ML20083J876

Mixing,Dispersion & Deposition of Suspended Sediment from Union Electric Co,Callaway Plant Discharge

ML20083J876
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	12/01/1982
From:	Edinger J J.E. EDINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20083F755	List: ML20083F753 ML20083J850 ML20083J876
References
NUDOCS 8401100353
Download: ML20083J876 (34)

Text

, .

- AM 2. f '

l l

Mixing, Dispersion and Deposition of Suspended Sediment from Union Electric Company -

,i . Callaway Plant Discharge l ..

h' Prepared for .

Counsel Union Electric Company _, ,

. 1901 Gratiot Street P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166

, In Support of Testimony on Suspended Sediment Discharge Prepared by

. John Eric Edinger Edward H. Buchak J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.

37 West Avenue Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 1 December 1982 -

l 8401100353 831230 PDR ADOCK 05000483 i A pm

' i

].3 .

• d, ,

Table of Contents List of Figures'and Tables lii l l

1.0 Problem Statement and Method of Investigation 1 l 2.0 Discharge Description and Operation 2 3.0 Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport of Discharge . 3

-- 3.1 Model Setup - .- 4 3.2 Model Simulations 4 4- 3.3 Honthly Variations in Plume Dilution and Settling 6 Q ..

4.0 River Scour and Deposition 7 4.1 Rate of River Bottom Scour and Deposition 7 l 4.2 Plume TSS Deposition 8 l 5.0 Summary and conclusions ,

9 References 27 Attachment A A-1 0

h E

i .

I I

D~

11

L

{ *

~..

List of Figures and Tables Figure 2.1 Hydrography of Missouri River between mile 120.8 and mile 122.3. From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 12 Figure 2.2 Detailed bathymetry in vicinity of Callaway Plant intake and discharge. From Union Electric Company construction drawing, provided by Sverdrup and H Parcel (1982). . 13 h~ -

Figure 2.3 Hissouri River total suspended solids versus river flow in vicinity of Callaway Plant. Fran Sverdrup. . .

and Parcel (1982). 14

}-

Figure 2.4 Hissouri River total dissolved solids ver:us river flow in vicinity of Callaway Plant. From Sverdrup 1.i and Parcel (1982). 15 Table 3.1 Hissouri River mean monthly. flows In thousairds of cfs at-Hermann Missouri. For 1970 to 1980 from USGS flow records. 16

] Figure 3.1 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration

_J distribution and settling rate for a river flow of .

22000 efs. 17 Figure 3.2 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration distribution and settling rate for a river flow of 55000 cfs. 18 L Figure 3.3 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration distribution and settling rate for a river. flow of 88000 cfs. 19 l Figure 3.4 Callaway Plant diccharged TSS concentration

! distribution and settling rate for a river flow of 129000 cfs. 20 Figure 3.5 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration distribution and settling rate for a river flow of 333000 cfs. 21 Table 3.2 Summary of plume simulation conditions, initial discharge dilution and plume settling rates as a function of river flow at 28000 gp=, total pumping i"

rate and 12900 gpm evaporation rate. 22 Table 3 3 Callaway Plant discharged TSS initial dilution at the discharge for 1970 to 1980 mean monthly river p flows. 23 i

' e kk M

List of Figures and Tables (continued)

Table 3.4 Callaway Plant discharged TSS maximum settling rate, em/mo., at discharge for 1970 to 1980 mean monthly river flows. 24 Figure 4.1 Bottom elevation versus river flow for three )

stations shown on cross section in Figure 2.2. .

! Based on cross sections from Sverdrup and Parcel (1982).- - -

25 Table 4.1 Natural scour and deposition rates em/mo, for .

shoreline and, channel slope stations on cross section shown in Figure 2.2. Based on change in mean monthly river flows from Tabic 3.1. 26 i

g.

H1 .

~

H H

H H

D iv B

8 . -

? ., , , P .'. . I

- 1.0 Problem statement end Method er Invantigation l

The Missouri River to*al suspended solids (TSS) withdrawn at the Call-away Plant intake will be discharged at a higher concentration than in the river because the plant discharge flow rate is less than the intake flow

- rate due to cooling tower evaporative water loss. The discharged suspended

, . solids will mix, disperse and settle as a plume until the background ' river

~ '

' concentration is reached. tThViW6BT1bi'G*tliTtfeWf~mYnM'ffeMEMenirdisty tu 4Aldd?.9885 @. M 9.5. N .*D.44kADikff.de!$.kM S.G.h C!$.E.4_ 3he glum 43 Q 8 cap.ad s ,

" 6Eskeed.$${btfiXefugggandt: deposit _ipm rete amGofppgon betweeprAhe ..

- NEIMMM*M.A.L.E&e20.d?_a

? tur.aly:riverwaecumse pdv d e po sitionvoy.angtime 9e atWM EttTp6VW11F1 W4Wfd Et%YATW6Mt'1fd"'4 ur a t tanre ntbeh A AD iacobs*1.ie c h a r.g e d.gIShg 84ltth*EiniMMfoFfMT.PeWEiWTs e*'dte setwrge .ra -

6 Investigation of the fate of discharged TSS is performed in three j

steps. First, thg,:,byj qdggsggppppgr,%cf441tec5phry4y c.fr9asti)g 61YBRif fFTa'"fdfeinlit eif Niit H 8*@4Vordime n sion aF finiW.?diffe re no t CTitiff c41 WM spo.W godyl3 gy,4n, gL(e A;ggg,geggggfgo.wdieldggdhg h

MerTfd? CfIeivini'nEy'#dfMW6TTONdrg6?:andytheMv*ctiong,.tiisper,sior,qan,dr

- TREtti.YBgMTM?nFudigt:hairge65,7331 Second, gggnatue,e.) w A,erggates, g .c g ,

Mp6s'ItTo'd"'a~rt' d e t"e'rmIn'e d "fr om 'me33wra,'ar'oss:365titma r.a.tlat g . Third, the rates of discharged TSS settling is compared to the natural scour and deposition rates for eleven years of monthly flows to determine the fate of discharged TSS relative to river transport.

I B

g

4 -

t.-  :

2.0 Discharge Descriptien rnd Operntion The callaway Plant intake and discharge is located on the Missouri River nesr river mile 121.6 as shown in Figure 2.1 The detailed bathy-r metry within the vicinity of the intake and the discharge is shown in

?

Figure 2.2. The intake extends about 100 feet outward from the indented shoreline. The discharge is on the shoreline immediately downstream of the

' intake. The intake structure and the downstream Corps of Engineers dike ~ .

form a shallow indentation along the river bank that is about 100 feet wide and 450 feet long.

The river channel at the bottom elevation of 480 to 482 feet is

~

immediately off the end of the intake and swings outward from the down-stream dike. The top of the dike is at an elevation 506 feet and is over-topped by river flows greater than 68,000 cfs.

As Missouri River flows increase, the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) increases and the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) decreases. The relationships of TSS versus river flow and TDS versus river flow, derived by Sverdrup and Parcel (1982) from recent site data.

are given in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 w: Adrwl (de, be m m. -; e b4 M!!11b4M NMVO M M ObRkM."M8MOME'Id*

M33.$f&T.O.8$!EERf559MS.T.Y1?gsgggg7, I and, LeQegg UMargggfjpgggsjgggggg;ggggg;gygggg,Wg@ g

@ M y Computations by Sverdrup and Parcel (1982) showed that, pumping to the plant varies from 12,500 gpm to 19,500 gpm as river TDS varies from 1 240 mg/L to 590 mg/L; for river flows from 323,000 cfs to 14,400 cfs., over the same range of river flows the TSS varies from 44,400 mg/L to 20 mg/L.

j Tower evaporation varies from 9,900 gpm to 13,200 gpm. i

.9 ,

j.

\ .

r

. ,~

3.0 Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport of Discharge The suspended sediment from the discharge disperses and settles approaching background river concentrations as it is advected out of the discharge area shown in Figure 2.2. The river flow into and through the indented area is a complicated two-dimensional flow governed by the river flow, river stsge, the presence of the intake and dike, the bottom geometry and proximity of the channel. The flow patterns 'through the area determine the. mixing at the discharge and the advection and dispersion of the discharged TSS away from the discharge area.

CSTfl@lSaWeETdicTEIfMITNP'f55N%eTEaN@fef5ImIUMWif stunutul .

GESD3MY.dMMMMSiTMf yga.Qr,gj n,tp gnnpe,d?@icttgitbJintt3t tim 1TETM/df The DiJR%#7.8NRlCENIM3.hyd.[4670DWfeMM*dhVs7sTdMR3hf;41WpMft ggf w,g)Jpgypsvgy+ggemp&# 6dmW65b~EnTureT31 rot 1re r31utcxc t@ggtgm

] , h4 sedi ue P

%IGlDJMMMr,.GXt'41tMLtf.).YAkle.,mg? They are summarized in Attachment A.

3.1 Model Setup The hydrodynamic and transport relationships summarized in Attachment A are mapped onto the computational ' grid for the intake and discharge region shown in Figure 2.2. q7tEiMPii5T6alTsnrrei30Y.rthwY6EdM3XF6EYiltIEE1 (E$1WG3TR8MAMV4t%V.A fPjRitt@$10Et$tRG The sizes of the cells were w.,

U fd3NifG (1) the plume computations of Benedict (1974), which showed that an initial dilution of at least 10:1 would be attained within a 30 foot by 100 foot region; and, (2) grid dimensions that fit within the overall size of the bank indentation. The grid is extended outward 99 feet beyond the intake structure to intercept a portion of the total river cross section representing ten percent of the natural river flow.

B B

O

o. -

. .: s ,

. infd d ariMW ;~2W to the hydrodynamic computations are: (1) the The w w N(

)

f river stage; (2) the river flow; (3) the river TSS and TDS; (4) the intake N O .

pumping rate; (5) the cooling tower. evaporation rate; and, (6) the TSS settling velocity. The pumping rate to the plant and the blowdown flow rate are computed using tower operatoin relationships provided by Sverdrup Thew44tia u t.cW of +k duilw slud gen 1h1RmT1Nigy335fathef73nK_Cmelhe and Parcel (1982). and the river TSS were evaluated in laboratory tests by Sverdrup and Parcel (1982) and were found to be consistent at a at concentrations less -

than 1000 mg/L. . .

h(y&nQh h)oJL \0000%

~

hW 3.2 Hodel Simt,lationa _, _

f .

The model simulations of the TSS plume and plume settling Qgypyggg fneN *a 4h yt w O,s .

_ WZMiE@thc!5 fee @ Once the river flow is chosen, the river TSS and TDS are determined from the relationships given in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 The river TDS in turn determines the tower make up and blow-T.

l down requirements. Simulations are made for a range of mean monthly river L

g; flows to determine plume dilutions and settling rates as a function of

[ river flow, and then these parameters are evaluated for each month over f eleven years of flow records.

The mean monthly flows of the Missouri River for the years 1970 to A 1980 et Hermann, Missouri, just downstream of the plant site, are given in Table 3.1. Plume simulations are carried' out for a range of river flows including: (1) 22,000 cfs which is the lowest mean monthly flow and occurred in January 1977; (2) 333,000 cfs which is the highest mean monthly flow and occurred in April 1973; (3) 55,000 cfs which is the eleven-year average of January monthly flows; (4) 88,000 cfs which is the eleven-year 3

0

I + ...

1 -

average of November monthly flows; and (5) 129,000 cfs which is the eleven-year average of April monthly flows. Once the plume characters are deter-1 r mined'for this range of flows, characteristics at the other monthly flows can be found by interpolation. ,

, Results of the hydrodynamic and TSS transport computations for the range of river flows are presented in Ficures 3.1 to 3.5. The figures show L the input parameters for each case, the TSS concentrations in each cell corresp.onding to the computational grid in Figure 2.2, the velocity vectors y

in each cell due to the flow ' field, and the resulting TSS ' settling rate from the plume in eaeh ee11. @J3pgpopggggigcIl4RRT@,C2ID t

& l*b' uth t

,2 c, W 5 M IPS S W E D &L$$Z$ & WF,QQ W g6;@h87l$,hSSGS*kU[y,"9%A% .

.t h o fv o l roer h,.k q'y1q116MaTMDCffy;EEMgt*gepWhich is determined in Section 4 The simulations show that the flow pattern in the discharge area changes with river flow. The main river velocity increases with river flow as dooo.the depth at each location. A backwater eddy is formed in the lee of the intake structure and becomes more intense as river flow increases.

5 Velocities and depths increase in the discharge region with increasing a .

flows. The downstream dike is overtopped when elevation 506 is exceeded.

I i Dilution in the immediate vicinity of the discharge increases with river flow. This is due to the increased velocitics and depths in the icraediate vicinity of the discharge.

L The discharged TSS settling rate is highest at the discharge where the 2

difference between in the plume TSS and river TSS is maximum. It decreases f1' y ,

rapidly downstream and outward from the discharge due to dilution of the discharged TSS, which approaches the concentration of the river TSS. GIflUb

,d.

-nommae=~

mm--e-w q c'db.m;uco'.wcro*EtiobW3PE"rner'Es7mitrymr~nt r:mTgg J I cieme .. Alw n+e . .. ,% was. < in, b d Tbf1MC.UAN EMEWe%W. OCIC." Cf4ff.fr/{1.>D M Q W- 5,E[

5 S

n

, ll % .

'. d&nm w e ,, e,,u,n,. , .( 4:4 rss ~J irau Tss at 4 w w arra w ,ha,,

mmresmo m ,sx-mm=== vers @erossg;yand 15,3 4./ river fle w a . Tk r4 a t i, wm se tt hh rak is 1 F M ( **1/W- a-f ersmmr89h e PWffhaw wamrisrownvhm

& etiayimw [/o.J O m titL. rivee 353, coo c 6, tCtZEsnaiuta ar.on uwW,eEM1S &d1%3'FffMMACi>

f 3.3 Honthly Variations in Plume Dilution and Settling l

The plume dilution and settling rates in the immediate vicinity of the discharge .are summarized for the range of river flows of the simulations in Table 3.2. The plume dilution and settling rates are interpolated from the monthly flows between 1970 and 1980 as found from Tab 1'e 3.1 and are pre-sented in Table ~,.3 and Table 3.18 The initial plume dilution, shown monthly in Table 3,1, varies from a

.,7 j low of 6:1 in January 1977 at the lowest monthly ,flogf 22.000 cfs to

. 774i1 in April 1973 at the highest monthly flow of 333,000 cfs. Benedict 1 (1974) estimated a plume dilution of 10:1 within a 30 foot by 10 foot region of the discharge at low flow, hence the two-dimensional hydrodyanmic computations slightly underest'imate initial discharge dilution.

h The initial plume maximum settling rate varies from a low 2.1 cm/mo.,

a .

mostly in December, to a high of 7.8 cm/mo. in April 1973. when river flow c and river TSS were highest. The seasonal variations, as indicated by the

eleven-year average in each month, are small.

H n

u

'7 6 li F

x

4.0 River Scour and Depostion_

l i-The river bottom elevations in the vicinity of the Cal.laway Plant dis-The bottom elevations are lower at higher

~

) _ ,

charge change with river flow.

N. . discharges and higher at lower discharges. The rate of bottom scour or s.,

depositi6n depends on the change in river flow from one month to the next.

s I . . 4.1 Rate or River Bottoni Scour and Deposition -

1 -

~

Bottom topograp'y h in the vicinity of the discharge was surveyed approximately once a month from November 1974 to March 1976 by sverdrup and

Parcel (1982). The cross section in the discharge area is shown in Figure 2.2. The bottom elevations at three points along the cross section, which I are ,near the shoreline, on the channel side slope and near the channel bottom ha've beer 7 determined for each survey and tabulated as a functior. of r

river flow. The results are presented in Figure 4.1.

i ' Figure 4.1 shows that near the shoreline and on r,he channel slope, the

' bottom elevation changes about 12 feet for each 100,000 cfs change in river

- flow. Near the channel bottom, the change in bottom elevation with river

[ flow is about 4 feet per- 100,000 cfs change in river flow indicating that the chantiel bottors is more stable than the chennel slope and shcreline L ,

x

& , areas.

L The rate of bottom scour or deposition in cm/mo. can be determined t

D rom the change in river flow from month to month. The change in river l

7 flow from month to month for 1970 to 1980 is determined from the flows E

given in Table 3.1. The resulting rate of bottom scour or deposition from month to month is given in Table 4.1 From a comparison between Table 4.1 r

Qw m

r' -

.teb l ,

- and Table 3.4, it is evident that the natural river rate of bottom scour or I

.: deposition is generally an order of magnitude greater than the rate of TSS ,

settling at the discharge.

4.2 Plume TSS Deposition Deposition of discharged TSS will take place when the rate of settling f

from the plume issa,than,the ir$YW f rate of 'vottom scour or when bottom deposi-Tab'e 4.1 shows the seasonal patterns of natural p tion is taking place. l bottom movement. Bottom scour takes place from February to April as river

{

~

flows increase with the spring freshet, bottom deposition takes place from Hay to August as flows are receeding, scour takes place .from September to November during increased f all runoff, and deposition takes place in December and January. The longest duration of discharged TSS deposition is L over four months from May to hugust during which, for average conditions 1 .from Table 3.4 there is an accummulated discharged TSS deposition in the immediate vicinity of the discharge o 12.9 e as compared to a natural bottom build up o 236 cm in the discharg ca. Thus about five percent of the accummulated sediment is due to the discharge over the period of natural deposi' tion. During the months of bottom scour, the natural rate of scour is much greater than the plume settling rate and will resuspend previously discharged TSS for transport downriver.

1 .

lI

4 U,

I ,

'. '< i?;.

5.0 Summary and conclusions LI

• The Callaway Plant blowdown discharge is located downstream from the intake structure in an indentation of the river bank that is about 100 feet

- in from the edge of the main river and extends 450 feet along the river bank from the intake structure to the Corps of Engineers dike (Section 2).

Within this indentation, the blowdown discharge rapidly mixes toward background river conceritrations of total suspended solids (TSS) in a region .

about 90 feet along the river bank and extending about 33 feet out from the bank.

I The discharge TSS is at a higher concentration than the intake TSS

• because the blowdown flow rate is less than the intake flow to the plant The higher discharge cokcentration will due to evaporative water loss.

i decrease to approach the background river concentration in the discharge J. ,

area by mixing, dispersion and a tendency to settle. The net deposition of

' the higher discharge concentration will depend upon the rate of settling in

[T comparison to the natural rate of river scour and deposition as the river f

flow changes from day to day and month to month.

The rate of discharge settling depends on the differences in concen-tration of TSS in the discharge area and the background concentration. At the background concentration there is a balance between bottom scour or resuspension and the settling rate. The intake TSS increases with river flow and there is a greater difference between the discharge concentration

' and intake concentration at higher river flows. At higher river flows, there will be a greater tendency for settling while at the same time there will be a more rapid mixing of the discharge concentration toward background levels.

9 N

i a The rate of settling in the immediate 33 foot by 90 foot dischcrg2 area, without accounting for natural river scour and deposition, ranges ,

from 2 cm.per inonth at a low monthly river flow of 22.000 cfs as occurred in January 1977 to 7.8 cm per month at a high monthly river flow of 333.000 cfs as occurred in April 1973. In both cases, the rate of settling is reduced to 0.1 to 0.2 cm per month by the time the discharge mixes to the l

l _

end of the downstream dike. The tendency for deposition of the discharge TSS depends on these settling rates being greater than the natural scouring ll rates of the river.

la Natural river scour and deposition depend on the change in river flow from month to month. River cross-sectiondl data--collected-in the discharge area show that natural scour takes place from February to April and from n

September to November when river flows are increasing from month to month.

^ ,

Natural deposition takes place from May to August and December to January 1 1 when river flows are decreasing. The rate of scouring or deposition averages 60 cm per month. The rate of settling of the higher TSS concentrations immediately at the discharge is less than one tenth the w

average rate of natural scour and deposition. At the end of.the dike it is

~

reduced to less than one hundredth of the natural rate'of scour and, deposition. Deposition of the discharge will take place over a period no longer than four months when natural deposition is occurring and will be 3 confined to the immediate discharge area. At the mean monthly flows of May 1

to August, the deposition in the immediate vicinity of the discharge will be less 'than 13 cm in comparison to a natural deposition of 240 cm. The monthly natural secur rate is higher than the discharge settling rate and 3

10 il

) e 1;. . .

will prevent deposition from taking place during natural scour. Natural scour will resuspend and transport the accummulated discharge out of the .

discharge area.

L' i .

N MO M 6

0 E'

Ei

]

r I

1 1

3 g u mu uum

s r

4  ; . j e  : .

i  ; .

.i F. .. . ,,

I i i

L A W A Y C A L

< O . . ..... . . . .

-r

( 'l

+ , ,,e'"' ... ,,...y.., + = . -

- = =

i-4 *

,% J gM 0 .., N T Y' o f%,,.0 C /' O .

- e.. y . . . .

w.,, .-. w- -

= .

. f ,_ _,

.:::  :: e.'t.

5  ; E.Es. E

- \

a' .- .

. - ' * * ~ ~

S,,,,a,,.;..,......

.s ....

~ . -. -

o, ,.,,,,..A ,e .,.

,/.c.m.s. - yhf f- N Y ; n .

w e_w' .

b U_

...... %s j Jg

v. - w c .-%-=-

A y =. = . .

D, u. :-:=h W . ..

b ,Y(&...

c, A , %r / ,

l. .-- -

(

n -- - , , .P.;. .3 . .: .

.p g ~ . a4 ,'A -w wsg/ :: ;.r:, '

~- .

./  ;

a  ;  ; '

- /,..'. p'p > ,~

.-- ~ /

./

y 9 - $

j f%<~/ %(( - \, /*/ {

s /,~. .g /

+

1

_ 6i/r,\s. A + 'i , / ,,, +. .

i j c-r

.m 6  %  %

\

,g \-

~~

7  : -- - y,) % / % /).n,/ ,., ... /. . V . s

-= .

7."

h k

\N '

4:;1M

~

o*

/.,-

/

,-. \

\ _

• J .

.. m ,we .i .,* \ .

., .1.

~.' / ,.* ::r -

\.  : .= r r i* ,

!- .'* ., / p l'"5 5 ' \

/. \ / ,'"',,,- \ ,/p' N' i /.

f.' =: s y

> l . ,. .c' (9 -

s + .f;

t. ,.gj : j .ov j / y' 3 .

i

. \

., g .

,. s I  % * 'd.. ,.eN .j /,7

\ ./.'

-. +

I _,

\

\ - .-

t ,fiy ..

::=

= ,-s #

// '. y. . . ]; *o :.:, z

\ liiiEP .i" * (. ,

. .m /. - '- \'

(. o.**"V.I l t.s' $, .... .. . . . .. \ i. "

u. -

g.~h. _ ~+--- ;

6  :: :::. \ -

L. T.

m :::.  ::

t I',

i{-?c7

!g.

3'

.,.)

\

'P

. . g"  :

/,. .\. ""-4C g # f

• 200'* ,

8['/,e g

.n :. .

1 i T* . . -

\\

. ., d."/ +  :: .f::C

.  !- \ i oe,'pa "- -t-

. i .- , . - - - -

g- a s .  : ---

. g 5-  : : :..  :: Figure 2.1 -. ..*, -

g g -i _ . _ . .

s - : p.n..i.! .. .!:1.. - l

,e , % _ - ,,,,; .

..-~ Hydrography of Missouri River l'.~~~~'.*.".~"

V r:- ---;-.----'**-

L I--- - **

j ...........?......' betueen mile 120.8 and "--""-*--

From U.S. Army

1. [

mile 122.3.

Corps of Engineers. .. - . _""

• !i" h  ;

. .-.' r. -

g g

Ef.

j . -- ..g,- 1 -- 8

' . -- - - ..'.., *_ ; - -= ,

Esii EGJ siga ' taas si a sw was , ,-- , - - _

EE .M A e M EMI IE2B .

m.

_ _ ,,ct, . - g..: -=-- .

W,. .-

' ' ,.. ./

~ ___ ____ . . -- . -

,_.-~p~,,

. 22. ~~ p .':- .~-" __. , h~;~M". !.i..  :; d" ' -- ....- ...

_____._..q...,___-

'q,,

.g'2 *

). . -

j y'-Q($ .

g y_;.( ' .e } ?. [ ..z.,.,,,,j,,y/q,/- ,

'~~ %.,

- [ , ,

..# </

v

/c d

i j .. l g .;'

g '

--- .: ' ,.-;d(  :%.

c. rh> - / /%

c/. s

,5

. G * , c. - .,

.l- .

?'**~~

h . ,&.i . , f t 70'I2 , C&*. ' ./'

!) - .. <;.

1, .t ~"~ T5 * .'..d, ,;% .r ~~ ~ '~ ~ . 't .l 1<y s . '-.'

o (81 '/Aus-). b / .

- - - - - ~. .

.y 4s  ;?l, , ,y. 2 -

k-  ; '8 pco .kg: el QT

s .{ .

s  %.

' a 3 f f ue==ig i

.s?-.3'.7.--e /'f,,\ ;

s .,s,f waj., y Li**e L .,. Q- '. 7a,Q a,,,,g.=.~

n -

,.g, n.nq i

a, s.+ ,.p. .

s/ .,s. .s.; .

• • \.,

~o o- ,p.  ;,,, i.,/ (

c. ni,c.n ( ' ' . . . . .

.\ . /-

.ieu \y*

C3,, 9.--  : 4 . . _-

f .y ,, . ,. , -h C..-)'

[.-;sd. $, 7_

A .}'.._ I;- - --

MW. .. ."f , __ a ' - - 7:"/7.u . :s.-

.y,,%.(.

l l

_1 y .M_ 7 -f' E k_n g g g- f.A,,.g,. ( ..

) , jig}- p- t s,.pr e.> t.. \ -

. y 4 . .-

5,[r \

} \.., .

-) , G w../ s .7....., r.

,,a J ,, .,-

l

(_'..

L re - ~ . - -..<i g . - ,-

..n 3 . - --

g r 7

. gy, y. . fa s

-l I

l_._  % g., : ..*- :o:c ,el . . <.. eh-

~

er .' ~( 7

• i ,- . ,

.-p  :

F

.. ,ff.x,. w

• s.. ._t.b..

?~

.g 6  ; ..,.g. g . ._ . ,. x . .l - --g-f .ty .

- a <,. -

r

.9 <, I p. ,, v. , .

. g.ci ,, ..u .n : , . , -: - .; ; .

r.=. == , -w

.,... v .. ~.-

..!b .._ ..:. - p .

w:

.......w..,-

• s .- -.,% - - .

7(,! Af& d dthe k .

. ,,,e es.4fmA+qt; _ -; - .

2

. , . >.. e

, %. re,.  ; \

. ,:e. -- ? .. - 5new,, :-: aM*- >.~

' I h; , <! .p.n< , nd~ L -) .. _ .

,............-._.s. ,

/, --

o o o

Y 2' b d b.

vno ces.v sous v :gr.'

Trom Union Electric Figure 2.2 Detailed bathymetry in vicinity of Callaway Plant intake and discharge.

Company construction drawing, provided by Sverdrup and Pareci (1982).

6 w

g._.___ _

g g

I _- -

L 1-ed i i

e X

r3

• S C

g D

y u

, ,, t

. o

- \. e b

~ . u

\ '*=t Q

' ".c.'"4

\ U a

.1 i >

\

\ C

'\ x 3

.. O

~

\ m

.x t 1

\

5.

\ ~

a C

~

'\.s . .,4 be A n

, s -

e 7 x 5.

N N X Oh >

k' '~~

• • A l De g

• w w.-

- _,-~ NO% g.

r 4  :

0 n

~

N  : O -

V o k .

h A

N C .

t K.

-T' .L T.

\ --

T O

P1 >~QC e, n O

C N.4 e (5~

1 tn 4y .

\1 .E . -N x

- c,

.N

..- r; -

. . O r. U

T .-

.. N *=  % b.

\ . . .  % e q y .-

. o- ,_ .e u

.c .....

x - . . . . . u y -

.- c *- C 4' s -.....C. s,

.o.. -- o .. 9 e a.

.a....- .

u -

p

..c... .,

, g N , ,

CK ";

.o.- - .e . .,.. .... .. ,

. . . . C.Q. 3 - a u

-- =

--..o......

a.

• • E >

w .

..-<... . . . a ..

. .~..~ g - .. --

. . . . s c ,

-o , .

e .c L

. . . . .4....... . -- .g ~

w s .-w..

. -..... . og'

..s.. . . - . .

.._..... .. . .. .. . g

..~...O.)-

N q .. .. ..t l . -

t I q

I p p...c 2 . . .

p ....., .c

-} ..

. . . .. . . _ . g,,....., _ .. .

d-.. .

..,h ....N.

f ..

,4

. . . . . . . k.

. Y . . .

=

. k

.... . - . n .. .

4 (fy..,y) gy ._ --

I l

.1

1 .

n

l. e

, e u

• i .

'2 1J a J  ; c F3 -  % i C

> 2 I .V 1 E vu i

>3 -

i x

l i C

,: 3

r. C H

W,.

"e d' U

'a T th,d f ,I _ _ - --

J O

l A

2 a

.we

,=,

6 4' .

i

.c.

y 3 A l , >

i-b ,

>a _

lJ L,C

.A e.

3 l- .a M I-r

.o.*

>, Y 4e m

u

_m . 4* . Y- c l

.ku s

-^ b _s .& .,,

Q e

A y* ,

%--5--i D u

e M t- '

.% =

c2 N - :> '  %'

' u

- K

-.p

~%

CJ .

.p A

-\> .

g i

N .ws se g e

L

%- L k-t .,.a, x~ ~ . - ==

9 m g - "

% ' ;C m 9 1 -- . b,(- o to .

..,u D ^

i

..N f 'C N Q IJ q~ -

_xg-- -

y a >m co

.u -

y l e4 -

ov

~. . - -. y m

,g ~

f ci e 3 M

- -o S- "q_

i_-

,/ -.=._ r_,

-c u k

m q

. g

. . ./, .._- -.

g ....e n 7

Uc s .. >

y) . . - .

. &:_- -- .. .._, O A . .

_ - - _ u a b , n

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

_. O cf . e u, e.

. _ . _ - ( _..

O ,Q - - _ p .. .

>=u

. , _. - . . . . . ..-4. . .. . .

,< .. v , _ _ _ . . 1

%m

.O O o_ -_.__..=..._-

_..-._.}' u 3'

n _.O.. c._. ...

~~~~"*I O -- .

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ * * * ' " " " * ~ ' ' ~ * ' ~ ~ '

-"** ~ ~ *

• 0 O ~ ,. ~ '

..'..O_'*.**'..-** . ' ~ ~ '

. . ., - .O- O ' ' O' L- m>

.....4.. . . . .l O

... ..~.

...O .C, O_O._

. c3 o m E

_ CO _ . . . ~

cg .

~.. . . ' * . - . . . . ' < g g"

. QD . O...'..c._'~.....~..~.~.~.._...

. . . ~ .~ . ... ..; . <

O _.O ._._ .._. .

.. .. N

._ p.. . g.. . . .e 3.._ g r t y 9_.

.O "d

. / .. ._

. _ .. Q_......... . . _ .

.e.

h . . __ . . w . . . _ . . .

_- . . . m . . _.

. o

.c.e e .. . ._. ..

. u.

.u .

-. / ..

2

Tr.ble 3 1 Hissouri River mean monthly flows in thousands

• of cfs at Hermann, Missouri. For 1970 to u '

1980 from USGS flow records.

I FEB HAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV_ DEC YEAR. JAN_

e 138 54 60 109 100 79 51 i 1970 31 42 55 119 137 T .

1 ,

1971 51 85 108 65 89 106 77 61 - 58 60 74 86 1972 48 39 61 82 116 72 63 70 85 68 134 67 1973 129 135 268 333 192 113 92 73 84 222 128 127 87 144 133 56 54 64 51 104 55 1974 115 116 129

} 108 124 88 113 83 _81 93 _ 80 82 69 1975 59 103 1 46 1976 40 50 80 101 104 70 59 47 44 48 36 j

22 34 43 51 54 83 77 59 128 93 125 47 1977 E 1978 33 27 170 173 145 89 91 80 89 68 78 54

.1979 32 67 193 159 117 94 99 70 63 51 71 55 53 d,

42 125 59 83 49 50 51 45 47 41 1980 49.

73 AVG 55 68 117 129 113 99 73 64 79 81 88 62 goyr. av$ - S S. vt t 7 L A3 0

B 11 .

w a

fa I Figure 3.1 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration *

' distribution and settling rate for a j

• river flow of 22000 cfs.

u.

TSS, mg/L 40 TDS, og/L 570 River stage, ft 498 Intake, gpm 28000 evap, spm 12900 discharge, mg/L 112 1 .

a Flow field and TSS distribution, mg/L

~

1 u,

. 54 . 47

, 45 42 41 41 s 41 41 41 41 41 -41 -

- N 1

• 40 40 40 _ 40 40 40

_ 30 __.4 0

\

40 40 _ 40 40 A0 39 ___.4 0 __4 0 1

i 60 40 _40 40 __.4 0 40 40 __4 0 3 .

3 1 M'S Dis, charge TSS settling rate, em/mo.

i 3.0 1.6

, 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0,0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a

c e

~

u N

D - -

~

• Figure 3 2 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration distribution and settling rate for a ,

[ '

river flow of 55000 cfs.

TDS. mg/L 465 River stage, ft 504 TSS. mg/L 120 discharge, mg/L 412 Iratake, gpm 28000 evap, gpm 12900

[ P

~

Flow field and TSS distribution, mg/L

,129

,125 A23 121 121 f ,125

.,122 J21 122

__121 121 s

-121 -

N g .120 Ltc 12D _12.0 .J.2.1 121 12h D

\ M M l20 12.D 120 123 MO 123 120 J20 ._12.0_ 12A i20 L10 __12D 1 M/S Discharge TSS settling rate, em/mo. ,

." 2.1 1.2 -

1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0,1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 l

rk ,

Figure 3.3 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration

• distribution and settling rate for a river flow of 88000 cfs.

TSS, mg/L 350 TDS. mg/L 385 River stage, ft 509 Intake, spm 28000 evap, gpm 12900 discharge, mg/L 145.4 l l

t Flow field and TSS distribution, mg/L A51 351-

,364 ,,358 l -

23 7 1

s 357 /354 352 351 .3.51 _351

{

352 352 251 .251 h1 551 M 2

350 M D '_Z5.1. _351 g g 252 l _356 JVL 25A. .352. .3f:.9 M 250 M 350 350_ 25.0,. 3.5.0. .350. 250, 350 _250-_

V m

i H/S Discharge TSS settling rate, em/mo.

0.2 0.2-3,g 3,7 0.3 0,2 0.2 1.6 B.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0,1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 3

E ha 1

3

~

Figure 3.4 .

' Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration

• distribution and settling rate for a river flow of 129000 cfs.

l TDS, eg/L 302 River stage, ft 513 TSS, mg/L 950 Intake, gpm 28000 evap, spm 12900 discharge..ms/L 5033 Flow field and TSS distribution, mg/L .

,963 /351 S51-

,.973

,962 /957 J53 J52 252 S54 - X 954 JE2 S52 _i52 _-951 g 950 95.1. - _ Q_5.1 _S5.1-- _

951- 951 Q 951--

_958 4% -

4 9% 950 __950 950 _'n_%

4. .__

l 950 _ CSA _ 459 --_

456 450 __950 950 _450

1 WS I

Discharge TSS settling rate, em/mo.

I DISCHARGE TSS ACCUMULATION RATE : CM/MO.

7.

5.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 2.6 1.4 0,8 0,5 0.4 0.3 0.2 1 0,5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 j 0.9 0,7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0,0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0,0 0.0

] 0,0 0.1 0,1 0.1 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 u,

e I

9

- . l

• Figure 3.5 Callaway Plant discharged TSS concentration distribution and settling rate for a ,

river flow of 333000 cfs.

TSS, mg/L 4370 TDS, mg/L 217 River stage, ft 524 Intake, spm 28000 evep. gpm 12900 discharge, mg/L 32221 Flow field and TSS distribution, mg/L W

,4406 s4390 $3?2 --

4389 9301 3326 42 24 4777 - :iL[

g W 47"7 - li79 4370 4-

'.3;:7

~

. 43?O 427! # M _' m 4371 4371 4W 43'O 427i* ' ' "h ' N 4 3! 477J 4371 45' M 4370 427f1 4776 4275: 4770 4270 4370 4370 -

i, i ti/S 1 .

~

Discharge TSS settling rate, em/mo.

I F

7.9 4.5 0.3 0.3 i

i 0.4 F 4.2 2.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 u

1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 g

r 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 ,

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 9.1 0.1 f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 r

c T~,

L If 6

Table 3.2 Summary of plume simulation conditions, initial discharge dilution and plume settling rates as

! a function of river flow at 28000 gpm, total 1 pumping rate and 12900 gpm evaporation rate.

}

}

E River Flow River Stage TSS, TD3 Dilution Maximum Settling

[ cfs ft mg/L mg/L Ratio Rate em/mo.

$_ 22,000 498 40 570 5.1:1 --

3.0 55,000 504 120 465 32.5: 1 2.1 88,000 509 350 385 78.,8: 1 3.0 129,000 513 950 302 177.5:1 5.0 333,000 524 4370 217 773.6:1 7.8 I

B i

W m

dd a

3

'Pj' I}

i.l.

I -

> Table 3.3 Callaway Plant discharged TSS initial dilution .

. at the discharge for 1970 to 1980 mean monthly river flows.

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1970 16 25 33 158 217 219 32 40 134 112 68 30 .

s 1971 30 75 -133 49 83 128 65 42 38 41 62 77 1972 28 23 42 71 151 58 46 57 76 53 201 51 1973 178 207 635 774 427 144 91 60 75 518 175 174 1974 147 149 178 78 246 195 34 32 48 31 123 32 1975' 39 120 132 167 79 142 73 ~7'O 92 - 69 71 55 1976 24 30 70 115 121 56 40 28 26 29 27 20 1977 6 19 25 30 32 74 66 39 176 94 170 20 1978 18 12 350 362 253 80 87 69 82 53 66 32 1979 17 52 430 307 151 97 110 57 46 30 58 32 1980 25 29 61 168 39 74 29 30 30 27 28 24 Avc 48 67 190 207 164 115 61 48 75 96 95 51 e

r L

s r

i k

s L

i-t 5

e%

r , .

Table 3.4 Callaway Plant discharged TSS maximum settling .

rate, cm/mo., at discharge for 1970 to 1980 L

mean monthly river flows.

T c

YEAR JAN FEB HAR APR HAY jut! JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1970 2.6 2.4 2.1 4.6 5.2 5.2 2.1 2.3 4.1 3.7 2.0 2.2

[

' 1971 2.2 2.9 4.1 2.4 3.1 4.0 2.7 2.3 .2. 2 2.3 2.7 3.0 -

F

! 1972 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.9 4.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.5 5.1 2.5 1973 5.0 5.1 7.2 7.8 6.2 4.3 32 2.6 2.9 6.6 4.9 4.9 1974 4.4 4.4 5.0 3.0 5.3 5.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.2 3.9 2.1 1975 2.2 3.8 4.1 4.8 3.0 4.3 2.9 2.8 3.3_ 2.8 2.9 2.5 1976 2.4 2.2 2.8 3.7 3.9 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.5 f

1977 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.2 5.0 3.3 4.8 2.2

g. 2.5 2.8 2.1 3 1978 2.6 2.8 5.8 5.9 5.4 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 s 1979 2.6 2.5 6.2 5.6 4.5 3.4 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.1 i

1980 2.4 2.2 2.7 4.8 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 AVG 2.9 3.0 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.7 2.7 2.4 30 3.0 3.4 2.6

, hb Y so j,b l 3p '

3 5

t 7.,

u

3 Table 4.1 Natural scour and deposition rates em/mo. for shoreline

, and channel slope stations on cross section shown in Figure 2.2. Based on change in mean monthly river flows from Table 3 1.

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP' OCT NOV _DEC l 1970 -61 39 48 234 65 1 -305 21 179 -33 103 ,

l' 1971 1 123 87 -158 89 62 -108 -58 -9 7 51 44 1972 -139 -31 77 76 127 -163 -30 26 54 -62 240 -245 1973 227 23 481 240 -514 -286 -77 -70 ~4 2 500 -343 -1 1974 -46 3 49 -153 206 -41 -279 -8 39 -47 193 -180

~

1975 15 161 19 57 -131 89 -109 -7 44- -48 7 -46 1976 -104 34 113 75 10 -123 -38 -44 -i3 16 -9 -35

.1977 -53 46 32 28 11 108 -23 -67 254 -127 115 -283 1978 -52 -22 520 12 -101 -207 9 -40 33 -77 36 -85 1979 -79 127 456 -125 -152 -81 17 -105 -25 -45 73 -58

- 1980 -49 28 87 186 -238 89 -126 4 3 -20 6 -23 J

AVG -31 48 179 43 -57 -50 -97 -32 55 6 27 -92 #fd""

]

, pC S

%#g p

r -

h c

c f

H i

t'

-_---_._____________________.n__

l References I

h 4 O

l L. Benedict, B.A. 1974 " Thermal Plume Investigations for Union Electric Companys Callaway Plant. Units 1 and 2." Prepared for Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri. 14 April.- Appendix f t SA Callaway Plant EROL, Union Electric ' Company.

g Sverdrup and Parcel. 1982. " Monthly Summary of' Plant Water Use and .

g Combined Discharge", prepared 15 October and " Missouri River Sounding Profiles", summarized 10 September by S'erdrup

~

v and Parcel and Associates Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, for Union Electric Company.

1 1

e 1

I 1

1 I '

8 a

27 1

Attachment A i

Summary of The Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic

• and Sediment Transport Model Two-dimensional hydrodynamics as described by the longitudinal and lateral momentum balances and continuity were developed for numerical simu-lation of waterbody circulation by Reid and Bodine (1963) and Edinger, et al. (1972). These relationships can be derived ' from the general three-L dimensional equations of fluid flow (Edinger and Buchak, 1980; Edinger.

l Buchak and Binetti, 1981). The longitudinal momentum balance is:

l ggs. ;&a $ v~e . -

l 3U/8t + 1/H BUU/Bx + 1/H BUV/By = - gH(BH/ax)

V Cd w g f/ gj Q W (,ff Sf'

- f(UlUl/H 2) + g H Sx + Tx -d**<td S hede(appQg.g fg (1)

A'S, ~ %dce dopo a the lateral momentum balance is:

$ ICM r,

3V/Bt + 1/H BUV/Bx + 1/H DVV/3y = - gH(3H/ay)

I - f(VIVl/H ) + g H Sy + Ty (2) and continuity is:

on(y Laev'""4ab ;~ W

\

(3) f BH/8t + BU/3x + BV/8y = 0 1

In the above relationships:

1 1 0 =longitudinalfgo er unit width (vertically integrated), m 2 -1

2. V = lateral flow per unit width, m 3 H = depth of water column, n n

d T

V .

l l\

-2 .

l g = gravitational acceleration, 9.78 m s 1

• I f a dimensionless friction factor Sx = bottom slope in x-direction Sy = bottom slope in y-direc. tion

~

Tx = x-component of surface wind stress, m s 2 -2 Ty = y-component of surface wind stress, m 3 The momentum balances state that the fluid acceleration 'is due to the water surface slope (3H/3x), the bottom slope (Sx), and wind surface shear; and is retarded by bottom friction.

The sediment transport is determined from the flow field as:

L 3HC/at + BUC/3x + BVC/3y - 3(HDx3C/3x)/3x

- 3(HDy3C/3y)/3y = - Vsc + BS L 00dcr4 f(o g (4) l where: MO i .

c C = suspended sediment concentration at x, y and t, mg/L 2 -1 e Dx = longitudinal dispersion coefficient, m 3 2 4 Dy = lateral dispersion coefficient, m 3

~

Vs = settling velocity, m s BS = bottom scour rate, gm m

-2 4 3

i The bottom scour rate, B3, is determined from the background river concentration of suspended sediment for which the settling rate at the

/

h6 . 'eq !?]t? = lr (O g t( , - y f9 1 f a c ~

.a A-2 1

+

3 -

u

i . l background concentration, Co. is VsCo and is in equilibrium with bottom scour., Hence BS = VscoPbd The above four equations are numerically solved for the unknowns of U, V H and C on an x-y finite difference grid. The numerical forms of the equations and method of solution are presented in Edinger and Buchak (1980). .

Application of the relationships requires sp6cification of the water-body geometry, the inflow rates, inflow suspended sediment concentrations i

and outflow rates. The geometry of the waterbody 's i mapped onto a I

L rectangular grid that attempts to preserve the main features of the 4 waterbody without becoming too detailed to be computationally uneconomical, k The variables relative to a grid cell are as follows:

y . .

,,6 i

ghdY

$ ,;pt n

1 Vij at(0h n ,

t 1 i Cij, Hi

], C0t C *

} N jg(

J + Uij O Ug ,g)

_4 _~ .[

]

t

) v 13_3 3

.A

} A-3

a lt The depth and the TSS are within the cell and represent cell averages. The fluxes are across the boundaries of the cell. The settling rate of the .

l ~

discharged TSS above background is Vs(C Co) gm m s .

\1 l'

e i

h N

i I

,l T .

J f

.. References-j Edinger, J.E. and E.M. Buchak. 1980. Numerical Hydrodynamics of Estu-aries, M Estuarine and Wetland Processes with Emphasis on Modeling, (P. Hamilton and K.B. Macdonald, eds.), Marine Science, Volume 11.

Plenum Press.

Edinger, J.E. and E.M. Buchak, and V.P. Binetti. 1981. Two-Dimensional Vertically Homogeneous Hydrodynamic Models: Application to Estuarine Cooling Water Discharges and Intakes, M Two Dimensional Flow Modeling, (R.C. HacArthur, D.M. Gee and A.D. Feldman, eds.), Proceedings of the First National U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Seminar on Two Dimensional Flow Modeling, 7-9 July 1981. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 1

• Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California.

Generic

~

Edin'ger, J.E., E.M. But:hak , E. Kaplan and G. Socratous. 1972.

Emergency Cooling Pond Analysis g U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Contract AT(1 T-1 )-2224 Derectorate of Licensing, Site Analysis Branch, AEC, Bethesda, Maryland. October.

Reid, R.O. and B.R. Bodine. 1963. Numerical Model for Storm Surges in Gavelston Bay. Proceedings American Society of Civil Engineers, W 1.

7 February.

Jl A-=

'.l.

N J ..