0.2 700 - 31 2 0.3 -

0.2 38 700 350 177 22.8 -

9/10/76 1,850 1.000 L

Note: For Waterford I and 2 and Little Gypsy, L C, - Little Gypsy Discharge stierest discharge impacts were ext rapolated fraum field survey dat a obt ained dur ing the W 162 - Waterford I and 2 Discharge t ypi c al low flow conditinn. The PDS an. del was used for Wat erf ord 3 pr edict ions . No W3 - Waterford 3 Discharge i entry ind! rates li. or no excess temper-atures exceeding IJ ..

l

~

TABLE A-10 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL THERMAL. DISCHARGE IMPACTS - ZONES OF EXCESS TEMPERATtmES EXCEEDING $"F TYPICAL LOW klVER FLOW CONulTIONS OF 200,000 CFS Hax imum Survey Long it ud in al Lat er al Surface X-Sect iog I of the River Date Spread (f t ) ,S> read (ft) Area (arres) Area (ft') X-Sect ion Are a W 162 W3 LG W l&2 W3 LG W 152 W3 LC W f 62 l W3 LG _ el 162 W)

LG I 5,700 1,400 500 524 188 -

1.9 4,230 -

3.287 3.0 -

0.8 9/ 9/76 7,020 325 2,500 316 400 525 54 -

I.9 2,930 -

1,277 2.1 -

0.7 9/10/76 3.150 I,200 Note: For Wat e rf ord I and 2 and Lit t le Gypsy, LC - Little Gypsy Discharge thermal discharge impact s were ext rapolat ed W 162 - Waterford I and 2 Discharge f r om field survey dat a obt ained dur ing the typical low flow condition. The PDS model ,

- Waterford 3 ' Dischan ge was used for Waterford 3 predict ions. No W3 ent ry indicates litt le or no excess t empe r-atures exceeding 5 F.

4

~ ' " ' ~ ~

/

\

'ABLE A-Il

(

COMBINE D THERMAL INFACTS 11 WATERFORD 1, 2 AND 3 AND 1.IT1LE CTPSY DISCHA7LES 10"F 5"F 3.6 F To Tm im Ze ' Xe Ya (1,000 Ac/Ar Vol As Ze Xm Ya (1,000 Ar/Ar Vol As Im Xe Ya 11,000 Ac/Ar Vol As Se a so n (ft) (ft) (it) sec) (%) (Aft) (Ac) (f t) (f t) (ft) seen (2) (Af t) ( At- ) (it ) (f t) (ft) sec) (%) (Aft) (Ac)

Predicted verage Seasonal River Flow Cowli t ions ( see Table A-8, Appendia Agl, for the Definition Winter 6.0 1,800 635 2.0 1.5 14.7 26 7.0 4,000 1,000 3. 8 1.0 73 of 8.5 5,700 1,40t 5.3 4.s 1 54 137 Spring 3.4 1L900 610 1.9 0.9 12.0 27 4.8 3c400 1,150 4.8 g 2.2 59 73 5.6 5,000 1. 40t 5.4 3.4 124 126 Surame r 6.8 3,000 870 6.5 2,2 89.0 59 9.9 6,200 1,700 14.0 4.5 4 72 174 11.1 8,400 Wr 20.3 e.0 1 ,1 36 367 Fall 7.1 3,600 1,000 9.7 2.6 132.o 81 9.7 7,600 1,700 20.6 (.6 852 257 11.0 10,800 Wr 31.8 10,0 1,897 459 Survey Iff Pacal Low River Flow Conditions of 200,000ctf 3.0 7.7 1.1 <l50.0 50 8.0 7,200 Wr 24.0 4.2 <l,752 219 11.0 8,900 Wr )0.0 5.5 1,641 331 9/9/76 2,700 1,100 914 0/ 7ei ) 1,850 700 6.0 0.7 <63.0 2.* 12.0 1,300 1,300 10.0 2.2 < 888 74 I4.0 5,300 1,4 00 17.0 7.7 1,694 128 I

Ze = Maximum vertical s pread Xm = Maxistas longit udinal aprem] '

Ya = Man is ten lateral a pr e ad Tm = M ax im um t ravel time ( a partic le dri f t time t hrough t he l onge st pl ume length)

Ac = Masistas cross-sectional area for a given escess temperat ure Ar 'ross-sec tional area 4,f t ie river at Waterford 3 di scharge le ' ion Vol volume occupied by excess temperat ures higher t han t hat i ndic at ed As = Sur f ace area Wr =

River widt h ( about 2,000gt for average Summe r/ Fal l seasons and for typical low flow seasons)

Aft = Acre-Ft (equals 43,560 f t )

Ac = Acre 9

l' O

TABLE A-12 COEFFICIENT FOR PREDICTIVE MODEL PARAMETERS A. Dif fusivities and Ef fective Convection Velocities Lateral Diffusivity = Ky = a uH /6 (pg2 fg,,)

Vertleal Diffusivity = Kz = a, uH (Ft /See) t Effective Convection Veloelty = u, = Su (FPS)

River Velocity = u (FPS)

River Mean' Depth-= H (Feet)

Cneffirienta Plant *y ag g

Ltt tle Gypsy C.92 0.00002 0.2 Waterford 1 & 2 1.63  ?,00006 0.5 Waterford 3 0.29 0.00010 1.0-B. Upstream Wedge Intrusion at Little Gypsy Discharge Froude_ Number = 0.6u Sh* HV uw = Water depth at the Wedge = 25 + (Rivtr Stage. -2.3) (Ft)

.g ' = Gravity acceleration (Ft/See )2 A =. Density _dif ference between discharge and river water- (1b'/Ft )

~

P a = River Water Density-(1b/Ft3 )

L = Wedge _langth (Figure A-10) (Ft)~

10 1

..... .. r.. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .

O O O TABLE A-13 COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS WITH EARLIER PREDICTIONS AT LOW RIVER FLOW CONDITIONS Isotherm of- Max Cross-Sectional Max Longitudinal Extent, it Area Affected, % Max Lateral Extent, ft

' Excess Temperature, F CP-ER OL-ER GP-ER OL-ER' CP-ER OL-ER Study St udy Study Study Study Study 1800 7200 3800 4.2% 5% 1800 I 5 1100 590 2700 900 10 1.1% 3%

Operating 1.icense Stage Environmental Report 2 Construction Permit Stage Environment al Report , Exhibits 22 through 24, Supplement 3, December, 1972.

FIGURES O

O ,

O O O RECURHENCE IN T E HVAL - YE A;is to 4000 5

j_, 2 t

3000 - - - - - - - - -

2000 --- -- --- --- -- - -- --

• JAN - FE8- WAR (wsNTER)

• e A PR - M AY - JUN (SPRING)

'* s JUL - AUG-SEP (SUWWER) . .oo e

• 8 o OCT - NOV - DEC (FALL) o m o ALL MONTHS o gi000 7=g-. a .

g 900 - - - - -

g, g 800 - - -

3 700 -- --- --

,een " *- . ' -*

n -- ~ - -

,o o ,a a 600 ,9 o C' 500 - -- - -**' ,, g, -

e. . . ,o a o

'guo_

400 -

.* o

• 2 e**' f .* o y, !)' a 300 , , .m* *

, g . .-- - -o - -

aoa r d '-

.

• o i 'u o 200 - - ---

" =B,>>o-o - - - --- .

a 4 o a

, om o"s *"no o"

a gl'

=

o am o0 0 0

,o a0 I'bOf 00501 02 05 1 2 5 10 20 30-40 50 60 70 80 90 95 987j9 '5ti399 99 39 PH08 A HilliY */o FOR FLOW Lf S$ TH AN OR FQUAL TO LOUISI AN A p POWER & LIGitT CO. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW STATISTICS - BASED Ott AVERAGE Waterford Steam M0tlTilLY FLOWS FOR PERIOD 1942 TitROUGli 1976 A1 Electric Station _1

l

.~

1 l O N d x_ i

.p3 c*- _ . _ ,p T.;-

l 3 4 , ,

Ub '

/ g h, ,n,,__. .i '~"in3 L_

. w. .c . te- p C""

-sc

,p .  ?

,[w-p ' '.:.; -d.'.. , , _ ,

,da f.:

ST, CH ARLES P ARISH

./ ,

-) {. l f., a h))3 '

4- '

, 'u l ,

j

' ~;:- - t ,, * ;' I 4 I.

\'y h us.

ee. -

, .. = '

st , \,,

.p '! I

} I :. sg =

' Yee ,. j ,"'?

( l, Q , n

, b ^- -' ' * * ' =.a=====mm...

• qggg j

j *** ' T ' '

\

fI s

.s .

l#El CHANNEL 1

't w -_~=- .-, m . m + .J _ V i

,,, aanni

• e .

t, <

/ .,,,,,

K

- f@gt O {. s l}l *

=,' , _

r $l' ajo',f=Gv'1? .IlY N

I

,p' . ,g Mt '

[- )'a#O-} h -

j

, ,; ! l

[4 * * ,

,4 . ,

i *

' , f 0) y as ' ';\ ^

q ,  :/ l's 5g . g

,a.;; .

.>.\

%. m. x ,.' yr, ,

t s h *W- ::r,.. -~.=. ,A..

?

s.:

,y:y,

. . g, ..,~,,e

, , ' . '.,, .'ri " <

@ . . . . N- .

.=.

, 3 i.f 4

. L) _a,.

~

2 %}(( $ . a ;Jk ~.L.~rl % g;*-

1. I' ' fl, /

- " - - ~ . . "' .

Qi._.,4, l, --

s.,,

a

14. .. < ,, #. ,,

. 7-

'm~ ,

, i{, . . ,1:....;,.' ' ,

/,y . , . . _

' 7 iT * @ '-

d .;-

1. , ... .-. .

• N '_.:

/

'#,. .'t, ' WATERFORD d.

,f$ E ' - !+ ?x . s]k' f

~' ( 1AND2 f N -

a l I ,I 1

LO le= i

.r . & !- .'

j 1

, i wATERFORD_t

. ,y

. j. '9, f

y ..s..-i .~

y ,

'\,s \

, f ki

.e .

.f5 nc ,

. . f lm <a *N l l

J G s

( #

p%M'E .* j>. , '.ff " j ' .

1 N(% ' '

l  %? g l

f.

• l e*w) x ,

s %-

{

_l) L . '.

I 1

N0fti SMA0tD AREA 4tP483tNf3 OtPTMS GRfAftR T M a n 100 f t ,

V~' "~ "

m- - was#'. ".s

--.ca.......... . . . . . . .

, .. . u . s . . .

........o.. .. - ,., .n Q

.'3 .... = eg .ca .eagt. s A 70 . 40

2. . u .. s .. . .

I LOUISlANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. MISSISSIPPI RIVER DEPTH Waterford Steam CONTOURS AT WATERFORD Electric Station L A2

EU e O O LEGEND; 9/8 b t6 1220 kcis)

A DHOGUES t

--- 9/13/7E (230 Lcis i ;

MEASURED EXTHEMITIES OF TilEHMAL PLUMES 9/10/76 (200 kcis )

--- 11/2/74 (210 Lcis ) .

N DROGUE RELEASE POINT

( l POWEll LINE y lal -

I LITy (

l 0%zy l{- Y STATIOy 8; /

INTAKE "f

. '\ ,

• • • . ._ j

'~~

f

,,, , g =:=:.[ Q '

UNIT 1 & 2 ,N s j

' .- *~

osscuAncE $ -

D8SC88AHGE

• 1000 o ooem UNIT 3 5- ~~A M ECALE IN Ff ET WATE Hf 0HD STATION souncE: CEO man NE. INC, 9974. 30 THEL 4 MAL PLUME ME AEUMLME NTE, COMP ANY REPOH T.

t GEO M AHINE,8NC,1976. FsRST OPE RATION AR. HYIJHOis4E HM AL SIUOV - WAT LH-FORD SES, COMPANY REPORT.

LOUISl Atl A Figure POWER & LIGilT CO.

Waterford Steam

SUMMARY

OF DROGUE AND FLUME DAT A FOR 200 KCf 5 RIVER DISOIARGE A-3 Electric Station

E e.,...KL. . . . . .

O O O

' LEGEND:

wmm 814/11

... - 8S/17 MEASURED THEHMAL PLUME

~~ 8i5111 8/8/17 TRACES DESCHIBED BY HIVEH CHANNEL DHOGUES*

x 9/20/11 DROGUES HELEASED NEAR LITTLE GYPSY DiscilARGE" I

M DHOGUE HELEASE PO!NT POWEtt LsNE I

LiryLE HIVEH fiOW: 300.000 CFS

, Gresy STAygg ,I I

srs \ /

,i

,-g INTAKE DISCHANGE ~"

l k

/

=.*

I s

• p w&WAT.T ,.

s - --

g

• ' ~.-

l INTAKE x . \y % I -

p.a.c=r.y:..* *

. ..s e = =, ,

l I.....-**.....,,

..., .. , G -

1. j. x xx

• 2 u.td,_ . _ ,..

' '# K ' ' **

' **= ......* W thMET 1 Ba 2 ~-- ~-

l A. = ' '.) -: 4M 2 0 DISCHARGE

/

fn , ,

-DIScal A rlGE I SCALE IN P EET i

UNIT 3

• Gt04s ANINE. tNC 18?P. St COND OPtRAI80N AL #9 tdem)fHigas AL stuov. wattwoa0 ses. cOuPANv strons.

WATEHFOllD STATION =* GEO-MAfu ME, GNC. 397 7. A CUAntNI DetOGut $7UOT ON IHE V10thif f Of EOOf b8 AN A PowtA AND 4 #GHi*5 tetit E GTPEV AND m Attn #ORO e AND 2 6&NtRA18MG EI Allosed.

COtaPANT fatPORT, I Figure LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.

SUMMARY

OF DROGUE AtJD PLUME DAT A FOR 3Na :Cf 5 RIVER DISCilARGE '

Walesford Steam Electnc Station r

O O O i

l , - ~

, 'y.

LEGEND:

t. .

g-DROGUES (9/20/17)*

• o ,

l , _

TRACES DESCHIBSD BY HtVER CHANNEL DROGUES '8/8/I7)*  ;

BOWER LINF 3

% DROGUE HELEASE POINT i

LITTLE GYPSY STATION

j.  ; l INTA K E + .

. ) '

NDISCHARGE

=

,,T-- cIn.

N .'g a

o a*

• i

~

UNIT l 8 2 UNIT 3 l W AT E H F0 H D stall 0N. ,

womce.

• GEO-as AnaNt, INC,19 7 7, btcOND UPERAltofe At HypnOTHilme AA. SIUOV. W Alt AtuRD

"~^~#"" "^

1000 0 , , _ _ _ ,

4000 -

Glo u. .e. ..c. isir. A cuanta r omouue siouv .= ine v. cia n ce tou.w A= A O _ _ I.. rowta Amo 1:Ghi's tentt GWP&T AND W Alt AFOAD 3 AND 2 fithtR AleNG SI A160h5 4

SC ALE IN . EET t:ourA=v atroat.

LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. DROGUE STUDY RESULT .# 1 (10:35 - 13.07, SEPTEMBER 70, 1977)

Woierford Sieom A_$

Electiic Sto ion

o O O

, y 1 LEGEND:

l i

DHOGUES 19/10/77)"

l  % =

A TRACES DESCHIBED BY HIVER CilANNEL DilOGUES 18/8/77)*

POWEH LINE  % DROGUE RELEASE POINT i

LITTLE GYPSY STATION o [

IN TA K E -+ .

i ISCHARGE L .

1*TAKE o

"r 20 " .

=

8 *

• ag

.N ^

INTAKE =_

DISCHARGE DISCHARGE -

UNIT-3 I

W AT E R FO R D STATION sou nce.

• GISaa Amest 4*C,1977 bt COND OPE A AlloN AL ttV Dflu fHihA8 AL 310DV, W Alt htumD

$ts. LonaP ANY htPO AT.

1000 0 4000 . . o, . A.,,,, .. c, n. A cu ==t N onut.us siuuf .N sut v.ciN. V o, t oo. .N A PL7%P4  ; I I Pourt A AND 14GHI'*5191111 GvPSV AND mAlthf unO 1 AND 2 GENtRATING Si Alior45 c'*'^*'"**"'-

SC ALE IN FEET LOlllSIANA Figure POWER & LIGitT CO. DROGUE STilDY RESULT # 2 (14:10 - 16:35, SEPTEMBER 70, 1977) A-6 Waterlonf Sieom Electric Station

O O O

, - y -

kd, LEGENO:

%f -

DROGUES (9/21/17)*

• e POWER LINE TRACES DESCRIBED BY HIVER CilANNEL DROGUES (8/8/171*

N DROGUE RELEASE POINT

t. -

c 8.lTTLE GYPSY STATION I

I INTAME-+

i -_

~

~

DISCHARGE L- -

~~

~ ~

INTAKE-* bh

~., _ .x y ..

UNIT I 8 2 - ~; _

DISCHARGE -t DISCHARGE

- UNIT 3 j W ATE R FOR D STATION souace.

• GtOW A AsNf. INC.197 7. Ef COND OP15A"MsN AL MVDM)IHthMAL bluDf. W AILDf 0AD Sis. Cone *AssY mfPOSI.

If40 0 4000 .. o,o , ,,, , , , c, ,, , , , , c o,,,, , o,,o oo , , ,, ,, ,, , ,, y, c,,, , , , ,,, ,, ,, ,

W~ I POWLA AND flGHI*$ LIIILE GTPSV AND W Althf 0NO 9 AND 2 GENih AI4NG $$ AllONS.

cour^a' **Poa'-

SCALE IN FEET Figure LOU 151AHA-POWER & LIGitT CO. DROGUE STUDY RESULT #3115:11 - 11:33, SEPTEMBER 21, 1977) A_7 Woresford Steam Elecr<ic Storion

(

^\ {}

\ w V a

?! ~

uW w0

?E Y E' a w Po 5 5

E -

l .5 d LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE (FT) 22 13.5

,e8 5 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 .

i

• i -ro 3.5 2.5 2.5 I5 2.5 3.5 O

O 1.5 .5

[ .

i5 15 1.5 4 1.5 f" 2000 -

O a -- -

y a 3.5 F K ., I75 F T */S EC

• 2.5 F - PHEDICTED WITH - K 3 : 0011 F T*/SEC

' o 1. d F u, :125 FPS SURVEY DATA LOUI5 LANA l Figure f 0WER & LIGHT CO. COMPARISOtt OF PREDICTED & OBSERVED (7/31/7 '

Waterford Steoni EXCESS SURFACE ISOTilERMS (*F) - LIT 1LE GYPSY A-8 Electric Station

llil e

r 9 0 _ u -

O -

0 Ln 0,

1 1

i F

g A O

C O Oi C E 0 L

C E S 1 E S /

S /

/ ' T r T F py F 7 1

2 2 0 .

0 3 0 0 0 1 s  : 0

,, p e 8

- g X "-

l F s i

a E

TI 4 )

0 6 S W A 0 i 7 Y T 0 9 S D A 7 / P E D 9Y T (

G CI Y D E D E E E V ) V L R R T R TT P U F 0 E I S ( 0 5L

- 0 I

x l i

'F E 6 O -

0 F- C N & )F 1

T A

w D *(

S E 5

• I TM D CR O L A

N 0

0 0

5 I F 6

I DE Ei RT t

D I P05 U F1 T OE I

G m- t C O A t

N O 0 S I R F

0 L 0 I

R AS U

4 P S MS OE F CC 0

0 h8 _

X E

0 3

2 7 ,

0 F 0 F 0a 21 2

4 1

F 6

0 1 0i -

0 .

1 O

u ny* E z$o g wk -

C AtT n o nn i

i l i teno tGS AI i S O 0 y

0 0

0 0

0 2

1Ld e c 5

U&f oi l

r t r

0 ORec t e

1 LE al

, WWE

'- _gY0 O P

ff l l

l

=

3 n i

.? <

(] u.

o o

1 I I i/ 8 I I/

/

) E

- bXm

' mC O J2 o

• w2

/ I i e 5 e

8~

ma j ,

i i

!  ! I w Ah m

4 >x

/ w QW a

f'i l[ $

w d5 xw 5

w =

,3 9C O

4 b&

a mE r O W 4 l J l l 1 -

z >

I I / c 0

I

/

f n

3 U

z i

o m q o o

p. p o

o y n m -

o --

e o 6 o 6 o 6 d ' W38WnN 3000H3 31 W.L 3 NI SN 30 h 4 -:- Ea o

"Q50 o 3 37 s a .u:

W "

=ww O

O.

I

i O O O l

'h

, t t

{ SUHVEY DATA -

8z X 2 5* F Ky: 79.4 50 F1/SEC i I

m e: 45'F

~ PRED;CIED WITH - K3200019 50 FT /SEC E -

-u, = 0 683 F PS

{.

E e

d a:

2000 - "5 4 ,U J

1000 - ' y X .;

2.5 F , -A l 3 2.5

• F

.j 4.5 F 6.5 r._

v . . . . _

= . .. , . .

x_,

3800 3000 2000 1000 '1000 -

' 2000 3000 '4000 5000 6000 -

l 3 g, = gg og - W

_ 4TERFORD 3 INTAKE WATERFORD 18 2 0:962.5 CFS DOWNSIREAM DISTANCE if T )

3

' DISCHARGE Tin : 8 5 *F T ou t : 104 'F 1- -l i LOUI5!ANA Figure

POWER & LIGitT CO. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED & dBSERVED (9/9/76)

I Woierford Sieom EXCESS SURFACE TEMPERATURE ("F) - WATERFORD 1 & 2 A_Il l4 . Electric 5:otion j .

• w

Og \

'N  %

1 1

l (Mw f

I RivfR PLOW See,000 48 l

I i

l Lilitt GVP5V SIAf fou

/ UNei s.z a 3 085CH ARGE f EnCE 5s fiut le1443 <*sF Cf 5 W0tuME WAIE  :

gg [

C*I grugtaggp DISCH A N G E = \

IICI 5S If MP:13*F ., / $*r h4WER DouNPAMV

% " 'g- **.,

votDMI RATE 95$8075 .

3 s 6*F

1. ~ Q .

N. ,' N .

e411NtukD 3 N in! AM 60*t N Da $Csi tR6f lxcessstur is*r s**

V0tUMI Halt . iS64 4CIS $ 6*F mAffPFOND Sin i t O h aooa o souo 2000 sooo 4co) Sua r y m-L r - - - - g ; .._ __ g-- p ._ __ :3 scAne en eas LOUISlANA PGWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCE551507tlL RMS (*F) AT IIIE $URF ACE Waterlard Steam COMBir4ED FIELD - AVERAGE WittlER RIVfR FLOW COr4DITIOri A- 12 Electric Station

O O O RtvER f LOW 616,003 see L II T L f 6P)V SI Af t0N

-[t*111e,2d3Da5CH4hGt f att $5 If MP.1 og 4 *f

' V0t uMt N A f f a 1943 F CF S 3 g 90*F

~~

• • 1. 5euut af f e OtSCe:ARGE % .,s .

EXCESS IEMP5 2*f *

} ' ,j

-

• S*f 9 6*F

-muta maar VoluMESAlfswSS8Cf5 , ~..j.

g 16*f

., N SA11Rf 0kD 3 s afAnt '" N Ot1CseARGE 3

- E ECt 55 f f WP 4 ff*f S*

. vot uME R Alf : 743 8Cf 5 _.

'WAltaf0A0 $1 A l i O N

ruu - - - - - m=u--- --- - - a SCALt tu Fff?

y '*

L ~ LOUISI AN A ,

POWER a LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS 150TitERMS (*F) AT TifE SURF ACE-l' A-13 Waterford Steam COMBit4ED FIELD - AVERAGE $PRit4G RIVER FLOW cot 4DITIOtt Electlic Sionion l

I .......__._;.... . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .

A

=

O O O We v& R f LOW. be 000 see I

\

tii vi e  ;

GTPSV' l SI Af s006

/ tesell 8,4 8 3 DISCM AkGE

[ ( ACE SS TEasP i IS 4*F

' WOLUME N Af f 81943 F Cf S eAffif uRD IS F einist "f .

OISCHARGE- __ * (, ,n,g W WD E RCE SS TEbsPs 19'T 's \ g'g savia touhoaaf V0lbME M Af f a 95$ 4Cf 5 78 - 3.,

/ -

S*f

• , Q 7 Wr ,. /

• ~ ~.--.--.~. _ _.__. . '

sAlthf OkD 3 c

mimi ' '

l' DISCH ARGE ' .

' E XCE SS !! asp to t*f votvedE palg 2 2235 CFS W A I i le f 0 N D S T A 1 8 0 N B000 0 solo 2000 inks) 4000 Sm.o p a p4 3 - -- r -~t __ g -- y---- i

$C At E e es 6iEi i

- LOUl51 All A p;p,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS 150 THERMS (*F) AT TiiE SURFACE Couait ED flELD - AVERAGE SUMMER RIVER FLOW cot 4DITiott A-14 Waterford Steorn Electric Station

' - ' ' Y" D'~'

l l

e 9 O

& \

l l

RivfR FLOW 240,0tm sf.

tfTits GVP5V S t Aia0N

/ UNil 1,2 8 5 DISCH A RGE f f RCf 5511MP - 18 4*I W0tuME M AIE 3 1445 FCf 5 94It#f belp a t 2 sa t Anf M '

OISCHANGf D-

• Smut Al10 E nCE $5 If WP:j$*F .e ?- 's *O*F I V0tDMEA4ff:35$ 8(f 5 's .\. se at ',- ,

[nstfMbOUNDAAt

'.- 't * '

\.qggd

,~-'

.~~-... '- /

367

~~. /

/

eAlihiukD i '

'N.~._ .

085CH A A6f fICf 55 If MP ; 49 f*f v0;uul A Alf ; se38 0 5

• w A I I at f' O k 0 5IAIION 4000 o toud 993 41> Su g g ,_ . so,u0 p=. r ..y - - ,UO- --- -- ,uo SC A* E IN fffI LOUISIAtlA 9 '*

POWER & LIGitT CO. l'REDICT ED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (*F) AT THE SURF ACE Waterford Steam COMBit1ED FIELD - AVERAGE F ALL RIVER FLOW cot 4Dif f0t3 A- 15 Electric Station

O O O

, . . , ~ :.y RIVER FLOW : 200,000 ef s POWER LINE l '.

( POWFH LlHE 15o  ; LITTLE GYPSY STATION f

l\ IN TA K E-+

h fEXCESSTEMR: 21.7* F 3s o CilARGE -[VOL. RATE : 1448 CFS .

~-sa " [

7-. . . . .; . . .;-.

l WATERf0I1D g 5* u, la2 % 6 - JNTAKE ,,3 . . ,':

'^

DISCttARGE ROSS-SKTION(TRANM lRUSTRATED W OG. AT21

' EXCESS TEMP :19 58F SS T W i i6.5o F VOL. RATE = 963 CFS VOL, RATE : 2235 CFS DISGiARGf W AT E R FO R D STATION 1000 0 4000 m -- . . .

SCALE IN FEET L0uiSIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS 150TilERMS ( F) AT lilE SURFACE Waterloid Steam COMuit4ED FIELD - SECTDABER 9, 1976 LOW FLOW COilDillOtt A _16 Eleciric Station

---

-i

O O O y  ;

@s RIVER FLOW: 200,000 cf s POWEH LlNE -

V fl POWER LINE LITTLE GYPSY STATION

(  !

l  !

INTAME -

N EXCESS TEMP : 21* f .

~-

CNA -

36' VOL RAT E : 1448 CFS

, .L_ _

'N'#*E ~

p ./ ,

UNIT I8 2 [ ,go C 2o N. M .,.

DISCHARGE iINTAKE 7 ...' ._ .. .

EXCESS TEldP : 19.3 *F /

VOL. RATE 1963 CFS UNIT 3 N DISC!!ARGE  ! VOL. RATE : 2235 CFS L

W AT E R FOR D STATION 8000 0 4000 isas,es- o . . .

-SC ALE IN FEET LOUISIANA p;go,,

POWER & LIGHT CO EXCESS l$OlllERMS Cf) AT Tile SURFACE COMBit4DED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 LOW FLOW cot 4DITIOf 4 A 17 Waterford Steam Electric Storion

O O O g  :

HfVER FLOW 205,000 cf s power LINE f\

/ i LITTLE GYPSY STATION 368 INTAKE -

=

A EXCESS TEMP = 217* f .

OISCHARGE VOL RATE : 1448 CfS

__e

... L_ n INTAdE I 'n "" - ~^

f 3.6 9 S* a DISCHARGE DISCHARGE .

/ _

EXCESS TEUR :19.5*F.' I  !

VOL. RATE 963 CFS UNIT 3 J WAT E R FO R D STATION 1000 0 4000 m --- , _ .

SC ALE IN FEET LOUISIANA p "

POWER & LIGliT CO. EXCESS ISOltlERMS (*f) AT Tite SURG ACE BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOIARGE - SEPTEMBER 9,1976 A 18 Wutenford $feom N l TION Electric Station

'O O O

v v

'

RIVER FLOW 200,000 cis 7

l '

'x-POWER LINE l  ;

i

-; LITTLE GYPSY STATION  ;

INTAKE ~ f

\ f l EXCESS TEMP : 21* F ~

~'

DISCHARGE <

V L RAI : 1448 CFS

• ' %b !0 sd

~ .-

3*l INTAKE

,,,_  %, - :y:/; y. .;-~ .

.s -3 60 /'

)

UNIT l 8 2 's 6*

gy.

INTAKE DISCHARGE "i u__

DISCHARGE - _

(EXCESS VOL, RATE :963 CFS TEMP UNIT 3 19 3*F 1 W AT E R FOR D STATION 1000 0 4000 1  % .

SC ALE IN FEET t LOUISlAt4A y E9 " '

POWER & LIGIT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS (-F) AT TifE SURF ACE BEFORE WATERFORD 3 DISOf APGE - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 Waterford Steam LOW FLOW C/ '71 TION A-19 Electric Stosion

n

.O Q O 20-g_ x T/ 3s / T 3

- 85- , II/2 / T4 8 a 9/9/T6 C . . A 9/80/ T6

$ ,

• 8/4/TT

$ a 8/S/TT O = 6/9/TT 5

a

.. 80 -

E l 'o l Z l 'y A A x 4

a .

A A 'o f

o e

)

g- $_

ea N

A A W

0- , , ,y 3 0- S 80 IS 20 OBSE RVED FH AClaON Of HIVf H CNOSS - 5ECil0N (%)

LOUI5lAHA #*

POWER & LIGilT CO. COMPARl50t45 BETWEEtt PREDICTED & OBSERVED FRACTIOt45 OF Waterford Steam RIVER CROSS-SECTIOri (*,) AFFECT ED BY A GIVEt1 EXCES5150TilERM A-20 Electric Sto ion

. . _ _ _ _ . _ . . .a

o O O 10 0 j

.90

~

80 -

u. 70 Nmg

_ N w \

E 50 w N  %

.c W 40 -

^

2 w

t-

, 30

$e

'I

$ 20 ---

T' M

4 10 l 0 01 u 00 0.1 0.2 OS I 2 5 IO 20 30 40 50 60 ,70 80 90 95 98 99 99 8 999 99.99  !

FREQUENCY (%) OF A ANNUAL TEk' 4ATURE EXCEEDING OR EQUALING THE TEMPERATURE INDICATED i

DATA SOURCE : CORPS OF ENGINEERS

LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AtitJUAL TEMPERATURE FREQUEtiCY At4ALYSIS BASED Ot{ DAILY RIVER I Waterford Steam TEMPERATURE TAKEtt AT CARROLLTOt1 STATIOtt (1961 TitROUGli 1917) A-22 Electric Station -

u -- _ . _ _.

y -- - -

,