A/

ANALYSIS OF THREE YEARS OF COMPLETE-FIELD TEMPERATURE DATA

FROM DIFFERENT SITES OF HEATED SURFACE DISCHARGES INTO LAKE MICHIGAN

by

J. M. Kyser, R. A. Paddock, A. J. Policastro

-NOTICE-This report was prepared as an account of workSponsored by the United States Government, Neitherthe United States nor the United States Atomic EnergyCommission, nor any of Their employees, nor any oftheir contractors, subcontractors, or their employees,makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes anyJegal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com'pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus,product or process disclosed, or represents that its usewould not infringe privately owned rights.

For Presentation At:

IAEA Symposium on Physical and Biological Effects on Environmentof Cooling Systems and Thermal Discharges at Nuclear Power Stations

Oslo, Norway, August 26-30, 1974

WASTER

UuiC-AUA-USAECi

IAEA-SM-187/42

ANALYSIS OF THREE YEARS OF COMPLETE-FIELD TEMPERATURE DATAFROM DIFFERENT SITES OF HEATED SURFACE DISCHARGES

INTO LAKE MICHIGAN

J. M. KyserArgonne National Laboratory

Argonne, Illinois USA

R. A. PaddockRipon College

Ripon, Wisconsin USA

A. J. PolicastroArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, Illinois USA

ABSTRACT

Temperature data taken from prototype thermal plumes from single (and,in one case, double) surface outfalls under varying environmental conditionshave been systematically analyzed. Three-dimensional temperature data weretaken at four sites on Lake Michigan by an instrument-equipped boat. Intotal, 15 plumes from Palisades, 22 from Point Beach Unit 1, six from PointBeach Units 1 § 2, two from Waukegan and one from State Line were analyzed interms of their major plume characteristics. Of most significance to plumedispersion at these sites were current speed and direction, wind speed anddirection, and ambient lake turbulence.

Plume characteristics of centerline temperature decay, temperature half-widths, and isotherm areas showed wide variation at a site as environmentalconditions changed from one plume to the next. It was also found, however,that the Palisades and Point Beach Unit 1 data each fit rather neatly intofive categories distinguished by ranges in current, wind, and lake conditions.

*Wbrk sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under the terms ofContract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.

Finally, plumes from the above four sites were compared for similarenvironmental conditions (stagnant or small ambient currents). The Kaukegansite demonstrated the most rapid plume dilution in terms of centerline tem-perature decay and isotherm areas due to its large outfall densimetric FroudeNumber 0 9.7). The State Line site with its low initial densimetric FroudeNumber (= 1) showed the least rapid plume dispersion. The Point Beach Unit 1and Palisades discharges, although having nearly equal heat-rejection ratesand initial densimetric Froude Numbers (« 2.4), had significantly differingplume characteristics due to the large outfall aspect ratio difference andsecondarily upon the magnitude of site-dependent ambient currents. ThePalisades plumes had a generally slower centerline temperature decay andlarger areas than Point Beach due mainly to its much larger aspect ratio.

IAEA-SM-187/42

ANALYSIS OF THREE YEARS OF COMPLETE-FIELD TEMPERATURE DATAFROM DIFFERENT SITES OF HEATED SURFACE DISCHARGES

INTO LAKE MICHIGAN*

J. M. KyserArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, Illinois USA

R. A. PaddockRipon College

Ripon, Wisconsin USA

A. J. PolicastroArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, Illinois USA

1. INTRODUCTION

Systematic analyses of thermal plumes at existing plant sites are mostlacking in the literature on physical effects of thermal discharges fromsteam electric power plants. Such analyses are important for the properdesign of future power-plant outfalls as they aid in:(a) establishing the performance of various discharge designs in satisfy-ing specific water quality standards, as well as serving as an aid in thedetermination of such standards,(b) understanding the physical characteristics of the plume required forthe prediction of possible ecological effects associated with the heateddischarge, and(c) understanding the mechanism of recirculation between intake and outfalland learning how it may be minimized to avoid loss of power plant efficiency.

The goal of this paper is to increase our understanding of surfacethermal-plume behavior by analyzing large amounts of data taken under awide range of environmental conditions at two sites on Lake Michigan. Sup-porting data from two other sites on the lake are also analyzed. A second

*Work sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under the terms ofcontract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.

goal is to provide data on plume characteristics that may be used to verifymathematical models for thermal plumes.

The paucity of prototype data for surface thermal discharges has oftenbsen documented. [1], [2] This lack of data on thermal-plume behaviorfostered the development of numerous mathematical models, each attemptingto predict thermal-plume dispersion from shoreline canal discharges. Todate, however, none of those models has been sufficiently verified withprototype data to allow them to be used comfortably in a predictive sense.With a more complete library of plume data at hand, plume models can befurther verified. More importantly, our increased understanding of plumephysics will allow improved models to be developed. Model assumptions maybe checked and improved by analysis of the experimental data. Also, thedata will indicate which of the observed characteristics of thermal plumesmay be predicted by present-day deterministic models. The significance ofthe data and analysis given below transcends shoreline surface discharges:plumes from submerged discharges eventually reach the surface and disperseby the same mechanisms as surface plumes under like environmental conditions.

To date, the majority of analytical models for surface thermal plumeshave been verified using only hydraulic scale model data or sparse fielddata. Most of the available data on surface thermal plumes has been ac-quired in hydraulic-model studies. Nearly all of this data are from un-distorted models of the near-field region of the plume. Such physicalmodels are flexible and allow numerous tests to be made, each test varyingimportant plume parameters. In this way, various physical phenomena in-volving plume dispersion may be studied under laboratory-controlled con-ditions. This provides a definite advantage in any basic study of thermalplume dispersion. These undistorted hydraulic models, however, cannotadequately simulate far-field phenomena such as surface-heat loss, inter-facial friction, ambient turbulence, and wind and wave effects. Thesephenomena become important in regions of the plume where jet momentum hasessentially dissipated. The impossibility of simultaneously satisfying allthe appropriate model-scaling parameters in either an undistorted or dis-torted model leads to only a partial picture of the plume.

Most of the prototype field data available in the literature aresketchy in that the data are not sufficiently refined to extract the majorplume characteristics. Moreover, in much of the data, not all the import-ant plume parameters were measured. Only recently have some large effortsbeen undertaken other than by Argonne National Laboratory, attempting toprovide more complete sets of data. Noteworthy is the data collected at theLakeview Generating Station on Lake Ontario, [3] the Pilgrim Plant in Mass-achusetts on Cape Cod Bay, [4] and the Surry Plant on the James River. [5]As long as the value of a mathematical model remains determined by how wellit predicts results in the field, thorough monitoring programs will be re-quired to obtain a large body of data under a wide range of conditions tofully and fairly evaluate and improve these models.

2. THE PLANT SITES AND DATA ACQUISITION

Three-dimensional temperature data were taken [6], [7], [8] at foursites of heated surface discharges on Lake Michigan during the 1971, 1972,and 1973 field years. Chosen were the Point Beach, Waukegan, and State Linesites on the western or .Southwestern shore of the Lake, and the Palisadessite on the eastern shore. Figure 1 sketches the outfall and shoreline con-figuration of these plants. Table I (appearing with Fig. 4) summarizes thebasic characteristics of the outfalls and their warm-water discharges. ThePoint Beach Plant has two identical units with condenser cooling water dis-

charging from two outfalls, each at a 60° angle to the Lake Michigan shore-line. In total, for the 1971 and 1972 surveys, there are 22 plumes fromPoint Beach Plant unit 1, 12 from the Palisades Plant, two from the WaukeganPlant, and one from the State Line Plant. The 1973 field-year data dis-cussed in this paper consists of six Point Beach plumes in which both unitswere operating at nearly full power.

The sites chosen represent a significant diversity in discharge de-signs. Point Beach and Palisades have nearly the same power level with verysimilar low densimetric Froude Numbers (Fo *

2«4)» Yet with significantlydifferent aspect ratios (outfall width divided by its depth). The PointBeach outfall has a width-to-depth ratio of 2.5, while at Palisades thesame ratio is 13.5. Consequently, the Palisades plume is discharged as alonger and more slender sheet of heated water at the surface of the Lake.The State Line Plant has an even larger aspect ratio of 30.9, with an ex-tremely low densimetric Froude Number (* 1). This low-velocity dischargeis in contrast to the high-velocity Waukegan discharge, Fo = 9.7; State Lineand Waukegan both have rather large aspect ratios, the Waukegan Plant havinga value of 20.1. The effect on the plume of initial densimetric Froude Num-ber, aspect ratio, and plant power level will be described in !K3re detailin the sections analyzing the data from the above sites.

Figures 2-4 illustrate sample surface isotherms from each of the powerplants studied. Examples of plumes from Point Beach with Unit 1 operationaland then both units operational are given in Fig. 2.

The three-dimensional temperature data obtained in 1972 and 1973 wereacquired using a 5.5-m cathedral-hull fiberglass boat traveling in a serpen-tine path from the outfall to the far expanses of the plume. A submergedboom was attached to the boat's gunwhale to which six thermistors werefastened at 0.5-m intervals to 3 m. A surface float with a similar thermis-tor attached was used to measure surface temperature.

Analog information proportional to temperature from these seven YellowSprings Instruments Type 709 linearized thermistors was sampled at time in-tervals determined by a solid-state clock and selected by the operator.The signals from the thermistors were digitized and displayed on light emit-ting diodes, printed on paper tape, and recorded on magnetic tape. Eachtime the thermistors were sampled, information from the clock, the depth-finder, and the positioning equipment was also displayed and recorded. Itwas possible to measure temperature as a function of depth from the movingboat at about 1800 known locations in about 1 hour, typically covering about8 linear kilometers. The positioning system that made this possible is theMotorola Mini-Ranger which consists of two shore-based transponders and areceiver/transmitter unit and range console on board the boat.

The plume data were transcribed from the original cassette and read on-to magnetic tape. With additional calibration data, the magnetic tape wasused in a computer program that was developed to plot the data. Seven hori-zontal plots representing data taken at seven depths were plotted by a Cal-comp Digital Incremental Plotter. The isotherms and centerlines were drawnby hand on this output. The surface isotherms in Figs. 2-4 were obtainedby this process. During the 1972 field year alone, these automated data-collection and -reduction techniques have allowed the acquisition and re-duction of about 30 plumes, consisting of about 200 horizontal (as well as200 vertical) sections.

Ambient conditions were routinely measured in conjunction with theplume mapp. J. Ambient lake current was measured with a Bendix Q-15 geo-magnetic ducted-impeller current meter. Wind speed and direction were mea-sured with a hand-held anemometer on the boat and by a shore-based Meteor-ology Research, Inc. (MRI) portable meteorological station. Air temperature,humidity, lake conditions, etc., were also measured for each plume. TableII lists the instrument specifications for the 1972 and 1973 field year data.

The 1973 data-gathering system was improved over the 1972 system onlyin. the use of faster response YSI Series 700 linearized thermistors for tem-perature measurements. These thermistors were specially made with 0.6-stime constant.

The system for data acquisition was somewhat less sophisticated in fieldyear 1971. The major difference was that data were taken only in paths be-tween numbered buoys located in the plume. The recording technique used in-volved manually switching from one probe to another, and transcribing byhand the temperature displayed on the digital thermometer. A constant speedwas maintained by the boat between buoys, and a constant time interval be-tween interrogations of each probe was assumed. A second-generation plume-measuring system, which eliminated the manual interrogation and recording oftemperature information, was used from August 16, 1971 until the end of the1971 field year. Ambient current measurements were made in that year usingan Ekman-Merz current meter; as with the Bendix Q-15, it has an iapellerwith a directional vane which orients the impeller. Meteorological measure-ments were taken solely on the boat; wind measurements were made using aWeather-Measure Three-Cup anemometer with direction vane and a meter read-out. Consequently, the 1971 data were not as refined as for the field year1972. References 6-8 describe the data collection and instrumentation aswell as the individual plumes themselves in more detail.

The isotherm maps drawn from the plots of the boat measurements werethen analyzed for plume characteristics: centerline trajectories, centerlinetemperature decays, temperature half-widths, surface isotherm areas, andtemperature half-depths along the centerline. These characteristics willvary- with current magnitude and direction, wind speed and direction, ambientlake turbulence, and surface heat loss, as perhaps the most important para-meters . Most plumes from the same site were found to have similar excesstemperatures and discharge flow rates; this is no surprise since they areall base-loaded plants. Consequently the flow rate and excess temperaturevariation were not considered as important in determining plume character-istics as were the environmental conditions.

Tables III, IV, and V summarize the data acquired at the above foursites during the 1971, 1972, and 1973 field years. The large amounts ofdata taken at the Point Beach and Palisades sites were required for an un-derstanding of the different types of plumes possible at the given site asambient conditions vary. It was possible to classify the plumes measured atPoint Beach and Palisades into five categories. These categories are listedin Tables III and IV and specified by the variation in ambient current andwind at these sites. Figure 5 illustrates the wide range in excess-tempera-ture ratios measured along the plume centerline at the Palisades and PointBeach sites as ambient conditions changed from plume to plume. The lettersin this figure refer to specific plumes listed in Tables III and IV. Thedivision of data into like environmental conditions as done in Tables III-Vthus becomes advantageous. (It should be kept in mind that additional dataat these sites might indicate some new categories.) The sets of plume datapresented in Tables III-IV were analyzed each within its own category, andfinally the averaged characteristics were inter-compared. The results arediscussed below.

3. DISCUSSION OF PALISADES PLUMES

The Palisades data are plotted in Figs. 6-17, grouped according to en-vironmental conditions. This was found to be the most productive approachin attempting to explain physically the variations found in the data. Itthereby aided in understanding the causes of the large scatter (see Fig. 5)

that appears when all 15 Palisades plumes are plotted together for each ofthe major plume characteristics. These categories (for Point Beach Unit 1as well as Palisades) attempt to separate the plumes in terms of majorphysical processes involved in plume dispersion.

To obtain the plots in Figs. 6-13, plume characteristics were plottedby categories using letters to signify the data points. Straight line seg-ments were drawn between data points of the same plume. Then values ofec/9o (ratio of centerline excess temperature above ambient to initial ex-cess temperature above ambient) and Wj (left or right temperature half-width) were then averaged at 50 m increments of centerline distance. "Left"and "right) half-widths are defined as the left and right (looking offshore)lateral distances from the centerline to one-half the local centerline ex-cess temperature. The area averaging was accomplished at e/eo increments of0.05; here e is the excess temperature above ambient of the isotherm ofinterest.

Standard deviations were also calculated at each averaging. The "aver-aged data" curves are plotted as solid curves and the envelope of ± onestandard deviation for ec/6o, Wx, and isotherm areas is also shown as theshaded region in each of Figs. 6-13. Categories or sub-categories which con-sist of one plume only are plotted as dashed lines. Centerline temperatureand widths are plotted versus centerline distance, s. Plotted in Figs. 14-17 are the averaged data curves for each category and each plume character-istic: centerline temperature decay, left and right temperature half -widths,and isotherm areas.

At Palisades, Category I represents 7 plumes which have moderate shore-parallel currents with light or moderate wind. The six plumes A, B, D, E,F, G were taken under calm lake conditions and have similar centerline tem-peratures, widths, and areas; together they are denoted Category I(a). PlumeH was taken under like current and wind conditions except that the lake con-dition was rough, indicating that greater ambient turbulence was present.All plumes in Category I are significantly bent by the ambient current witha consequent prevention of inshore water entrainment. The additional dilu-tion water to be provided by the moderate ambient current is thus signific-antly offset by the downcurrent shoreline interference.

Plumes X, Y, Z, which make up Category II, were taken under very sim-ilar environmental conditions. Here, extremely large currents (R = ambientvelocity/discharge velocity = 1.3 - 1.9) forced the Palisades plumes to hugthe shoreline for many kilometers downcurrent. The correlation of the X, Y,Z data in terms of centerline temperatures, half-widths, and areas is remark-able. The rough conditions provide much ambient turbulence that erodes thebottom interface between the plume and ambient water causing a deeper andmore vertically-mixed plume. These plumes are characterized by their long,slender shape located adjacent to the shoreline for large distances down-current.

Categories III and IV represent plumes under stagnant and onshore cur-rent conditions, respectively. These plumes are characterized by their wide,fan-shaped configuration much like the spread of a pool of hot water on astagnant or near-stagnant ambient body of water. Only one plume was avail-able for each category. Both plumes are similar in appearance partly becausethe low-moderate onshore current does not significantly distort the plumeisotherms. The stagnant lake plumes and the onshore current plumes are oftenthought to be the most critical in the design of outfall in terms of theirexpectedly large surface areas and minimal plume-dilution capability.

Category V represents the case of a low or moderate offshore currentand wind. Correlation of the data within this category for plume character-istics (except plume C for isotherm areas) is again quite remarkable. Plumeshere appear to be directed offshore with less dispersion laterally than oc-curs under stagnant or onshore conditions. Calm or rough lake conditions

did not seem to be very significant here; rougher conditions did give slight-ly better dilution with smaller plume widths, as expected.

The results of the five-category comparison will now be discussed.Categories III and IV have the largest plume temperatures, widths, and areas;this is to be expected. (Category I (a) has comparably large centerline tem-peratures and isotherm areas; this will be discussed later.) The stagnant-lake plume in Category II has a reduced amount of available entrainmentwater due to the lack of a current to flush the heat offshore or downstream.Plume half-depth measurements1 indicate an average plume thickness of about0.6 m for plume I of Category III. The thin nature of this plume is due tothe effect of buoyancy and consequent plume stratification (due to the ab-sence of current advection and mixing) occurring a short distance from theoutfall. Conservation of heat energy would then imply high temperaturesand large surface areas for this category. The onshore current Category IVindicates slightly reduced areas and widths than Category III but increasedcenterline temperatures. The average half-depth of plume J was a deeper0.75-1.25 m. This increased depth is probably due to the fact that a por-tion of the plume is being swept into the return current under the lake sur-face that must exist due to the presence of the shoreline. The usual effectof an ambient current is muted here since its onshore nature cuts off anedge of possible entrainment water due to the presence of the shoreline.

More data are required before one can more surely conclude that thestagnant lake situation is the most critical situation for outfall design;the subsurface return current that exists due to a skew onshore ambient cur-rent apparently aids in the advection of some power plant waste heat awayfrom the plant.

Categories I and II involve Palisades plumes under moderate and largeshore-parallel ambient currents. The scatter that exists within Category Imay be explained in part as a result of increased ambient stratificationduring the day as plumes were taken. Note from Table III that plumes A, B,and D, E, F, G were taken on the same days; ambient temperatures with depthincreased during the day. The effect of ambient stratification should beto reduce vertical mixing and consequently increase horizontal spread. Thegeneral trend of the data in Category I (a) is indeed an increase in Q&'&o,plume widths, and areas at the surface. Plume depth for June 20 (plumes D,E, F, and G) was noted to decrease during the day from 1.25 m to 0.3 m asambient stratification strengthened.

Rough lake conditions as exist for Category I(b) are quite significantin increasing vertical mixing and plume depth (plume H has a half-depth of1.0 m) and consequently reducing centerline temperatures. Horizontal ambientturbulence apparently increases the plume width with the overall effect ofreducing plume areas.

The differences between the plume characteristics of centerline temper-ature decay and isotherm areas between Categories I (a) and III seem minimal.Thus, Category I(a) can be considered just as critical, with the data pre-sently available, as Categories III and IV. The advantage in Category I(a)of the moderated shore-parallel current is significantly offset by the cut-off of inshore entrainment. When the ambient current becomes sufficientlylarge, however, as exists in Category III, significant reduction in areasand widths do occur.

Category II plunes closely resemble rapid river plumes in which a largecurrent compresses the thermal plume against the shoreline. As with suchriver plumes, there is rather rapid temperature decay and dilution near the

1Half-depth is defined as the vertical distance from the local surface cen-terline to one-half the local centerline excess temperature.

outfall as the ambient current/plume interaction is greatest; however, afterthe plume has mixed vertically from lake surface to bottom, the predominantmixing and dispersion process becomes lateral spreading due to ambient laketurbulence. Mixing occurs both laterally and vertically in an initial 100 mdowncurrent region. Plume widths increase very slowly after that 100 m dis-tance downcurrent. This slow increase in width is probably due to the am-bient turbulence slowly eroding the offshore side of the plumes and not toany significant buoyant spreading. The slow erosion of the bottom of theplume by ambient turbulence is probably the cause of the rather rapid cen-terline temperature decay from 100 m to 1000 m. The minimal temperaturedecay beyond 1000 m is due mainly to the cutoff of inshore entrainment bythe shoreline and the establishment of a vertically-mixed plume, surface tobottom.

Plume areas are quite small due to the large plume depth caused by thesignificant vertical mixing. This mixing allows the distribution of theplant heat over a larger depth, yielding smaller surface areas.

The averaged areas and widths in Category II indicate that this rapidcurrent situation is not the most critical case for lake plumes if isothermareas or widths are judged most important. If the criteria of importanceis centerline temperatures at distances far from the outfall or perhapswhether regions of shallow or shoreline vra.ters are affected, then this caseis significant.

Category V represented by plumes C, K, and L yields the best mixingand dilution. Plant waste heat is advected offshore not merely by outfallmomentum, but by the presence of an offshore current. Here, entrainmentcan occur from both sides of the plume (as opposed to one side for plumesin Categories I and II13. Average plume depths in this category were thelargest at 1.25-1.5 m. The offshore current, as well as its deeper returncurrent, probably aids in the generation of additional vertical turbulencewhich assists in that larger plume depth. The offshore current (or better,the skew offshore current) avoids the possibility of a significant re-entrainment of ambient water that probably occurs for the stagnant and on-shore Categories III and IV.

The areas for Category V are biased to be larger than the average ofplumes K and L by an inordinately large area for plume C. It is speculatedthat isotherm areas for C might be too large because of difficulties in con-touring resulting from a rather large horizontal stratification on that day.The outer extremeties of plume C could not, therefore, be very satisfactorilydetermined. It might be best, under these circumstances, to expect isothermareas more in line with the average of K and L than that indicated inFig. 13.

4. DISCUSSION OF POINT BEACH UNIT 1 PLUMES

The Point Beach Unit 1 data are plotted in Figs. 18-28 in terms of fivecategories of environmental conditions. The technique of data reduction andplotting is the same as done for the Palisades plumes. The scatter withinthe data is significantly less at Point Beach than at Palisades as evidenced,for example, in Fig. 5. This is true for centerline temperature decay,half-widths, and areas. This may be explained in, that environmental con-ditions do not vary as greatly as they do at Palisades.

The term "moderate" or "strong" in reference to currents at Point Beachrefers only to the range in magnitude of currents at that site only. Thesame terms applied to Palisades will refer to a different range in currentmagnitudes. Having a smaller range in currents at Point Beach seemed an ad-vantage at first; however, this was found to cause more difficulty in defin-

8ing categories to which the plume data might belong. Further complicatingthe Point Beach data reduction is the fact that ambient currents were notmeasured on seven occasions2 and that the smaller currents observed at PointBeach lend themselves to greater inaccuracies in magnitude and direction.Consequently, plume categories were determined by a combination of measuredcurrents and plotted trajectories. Wind speed and direction were also con-sidered but on a secondary basis. Notice that the measured currents inCategories I and II overlap. Current measurements were generally made be-fore and after a plume survey; tlxe average of these measurements can besignificantly different from the actual currents felt by the plume duringthe survey, especially under low-current or stagnant-lake conditions. How-ever, it was found that plumes with similar trajectories also had similarplume characteristics, even though their measured currents might have dif-fered by a factor of 2.

The 60° southward orientation of the Unit 1 outfall at Point Beach re-quired distinguishing between the north and south shore-parallel currents.Categories I and II include plumes with an ambient current directed north.3An example appears in the left side of Fig. 2. The discharge momentum ishere opposing the current. Once the effluent momentum has become dissipatedby the oncoming current, the plume drifts passively to the north. The cen-terlines of these plumes bend greatly in the presence of the north currentfor those categories. The interaction between the plume and ambient cur-rent dominates the dispersion. The data in Category I (strong north cur-rent « 15 cm/s) shows very little variation within itself. In this cate-gory the plume trajectories were nearly coincident. The most rapid dilu-tion occurred for these plumes. Smaller north currents (» 10 cm/s) aregrouped together in Category II. Category II results are similar to thoseof Category I, but less exaggerated. Also, more variation (spread ^thinthe group of data) existed for Category II.

The left widths for Categories I and II are nearly the same (with thatof Category I being a little larger), but the right widths for Category Iare about half those of Category II. The skewness of the lateral tempera-ture distribution is clearly seen by comparing left and right half-widthsin the same category for I and II. Category I, for instance, has a lefthalf-width about three times its right half-width. This is due to the com-pactness of isotherms on the upcurrent side of the plume (here, the rightside); the larger the current, the closer the isotherms become due to thesharper upcurrent interface, causing smaller half-widths. A larger currentwill have the tendency to spread or fan out the plume on the lee (left) sidedue to the shearing effect caused by the velocity distribution that existsfrom plume surface to ambient water below the plure bottom interface.

An examination of plume half-depths for these categories yielded 1.5-2.75 m, significantly larger than for the zero current or south currentplumes, Categories III-V. Deepening of the plumes for the north-directedcurrents is expected since plume entrainment is commonly considered to beproportional to the magnitude of the vector difference of the plume center-line velocity and ambient current velocity. The deeper plumes for Categories

2Due to the failure of an in situ current meter, ambient current measurementswere not obtained for these plumes.3Plume U was not used in the averaging of Category II due to its extremelylarge areas (about ten times greater than any other Point Beach Unit 1 plumefor e/e0 ̂ 0.5). It is thought that this plume was measured under changingcurrent conditions and does not represent a quasi steady-state entity.

I and II are the main causal factor in the rapid centerline temperature de-cays observed and the lower surface isotherm areas for these two categories.As expected, plume areas for Category I are smaller than for Category II dueto the greater ambient current interaction.

Another factor that aids in dilution for Category I and II plumes isthe long distance (= 700 m) it takes these plumes to dissipate their dis-charge momentum and initiate a bending to the north. This long distancecoupled with the deeper extent of these plumes provides a larger area ofinteraction of these plumes with the oncoming colder ambient current. Thislong plume expanse during bending also does much to reduce any cutoff ofinshore entrainment on the left side of the plume which might have beencaused due to the presence of the 62-m discharge canal jutting out into thelake. Ambient water cannot pass to the lee side of the plume directly dueto this canal and must go around to the offshore side or under the plumeor mix directly with the plume. If plumes with larger north-directed cur-rents than obtained in Categories I and II were observed, one would expecta greater centerline temperature decay, reduced light half-widths, nearlyequal left half-widths, greater half-depths, and smaller isotherm areas.Additional data at Point Beach Unit 1 may verify our intuition, based uponthe above data.

The plumes in Category III (small to zero current) show the most varia-tion in the spread of data points. This may indicate that when the currentis small, other lake and atmospheric parameters become important. The dif-ference in data between the sub-categories III(a) (zero current; light,moderate wind), III(b) (small current; light wind), and III(c) (zero current,zero wind) is quite broad and quite difficult to explain. First, there wasquite a variation in trajectories throughout Category III. Five plumes hada measured ambient current of zero but slightly curved trajectories (thethreshold of the current meter is 2 cm/s so any current less than that fig-ure will be read as zero); however, low current plumes H and L had trajec-tories not much different from these. Another complicating factor was thepresence of horizontal ambient stratification. The variation in ambienttemperature in the offshore direction made it difficult to determine if thetrajectory headed north or south for the plumes with near-zero ambient cur-rents. Basically, any doubt in the location of isotherms made it especial-ly difficult to draw trajectories from the data and thus categorize theplumes. The plumes with north currents showed no such problem. The plumesfor Categories III and IV were difficult to distinguish.

In spite of these difficulties, the data in Category III appeared tofail into three subcategories: Category III(c) represents the true stag-nant lake plume. It has the slowest centerline temperature decay and larg-est areas of Category III. Category III(a) with a zero current and light,moderate wind showed better dilution in terms of smaller centerline temper-atures and areas. Category III(b) with a small current and light wind hadeven smaller centerline temperatures and areas. The widths are somewhatenigmatic. Right half-widths could only be extracted for Category III(a)since, for Categories III(b) and III(c), the presence of the south shore-line fostered re-entrainment of heated water to the point that the lateraltemperature excess did not drop to one-half the centerline value on thatside of the plume. The total plume widths (left plus right), thereforecould not be compared. Still unexplained is the relative orientation ofthe left half-widths for Categories III(a), (b), and (c) in the bottom dia-gram of Fig. 20. Also difficult to explain is the unexpected success in re-ducing centerline temperatures and surface areas exhibited by the small cur-rent Category III(b), in comparison to the north current Categories I and

10

II. Our analysis of Category III can only indicate the sensitivity thatcurrent and wind have on plume characteristics at their low-to-zero values.

Categories>IV and V represent the moderate- and strong-current groupsfor Point Beach Unit 1. Category V, with its large south currents, haslarger areas and a less rapid centerline temperature decay than does Cate-gory IV. Category V plumes are pushed against the shoreline with a sig-nificant cutoff of inshore entrainment and re-entrainment of already mixedplume water. Plumes in Category IV (currents = 10 cm/s) also have thiscutoff of inshore entrainment. Right half-widths did not exist for thesecategories due to warm water between the centerline and the shore preventingtemperatures from reaching half their centerline values. The 60° outfallat Point Beach fosters this re-entrainment phenomenon into the generationof wide, shore-touching flumes for any plume in Categories III-V. Tofurther underscore the difficulty in obtaining meaningful half-width datawithin.a category for Point Beach, consider Fig. 21, Category V. The widevariation in widths here is partly due to:

(1)- probability of a very large current for plume Q compared to plume Y,causing it to hug the south shoreline for many kilometers downstream (asexpected from observing isotherm maps for that date), and

(2) the presence of horizontal ambient stratification for plume Y, makingit difficult to extract a good centerline and significant left half-widths.Surprisingly, plume areas for Q and Y are very nearly equal.

Comparing Categories IV and V to Categories I-III, it appears thathigher temperatures and areas are to be expected when moderate and strongsouth currents are present for Point Beach Unit 1 plumes. There is muchoverlap, however, between envelopes of these categories. Left half-widthsdo not vary much among all five categories; right half-widths are generallynonexistent due to shoreline interaction and cutoff of inshore entrainment,except for plumes directed north.

The small variation in current that exists at Point Beach has clearlymade analysis of the data difficult since we are working with current mag-nitudes that challenge the precision of measurement. Just as troubling isthe horizontal and vertical temperature stratification that becomes morevisible in near-stagnant cases.

For plumes under moderate or large currents at Palisades, increasedturbulence as a result of these currents causes the nearshore waters to mixquite wfll. We see little or no variation in the ambient temperature forthese cases.. The choice of a single ambient temperature was thus morestraight-forward. Only for the stagnant lake and onshore current plumes atPalisades was the ambient temperature not well defined due to shoreline sur-face heating. For Point Beach, especially Category III, we observed thatsmall to zero currents in the nearshore waters exist with little or no mix-ing while maintaining both vertical and horizontal stratification. As aresult, a large variation on the order of 1-2 deg C is typical for the varia-tion in local ambient temperature. This makes it difficult to distinguishbetween differences in temperature caused by natural ambient variations andthe smaller temperature differences typically observed at the outer bound-aries of the plume. Since half-widths and centerline temperature excessesare dependent upon the ambient temperature, an ill-defined ambient yieldsuncertain and quite possibly erroneous values of Wt and e. Fortunately,any such errors become significant only for the lower isotherms.

11

5. DISCUSSION OF POINT BEACH UNITS 1 § 2 PLUMES

For the double-unit plumes at Point Beach, the discharges are treatedas separate plumes with respect to centerline temperature decay and outsidewidths. Table V lists the six double plumes studied with their dischargeand environmental characteristics in terms of data for each unit. For ex-ample, the June 5, 1973 double plume is listed as plume A from flume 1 andplume B from flume 2. The characteristics of these double plumes are givenin Fig. 29 and compared to Point Beach Unit 1 Category III(a) plumes inFig. 30. The only half-widths that could be obtained were the left half-width for the Unit 2 discharge and the right half-width for the Unit 1 dis-charge. Areas for the double plumes were taken as the sum of the isothermareas of both plumes; the e0 used in the area plot of Fig. 29 is the aver-age of the eo values of plumes from Units 1 and 2. Also, in the area plotin Fig. 29, the sum of the isotherm areas for both plumes are plotted usingthe Unit 1 symbol, i.e., areas for plumes A and B, for example, are summedand plotted with the symbol A. All averages of the double plumes in Fig. 30exclude plume G-H.

It was found that the plumes from Units 1 and 2 did not significantlyinteract until considerable distances offshore (* 600 m ) . Due to insuf-ficient refinement in the data resulting from the limited number of boattransects made, plume widths and isotherm areas were extracted only to theregion of significant interaction of both plumes. Data was too sparse be-yond there to close isotherms and extract centerlines and half-widths.

It can be seen from Table V that five of the six double plumes weretaken under small- or zero-current conditions except plume G-H which inter-acted with an =• 10 cm/s current to the south. Note that the temperaturehalf-widths are comparable to the single-unit half-widths under similar con-ditions of small- to zero-ambient current.

The double-unit plumes have clearly twice the area as the single-unitplumes for the higher temperature isotherms. This is expected as the plumesdisperse as individual plumes near the outfall and before any significantinteraction. After the excess temperature ratio drops below 0.8, i.e.,9/e0 < 0.8, it is difficult to distinguish between the double-plume areasand the scatter and uncertainty that exists within the single-unit CategoryIII(a) areas (see Fig. 30). Since the double-unit plumes must dispersetwice as much heat as the single plumes, it is expected that it is the verylow temperature isotherms (6/eo $ 0.3) which are very large in the double-plume case. This would probably also lead to a more gradual centerline tem-perature decay farther out from the outfalls. Note from Fig. 30 that thecenterline temperature decay and isotherm areas appear to be leveling offfor centerline distances greater than 600 m (for temperature decay) and8/eo < 0.3 (for areas). The curvature of the area curves in Fig. 30 arequite opposite. The single-unit average curve is concave downward as isthe Asbury-Frigo average curve for single-unit plumes on the Great lakes. [9]The double-plume average area curve is more concave upward, indicating thatlarge areas are expected for lower isotherms if extrapolation of the areacurve is permitted.

As stated above, double plumes under small or zero currents did notappear to significantly interact within 600 m of the outfall. Plume G-H,however, bends over fairly strongly due to its = 10 cm/s shore-parallelcurrent causing considerable early interference between plumes. The plumeeventually becomes shore-parallel. The boat data for the G-H plume weremore refined than on other double-plume dates, allowing centerline tempera-tures, widths, and areas to be extracted at further distances from the out-fall than the location of initial interaction and at lower temperatures.

12

The plume interference here causes a less rapid centerline temperature de-cay and larger areas in spite of the existence of the shore-parallel cur-rent as can be seen in Fig. 29. Apparently the shielding effect that theUnit 2 plume has over the Unit 1 plume overpowers the effect of the extraentrainment water brought in by the current. The Unit 1 plume G clearlyentrained Unit 2 plume water on its left side. The current also advectsthe plume downcurrent with warm water being trapped on the lee side of thedouble-unit plume. In this case only a few points of half-width on theright side of the Unit 1 plume could be extracted, and those, very near theoutfall; the left half-width for the Unit 2 plume was measured tp 2500 moffshore and was found to be very narrow. Still unexplained Is The highertemperatures from plume H facing the current and lower temperatures forplume G, although plume G is sheltered from ambient dilution water by thepresence of plume H. The shallower bottom off the Unit 2 discharge mightinhibit vertical dispersion to such an extent as to cause higher plume tem-peratures. More refined data needs to be taken to obtain a better insightinto the mechanisms involved.

6. DISCUSSION OF STATE LINE AND WAUKEGAN PLUMES

The State Line and Waukegan plumes (see Table V and Figs. 31 and 32)were taken under small ambient currents inferred from the appearance of theisotherms, as no ambient currents were measured on those dates. Note thatdata were not taken closer than 350 m from the outfall at Waukegan due tothe shallow area (= 1.5 m) near the discharge outfall. The effect of theinitial densimetric Froude number and aspect ratio of the discharge outfallsis important in explaining the measured centerline temperature decays, half-widths, and areas. The very low velocity discharge at State Line (Fo * 1)results in a thin pool of warm water floating on the ambient water. Thisplant was designed with the express purpose of minimizing mixing vtith lakewater and maximizing surface-heat transfer to the atmosphere. Density cur-rents here are the primary means of plume spreading. Examination of theisotherms indicates (see Fig. 3) a slight onshore current might have beenpresent. Centerline temperatures decay very slowly and widths are largefor centerline distances less than about 800 m. The sharp drop off incenterline temperature after 800 m is probably caused by the sharp interfaceat the edge of the density current or perhaps the compactness of isothermscaused by a small onshore current that may have been present. A combinationof both hypotheses might be more correct.

The Waukegan plumes show more rapid dilution probably due to its highdischarge velocity. Both left and right half-widths are smaller than atState Line, in addition to the centerline temperature ratios and isothermareas. Note that the Waukegan plant has a 25% increase in excess tempera-ture over State Line but only a 9% increase in flow rate; from this factalone, one might expect higher temperatures as well as larger widths andareas from the Waukegan site. The opposing trend likely indicates that theoutfall parameters were most significant in causing such differences in theplume characteristics since the environmental conditions were apparentlysimilar for the plumes taken at State Line and Waukegan.

7. INTER-COMPARISON OF PLUMES BY SITES

Under similar environmental conditions, centerline temperature decays,average half-widths (left and right) and isotherm areas are compared forplumes at Palisades, Point Beach Unit 1, State Line, and Waukegan (see Fig.33). Since the plumes measured at State Line and Waukegan were taken under

13nearly stagnant conditions, categories representing similar conditions tothese were chosen to represent Palisades and Point Beach Unit 1. ThusCategory III of Palisades and Category III(a) of Point Beach Unit 1 are re-plotted in this figure.

In order to compensate for the difference in power levels of theseplants, isotherm temperature excesses are plotted versus isotherm area,normalized by the heat-rejection rate of the plant (above ambient). In thisway we are comparing the area per unit of plant waste heat rejected, for anyisotherm (here e, the temperature excess above ambient, is used, not thetemperature excess ratio e/e0). As expected, it is found that higher tem-peratures, larger areas, and larger widths are generated as the outfalldensimetric Froude Number is decreased. For Point Beach and Palisades withnearly equal densimetric Froude numbers, the larger aspect ratio situationof Palisades yields the trend of higher temperatures, larger areas, andlonger widths. Differences between plant performances are quite large. Thedistance along the centerline to a specific 9c/eo cai* differ by a factor of5, area per unit plant heat rejected for a given isotherm can differ by afactor of 10, and average half-widths for a given centerline distance canvary by a factor of 2 for closely related environmental conditions at thefour different sites. This large variation in plume characteristics demon-strates the effect of various discharge designs.

8. CONCLUSIONS

1. Much variation in centerline temperature decay, temperature half-widths, and surface isotherm areas exists for the Palisades and Point BeachUnit 1 plumes due to variation in ambient current, wind, and lake conditions.Much of that variation can be explained if the data are divided into differ-ent categories on the basis of the predominajice of different physical pro-cesses. Diurnal changes in excess temperature and densimetric Froude Number(with constant plant power level) are insignificant as compared to changesin current, wind, and lake conditions.

2. At Palisades, the greatest dilution in terms of centerline tempera-tures and areas occurs for an offshore current. The least dilution in termsof the highest centerline temperatures and largest isotherm areas occurs forthe stagnant lake, onshore current, and moderate shore-parallel current situa-tions. The stagnant case has the largest plume widths, the onshore currentsituation has the highest temperature ratios at a given centerline distance,and the moderate shore-parallel current case has the greatest areas. Roughlake conditions with either a moderate or large shoTe-parallel current givevery rapid centerline temperature decays, small isotherm areas, and smallhalf-widths. The most critical condition in terms of centerline temperaturesis the stagnant-lake case; for isotherm areas the critical condition appearsto be the moderate shore-parallel current case under calm lake conditions.

3. For Point Beach Unit 1, the environmental conditions do not vary asgreatly as for Palisades and, consequently, the scatter in the data on plumecharacteristics is not as large. North-directed currents opposing the south-oriented discharge cause significant interaction and mixing and smaller, moreslender, and deeper plumes than for currents directed south. South-directedcurrents cut off entrainment water to the inshore side of the plume result-ing in larger, wider and more shallow plumes. The near-stagnant conditionsfor Point Beach Unit 1 plumes caused difficulty in accurately measuringambient currents as well as accurately determining ambient temperature dueto horizontal and vertical stratification from shoreline heating.

4. Double plumes at Point Beach give smaller centerline temperaturesand smaller areas (for 8/9o < 0.8) than corresponding Unit 1 plumes. Thisoccurs for near-stagnant ambient conditions. The trend, however, seems to

14be toward much larger double-unit areas and centerline temperatures than thesingle unit for 0/6p < 0.3. Since much scatter exists within the correspond-ing single and double unit categories of data, indicating an overlap in dataenvelopes, additional data are required for verification.

5. The State Line plume shows a very slow centerline temperature decayuntil a sharp drop off occurs at the outer plume boundaries. The plume islarge and thin and spreads over a large area. Under similar environmentalconditions, the Waukegan plumes are more quickly mixed due to the high-velocity discharge yielding rapid decays in temperatures and areas.

6. A comparison between plumes at the Palisades, Point Beach, StateLine, and Waukegan sites for similar environmental conditions yields a widerange in centerline temperatures, widths, and areas. The differences aredue mainly to the outfall densimetric Froude Number and the outfall aspectratio. The larger the initial densimetric Froude Number and the smaller theaspect ratio, the smaller are the plume centerline temperatures and isothermareas.

7. Plume monitoring at existing power plant sites cannot be adequateunless plumes under a wide range of environmental conditions are sampled.Plume characteristics will vary greatly depending upon current speed anddirection, wind speed and direction, and lake conditions. Monitoring shouldallow for the fact that significant scatter can occur even within intelli-gently defined categories of environmental parameters. The present practiceof monitoring a plant about a half-dozen times a year is inadequate fordetermining the types of plumes to be observed there and the range in plumecharacteristics.

8. Presently available mathematical models of plumes are known to begenerally inadequate in treating such important phenomena affecting plunedispersion as bottom and shoreline interaction, ambient lake turbulence, aswell as the effect of current and wind magnitude and direction. The varia-tions in plume characteristics observed in the above data are larger thanpredicted in most models that attempt to simulate these phenomena.

15

REFERENCES

[1] TOKAR, J. V., Thermal Plumes in Lakes: Compilations of FieldExperience, Argonne National Laboratory Rep. ANL/ES-3 (1971).

[2] POLICASTRO, A. J., TOKAR, J. V., Heated Effluent Dispersion in LargeLakes: State-of-the-Art of Analytical Modeling, Part I. Critiqueof Model Formulations, Argonne National Laboratory Rep. ANL/ES-11(1972).

[3] ELLIOTT, R. V., HARKNESS, D. G., A Phenomenological Model for thePrediction of Thermal Plumes in Large Lakes, Hydraulic StudiesDepartment, The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario Rep.No. TP-2 (1972).

[4] DORET, S. C.j HARLEMAN, D. R. G., IPPEN, A. T., PEARCE, B. R.,Characteristics of Condenser Water Discharge on the Sea Surface[Correlation of Field Observation with Theory], M.I.T. ParsonsLaboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics Technical Rep. 170(1973).

[5] PARKER, G. C , SHEARLS, E. A., FANG, C. S., Thermal Effects of theSurry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River, Virginia, Part IV.Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters during the First Year ofPlant Operation, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Special Rep.No. 51 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering (1974).

[6] FRIGO, A. A., FRYE, D. E., Physical Measurements of Thermal Dis-charges into Lake Michigan: 1971, Argonne National LaboratoryRep. ANL/ES-16 (1972).

[7] FRIGO, A. A., FRYE, D. E., TOKAR, J. V., Field Investigations ofHeated Discharges from Nuclear Power Plants on Lake Michigan: 1972,Argonne National Laboratory Rep. ANL/ES-32 (1974).

[8] FRIGO, A. A., ZIVI, S. M., TOKAR, J. V., FRYE, D. E., VAN LOON, L. S.,TOME, C , BUELL, R., Measurements of Power Plant Thermal Plumes andRelated Physical Phenomena on Lake Michigan: 1973, Argonne NationalLaboratory Rep. ANL/ES-35 (in preparation).

[9] ASBURY, J. G., FRIGO, A. A., A Phenomenological Relationship forPredicting the Surface Areas of Thermal Plumes in Lakes, ArgonneNational Laboratory Rep. ANL/ES-5 (1971).

Figure

1

Number

Outfall Cc

16

LIST OF FIGURES

Title

mfieurations for Lake Mic

IAEA-SM-187/42

hiean Power PlantsStudied

2 Sample Isotherm Plot for Point Beach Unit 1 PlumesCleft) and Point Beach Units 1 § 2 Plumes (right)

3 Sanple Isotherm Plot for Palisades Plumes (left) andState Line Plume (right)

4 Sample Isotherm Plot for Waukegan Plumes

5 Centerline Temperature Decay for all Plumes at Palisadesand Point Beach Unit 1

6 Palisades Centerline Temperature Decay: Categories I and II

7 Palisades Centerline Temperature Decay: Categories III, IV,and V

8 Palisades Temperature Half-widths: Left Side - Category Iand Left/Right Side - Category II

9 Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories III, IV, and V

10 Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side):Categories I and III

11 Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side):Categories IV and V

12 Palisades Isotherm Areas: Categories I and II

13 Palisades Isotherm Areas: Categories III, IV, and V

14 Palisades Centerline Temperature Decay: Averaged Datafor Categories I-V

15 Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Left Side): AveragedData for Categories I-V

16 Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side): AveragedData for Categories I, III, IV, and V

17 Palisades Isotherm Areas: Averaged Data for Categories I-V

18 Point Beach Unit 1 Centerline Temperature Decay:Categories I, II, and III

19 Point Beach Unit 1 Centerline Temperature Decay:Categories IV and V

IAEA-SM-187/42

17

LIST OF FIGURES (Contd.)

Figure Number Title

20 Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories I, II, and III

21 Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories IV and V

22 Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Right Side):Categories I, II, and III

23 Point Beach Unit 1 Isotherm Areas: Categories I, II, and III

24 Point Beach Unit 1 Isotherm Areas: Categories IV and V

25 Point Beach Unit 1 Centerline Temperature Decay:Averaged Data for Categories I-V

26 Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Left Side):Averaged.Data for Categories I-V

27 Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Right Side);Averaged Data for Categories I-III

28 Point Beach Unit 1 Isotherm Areas: Averaged Data forCategories I-V

29 Point Beach Units 1 § 2 Centerline Temperature Decay,Temperature Half-widths (Outside), and Isotherm Areas

30 Point Beach Units 1 § 2: (top) Comparison of CenterlineTemperature Decay with Unit 1 Plumes, (middle) Comparisonof Temperature Half-widths with Unit 1 Plumes, (bottom)Comparison of Isotherm Areas with Unit 1 Plumes

31 State Line and Waukegan Centerline Temperature Decayand Isotherm Areas

32 State Line and Waukegan Temperature Half-widths:Left Side and Right Side

33 Comparison of Centerline Temperature Decay, Isotherm Areas(per Unit Plant Heat Rejected), and Average Widths forPalisades, Point Beach Unit 1, Waukegan, and State Line

IAEA-SM-187/4218

LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Title

I Outfall Information for Power Plants Studied

II Instrument Specifications for 1972 and 1973 PlumeData Acquisition

III Thermal Plumes Measured at Palisades During 1972

IV Thermal Plumes Measured at Point Beach Ifoit 1During 1971 and 1972

V Thermal Plumes Measured at Point Beach Uiits 1 5 2During 1973 and Waukegan, State Line During 1971

n

OISCHARGE FLUMEUNIT I

-533.4m-

LAKE MICHIGAN

OISCHARGE FLUMEUNIT I

0 15 SO 45

SCALE-METERS

Point Beach Nuclear Power Station. Two Creeks, Wisconsin

LAKE MICHIGAN

n

0 15 30 45

SCALE-METERS

OISCHARGECANAL

INTAKECRIB

+— 1006m—O-

TURBINEBUILDING

Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant, South Haven. Michigan

LAKE MICHIGANNORTH

LAKE MICHIGAN

SCALE - f TERS

State Line Generating Station. Hammond, Indiana Waukegan Generating Station, Waukegan. Illinois

Fig. 1. Outfall Configurations for Lake Michigan Power Plants Studied

11.9LAKE MICHIGAN

11.2

ALL TEMPERATURES INDEGREES CENT1GRAUE

Fig. 2. Sample Isotherm Plot for Point Beach Unit 1 Plumes(left) and Point Beach Units 1 &2 Plumes (right)

»;i nmtmtmum mwis CMT«MM

LAKE MICHIGAN

9 . V .

" • V .

V'«

LAKE MICHIGAN

1000

SCALE-METERS

ALL TCyPEKATURES IN DEGREES CENTIGMDE

Fig. 3. Sample Isotherm Plot for Palisades Plumes (left) and State Line Plume (right)

•11.5

(ft1,10.8

LAKE MICHIGAN

3 0 0

SCALE-METERS

ALL TEMPERATURES IN DEGREE5 CENTIGRADE

Fig. 4. Sample Isotherm Plot for Waukegan Plumes

TABLE I. Outfall Information for Power Plants Studied

Plant

Capacity <MWel

Maximum DischargeFlow Rate (m3/s)

Maximum Temperature Dropacross Condensers (deg Cl

Outfall Width <m)

Outfall Depth <m)

Average Outfall Velocity (m/sl

Initial DensimetricFroude Number (Nominal)

Aspect Ratiod

Angle to Shoreline

Number ol Plumes MeasuredUnit 1 onlyUnit 2 onlyUnit 1 and 2

Point BeachO(Each unit identical

unless otherwise noted)

497

25.1

10.7

10.7

4.2

0.56

2.5

2.5

60s (Unit 1)120° (Unit 21

2327

Palisadesa

715

25.5

13.9

28.3

2.1

0.43

2.3

13.5

W

15

Waukegan

1100

55.2

7.1

30.5

1.5

1.?

9.7

20.1

90°

2

State l ine

992

52.5

5.S

92.8

3.0*

0.19

1.0

30.9

90°

1

aNuclear Power Plant.bThere are four cases listed under Unit 1 only in which Unit 2 is partially operational. For these cases typicalparameters for Unit 2 are: power load • » MWle). discharged flow rate • 13.9 m'/s. maximum temperature dropacross condensers • 4.2 deg C, average outfall velocity • 0.31 ffl/s. initial densimetric Froude Number • 1.98. Thosevalues are also typical for the two plumes tor which only unit 2 was in operation.

^Approximate value due to irregular variation of discharge depth.

Aspect Rat io - ° u l f a l l " * » " -

TABLE II. Instrument Specifications for 1972 and 1973 Plume Data Acquisition

INSTRUMENT SENSOR ACCURACY THRKSHOLD RANCH RESOUmciN TUB; CONSTANT RE-IARKS

Bendix Q-1S Speed; impeller t<H of 0. '4 knot 0-1.0 fcnot; low scale 0.02 knot; low scale- 25 s; low scale V a n e h a s mijostable length; 0.3-3.0 inCurrent Meter tull scale 0-5.0 knots; high scale 0.1 knot; high scale 2.5 s; high scale for the 1973 data, the tine constant

was selectable from 2-30 s.

Direction; vane * 12° 0-3(10°

Temperature ThermistorNSeasuremcnt System

i0.2 degc 0-50°C 0.1 I'or 1972 data:2.5 s in wellstirred water

For 1973 data:0.6 s

Thermistor type >'?[ #709 - water-proofed

Thermistor YSI Series 700 specially made with 0.6 s* me constant

MotorolaMini-Ranger 0.1-55 to

Accuracy applies to each range measurement. Systemaccuracy varies wK'h position of transponders re)a-tive to bait. I;or most measurements, * 3 m applies

Bata-.'hrino Model 2301 ri f l ; low 2 f t ; low 2 - 99 ft ; lov range(Transom mounted) range range

?1 fathom; 2 fathoms; 2 - OT fathoms; highhip.h range high range range

1 ft

1 fathom

HRI MC'fOrological Speed; 3 cupstation anemometer

Direction; vane

Temppiature;Bimetallic coil

Clock

t.1 degF

t60 s/24 h

0.75 mnh

11.75 mph

0.75 - 100 mph

0.75 - 100 mph

-30- *120°P

0.2 mph

5°

1 depF

18 ft (response distance)

S ft (response distance)

unknown

Clock specifications are open to nuestion

Conversion Tacr-ors:

i knot ' 0.SM m/«1 mt>)i - 0 . W m/r.1 ft ' 'I, -in' si

I fntlnffl ' 1.32'J m

PltUK

Outfall

Tine ("5*

TABLE I I I . Hiermal Plumes Measured at Palisades During 1972

Excess Discfc. Disch.Ten>. Flow V«l.

(degC) (cn'/s) (ra-Vs)

Msgn. o f P ir . ofCurrent Current(an/s) (°cw fran north)

Magn. of Dir . o fWind Wind( B / S ) (*CW from north)

VtaveUke Height

Conditions Cm) 0 (B/8 x V 6 )

CATEGORY 1 to : Moderate Shore-parallel Current; Light, Moderate Hind; Calm Lake Conditions

A

B

D

E

F

G

13 Jun 72

13 Jun 72

20 Jun 72

20 Jun 72

20 Jun 72

20 Jun 72

1242-1443

1516-1615

1027-1109

1110-1200

1330-1425

1430-1515

21.6

21.1

20.6

21.2

21.7

21.4

14.5

1S.S

14.5

14.9

1S.8

16.7

7.1

6.0

6.1

6.3

5.9

4.7

2S.6

2S.6

25.6

25.6

25.6

25.6

43.1

43.1

43.1

43.2

43.1

43.1

13.3

22.7

1S.0

27.7

27.1

27.1

012

000

025

030

025

025

2.7

2.6

3.6

3.2

3.0

2.7

26S

265

220

220

220

220

Cain

Cain

Cain

Calm

Cala

Calm

0.0-0.3

0.0

0.0-0.3

0.0-0.3

0.0-O.3

0.0-0.3

0.31

0.S3

0.35

0.64

0.65

0.65

2.62

2.79

2.87

2.78

2.81

3.12

4.1

4.0

S.O

4.6

4.4

4.4

17 Jul 72 J600-1655

M b ) : Wderate Shore-parallel Current; Moderate Wind; Bough Lake Conditions

25.6 43.1 19.4 030 4.5 220

X 7 Ang 72 1730-1900 19.4 11.3

Y 8 Aug 72 1415-1745 21.5 12.5

2 11 Oct 72 1410-1630 22.0 13.5

CATEGOW I I : Urge Shore-parallel Current; Moderate Wind; Rough Lake Conditions

8.1 25.6 43.1 80 205 4.4 340

9.0 25.6 43.1 40-70 025 4.6 231

8.5 2S.6 43.1 60-30 025 6 - ° 2 1 3

Rough

Rough

Rough

1-2

1

1

1.9

1.3

1.6

2.69

2.41

2.42

5.2

5.6

7.2

18 Jul 72 1952-2055 29.3 22.0

CATEGORY III: Zero Current; 2ero Wind; Calm Lake Conditions

7.3 25.6 43.1 O.O 0.0 2.17

19 Jul 72 1546-1710 28.9 23.5

CATEGORY IV: Low-Moderate Onshore Current; Light Kind; Calm Lake Conditions

5.4 25.6 43.1 10.0 170 1.8 010 Calm

cK

L

19 Jun 72

10 Oct 72

13 Oct 72

1630-1730

1625-1748

1015-1155

19.6

22.2

22.0

14.9

12.9

12.6

CATEGORY V: Low, .'•tolerate Offshore Current; Low, Moderate Kind; Calm, Rough Lake Conditions

4.7 25.6 43.1 14.4 010 2.0 165

9.3 25.6 43.1 8.9 345 2.3 150

9.4 25.6 43.1 11.1 010 3,4 20S

Cabn

Cslm

Rough

0

0

0.0

.0-0.3

.3-1.0

0

0

0

.53

.LI

.26

3

2

2

.30

.33

.33

3

4

4

.4

.3

.5

R • Ratio of Ambient Velocity ufl to the Discharge Velocity uQ.

F • In i t ia l Densimetric Froude Number.

K • Surface-heat-traiisfer Parameter,

TABLE IV. Thermal Plumes Measured at Point Beach Unit 1 During 1971 and 1972

Outfall fefcientTesai.C O

ExcessTenp.

(degC)

Disch.Flow

(nrVs)

Disch.Vel.

(cn/s)

Magi., ofQirrent(cWs)

Dir. ofCurrent

( °w frai mirth)

Magn. ofWind(tn/s)

Dir. ofWind

("cw from north)Lake

Ltonditicns

WaveHeight

(m) - xlO"fc)

T 21 J u l 71 1508-1639 21.8 11.1 10.7

If 1 Sep 71 I44S-1727 26.5 17.4 9.1

A 17 Miy 72 1646-1806 18.9 7.9 11.0

CATEGORY I : Strong North Current ; Moderate Wind

25.1 S7. 18. 335 6-?

25.1 57. 355 4.9

35.1 S6. 8.3 000 4.5

205 Moderately Calm 0.3-0.b 0.32 2.13 7.2

135 Moderately Calm 0.3-0.6 1.98 7.0

190 Calm O.O-C.J 0.15 7.31 4.8

R

U

V

G

20 Jul 71

31 Aug 71

1 Sep 71

11 Jul 72

6 Sep 72

1632-1805

1550-1631

0950-1130

1245-1355

1115-1300

21. S

26.2

27.1

20. S

2S.2

12.6

17.6

17.4

10.9

15.0

8.9

8.6

9.7

9.6

10.2

25.1

25.1

25.1

25.1

24.7

-7.

57.

57.

S6.

5S.

CATEGORY 11: Moderate North Current; Moderate Wind

9.0 01S 6.

350 2.

360

15.0

18.6

4.9

4.3

S.2

135

175

0.0-0.3 0.1b 2.29 7.4

0.6-0.9 2.04 4.4

Moderately Calm 0.3-0.6 1.91 7.0

Choppy 0.3-0.6 0.27 2.24 SJ

Choppy 0.6-1.0 0.34 1.87 6.7

scD

E

F

J

H

L

21 Jul 71

24 May 72

24 » y 72

24 May 72

7 Jul 72

9 Sep 72

13 Jul 72

29 Sip 72

1020-1117

092S-1040

104S-114S

U4S-1225

1830-201S

1525-1650

IMS-190]

1S45-1705

20.S

21.3

21.5

21.3

20.5

24.S

20.3

20.4

11.S

10.7

11.9

11.D

11.3

14.S

13.3

11,2

9.0

10.6

9.4

10.3

9.2

10.0

7.0

9.2

25.1

2S.1

25.1

25.1

25.1

24.7

25.1

24.7

OvrEGOW III (a): Zero Current; Light, Moderate Wind

57. —

56. 0.0

56. 0.0

56. 0.0

S6.

55. 0.0

III w j : Small Current; light Wind

56. 2.2 245

55. 2.2 300

I I I (c): Zero Current; Zero Mid

3.4

1.4

2.2

2.0

—

4.8

2.4

2.6

20S

015

015

015

—

175

16S

330

Moderately Calm

Calai

Calm

Calm

—

Choppy

Cain

Cain

0.3-0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

—

0.0-0.3

0.0

0.3-0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

—

0.0

0.039

0.040

2.36

2.11

2.19

2.15

Z.27

1.92

2.S2

2.24

4.3

2.5

3.3

S.O

1.2

6.2

3.6

3.0

18 Hiy 72 1645-1751 SS. 0.0

20 my 71

20Hfey 71

fflOtt 71

1451-1550

1740-1850

1402-1539

17.5

17.5

21.2

8.1

s.:12.8

9.4

9.3

8.4

CATCGOItt IV: (-federate South Cur ren t ; Light , Moderate wind

25.1 57 . 9.0 125 "•? 315

25.1 57. 9.0 12S 5.6 270

2S.1 57. — 170 2.0 155

0.0-0.3 0.16 2.64 6.6

0.0-0.3 0.16 2.65 S.B

Slightly Choppy 0.0-0.5 2.36 3.2

Q1

25 Jun 71ZJOct 71

1000-1215Z000-210O

20.121.i

11.012.6

9.18.6

CATO3CW V: Strong South Current; Moderate Wind

25. ' 57. — °-525.1 57. 15.0 180 j |

0.6-0.9 2.3B

0.0-0.3 0.26 2.31

7.0

3.2

" R - Ritlo of JWiient Velocity u , to the Discharge Velocity u0-

Fo - I n i t i a l DensiMHric Froude Umber.

J L • Surfice-heot-tranafer Panuieter.

Pliae Date Tlae

S Jin 73 11SO-1400

6 Jin 73 U2O-12SS

7 Jim 73 1102-1230

10 Aug 73 1416-1S00

23 Aug 73 1156-1304

TABLE V. Thermal Plumes Measured at Point Beach QnitSl § 2 During 1973and Waukegan, State Line During 1971

OutfallTan.TO

17.S

17.3

17.7

17.5

17.4

17.1

17.4

17.8

28.5

28.7

9.6

7.5

ExcessTop.

(degC)

9.9

9.9

8.1

7.9

9.7

9.4

9.9

10.3

10.9

11.1

Disch.Flow

( ! / )

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

Disch.Vel.

(an/s)

54.

60.

54.

60.

54.

60.

54.

60

54.

00.

Majrn. of Dir. ofCurrent Current(an/s) (°CK from north)

MBgn. o f D i r . o fHind HindC«/s) (*cw fron north)

LakeConditions

PO1UT BEACH

5.6

0.0

6.1 115

- DOUBLE PLUMS

353 5.6 232

3.8 202

250

HaveHeight

(•)

0.3

Cala 0.0-0.3

7.0 26S Slightly Choppy 0.3

3.8 273 Slightly Choppy 0.3

0.0-0.3

0.10

0.09

0.0

0.0

0.11

0.10

2.47

2.89

2.56

3.04

2.47

2.95

2.46

2.79

1.66

,.91

K

(m/5 x 1(

5.7

4.2

12 Jem 73 151S-1647

18.5

18.2

10.1

8.4

8.1

24.3

24.3

54.

60.

2.4 028

0.17

0.16

2.44

2.92

2 Jim 71 1140-1320

2 Jim 71 1443-1723

18.8

18.3

10.2

10.2

8.6

S.I

99.

96.

HAIXEGAN

4.7

3.8

270

270

0.0-0.J

0.0-0.3

7.29

7.36

5.3

4.5

4 Aug 71 1227-1550 17.5

STATE LINE

0.0-1.0 * 1.

Notes:R - Ratio of Ambient Velocity u0 to Discharge Velocity u 0

F « Initial Densimetric Froude Nunber.

V

-— » Surface-heat-transfer Parameter.

1.0'

0,8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

O.I

1

*?.E yj

-

-

-

-

1

\ - S

I 1H i

K

T"

»

1

1

c

LK

—I 1—

J

X

1 I

H

LK

| j

G

X

E

Z

L

I

—r~

8

FX

D " E

HH

LK

1

—i r

SJ

X

X

I

^ JE

0

K

1 L

j l

PALISADES

J 8

J

' * o 96

x «

zE

0 EH

H

L

i 1 r̂ —i

CENTERUNE TEMPERATURE

A

6 AJ f

E

0 « „

£

LL

1 1 1 1

T 1

DECAY

F

D

E

1 1

~1 1 1 i 1

pZ Z

G

I

c

c l

1 1 , J 1 1

~ I

z

r i •

-

-

—

-

z

-

-

1 1

100 200 100 100 500 600 700 800 90O 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 COO 1800 1900 2000 2100 ?200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (melers)

1.0

0.9

0,8

0.7

0,6

0.5

0.4

0.3

02

O.I

I I 1 1

T l v A

J I I L

POINT BEACH CENTERLINE TEMPERATURE OECAY

J L__J L I I I L I I U_-J I L

100 !00 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 » 0 0 MOO 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 SOP 2000 2100 2200 2500 2400 2500

s (melers)

Fig. 5. Centerline Temperature Decay for all Plumes at Palisades and Point Beach Unit 1

1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 400 3 0 0 ( 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 COO 1700 WO BOO 2C00 2100 2200 2300 240O 2500

i finders)

- | 1 1 1 1 r -r—i 1 r r - r 1 " I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-

0 3 -

0.8-

0.7-

0.6-

0.4-

0.3-

0 2 -

0.1 -

Ou

CM6C0RY H i LARGE SHORE-PARM.UL CURRENTMODERATE WINDROUGH LAKE CONDITIONS

_ L I I J I I ' I ' i I I I , I I I _! L J_._JBO ZOO 300 400 "SOU 600 WO « 0 500 1000 1100 IZOO 1300 MOC 1500 1600 (700 1800 BOO 2000 > 0 0 2200-2300 2400 2500 J600 2700 JflOd 290O"3OOO 3«» SSOO 3300 J400 JSOO 3S00 3700 3«00 3SO0 4 0 X 4100 4200

slmeteisl

Fig. 6. Palisades Genterline Ten^rature Decay: Categories I and II

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

06

0.5

0.4

03

12

0.1

1 1 1

CATEGORY 111: ZEBO CURRENT

ZERO * « 0

CAW L»«£ COHOITIDHS

' ' ' ' ' * p • ' ' ' i i i i100 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000 1100 1200 000 1400 SOO 1600 1700 IBOO 1900 2X10 2100 2200 2300 2400 J500 2J03

s (meteis)

10

09

OB

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r—

-

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

—1 1—

CATEGORY IV

1 1

T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

: LOW-MODERATE ONSHORE CURRENT

LIGHT WIND

CALM LAKE CONDITIONS

-

-

\\

-

-

-

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1CO 200 500 400 500 600 TOO 600 900 WOO 1100 1200 1500 WOO UX) WOO I7X KOO 800 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2400 2KB

s ( l K k f l )

MTEGOBt V UW-IKOCMTC OFFSHORE CURRENT

LOW. HOOEUTE WIND

CAM, ROUGH UKE CONDITIONS

200 300 400 500I I I

1200I I I I I 1 I

700 BOO 900 1000 IKX) 1200 1300 MOO 1500 WOO 1700 WOO 1900 2000 2100 22w 23D3 M D 3 3 ) SOD

s (meters!

Fig. 7. Palisades Centerline Temperature Decay: Categories III, IV, and V

T 1 1 r —l 1 1 1 1 1 1C«TE«M» I : HOOEMU SHORE-nMLlEL Ojm.Hl

LBHT, VOOEMTE «M>I I I M L * l«K£ CMDtTIMISIt) DOUGH LA«£ COHDITIONS

I I I I100 200 500 400 500 600 700 MO 900 K>00 1100 I20O 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1600 1900 2000 2KB 2200 2500 2400 2500 MOO

s»450 - LEFT/RIGHT SIDE

400 -

3 5 0 -

, 3 0 0 -

I 2 5 0 -

100-

2 0 0 3 0 O 4 0 O » 0 m 7 O 0 « 0 9 O D- J l _

OTECOflV I I LUKE 5WRE • MRtLLEL CUAKNTIHHMTE WINDROUGH UKE CONDITIONS

/ftw/;!it-///////f/x '^'///t'' /*'• ' 'i'Sl

mo I K » 1200 isno MOO WO I70O WOO l%0 2000 2KX> 22W . I0~l40O~»O0 2(00 1100 OK 2«0 SOW W O 3200 3300 3400 35O0 W10 57X MOO 3J0O 40W 4100 4JO0

Fig. 8. Palisades Temperature Half-widths: Left Side - Category I and Left/Right Side - Category II

sw —

«so -

4W -

550 -

MO -

| 2S0 -

• 200 -

ISO -

TO -

SO -

I J.&, i i

r

I

CtUWW HI! I K OHKHT

Km nwCUIt UKE C0MHT10IK

0 H » K K > M 0 « 0 M 0 t 0 O 7 0 0 * » » 0 MOO 1100 1200 1300 MOO 1500 *00 I 'm «00 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2S00I tamnl

500

4S0

400

350

SCO

no

zoo

ISO

no

so -

Lert sioe CtTECOW IV: UW-WOeUTE ONSHOK OMHTUWTVIWSCUM UKE COHHTIOkS

IK 200 300 400 500 KO TOO «00 WO 1000 IK» IMO IMO WOO 900 *00

t(nNn)WO IMO 20110 2100 2200 2500 5400 2500 2HC

OTtWWt w LOt-HOMIUtE OFFSHOK CURffiin

LOt, WHUIE VIM

Ol l l , MUCH IME COWTKHIS

"tnS isi5 i38S HB5 S65 w iro HOD WO 2O0O 2100 2200 O00 2400 2900 2KB

t(Mtire)

Fig. 9. Palisades Tenperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories III, IV, and V

500 —

450 -

400 -

350 -

300 -

250 -

200 -

150 -

100 -

50 -

RIGHT SIDE

~1 I I I I ~T I

I(o) MODERATE SHORE-PARALLEL CURRENT

LIGHT , MODERATE WINDS

CALM LAKE CONDITIONS

J ' ' ' 1 ' I ' I I l I l I I I L0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meters)

s1£

3UU

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

1 1 1

RIGHT SIDE

-

-

-

-

- J 1 1

— 1 —

1

—1 1—

I

1 1

—1

1 -

1

p—

--1

J !_

—1

1

- , , , 1 - j - , —

1 1 1 1 l l

~i r—i 1 1 i r—

CATEGORY I I I : ZERO CURRENT

ZERO WIND

CALM LAKE CONDITIONS

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

-

-

1 10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MOO 1500 1600 1700 1600 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meters)

Fig. 10. Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side): Categories I and III

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

RIGHT SIDE

J

tV

_ t\\ , ,\ ^ 'i"

-

-

-

_

CATEGORY I V : LOW-MODERATE ONSHORE CURRENT

LIGHT WIND

CALM LAKE CONDITIONS

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 IBM 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2S0O 2600

s (melere)

1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I r

CMEOORY V ; LOW, MODERATE OFFSHORE CURRENT

LOW, MODERATE WIND

CALM,ROUGH LAKE CONDITIONS

I I I I

J J I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 L-100 200 300 400 900 600 700 800 900 1000 HOD 1200 1300 1400 1500 KOO 1700 1600 I90D 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (melets)

Fig. 11. Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side): Categories IV and V

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

1 1II 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1

CATEGORY I ( b ) - ^ ^^A

CATEGORY I : MODERATE SHORE-PARALLEL

LIGHT, MODERATE WIND(a) CALM LAKE CONDITIONS(b) ROUGH LAKE CONDITIONS

1 i i 1 l l l 11 l l i l l i

"1 '

N H D

CURRENT

,,l

! 1 1 1 1 "1

s- CATEGORY

W////.0

. E

l i l i i

BA

I I I

1

Ko)

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-

-

—

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10s 10* 10s

AREA (m2)

I I I I I I" ICATEGORY tl: LARGE SHORE-PARALLEL CURRENT

MODERATE WINDROUGH LAKE CONOITIONS

T I I I I I I l

,,,,1 i i i i l i 11

10 K>7

Fig. 12. Palisades Isotherm Areas: Categories I and II

10

09

OS

0.7

06

04

03

02

01 -

^ I I I H I j 1 1 I I I IH| 1 1 I I I J 11 j

" " * " - - « . ^ CATEGORY n i : ZERO CURRENT

" ^ - - ^ , ZERO WIND^• •^ CALM LAKE CONDITIONS

1 1 i 1 I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I | I I I I L L J I I 1 L L I 1 I

10'

10

09

0.8

07

06

04

03

02

01

1.0

0.9

0.6

0.7

0.6

: 0.5

i

04

0.3

02

0.1

AREA

1

-

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

1 1 1

~"* "•*» ^

< , M , |

CATEGORY IV.

j

I . | I , I

LOW-MODERATE ONSHORE CURRENTLIGHT WINDCALMLAKF EDITIONS

\

\\

\\

, . . . . . , l . . .

I . I . I

-

-

1 1 1 1 1

K)5

AREA (in2)

mk-• i i

i

in

. . . . . l

i i i i i n | i

• i i i 11i l i

• i i i 1111 i i i i

LOW, MODERATE OFFSHORE CURRENTLOW, MODERATE WINDCALM, ROUGH LAKE CONDITIONS

}

L

. . I L . , . .

1 I 1 I

-

-

-

• i l l

I04 10s

AREA (in2)

Fig. 13. Palisades Isotherm Areas: Categories III, IV, and V

1 I I I

CATEGORY I (a)

-CATEGORY V

I I I j _L J_100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 I60C 1700 1800 1900 2000 ZIOO 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meters)

Fig. 14. Palisades Centerline Temperature Decay: Averaged Data for Categories I-V

J i

i i i i i r

CATEGORY I (a )

CATEGORY I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I .1 I I100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 irOO 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meters)

Fig. 15. Palisades Tenperature Half-widths (Left Side): Averaged Data for Categories I-V

soo

4S0

400

350

300

I 250

* 200

150

100

50

1 1

RIGHT SIDE

1 1—i 1 1 1 1 r i r

J L j L I I I I L _L

CATEGORY I I I

J I L [ I I L0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 I00O HOO 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meters)

Fig. 16. Palisades Temperature Half-widths (Right Side): Averaged Data for Categories I , I I I , IV, and V

1.0

0.3

0.8

0.7

0.6

; o.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

I I I I I I l r I T i u r n i i i i i 11

CATEGORY I(o)

i i i i i i i

CATEGORY I I I

CATEGORY IV

CATEGORY V

CATEGORY I(b)

I I I I i i I 11 i i I i i j i 11 I i I i I i i i I i I I I I I i I

10' \0* I05 10* 10'

AREA (m2)

Fig. 17. Palisades Isotherm Areas: Averaged Data for Categories I-V

I 1 T I

CATE60RV 1: STRONG NORTH CURRENT

MODERATE WIND

loo 555 ski 435 Soo 5)5 ^i i i i i i i i i i

TXS 800 §00 I000 i l O O 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 i400 1500 1600 1700 1800s (mettrsl

10

0.9

oa

07

0.6

| 0 5

0 4

03

0 2

01

i i i i i i i i i \

CATEGORY I I : MODERATE NORTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

KX> 200I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

300 400 500 GOO 700 000 900 BOO 1100 COO 1300 1400 BOO KM 1700 ISOO

s Imlm)

1000 1100 1200 IJOO 1400 1500 1600 1700 WW

i T T r r T

:>T£OOR< I I I SMALL TO ZERO CURRENT

<•) ZERO CURRENTLIGHT.MOOCMTE WHN)

(b) SMALL CURRENTLIGHT WIND

(Cl ZERO CURRENT

ZERO WIND

Fig. 18. Point Beach Uhit 1 Genterline Temperature Decay:Categories I, II, and III

09

08

07

06

>

0 4

0 3

0 2

01

CATEGORY I V : MODERATE SOUTH CURRENT

LIGHT, MODERATE WIND

i i i100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 600 700 800 900 1000 ilOO 1200 1300MOO 1500 1600 TOO1800

s (meters)

10

09

OB

07

06

a?

04

03

02

01

0

1 1

_

V.' W

-

i 1

100 200

1

fa"

300

i {

/ / %

; i

400 500

////

1

TOO

1 '

CATEGORY

KIO 900

i ' I ! r 1 ! I

V: STRONG SOUTH CURRENT

MODERATE WIND

-

-

-

-

-

-

1000 1100 BOO 1300 MOB UOB * O 0 erac mX

Fig. 19. Point Beach Ikiit 1 Genterline Tenperature Decay:Categories IV and V

500

LEFT SIDE

OWtGOIH 1 STRONG NORTH OJBBENT

MODERATE *MD

600 TOO100 200 KO 400 {00 800 900 WOO 1100 1200 I3U0 WOO 1500 1600 ITO KOOl l m t t m l

500

450

400

ISO

JOO-

250 -

S H -

IM -

100

SO

L£FT SIDE

• * -

IH8EMTE IBM* CU«MNT

M30CMTE • ! »

WO W) IMO >400200 100 « 0 500 100 90!) QOO 1(00 !200i into)

Soo

CMCHW) III Itl

i l l - J W l l TO H W CtiSSEN!

(9t « » CVMKNT

USHT .

let ZEUS CUtftCttT

zen «iw

, L A.. .1 . - . . ; . - .s....-.t J. .. ..a a..,...-,. ..x t i u _t _J i i !5 ;8O f3ii 3S0 «50 !C3 (CO '50 *iO Mfi ICM 1IM l20O l}00 KOO 1500 1(00 I'M 1830

Fig. 20. Point Beach Unit 1 Twrperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories I, II, and III

iTEGORY IV MODERATE SOUTH CURRENT

LIGHT, MODERATE W I M

IOD 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 KXK> 1100 1200 1300 MOO 1500 1600 1700 18005 Imeters)

500

450

4 0 0 -

3 5 0 -

3 0 0 -

2 5 0 -

2 0 0 -

1 5 0 -

100 -

5 0 -

LEFT SIDE

CATEGORY V STRONG SOUTH CURRENT

MODERATE WIND

1200100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 KX» 1100 t) (mtltfs)

1300 MOO 1500 1600 1700 1800

Fig. 21. Point Beach Unit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Left Side):Categories IV and V

909

490

400

350

500

250

200

ISO

100

SO

. BIGHT SIDE

I I I 1 I I

CATEGORY t : STRONG NORTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

100 200 300 400 SOO 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 BOO 1700 1800s (mtttfs)

CATEGORY 11 MODERATE NORTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

9 100 200 300 400 900 600 700 MO 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 IWO

sliMMrs)

RIGHT SIDE

I 1 I I ]

CATEOOar 111: SMALL TO ZERO CURRENT

MZERO CURRENT

LKHT.iHaeMTE M M

(U SMALL CWMEkT

' LIMIT «MW

(c lZEK CWREMT

ZERO W W

no 200 xo 400 500 no 700 900 1000* tows)

COO 0 0 0 MO BOO MOO 1700

Fig. 22.Point Beach Uiit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Right Side):Categories I, II, and III

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

f0.50.4

0.3

0...

0.1

I I I I IT! 1 I I I i i F n 11

CATEGORY 1 : STRONG NORTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

i i i i i 11 i i i i i i

10' 10s

AREA

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

:o .s

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

I I I I I Ii M I I -r -T- i i i i iTp

CATEGORY I I : MODERATE NORTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

• • i I i 1111 i i i i i 1111

R V

10s 10"

AREA (m2)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

>

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

i i 111 i i i i i i 111 i i i i i i

^CATEGORY H K c )

CATEGORY III (o)

CATEGORY I I I : SMALL TO ZERO CURRENT(0) ZERO CURRENT

LIGHT, MODERATE WIND(b) SMALL CURRENT

LIGHT WIND

( t ) ZERO CURRENTZERO WIND

^ : B •

I i i i 111 i l i t i i i i 111

10*

AREA In2)

IOa

Fig. 23. Point Beach Unit 1 Isotherm Areas: Categories I, II, and III

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

' 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

I I I I I T

CATEGORY I V : MODERATE SOUTH CURRENTLIGHT, MOOERATE WIND

I I I I I I i I I 1

o -

V 10s10*

AREA (mz)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

' 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

10* 10*

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i t

' CATEGORY V : STRONG SOUTH CURRENTMODERATE WIND

i i i i i i i 1 1 i i i i ...,l

1 1 f i l l

-

0

i l l i i 1 l l i i 1

10' 10' 10' 10°AREA (m2)

Fig. 24. Point Beach Uiit 1 Isotherm Areas: Categories IV and V

1.0

0.9

08

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

i r i r 1 1 T

CATEGORY I I

CATEGORY I I I (b)

I I I J L

CATEGORY I I I (c)

CATEGORY I

"1 T

J L I I I0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MOO 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

s (meters)

Fig. 25. Point Beach Unit 1 Genterline Temperature Decay: Averaged Data for Categories I-V

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

i i i i r i i rLEFT SIDE

CATEGQRY

CATEGORY III (c)

CATEGORY IV

-CATEGORY III (b)

J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

s (meters)

Fig. 26. Point Beach l i i i t 1 Tenperature Half-widths (Left Side): Averaged Data for Categories I-V

o

500

450

400

350

300i

250

200

150

100

50

T rh RIGHT SIDE

-CATEGORY I I I (a) CATEGORY II

CATEGORY I

I I I I I I I J I 1 I I I100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

s (meters)

Fig. 27. Point Beach Uhit 1 Temperature Half-widths (Right Side): Averaged Data for Categories I-III

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0,4

0.3

0,2

0.1

0

I I I I I T 1 M I N I•CATEGORY I I I (b)

T 1 I I I I II

CD

1 I I LI U

T 1 I I I I I I

CATEGORY I I I (a)

CATEGORY V

CATEGORY I I I (c)

CATEGORY I

CATEGORY IV

l 1 J 11 i i I I _i_ i i i 11 i i i i 1 I

I03 I04 I05

AREA (m2)

Fig. 28. Point Beach Ifcit 1 Isotherm Areas: Averaged Data for Categories I-V

10°

H -

m a » 300 400 M O wo too too SOD IOOO MOO i2uo i x» rtoo soo e ra irao noo soo 2000 zoo 2 z x

s ( M H n )

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

• — - - • *

0 DO WO 900 400 S O 600 W 800 900 BOO MOO 1200 BOO MOO BOO K00 ITOO 1900 BOO 2000 2KB 2200 2300 2«00 2SX 2G00

«(meters)

10

0.9

08

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.3

02

0.1

i 1 1 1 1 I 1 l l I

AREA (in2)

Fig. 29. Point Beach IMts 1 § 2 Centerline Temperature Decay,Temperature Half-widths (Outside), and Isotherm Areas

1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r

POINT SUCH lOJBsour mm

-POINT BUCK IDOUSLE PLUMES)

m 200 300 « » S » 600 TO 000 900 BOO 1100 1200 130" MOO 1500 1600 ITOO 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 23O0 2400 200 2600

s (raters!

900

800

TO

600

400

!OO

ZOO

rao

n

1 1 r~

-

-

-

-

-

- z^1 1 1

—1 1—

- _ - • —

1 1

— 1 —

*-—

^

.——

1

—1 1—

' /—POINT

/

_ - — - -

1 1

~I 1 1 1 1 1 1—

j POINT BEACH ICATEGORY l l l l o ) )/ (LEFT SIDE)

BEACH {DOUBLE PLUHESI

\N—POINT BEACH ICAIEGORY I I I loll

1 BIGHT SIDE]

I I 1 1 1 1 1

—T—

1

1 —

1

1—

1

—;—

1

—r—

1

—i r—

i i

—i 1 1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

i i i

KM 100 500 400 SOO 600 TOO 800 900 KWO IICO 1200 1300 1*00 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2X0 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600

s (meleis)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

;o,5

0.4

0,3

0.2

0.1

1 I I I

-

-

i i : i !

'"1

POINT

1

N< ^

BEACH

i I I

N(DOUBLE

i r i

. i . i |

VPLUMES) —

i i 111

/

I

- P O I N T

1 1

( I f f

BEACH

= ;

till

"I '

(CATEGORY

i i

III 10)

• i

• 1 1 1 1

-

-

1 1 1 Y\

10"

AREA (in8)

Fig. 30. Point Beach liiits 1 8, 2; (top) Conrparison o£ CenterlineTemperature Decay with Uhit 1 Plumes, (middle) Comparisonof Temperature Half-widths with Uhit 1 Plumes, (bottom)Comparison of Isotherm Areas with Uhit 1 Plumes

10 -

0.9 -

0 8 -

07 -

0.6-

05 -

0.4-

0 . 3 -

0 2 -

01 -

i t i i i i

STATE LINE

WAUKEGAN

I I I I | I 1 i I I I100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

s (meters)

1.0 i—

0.9 -

0.8 -

0 . 7 -

0.6 -

| 0 . 5 -

0 . 4 -

0.3 -

0.2 -

0.1 -

oL_I03

I I I I I 'I l i m I I I I I

STATE LINE

WAUKEGAN

, , , , , , . , I l i i i i i i

10s I06 I07

AREA (m2 )

Fig. 31. State Line and Waukegan Cjenterline Temperature Decayand Isotherm Areas

1000

900

800

700

600

I 500

* 400

300

200

100

I I I I ILEFT SIDE

I I

- c

•ST4TE LINE

I T

WAUKEGAN

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I100 200 300 400 500 600 700 S00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

s (meters)

1000

900

800

700

600

I 500

*" 400

300

200

100

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r

RIGHT SIDE

WAUKEGAN

J L

B'

J I L

STATE LINE

\I I I I I I I I I I

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 IBOOs (meters)

Fig. 32. State Line and Waukegan Temperature ffelf-widths:Left Side and Right Side

MUKEGAN

0 KM 200 300 400 900 600 700 800 l i fe- IJOO900 000 160 IJOO 1)00 WOslmneis)

1700 1900

mry I I I I I I 111

PALISADES (CATEGORY II I)

STATE L « £

POINT BEACH (CATEGORY l l l ( i ) )

MUKCGAN-

I i i i 11 i i i i i i i 11 I I I I I I I

i I n in

PAustxs tctnooat mi

1300100 200 SOO 400 WO TO 800 SOO HX» 1100 1200 1300 MOO 1500 1600 I W «00

5 (melers)

Fig. 33. Comparison of Centerline Temperature Decay, Isotherm Areas(per Unit Plant Heat Rejected), and Average Widths forPalisades, Point Beach Unit 1, Waukegan, and State Line