. I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   "
         DALLAS

-------
                             906R77104
    TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
                 FOR
INDEPENDENCE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
     Independence County, Arkansas
                 VOL. I

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               REGION VI
             DALLAS, TEXAS

-------
                                INTRODUCTION
     This Technical Support Document (TSD) is one of two volumes that
presents the environmental study for the application for certification
of the Independence Steam Electric Station.   The first volume,  the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), presents the major issues, sig-
nificant features and summary analyses of the environmental  study,
description of plant and action, and alternatives considered.   This
volume presents the background information on the methodology  used in
the analysis and field efforts, pertinent regulations and other data
utilized in the preparation of the EIS.  This volume, in essence, is a
reference document for the EIS.
     The general organization of the TSD consists of a series  of individ-
ual parts.  Part 1 presents backup information for the need for power
(Part 1.1) and for alternative actions (Part 1.2).  Parts 2 through 8
each contain the reference information on a specific discipline inves-
tigated in the preparation of the EIS.  In Part 9, Environmental Moni-
toring Program, the pre- and post-operational Environmental  Monitoring
Programs for the Independence Steam Electric Station are presented.
     The scope of information appearing in the various parts of the TSD
vary depending on the EIS presentation - from a list of species in an
area to a detailed report from a consultant on the socioeconomic impacts
expected from the Independence Steam Electric Station.
     The format for cross references and internal references that appear
in the TSD are as follows:
     0  References to EIS in a Part of the TSD - the "EIS" appears
               before section, table, and/or figure reference  (i.e., EIS
               Table 2.1-1).
     0  References in the TSD to other TSD Parts - the "TSD" appears
               before the part, table, and/or figure references
               (i.e., TSD Figure 3.2-1).
     0  Reference in a Part of the TSD to other internal information -
               the number of the table, figure, and/or subpart is pre-
               sented without prefix (i.e.,  Table 5.1-3).

-------
It should be noted that the reverse is true of the references in the EIS
to TSD parts, table, and figures.  The indication "TSD" will  appear
before each TSD table, figure, and part referenced in the EIS.   Internal
EIS references to other sections of the EIS will  appear without prefix.
     Finally, please note that each part of the TSD is numbered sequen-
tially by part (i.e., 4.0-1, 4.0-2,	4.0-53) and that literature
cited is included at the end of the individual part of the TSD.

-------
           PART1
GENERAL MATERIAL

-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT






        PART 1





   GENERAL MATERIAL

-------
                                 CONTENTS
                                                                      Page
1.1  POWER REQUIREMENTS 	    1.1-1
     1.1.1  City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro ...    1.1-1
            1.1.1.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility .  .  .    1.1-1
            1.1.1.2  Future Need for Power	    1.1-3
            1.1.1.3  Generating Capacity to Meet Future Needs ...    1.1-4
     1.1.2  Arkansas Power & Light Company	    1.1-5
            1.1.2.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility .  .  .    1.1-5
            1.1.2.2  Future Need for Power	    1.1-6
            1.1.2.3  Generating Capacity Requirements to Meet
                        Future Needs	    1.1-7
     1.1.3  Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation 	    1.1-9
            1.1.3.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility ...    1.1-9
            1.1.3.2  Future Need for Power	    1.1-10
            1.1.3.3  Generating Capacity Requirements to Meet
                        Future Needs	    1.1-12
1.2  SULFUR DIOXIDE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE  	    1.2-1
     1.2.1  Environmental  Impact  	    1.2-1
     1.2.2  Flue Gas Desulfurization at Independence Steam
               Electric Station 	    1.2-2
            1.2.2.1  Reliability of Flue Gas Desulfurization
                          Systems	    1.2-3
            1.2.2.2  Scrubber Direct Cost Burden	    1.2-4
     1.2.3  Preferred Alternative 	    1.2-4
1.3  REFERENCES	    1.3-1

-------
                                  TABLES

                                                                      Page

1.1-1  City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro
          Historical and Projected Load 	    1.1-13

1.1-2  City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro
          Projected Loads and Capabilities  	    1.1-14

1.1-3  Historical and Forecast Peak Loads Arkansas  Power  & Light
          and Middle South Utilities System 	    1.1-15

1.1-4  Arkansas Power & Light Company
          Forecast Peak Loads	    1.1-16

1.1-5  Middle South Utilities Load and Capability
          Forecast Peak Loads 	    1.1-17

1.1-6  Arkansas Power & Light Company
          Percent of Generation by Fuel Type	    1.1-18

1.1-7  Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
          Historical and Forecast Peak Loads  	    1.1-19

1.1-8  Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
          Forecast Peak Loads 	    1.1-20

1.2-1  Large "Operational" Scrubbers in the United  States 	    1.2-5

-------
                                PART 1
                           GENERAL MATERIAL
1.1  POWER REQUIREMENTS
     The City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro (CWL),  Arkan-
sas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) and Arkansas Power & Light
Company (AP&L) have through independent evaluations, determined the need
for their participation in the Independence Steam Electric Station.  The
following sections present the individual evaluations plus a summary for
the combined three utilities.
1.1.1  City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro
1.1.1.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility
     The City Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro (CWL) will
require additional generating capacity to meet the projected future
loads of its service area.  Engineering and economic analyses made by
R. W. Beck and Associates show that future use of existing CWL gener-
ation facilities should be minimized because of the expected unavaila-
bility of natural gas, the high cost of oil, and the relative ineffi-
ciency of the existing generating units.  This would also be in line
with the President's National Energy Plan.  Construction of a CWL-owned
coal-fired generating unit was considered, but this alternative would be
restricted to smaller size, because of CWL's load, and would not offer
CWL the economies of scale available through participation in the larger,
more efficient units of the 700 MW size proposed for the Independence
Steam Electric Station.  CWL will contract to participate in 5 percent
of the total 1400 MW (net) that is proposed at Independence Steam Electric
Station.  The participation in this facility will not require any ad-
ditional transmission facilities other than those already scheduled by
CWL in conjunction with its participation in the White Bluff plant.
     CWL is a publicly owned utility that operates and distributes
electric power and energy to retail, commercial, and industrial cus-
tomers and for municipal and public use within its service area.  The
CWL service area is approximately encompassed by the corporate limits of
Jonesboro, with the exception of a few adjacent areas outside the city.
                                 1.1-1

-------
The power requirements of the system are met by CWL-owned generation and
by purchases from AP&L and the Southwest Power Administration (SPA) which
markets power from government-owned dams in the area.
     SPA presently acts as CWL's load dispatch agent and schedules
quantities of hydro power and purchases of power from AP&L, as neces-
sary, to meet the requirements of the CWL system.  CWL currently receives,
at the CWL Northwest Substation, its entire SPA power and energy al-
location and its entire AP&L purchases.  Through its SPA contract, CWL
utilizes up to 35 MW of SPA's surplus delivery point capacity at this
station.  SPA charges CWL $3.00 per kW/year, based on the 12-month peak
purchase fr"om AP&L, for use of its facilities at the Northwest Substation.
This transmission service by SPA is available to CWL through June 30,
1979.  SPA has indicated a willingness to renegotiate its contract with
CWL for this service.
     CWL currently purchases supplemental power from AP&L through terms
of a contract which extends through June 1, 1980.  This contract has
provision for extensions on a year-by-year basis, with cancellation
options by either party on 24-month advance written notice.  This contract
allows purchase of a maximum of 30 MW firm power and associated energy
with a contract minimum of 10 MW.
     Through contractual  arrangements with SPA, standby capacity is
presently provided for CWL generation in exchange for a 2 MW capacity
dedication to SPA.  This capacity dedication is based on 10 percent of
the total  capability of the CWL generating plant.  Beginning with the
operation of the White Bluff plant in 1980, SPA will provide standby
capacity for all CWL generation in exchange for a dedication of 15
percent of the CWL generating capacity to SPA for reserves.  CWL's
contract with SPA expires on May 31, 1985, but it is anticipated that
SPA  will  convert the firm power allocation to a peaking power alloca-
tion in the amount of 80 MW.
     Because of the age of CWL generating facilities, the uncertainty of
present fuel supplies, and the loss of firm power allocation from SPA
after 1985, CWL must accomplish the following long-term power supply
goals:
                                    1.1-2

-------
     1.   It must seek additional  firm capacity sources  of  generation.
     2.   It must phase out aging  inefficient generating units  that  use
          fuels that are in short  supply.
     3.   It must seek to participate in ownership with  other utilities
          in large fuel-efficient  generating plants.
     4.   It must provide a program to participate with  other utilities
          in development of alternate fuel  sources.
     To meet these objectives CWL  has contracted to participate in
ownership of 5 percent of the capacity of the 1400 MW (net) White Bluff
plant and 5 percent of the capacity of the 1400 MW (net) Independence
Steam Electric Station.
1.1.1.2  Future Need For Power
     In 1974, a consultant prepared a long-range power supply study  for
CWL.  In this study, an area load  survey was made in conjunction with
Jonesboro's long-range city plan.   This study was used as a basis for
projecting CWL's future electrical growth.   At that time, a growth rate
of 12 percent annually was determined from historical data  since 1974.
Other factors indicated an average rate of 10 percent per year  was more
realistic.  Table 1.1-1 shows the  actual growth from 1950 to 1977 and
the projected growth from 1978 to  1986.  A review of this table indicates
that CWL load requirements have increased from a 6 MW peak  demand in
1950 to 93 MW in 1977.  This is an annual  growth rate of 10 percent.
The CWL forecast of future peak loads indicates a growth to 107 MW in
1978, 172 MW in 1983, 208 MW in 1985, and 229 MW in 1986; or an average
growth rate of 10.0 percent between 1978 and 1986.
     The energy requirement of the CWL service area is also shown in
Table 1.1-1.  This has been growing at approximately the same rate as
the peak demand.  Historically the energy requirements of CWL have
grown from 24 GWH in 1950 to 331 GWH in 1976, or an annual  growth rate
of 10.6 percent.  CWL forecasts an annual  energy requirement of 401  GWH
in 1978, 646 GWH in 1983, 781 GWH  in 1985,  and 859 GWH in 1986, or an
annual growth of 10.0 percent between 1978 and 1986.
                                   1.1-3

-------
1.1.1.3  Generating Capacity Requirements To Meet Future Needs
     In 1977, the CWL-owned generating capability totaled approximately
28.6 MW name plate rating which included three steam turbines and a 1  MW
diesel unit.  Because of age and poor operating efficiency, one of the
three turbines is not considered as a reliable power source.  The re-
maining two turbines and the diesel unit have a continuous capability  of
approximately 19.5 MW.  However, due to frequent curtailment of the gas
fuel supply, the high cost of oil as a fuel, and the relative inef-
ficiency of these two turbines, CWL confines their use to operation
during summer peak periods.  The capacity of these units also is uti-
lized to provide for generation reserve requirements.
     New generating capacity will be available to CWL in 1980 and 1982
through its participation in ownership of 5 percent of each of the two
700 MW (net) units at the White Bluff plant, scheduled for completion  in
those years.  CWL also will contract to participate in 5 percent of each
of the two 700 MW (net) units at the proposed Independence Steam Elec-
tric Station scheduled for completion in 1983 and 1985.
     The load and capability status of CWL in 1983 are shown on Table  1.1-2.
This table shows that CWL will be deficient in capability to meet its
load without purchase of additional supplemental power.  Table 1.1-2 also
indicates the same condition in 1985 without the Independence Steam
Electric Station Unit Two.
     In the 1974 engineering report, "Power Supply Study for the City
Water and Light Plant, Jonesboro, Arkansas," it was pointed out that
ownership participation in large coal-fired generating plants was the
most economically attractive power supply alternative for CWL during the
1980s.  More recent studies by a consultant in conjunction with CWL's
financing of a 5 percent share of the White Bluff plant and specific
evaluation of participation by CWL in the Independence Steam Electric
Station have confirmed the results of the 1974 study.
                                   1.1-4

-------
1.1.2  Arkansas Power & Light Company
1.1.2.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility
     Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)  is  part of the  Middle  South
Utilities (MSU) System, which also includes the following  operating
companies:  Arkansas Missouri Power Company, Louisiana Power  &  Light
Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, and New Orleans Public
Service Inc.  These companies supply the electric needs  for portions of
Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  All  generation is
jointly planned, and through a contractual  arrangement,  reserves  are
shared by each of the five operating companies.
     Historically, because of the availability of low-cost natural gas,
AP&L has been a net importer of electric energy from other MSU  companies.
However, because of the nation-wide gas shortage, AP&L cannot rely, as
it has in the past, on its sister companies for electrical energy.  For
this reason and also because of the uncertain  future oil supply,  AP&L is
constructing generating units that will rely on fuels other than  oil and
gas.  At this time, AP&L has a total owned  generating capability  of
2867 MW.  Over 68 percent of this capability is oil  fired, most of which
has been converted from gas to oil.
     Because of the natural gas shortage and the uncertain supply of
oil, the Federal government has directed, as a part of the overall
energy program, that the use of natural gas and oil  in electric power
generation be significantly curtailed or eliminated.
     As a result of these considerations, AP&L must accomplish  the
following four objectives:
     1.   It must generate a larger portion of its current requirements
          for electricity.
     2.   It must construct additional  generating capacity in order to
          take care of current and future requirements  in  its service
          area.
                                  1.1-5

-------
     3.    It must attempt to stabilize the rise in electric rates in-
           duced by massive price increases for oil and natural gas by
           switching to lower cost fuel.
     4.    It must diversify the types of fuels used so that its level of
           dependence upon natural gas and fuel oil is more in line with
           National energy policies.
     To meet these objectives, AP&L has under construction Arkansas
Nuclear One Unit Two, a 912 MW nuclear unit, and two 700 MW coal-fired
units at White Bluff.  About 420 MW of each of these coal units will be
available  to the AP&L customers.  The Independence Steam Electric Sta-
tion is also being developed to satisfy these four objectives.
1.1.2.2  Future Need For Power
     AP&L  prepares and continually updates the forecast of its power
requirements.  These forecasts are based on historical trends of elec-
tric use in its service area, plus a number of other factors such as
population growth, forecast of industrial and commercial development,
and other  economic indicators.  These forecasts showed that the In-
dependence Steam Electric Station Units One and Two would be required in
1983 and 1985 respectively.  AP&L also elected to obtain an independent
forecast of its power needs before making the decision to apply for site
and development permits.  At the request of AP&L Management, National
Economic Research Associates (NERA) developed an independent load and
energy forecast for AP&L utilizing an economic methodology which
incorporates into the predictions, important elements of the President's
energy program, as well as effects of conservation, price elasticity,
and load management.  After considerable review, the Company adopted the
NERA results as the AP&L official load forecast.
Peak Loads
     Table 1.1-3 shows the historical  and projected peak load require-
ments of AP&L.   A review of this table indicates that these peak load
requirements have grown from a demand of 1785 MW in 1968 to 3059 MW in
1977, or an annual growth rate of 6.2 percent.  The NERA forecast of
AP&L's peak loads show a growth up to 3314 MW in 1978, 4406 MW in 1983,
                                   1.1-6

-------
4738 MW in 1985, and 4841 MW in 1986, or an average growth rate of 4.9
percent between 1978 and 1986.
     Historical peak loads of the MSU system without AECC and CWL
(Table 1.1-3), have grown from 5066 MW in 1968 to 9523 MW in 1977 or an
average annual growth rate of 7.3 percent.  The MSU system projects peak
loads of 10,333 MW in 1978, 13,781 MW in 1983, 15,561  MW in 1985, and
16,385 MW in 1986; or an average growth rate of 5.9 percent between 1978
and 1986.  The peak load forecast of the MSU system is the sum of the
forecasts of each company's forecast.
Overall Energy Requirements
     Overall energy requirements of the AP&L service area and that of
the MSU System have been growing at rates which are quite close to, but
lower than, growth rates of peak load requirements.  Historically the
AP&L requirements grew from 8306 GWH in 1968 to 12,382 GWH in 1976, or
average annual growth rate of 5.1 percent.  AP&L predicts a growth to
13,919 GWH in 1978, to 19,832 GWH in 1983, to 21,976 GWH in 1985, and
to 23,206 GWH in 1986, or an average annual growth of 6.6 percent be-
tween 1978 and 1986.
1.1.2.3  Generating Capacity Requirements To Meet Future Needs
     In 1977, the AP&L-owned generating capability was 2867 MW.  In-
cluded in this capability is 836 MW nuclear, 69 MW in hydroelectric,
76 MW in combustion turbine, and 1887 MW of gas-fired generation that
has been converted to oil.
     New capacity under construction and planned includes the second
nuclear unit that will be operational in 1978 at 912 MW.  Also, planned
are two 700 MW coal-fired units at White Bluff that will be operational
in 1980 and 1982, respectively.  About 840 MW of this coal-fired capacity
will be available to AP&L customers.  It is expected that with the above
units, including the potential retirement of obsolete oil burning units,
AP&L will have available 4566 MW in 1982.
     Expected AP&L load and generating capability in 1983, without and
with Independence Unit One are presented in Table 1.1-4.  This table
                                    1..1-7

-------
shows the expected owned capability, purchases, and capability  under
contract, along with the projected load.  It is apparent from this  table
that without Independence Unit One there will  be a deficiency in  cap-
ability to meet load responsibility plus 16 percent reserves.   Without
Independence Unit One AP&L will be deficient in generation  by 265 MW.
     The expected AP&L load and generating capability in 1985 without
and with Independence Unit Two are also shown  in Table 1.1-4.   This
table shows the expected owned capability, purchases, and capability
under contract, along with the projected load.   Even with Independence
Unit Two there will be a deficiency in capability to meet load  respon-
sibility plus 16 percent reserves in 1985.  This deficiency will  be
128 MW and will increase to 548 MW without Independence Unit  Two.
     Table 1.1-5 presents the MSU system load  and generating  capability
forecast for 1983 without and with Independence Unit One.   This table
shows the expected owned capability, purchases, and capability  under
contract, along with the projected load (without AECC and Jonesboro).
This table indicates that the MSU system will  have 17.8 percent reserves
in 1983 with Independence Unit One.  Without Independence Unit  One the
reserve margin will drop to 14.7 percent or 174 MW below desired  re-
serves of 16 percent.
     The MSU system load and capability situation in 1985 without and
with Independence Unit Two (without AECC and Jonesboro)  are also  given
in Table 1.1-5.  The MSU system will  have 17.5  percent reserves in 1985
with Independence Unit Two.  Without Independence Unit Two  reserves will
drop to 14.8 percent, or 191 MW below the desired reserves  of 16  percent.
     The percentage of generation by fuel  types for 1970 through  October
of 1977 are shown on Table 1.1-6.  A review of  this table shows that in
1970 almost 95 percent of AP&L generation was on natural  gas.  By 1976,
even with Arkansas Nuclear One Unit One on line, almost  44  percent of
the generation was on oil.   By 1982,  AP&L generating capacity will be
fueled as follows:  1748 MW nuclear,  840 MW coal, and 1909  MW oil.
There is a slight possibility that some natural  gas will  be available to
replace a small amount of oil.  It is apparent  that 42 percent of AP&L
                                   1.1-8

-------
owned generation will be oil fired.  Yet, the availability of oil  in the
1980s is quite uncertain due to U. S. policies and those of the export-
ing nations.  Oil costs are also uncertain and are under control of
foreign nations.  On the other hand, coal is an abundant domestic supply
and not subject to foreign embargo or price fixing.  It is the U.  S.
national policy to develop coal generating capacity and reduce oil
burning capacity.  For these reasons, it is incumbent upon AP&L to
reduce its future dependence upon oil as a fuel.  With the Independence
Steam Electric Station, the percentage of AP&L's owned generation that
is fueled by oil will be reduced to 35 percent.  It is concluded that in
-addition to the capability to satisfy future load and energy needs, the
two units planned at Independence Steam Electric Station will provide
vitally needed fuel diversification in keeping with the Federal energy
policies.
1.1.3  Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
1.1.3.1  Purpose of Participation in the Facility
     Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) is owned by its
17 member distribution cooperatives and has as its sole purpose the
supply of wholesale power on a non-profit basis to these 17 members.
     AECC presently owns 315 MW of gas/oil burning power plants.  These
plants were built for natural gas but, due to the non-availability of
natural gas, these plants are now burning oil.  AECC purchases 189 MW of
hydro power and associated energy from the SPA.  The balance of AECC's
needs have been purchased from other utilities in the area.  Most of
this purchased power has been generated in gas- and oil-burning power
plants.
     Natural gas has virtually been eliminated as a boiler fuel.  The
limited availability of oil and the resulting high prices have made it
necessary to substitute other more available fuels for the generation of
electricity.  The only two alternate fuels available in sufficient
quantities are coal and nuclear.  Because of the long lead times re-
quired for a nuclear plant, this option is not available to the
                                   1.1-9

-------
cooperative for the 1983-1985 time period.  This leaves only one option
for AECC - it must use coal for generation in the future.
     Large capacity coal burning plants (500 to 700 MW size) are more
economical than smaller units.  Because AECC needs smaller increments  of
capacity due to its smaller loads, it is advantageous for  the coopera-
tive to participate in part ownership with others.  This way it is
possible to obtain the economics of larger scale while adding smaller
increments of capacity as needed.  Because of these conditions, AECC
                                                                 i
must do the following basic things:                    '•          '
     1.   It must, in the most economical  manner, provide  generation
          capacity to meet the loads of its members.
     2.   It must slow the rapid increase in electric rates by substi-
          tuting lower cost coal for oil and gas, which are much higher
          in cost, and for which the cost is rapidly escalating.
     3.   It must reduce use and dependence on oil in cooperation with
          national energy policies.
     To meet these objectives, AECC is presently participating as part
owner in two power plant projects.  It is  a 50 percent owner of the
Flint Creek 530 MW coal  burning plant near Gentry, Arkansas and a 35
percent owner of the two 700 MW White Bluff coal-burning units being
built near Redfield, Arkansas.  AECC's proposed 35 percent ownership of
the Independence Steam Electric Station will  also help meet these objec-
tives.
1.1.3.2  Future Need For Power
     Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, for purposes of financing
of new construction, is  required by the Rural  Electrification Administra-
tion (REA) to prepare a  Power Requirements Study.  This study is compre-
hensive and prepared according to exact and detailed guidelines. It
includes, first, a preliminary mathematical  total projection by AECC.
Next, a preliminary mathematical projection is made by AECC for each of
the member distribution  cooperatives.  Each of the member  cooperatives
then breaks down its total  historical load into various categories such
as residential, commercial, etc.  Projections  are then made of both the
                                   1.1-10

-------
number of consumers in each category and the KWH per consumer.   These
projections are then combined into a total projection for each  cooper-
ative.  Differences between the mathematical projection and the detailed
member projection are jointly resolved, and the individual  member coop-
erative projections are then combined to form the AECC projection.   This
total projection is then approved by REA and must be used in support of
any approvals of financing by REA.  The total process requires  about one
year.  This REA Power Requirements Study shows a 12.7 percent load
growth, which is a continuation of the historical trend.
     For its own purposes in making decisions, AECC must have the latest
and most up-to-date information.  AECC reviews and revises the  results
of the power requirements study at least once each year and at  any  other
time a major decision must be made.  The latest revision was made in
July 1977.  This revision adjusts for two basic changes:  first is  an
adjustment for the effect of the recent recession in the national and
Arkansas economy; and second, the future rate of growth was reduced from
12.7 to 11.0 percent to accommodate several new factors such as conser-
vation effort in new building design, insulation of existing buildings,
and load management of various kinds.  Also recognized was the  national
effort to switch from oil and gas to coal and nuclear which must be done
through the form of electric energy.  The July 1977 revision reduced
the 1985 projected demand by 22 percent.
     Although these studies clearly showed the need for the Independence
Steam Electric Station Units One and Two on or before 1983 and  1985,
AECC also participated in an independent forecast.  National Economic
Research Associates (NERA) was hired to make this independent forecast,
utilizing economic methodology and incorporating important elements of
the President's energy program.  The NERA forecasts result in a load
growth rate through 1985 roughly equal to the growth rate during the
recent recession.  However, even with the very conservative NERA
forecast, the Independence Steam Electric Station would still be needed
to replace oil-burning capacity.
     Table 1.1-7 shows the historical and projected peak load require-
ments of AECC.  Peak load requirements of AECC have grown from  a demand
                                  .1.1-11

-------
of 184 MW in 1965 to a demand of 734 MW in 1977,  or  an  annual growth
rate of 12.2 percent.  A review of the table shows that the  REA Power
Requirements Study projects peak loads of 979 MW  in  1978 and 2547 MW in
1986, which is a 12.7 percent annual growth rate; the AECC July 1977
revision forecasts peak loads of 849 MW in 1978 and  1961 MW  in 1986,
which is an 11 percent growth rate; and the NERA  study  forecasts peak
loads of 826 MW in 1978 and 1342 MW in 1986, which is a 6.3  percent
annual growth rate.  AECC currently bases its planning  on the AECC July
1977 revision.
1.1.3.3  Generating Capacity Requirements To Meet Future Needs
     In 1977 the owned generating capability of AECC was 315 MW.  All of
this capability is gas-fired generation which has been  converted to oil.
New capacity under construction and planned is as follows:
     1978 Flint Creek - 50 percent ownership of 530  MW  coal  unit
     1980 White Bluff One - 35 percent ownership  of  700 MW coal unit
     1982 White Bluff Two - 35 percent ownership  of  700 MW coal unit
     1983 Independence One - 35 percent ownership of 700 MW  coal unit
     1985 Independence Two - 35 percent ownership of 700 MW  coal unit
     AECC capability will be deficient in 1983 by 114 MW with Indepen-
dence Unit One in service (Table 1.1-8).   Without Independence Unit One,
AECC generation would be deficient by 359 MW.  Table 1.1-8 also shows
that AECC capability will be deficient in 1985 by 254 MW with Indepen-
dence Units One and Two in service.  Without Independence Unit Two, AECC
generation would be deficient by 439 MW.
                                   1.1-12

-------
                           Table 1.1-1

         City Water &  Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro
                  Historical and Projected Load

                      Annual Peak                   Total  Annual
                      Demand (MM)                   Energy (GUH)
   1950                   6                              24
   1960                  18                              63
   1968                  43                             161
   1969                  52                             185
   1970                  54                             204
   1971                  59                             225
   1972                  68                             257
   1973                  69                             269
   1974                  74                             267
   1975                  81                             299
   1976                  88                             331
   1977                  93

(Forecast)

   1977                  -                              365
   1978                 107                             401
   1979                 117                             441
   1980                 129                             485
   1981                 142                             534
   1982                 156                             587
   1983                 172                             646
   1984                 189                             710
   1985                 208                             781
   1986                 229                             859
                                1.1-13

-------
                                          Table 1.1-2
                        City  Water & Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro
                              Projected Loads and Capabilities (MW)
                                                       1983              -               1985
Without
Independence
Unit One
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Capability with gas curtailment
Purchases without reserves
Total capability (1+2)
System maximum load
Firm sales and reserves
Firm purchases with reserves
Load responsibility (4+5-6)
Margin in excess of load (3 - 7)
Desired reserves (16.0% of 7)
Percent margin in excess of load (8^7)
Capability in excess of desired reserves
90a
0
90
172
0
80
92
(2)
15
(2.2)
(17)
With
Independence
Unit One
125b
0
125
172
0
80
92
33
15
35.9
18
Without
Independence
Unit Two
125C
0
125
208
0
80
128
(3)
20
(2.3)
(23)
With
Independence
Unit Two
160d
0
160
208
0
80
128
32
20
25
12
a Includes:   White Bluff participation of 70 MW and CWL Steam Turbine @ 19 MW and diesel unit @ 1 MW.
  Includes:   Sames as above plus  Independence Unit One participation of 35 MW.
c Includes:   White Bluff participation of 70 MW,  Independence Unit One participation of 35 MW, and
             CWL Steam Turbine  @  19  MW and diesel unit @ 1 MW.
  Includes:   Same as above plus Independence Unit Two participation of 35 MW.

-------
                           Table 1.1-3

                Historical  and  Forecast Peak Loads
    Arkansas Power & Light  and  Middle  South Utilities System
                     (Without AECC and CWL)


                     Arkansas  Power           Middle South
                         &  Light             Utilities System

                        Load  (MM)               Load (MW)

Year
                                   Historical
1958                       719
1959                       858
1960                       825
1961                       810
1962                       953
1963                      1081
1964                      1283
1965                      1374
1966                      1577
1967                      1611
1968                      1785                    5066
1969                      2003                    5873
1970                      2085                    6092
1971                      2329                    6755
1972                      2495                    7560
1973                      2611                    7835
1974                      2839                    8327
1975                      2668                    8314
1976                      2980                    9103
1977                      3059                    9523

                                    Forecast

1978                      3314                    10333
1979                      3480                    10995
1980                      3831                    11548
1981                      3982                    12253
1982                      4246                    13093
1983                      4406                    13871
1984                      4570                    14692
1985                      4738                    15561
1986                      4841                    16385
a NERA Peak Load Forecast
                             1.1-15

-------
                                             Table  1.1-4
                                  Arkansas  Power &  Light  Company
                                     Forecast Peak  Loads  (MW)
                                      (Without AECC and CWL)
1.   Load
2.   Firm purchase
3.   Load responsibility (1  - 2)
4.   Owned capability
5.   Capability under contract
6.   Total capability (4 + 5)
7.   Capability over (under) load (6 - 3)
8.   16% of load responsibility for reserves
9.   AP&L reserves-excess (deficiency) (7  - 8)
1983
Without
Independence
Unit One
4406
220
4186
4566
25
4591
405
670
) (265)

With
Independence
Unit One
4406
220
4186
4986
25
5011
825
670
155
1985
Without
Independence
Unit Two
4738
70
4668
4842
25
4867
199
747
(548)

With
Independence
Unit Two
4738
70
4668
5262
25
5287
619
747
(128)

-------
                                             Table 1.1-5
                             Middle South Utilities Load and Capability
                                      Forecast Peak Loads (MW)
                                       (Without AECC and CWL)
                                                        1983
1985
1.  Capability with gas curtailment
2.  Purchases without reserves
3.  Total capability (1 + 2)
4.  System maximum load
5.  Firm sales with reserves
6.  Firm purchases with reserves
7.  Load responsibility (4+5-6)
8.  Margin in excess of load (3 - 7)
9.  Desired reserve (16.0% of 7)
10. Percent margin in excess of load  (8 * 7)
11. Capacity in excess of desired reserves
Without
Independence
Unit One
15088
371
15459
13871
3
397
13477
1982
2156
14.7
(174)
With
Independence
Unit One
15508
371
15879
13871
3
397
13477
2402
2156
17.8
246
Without
Independence
Unit Two
17205
371
17676
15561
3
248
15316
2260
2451
14.8
(191)
With
Independence
Unit Two
17625
371
17996
15561
3
248
15316
2680
2451
17.5
229

-------
                             Table  1.1-6
                   Arkansas Power & Light Company
                 Percent of Generation by Fuel  Type
    Year
    1970
    1971
    1972
    1973
    1974 -
    1975
    1976
    1977 (January to
            October)
Percent
Natural Gas
94.9
82.8
69.5
47.1
42.6
26.6
12.8
4.3
Oil
3.8
16.2
29.1
49.1
52.1
22.6
43.9
54.6
Nuclear Fuel




2.3a
49.1
42.3
40.4
From December 19,  1974  to  end of period.
                                  1.1-18

-------
    Actual

Year     _MW
1965      184
1966      209
1967      225
1968      269
1969      327
1970      360
1971      413
1972      476
1973      529
1974   ... .617
1975      625
1976      685
1977      734
                                        Table  1.1-7
                         Arkansas  Electric  Cooperative  Corporation
                             Historical  and Forecast  Peak  Loads
                                            (MW)
Forecast
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
REA Power
Requirements
Study
979
1103
1243
1401
1579
1779
2005
2260
2547
AECC Revision
July 1977
849
943
1048
1162
1289
1432
1590
1766
1961
NERA
826
890
958
1019
1084
1150
1220
1290
1342

-------
                                                       Table  1.1-8
                                      Arkansas  Electric Cooperative  Corporation
                                                   Forecast Peak Loads
                                                          (MW)
                                                                1983
                                                                                         1985
ro
o
1.  Capability
2.  Purchases without reserves
3.  Total capability (1+2)
4.  System maximum load
5.  Firm sales with reserves
6.  Firm purchases with reserves
7.  Load responsibility (4+5-6)
8.  Margin in excess of load
       responsibility (3 - 7)
9.  Desired reserve (15% of 7)
10. Percent margin in excess of load
       responsibility (8^7)
11. Capacity in excess of desired reserves
Without
Independence
Unit One
1070
1070
1432
189
1243
(173)
186
(14)
(359)
With
Independence
Unit One
1315
1315
1432
189
1243
72
186
6
(114)
Without
Independence
Unit Two
1315
1315
1766
189
1577
(202)
237
(13)
(439)
With
Independence
Unit Two
1560
1560
1766
189
1577
(17)
237
(1)
(254)
        AECC July 1977 revised forecast

-------
1.2  SULFUR DIOXIDE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
     The following presents the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)  system
and the Low Sulfur Coal (LSC) alternatives for meeting SOp emission  and
ambient standards.  The comparison between these alternatives  and  the
rational for the selection of the preferred system are presented.
1.2.1  Environmental Impact
     The FGD system, assuming a 3.5 percent sulfur coal  with FGD,  has
three adverse environmental impacts not shared with LSC.  These impacts
include:
  0  Most of the FGD systems produce a large quantity of sludge which,
     although added to the ash storage at most plants, significantly
     increases the volume of the solid waste storage requirements  of the
     plant.  The Independence Steam Electric Station would require 30 to
     40 thousand acre feet of additional solid waste disposal  volume
     over the life of the plant.  Such solid waste is an environmental
     impact which is not reversible.  The sludge can be covered but  not
     removed.
  0  Most FGD systems require limestone products as agents to react  with
     and stabilize the SOp in the effluent gas streams.   This limestone
     must be mined, usually in strip mines or quarries,  thereby causing
     adverse impacts to these regions.  The volume of limestone to be
     provided is 6 to 8 million cubic yards over the plant lifetime.
 0   The FGD systems cool and moisten the stack gases while performing
     the SOp removal functions.  This results in reduced plume rise  from
     the stack and reduced local dispersion of the residual SOp not
     scrubbed, and all the NO  and remaining particulates.  Also,  these
                             /\
     cooled and moistened flue gases tend to increase stack maintenance
     costs.  Alternatively, the stack gases can be reheated to return
     the plume rise to its original value.  Such reheating requires
     more energy expenditures per unit of electric generation than
     stacks without reheat, thereby wasting valuable natural resources.
                                    1.2-1

-------
     The direct environmental impacts of LSC are more favorable than
those of FGD systems.  There is a secondary impact to LSC which may be
unfavorable in comparison with FGD systems, however.
     Because more LSC is mined in western states, like Wyoming, and
because higher sulfur eastern coal is generally higher in Btu content
per unit weight of coal, LSC will require more unit train miles than the
eastern coal.  Eastern trains, however, affect more people per train
mile than western trains.  The differential secondary impact for LSC
western coal over that for higher sulfur eastern coal may be significant
for steam electric stations east of the Mississippi River, locations
farther from the LSC source and nearer to the higher sulfur eastern
coal.  It would appear, for the Independence Steam Electric Station,
that the western LSC unit train impact is not greatly different from the
unit train impact of the eastern coal due to its more westerly location.
     It may be concluded that at a fixed level of SCL emission per unit
of electric generation, the FGD system has a more severe environmental
impact than the use of low sulfur coals at the Independence Steam Elec-
tric Station.  Also, when LSC achieves the same SCL emission rate per
million Btu as that achieved by FGD, resulting ambient conditions are
the same as or better than with FGD systems.  It remains to examine the
economic differences between the flue gas desulfurization and the low
sulfur coal systems.
1.2.2  Flue Gas Desulfurization at Independence Steam Electric Station
     The costs of a flue gas desulfurization system are difficult to
estimate because the technology of these systems has not been fully
stabilized.  There are costs of flue gas desulfurization systems which
are related to normal capital and operating costs for the equipment.  In
evaluating these costs it is usually assumed that the operational re-
liability of the systems has been established.  For flue gas desul-
furization systems this is not the case, however.  There are additional
dollar costs due to system unreliability which are difficult to define
but are a very real part of the costs of these systems.  The reliability
                                    1.2-2

-------
of flue gas desulfurization systems in the United States is  summarized
in the following section.
1.2.2.1  Reliability of Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems
     Kansas Power & Light and Union Electric installed the first full-
scale flue desulfurization systems (limestone injection into the boiler
followed by scrubbing downstream) in the U. S.  in 1968.  Since then
there has been a succession of scrubbers, principally of the lime-
limestone type, each different in design, as the engineering companies
sought to find answers to the very difficult technical questions en-
countered.  At each step of the way, regulatory agencies have tended  to
assume that an acceptable level of technology has been developed, not-
withstanding the fact that the developers were abandoning accepted
technology and were developing others to combat deficiencies.
     The fact that vendors have altered their systems indicates un-
satisfactory operation of the units already installed.  This is borne
out by the operating history of these systems.   The system reliability
in some has been quite low; and where reliability was acceptable, it  was
at the expense of extensive modifications and maintenance, redundant  FGD
units, boiler capacity reduction, periodic open-loop operations or other
environmentally unacceptable liquid waste stream disposal, or because
low boiler load factors allowed the scrubbers to be cleaned  and main-
tained during shutdowns.  The experience also has shown that promising
results from pilot plants and small units are not the harbingers of
successful large, full-scale operation.
     Information regarding operating characteristics of U. S. scrubbers
is maintained by PEDCo under contract to USEPA.  A summary of PEDCo
information, limited to coal burning steam electric stations of greater
than 150 MW capacity, is shown in Table 1.2-1.   This table shows only 12
scrubbers in operation in the U. S., and the experience of these 12
shows that 7 have serious operational problems, 2 are very new and have
little operational experience, and 2 have not reported operational data;
leaving only 1 operational plant with fully successful operations.
It is concluded that the indirect cost burdens  of FGD, because of
                                    1.2-3

-------
unreliable operations and extensive maintenance, are likely to be quite
high, if scrubber installation is required.  In light of experience in
Japan, it is also quite likely that U. S. scrubber technology will  make
rapid strides in the next 5 to 10 years in terms of reduced maintenance
costs and lower down times.  These improved operational  characteristics
are still unknown and cannot be attributed to present installations.
1.2.2.2  Scrubber Direct Cost Burden
     Industry experience has demonstrated that, aside from reliability
and maintenance problems, FGD scrubbers add measurably to construction
and operating costs resulting in a significant increase in the rate
payer's bills.  Moreover, the costs typically reported for specific
installations are lower than actual costs incurred; this discrepancy
appears as a result of incomplete accounting of all FGD costs incurred
such as those associated with the design and planning, capital and
operational costs, construction, waste disposal, etc.
     In the NUS Inc. studies of alternative coals (EIS Section 3.1.3.1),
the cost per million Btu of western low sulfur coal was compared with
the cost of a 1.72 percent sulfur Illinois coal.  These costs were com-
pared for all levels of scrubbing and included transportation, mine
mouth coal, and scrubber costs.  It was shown that low sulfur western
coal was a lower cost fuel than Illinois coal at all levels of sulfur
dioxide removal.
     Mr.  A. V. Slack, an expert on desulfurization processes, has exam-
ined costs for installation of scrubbers at Independence Steam Electric
Station where 90 percent scrubbing of 3.5 percent sulfur fuel is as-
sumed.   These costs are in the range of $80.00 - $90.00 per kilowatt
rated capacity and 4.42 mills per kilowatt hour operating costs.
1.2.3  Preferred Alternative
     The costs in both environmental  expense and in monetary amount
indicate the advantage of the low sulfur coal system.  It is therefore
concluded that the use of the low sulfur coal to satisfy emission and
ambient S0  standards is preferred over flue gas desulfurization systems.
                                  1.2-4

-------
                                                  Table 1.2-1

                              Large "Operational" Scrubbers in the United States
                                                                 Page 1  of 2
Owner

Columbus & Southern
   Conesville #5
Commonwealth Edison Co.
   Will Co. #1
Duquesne Light Co.
   Elrama
^   Duquesne Light Co.
'       Phillips
Kansas City Power &
   Light Co.
   LaCygne #1
Kansas Power &
   Light Co.
   Lawrence #5
Montana Power Co.
   Col strip #1
Rating
% Sulfur

400 MM
4.5-4.9
167 MW
4.0
                                                      Process
                                                      Startup

                                                      Lime
                                                      2/77
                                                      Limestone
                                                      2/72
               Experience
               1/77   2/77
                     4/77
510 MW              Lime
1.0-2.8             10/75
(Only 200 MW coupled
to scrubber system)
                              410 MW
                              1.0-2.8
820 MW
5.0
(Output reduced to
700 MW because of
scrubber)

400 MW
0.5
360 MW
0.8
                    Lime
                    7/73
                                                      Limestone
                                                      2/73
                                                      Limestone in-
                                                      jection & wet
                                                      scrubbing
                                                      11/71

                                                      Lime/Alkaline
                                                      fly ash scrubbing
                                                      10/75
—     —      —     43***  NO     30***  50***
Fire damage to one unit.  Data reflects 2nd unit
only.

42*    48*     49*    44***  70***  49***  20***
Continuously plagued with problems.  Figures are
average for two units.

Continuous problems since startup, no reliability
data given.  Reliability is enhanced by running
two scrubbers at partial load.  Full continuous
operation not expected until 1978.

Many problems, operability index was 28 percent
between July 73 to October 76.  Peak load oper-
ation, full compliance expected December 77.
94**  90**
93**   93**    92**   92**
Consisted of 7 modules, one of which must be cleaned
each night on a rotational  basis, requiring 30-36
man hours.  Plagued with problems since startup;
1977 modifications included 8th module.

NO     ND      NO     NO      ND     ND     NO
Numerous and continued problems, switched to low
sulfur Wyoming coal.  Construction of lime scrubbing
system is in progress.

ND

-------
                                             Table 1.2-1  (Continued)
                                        Page 2 of 2
                              Rating
Owner                         % Sulfur

Montana Power Co.              360 MW
   Col strip #2                0.8
Northern States Power Co.      710 MW
   Sherburne Co.  Sta. #2      0.8
Northern States Power Co.      680 MW
   Sherburne Co. St.  # 1       0.8

Pennsylvania Power Co.        835 MW
   Bruce Mansfield #1         4.7
Springfield City Utilities    200 MW
   Southwest #1                3.5
Process
Startup

Lime/Alkaline
fly ash scrubbing
7/76

Limestone
3/76
Limestone
4/77

Lime
4/76
Limestone
4/77
               Experience
11/76  12/76   1/77   2/77    3/77   4/77   5/77

ND
93**   95**    90**   91**    95**   95**   ND
Crew of 70 people required to maintain scrubber
operations.
                                     77**   91**
100**  100**   ND     ND      ND     ND     ND
Availability has been in mid 90 percent since
startup.

Testing started in April 77; many mechanical
corrosion problems.
*Reliability, expressed as a percentage, is the hours  the  scrubber operated divided by the hours the scrubber was
              called on to operate.

**Availability, expressed as a percentage,  is the hours  the scrubber was available for operation (whether operated
                or not) divided by the hours in the  period.

***0perabi1ity, expressed as a percentage,  is the hours  the scrubber operated divided by the hours the boiler
                operated.

ND = No data provided

Reference:  Summary Report - Flue Gas Desulfurization  Systems,  May-June 1977, PEDCo Environmental  Inc.

-------
1.3  REFERENCES

Hollinden, G. A., and others of Tennessee Valley Authority Power Research
     Staff, 1977, Flue gas desulfurization.  Technical paper prepared for
     presentation at the Air Pollution Control Conference, American
     Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Slack, A. V., 1975, Status of flue gas desulfurization, Technical report
     prepared for AP&L.

          , 1977, Technology for power plant emissions control, survey
     of developments in Japan, Technical report prepared for AP&L.

    	, undated, Design considerations in lime-limestone scrubbing.
•U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, Flue gas desulfurization in
     power plants, status report.
                                   1.3-1

-------
                 PART 2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT



          PART 2



  SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

2.1  BASELINE CONDITIONS	2.1-1

     2.1.1  Local Environment 	  2.1-1
     2.1.2  Flow Characteristics	2.1-2
     2.1.3  Derived Floods	2.1-3
     2.1.4  Derived Low Flows	2.1-5
     2.1.5  Arkansas Water Quality Standards	2.1-5
     2.1.6  Ambient Water Quality 	  2.1-10
     2.1.7  Water Quality and Sediment Field Monitoring
              Program 	  2.1-11

            2.1.7.1  Methods	2.1-13
            2.1.7.2  Results	2.1-14

     2.1.8  Water Discharges	  2.1-14

2.2  CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 	  2.2-1

     2.2.1  Chemical and Biological Pollutants	2.2-1
     2.2.2  Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent 	  2.2-2

            2.2.2.1  BOD	2.2-2
            2.2.2.2  Chlorine	2.2-3

2.3  OPERATION IMPACTS	2.3-1

            2.3.1  Temperature	2.3-1
            2.3.2  Slowdown Reconcentration 	  2.3-1
            2.3.3  Chemicals Present in Drainage	2.3-2

                   2.3.3.1  Combined Makeup 	  2.3-2
                   2.3.3.2  Slowdown	2.3-3
                   2.3.3.3  White River	2.3-3

            2.3.4  Chemical Additives	2.3-4

                   2.3.4.1  Chlorine  .	2.3-4
                   2.3.4.2  Sulfuric Acid	2.3-4

            2.3.5  Overflow of Surge Pond	2.3-6

2.4  REFERENCES	2.4-1

-------
                                TABLES
                                                                   Page
2.1-1  Flow Characteristics of White River 	    2.1-16
2.1-2  Major Historical Floods on White River
       (Batesville to Newport)	    2.1-17
2.1-3  Historical Low Flows White River at Calico Rock 	    2.1-18
2.1-4  Historical Low Flows White River at Newport 	    2.1-19
2.1-5  Ambient Water Quality White River at Oil  Trough 	    2.1-20
2.1-6  Results of Water Quality Analyses from the
       Independence Site Area  	    2.1-21
2.1-7  Results of Laboratory Analyses of Water from the
       Independence Site Area  	    2.1-23
2.1-8  Results of Analyses on Sediments Collected from
       the White River in the Site Area	    2.1-26
2.1-9  Significant Industrial Dischargers in the
       White River Basin 	    2.1-27
2.3-1  Effects of Slowdown Discharge on Chemical Water
       Quality Parameters	    2.3-8

                                FIGURES
2.1-1  Historical movement of White River at Hulsey Bend .  .  .   2.1-29/30

-------
                              PART 2
                      SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

2.1  BASELINE CONDITIONS
2.1.1  Local Environment
     As discussed in EIS Section 5.2.1.1, the Independence Steam Elec-
tric Station is on the floodplain to the north of the White River,
between Oil Trough and Newport.  Due to the relatively flat land gra-
dients between these two locations, the White River meanders within this
region.  The site is to the north of a pronounced meander known as
Hulsey Bend (EIS Figure 5.2-2).  Bear Wallow Slough is a small, low-
lying drainage feature approximately 0.75 mile in length which subtends
the lower portion of Hulsey Bend.  In the past, during periods of high
flow, a portion of the White River flow may have traveled across Bear
Wallow Slough rather than following the longer path along Hulsey Bend.
During periods of severe flooding, however, a considerable amount of
inundation within the entire floodplain takes place, and exact flow
paths are impossible to determine.  Due to the regulation of flood flows
provided since the construction of Beaver, Bull Shoals, Table Rock, and
Norfork Reservoirs upstream of the site (EIS Figure 5.2-1), it is un-
likely that flows of the magnitude which created Bear Wallow Slough will
again occur during the 30-year project lifetime.  Data provided in EIS
Section 5.2.1.2 indicate that floods of record prior to 1945 at Batesville,
approximately 23 river miles upstream of the site, frequently exceeded
the largest flood which can be reasonably expected under present regulated
conditions.
     Ongoing processes of scour and sedimentation have, through time,
produced changes in the course of the White River.  The rate of change
of the river course in the plant vicinity may be assessed by the com-
parison of photographs taken of the river at widely different times.
Figure 2.1-1 is such a comparison, showing the river course at Hulsey
Bend at four periods from 1853 to 1976.  The base map was reproduced
from aerial photographs taken in November 1976 and represents conditions
                                 2.1-1

-------
as they presently exist.  The 1853 and 1961  river courses,  which   are
superimposed on the base map, were reproduced from the Newport, Arkansas
15-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle.   The
1949 river course also shown was reproduced  from aerial  photographs
obtained from the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers.   The com-
posite figure illustrates the changes of the river course during  this
123 year time span.  The most radical changes have occurred at the
farthest upstream portion of the bend, where the river course  changes
from roughly easterly, counterclockwise through north, to roughly westerly.
The movement of the river course at this location has  been  generally to
the northeast.  It is significant to note that the river moved approxi-
mately 400 feet at this location during the  14 years between 1961  and
1976.  Smaller rates of movement at this point occurred, however, prior
to 1961.  While it is not possible to quantitatively predict the  future
movement of the Hulsey Bend, future use of the White River  will have to
consider the possibility of such movement.
2.1.2  Flow Characteristics
     The nearest streamflow gaging station to the site on the White
River is number 07074500 at Newport, approximately 12 river miles  down-
stream at the U.S. Highway 67 bridge.  While its location is relatively
close to the site, it is downstream of the confluence of the Black
River.  Hence, its contributing drainage area of 19,860 square miles  is
considerably greater than the 11,270 square miles at the site.  An
average discharge of 23,020 cubic feet per second (cfs) has been recorded
at the Newport station over the 42 year period of record beginning in
September 1927.  The maximum recorded discharge was 343,000 cfs in April
1945, and the minimum was 2870 cfs in September 1954.
     Upstream of the plant site, the nearest currently operating stream-
flow gaging station on the White River is number 07060500 at Calico
Rock.  This station, at the Arkansas Highway 5 bridge about 90 river
miles upstream of the site, has a contributing drainage area of 9973
square miles.  While its location is farther from the site than the
Newport gaging station, its drainage area is more closely equivalent  to
                                 2.1-'2

-------
the 11,270 square miles at the site.   An annual  average  discharge of
10,160 cfs has been recorded at the Calico Rock  station  over  the 36-year
period of record beginning in October 1939.   The maximum recorded dis-
charge at the station was 310,000 cfs in April 1945,  and the  minimum was
305 cfs in September 1954 (USGS, 1976).
     In order to permit a quantitative evaluation of  the seasonal flow
characteristics of the White River in the site vicinity, the  average
monthly flows at Calico Rock (drainage area  of 9978 square  miles) and
Newport (drainage area of 19,860 square miles) were computed  using  the
ten most recent years of published data (USGS, 1967-75,  1976).  These
data (Table 2.1-1) indicate that the  month having the highest average
flow is April and the month having the lowest average flow  is October.
In order to estimate the corresponding average monthly flow of the  White
River at the site, flows were derived by interpolation between the  two
locations based on the site drainage  area of 11,270 square  miles.   In-
cluded in Table 2.1-1 are the estimated average  monthly  flows at the
plant site, and the maximum, minimum, and average daily  flows which were
derived in an analogous manner.
2.1.3  Derived Floods
     The Standard Project Flood (SPF) and 100-year flood have been
recently determined by the Corps of Engineers at Batesville and Newport
in connection with Flood Plain Information Reports prepared for these
communities.  These flood discharges  for the White River at Batesville
(drainage area of 11,070 square miles) and at Newport (drainage area of
19,860 square miles) are shown in EIS Table  5.2-2 (U.S.  Army  Corps  of
Engineers, 1973, 1974).  Estimates of the corresponding  flood discharges
at the Arkansas Highway 122 bridge near the  site are  also included  in
EIS Table 5.2-2, and were derived by  interpolation between  the two
locations based on the site drainage  area of 11,270 square  miles.
     In addition to the SPF and 100-year flood,  floods having return
periods of 50, 20, and 10 years were  determined.  These  discharge val-
ues, shown in EIS Table 5.2-2, were derived  during a  study  of flood flow
characteristics of the White River for the new Arkansas  Highway 122
                                 2.1-3

-------
bridge near Oil Trough (USGS, 1973).  This report also contains a
rating curve for the White River at the bridge location (Figure 2.1-1)
which permitted the determination of the flood stages up to the 50-year
event.  To determine the stages for the SPF and the 100-year flood, the
rating curve was extrapolated using the historical flood elevations at
Oil Trough shown in Table 2.1-2.
     The bridge itself will induce local variations in flow which can
result in flood stages slightly different from those which appear in EIS
Table 5.2-2 for natural (pre-construction) conditions.  The predominant
effect of bridge construction will be to increase flood stages upstream
of the bridge due to backwater.  For example, it has been determined
that backwater from the Arkansas Highway 122 bridge will increase the
stage of the 50-year flood by 0.50 foot at the bridge, and by 0.45 foot
upstream of the bridge at Oil Trough (USGS, 1973).  A very slight draw-
down of natural flood stages will also occur downstream of the bridge,
but this effect will be localized and will not significantly affect
flood stages at the plant site.  Due to the nature of subcritical flow,
backwater effects occur only in the direction upstream of the structure
(i.e., bridge) which controls the flow.  Since the Arkansas Highway 122
bridge is upstream of the plant site, it cannot control flow condition
at the plant site.  Therefore, the flood stages and discharges which
appear in EIS Table 5.2-2 represent baseline conditions in the site
vicinity.  Information on floods of historical record is given in
Table 2.1-2.
     Because the plant site is relatively close to the Black River,
flood stages at the site may be influenced by backwater from the Black
River. The effect of the Black River is incorporated into the values
which appear in EIS Table 5.2-2, since the data at Newport (located
below the Black River confluence) include flow contributions by both the
White River and the Black River. In the event, of severe flooding on only
the Black River, some backwater effects on the White River in the plant
site vicinity would probably occur.  Since the White River itself would
not be at flood discharge, the backwater-induced state of the White
River would be less than if the White River itself had been assumed to
                                 2.1-4

-------
flood.  Therefore, the data presented in EIS Table 5.2-2 constitute the
controlling flooding conditions in the site vicinity, regardless of
whether flooding occurs on only the White River, only the Black River,
or on both rivers simultaneously.
2.1.4  Derived Low Flows
     In order to quantify the water supply potential of streams during
drought conditions, statistical frequency analyses are performed to de-
rive low flows having various probabilities of occurrence.  Low flows of
varying severity are assigned return periods, in a manner analogous to
levels of flooding.  The 100-year low flow has a return period of 100
years and will occur, on the average, once every 100 years.
     In addition to the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of
low flows, the duration of the low flow must also be determined.  For
example, the instantaneous low flow, the 1-day average low flow, and the
7-day average low flow would have different values even for the same
return period.  The analysis of flow durations associated with various
return periods is usually not performed for floods, since the predomi-
nant concern with floods is in determining the peak flow.  Statistics on
historical low flows are presented in Tables 2.1-3 and 2.1-4.
     The USGS performs low flow frequency and duration analyses as
described above at the locations of their streamflow gaging stations.
EIS Table 5.2-3 summarizes the results of their analyses at the Calico
Rock and Newport gaging stations for the 10-year frequency, 7-day dura-
tion and the 20-year frequency with durations from 1 to 90 days.  The
periods of streamflow record used in the analyses at Calico Rock and
Newport were 1953-76 and 1954-75 respectively.  These periods take into
account any low flow augmentation provided since the construction of the
upstream reservoirs.  Also included in EIS Table 5.2-3 are the estimated
low flows at the plant site, derived by interpolation based on the site
drainage area of 11,270 square miles.
2.1.5  Arkansas Water Quality Standards
     The use classifications for surface waters in the State of Arkansas
as defined by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(ADPCE, 1975) are presented in the following sections.
                                 2.1-5

-------
          Class AA: Extraordinary recreational and aesthetic
                    value.  Suitable for primary contact rec-
                    reation, propagation of desirable species
                    of fish, wildlife and other aquatic life,
                    raw water source for public water supplies,
                    and other compatible uses.
          Class A:  Suitable for primary contact recreation,
                    propagation of desirable species of fish,
                    wildlife and other aquatic life, raw water
                    source for public water supplies, and
                    other compatible uses.
          Class B:  Suitable for desirable species of fish,
                    wildlife, and other aquatic and semi-
                    aquatic life, raw water source for public
                    water supplies, secondary contact recrea-
                    tion and other uses.
     The fisheries classifications are defined as follows:
          W  Warm Water Fishery
          S  Smallmouth Bass Fishery
          T  Trout Fishery
     The White River is classified in the site vicinity as Use Class B
and Fisheries Class W.
     The Arkansas Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology has also
established specific physical and chemical water quality standards.
These standards, as they apply to the White River in the site vicinity,
are summarized below (ADPCE, 1975).
          (a)  Temperature - During any month of the year, heat shall
               not be added to any stream in excess of the amount
               that will elevate the temperature of the water more
               than 5°F, based upon the monthly average of the max-
         /•     imum daily temperatures as measured at mid-depth or
               5 feet, whichever is less.  The maximum temperatures
               due to man-made causes shall not exceed 93°F (33.9°C).
                                 2.1-6

-------
     The temperature requirements  shall  not apply  to  off-
     stream or privately-owned reservoirs  constructed pri-
     marily for industrial  cooling purposes and  financed
     in whole or in part by the entity or  successor entity
     using the lake for cooling purposes.
(b)  Color - True color attributable to municipal, indus-
     trial, agricultural or other  waste discharges shall
     not be increased in any waters to the extent  that it
     will interfere with present or projected future  uses
     of these waters.
(c)  Turbidity - There shall be no distinctly visible in-
     crease in turbidity of receiving waters attributable
     to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or  other
     waste discharges.  Specifically, in no case shall  any
     such waste discharge cause the turbidity to exceed
     50 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU).
(d)  Taste and Odor - Taste and odor producing substances
     attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural,
     or other waste discharges shall be limited  in re-
     ceiving waters to concentrations that will  not inter-
     fere with the production of potable water by  reason-
     able water treatment processes, or impart impalatable
     flavor to food fish, or result in offensive odors a-
     rising from the waters, or otherwise  interfere with
     the reasonable use of the water.
(e)  Solids, Floating Material, and Deposits - Receiving
     waters shall have no distinctly visible solids,  scum,
     or foam of a persistent nature, nor shall there  be
     any formation of slime, bottom deposits or  sludge
     banks, attributable to municipal, industrial, agri-
     cultural, or other waste discharges.
(f)  Oil and Grease - Oil,  grease  or petrochemical sub-
     stances, attributable to municipal, industrial,
     agricultural or other waste discharges shall not
                       2.1-7

-------
     be present in receiving waters to the extent that
     they produce globules or other residue or any visi-
     ble color film on the surface, or coat the banks
     and/or bottoms of the water course or adversely
     affect any of the associated biota.
(g)  pH - The pH of the water must not fluctuate in excess
     of 1.0 pH unit, within the range of 6.0 to 9.0, over
     a period of 24 hours.  The pH shall  not be below 6.0
     or above 9.0 due to wastes discharged to the receiving
     waters.
(h)  Dissolved Oxygen - The dissolved oxygen in the
     waters shall not be less than 5 milligrams per
     liter (mg/liter), and in streams this shall be the
     critical deficit point of the dissolved oxygen
     profile.  The only exceptions will be when per-
     iodic lower values are of natural origin and there-
     fore beyond control of the water user.  The dis-
     solved oxygen shall be determined by the average
     of concentrations in samples collected at quarter
     points across the river.
(i)  Radioactivity - The "Rules and Regulations for the
     Control  of Sources of Ionizing Radiation of the
     Division of Radiological Health, Arkansas State
     Board of Health," limits the maximum permissible
     levels of radiation that may be present in ef-
     fluents  to surface waters in uncontrolled areas.
     These limits shall apply for the purposes of
     these standards, except that in no case shall
     the levels of dissolved radium-226 and stron-
     tium-90  exceed 3 and 10 picocuries/liter, re-
     spectively, in the receiving waters after mixing,
     nor shall  the gross beta concentration exceed
     1000 picocuries/liter.
                       2.1--8.

-------
(j)  Bacteria - The Arkansas  State  Board  of  Health
     has the responsibility of approving  or  dis-
     approving surface waters for public  water  supply
     and of approving or disapproving  the suitability
     of specifically delineated outdoor bathing places
     for body contact recreation, and  it  has issued
     rules and regulations  pertaining  to  such uses.
     Otherwise, the fecal  coliform  content shall  not
     exceed a log mean of 1000/100  ml, nor equal  or
     exceed 2000/100 ml in  more than  10 percent of the
     samples taken in any 30-day period.   In all  streams,
     for purposes of routine  monitoring and  evaluation,
     fewer numbers of samples collected over longer
     periods may be used.
(k)  Toxic Substances - Toxic materials attributable
     to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other
     waste discharges, shall  not be present  in  re-
     ceiving waters in such quantities as to be toxic
     to human, animal, plant  or aquatic life or to
     interfere with the normal propagation of aquatic
     life.  For any toxicants, concentrations in  the
     receiving waters after mixing  shall  not exceed
     0.01  of the ninety-six (96) hour  Median Toler-
     ance Limit (TLm), unless they  can be shown to
     be nonpersistent and noncumulative,  and to ex-
     hibit no synergistic interactions with  other
     waste or stream components.  In  no case shall
     concentrations exceed  0.05 of  the 96-hour  TLm.
(1)  Mineral Quality - Existing mineral quality shall
     not be altered by municipal, industrial or other
     waste discharges so as to interfere  with other
     beneficial uses.  The  following  limits  represent
     concentrations of chloride, sulfate  and total
     dissolved solids (TDS) not to  be  exceeded  in more
                      2.1-9

-------
               than one (1) in ten (10) samples:
                    Chloride:  20 mg/liter
                    Sulfate:  60 mg/liter
                    TDS:  430 mg/liter
          (m)  Nutrients - The naturally occurring nitrogen/phos-
               phorus ratio shall not be significantly altered
               due to municipal, industrial, agricultural  or
               other waste dishcarges, nor shall total phosphorus
               exceed 0.10 mg/liter due to any such discharges.   In
               the interim period until October 18, 1978,  appli-
               cation of this requirement will be considered on
               an individual case basis by the Department, ac-
               cording to ranking of wastewater treatment  priori-
               ties.
2.1.6  Ambient Water Quality
     The following comparison is made between the water quality  data
which appear in Table 2.1-5 and the Arkansas Water Quality Standards.
     (1)  Temperature - Maximum value of 78.8°F (26.0°C) is less than
          the maximum allowable of 93°F (33.9°C).
     (2)  Color - Maximum value of 40 platinum-cobalt units, average of
          8.9 platinum-cobalt units.
     (3)  Turbidity - Maximum value of 55 JTU exceeds the  maximum
          allowable of 50 JTU.   The average value of 8.8 JTU is  signi-
          ficantly below the maximum allowable limit.
     (4)  Taste and Odor - not measured.
     (5)  Solids. Floating Material,  and  Deposits - not specifically
          measured.
     (6)  Oil and Grease - not measured.
     (7)  £H - Maximum value of 8.33 is less than the maximum allowable
          of 9.0.  Minimum value of 7.51  is greater than the minimum
          allowable of 6.0.
     (8)  Dissolved Oxygen - Minimum value of 7.08 mg/liter is greater
          than the minimum allowable of 5.0 mg/liter.
                                2.N10

-------
     (9)  Radioactivity - not measured.
    (10)  Bacteria - The maximum fecal coliform content of 1725/100 ml
          is less than the maximum allowable of 2000/100 ml.  The loga-
          rithmic mean fecal coliform content of 43/100 ml, as derived
          from the raw data, is also less than the maximum allowable of
          1000/100 ml.
    (11)  Toxic Substances - The concentration of toxicants is not
          measured in terms of the TLm, which is a biologic parameter.
          However, the mean, maximum, and minimum concentrations of
          various chemical constitutients which may be toxic to aquatic
          biota are contained in Table 2.1-5.
    (12)  Mineral Quality - The maximum chloride concentration of 8.0
          mg/liter is less than the maximum allowable of 20 mg/liter.
          The maximum sulfate concentration of 14.0 mg/liter is less
          than the maximum allowable of 60 mg/liter.  The maximum TDS
          concentration of 196 mg/liter is less than the maximum al-
          lowable of 430 mg/liter.
    (13)  Nutrients - The maximum total phosphorus concentration of 0.12
          mg/liter is greater than the maximum allowable of 0.10 mg/
          liter.  However, the average total phosphorus concentration of
          0.028 mg/liter is significantly less than the maximum limit.
     The water temperature data presented in Table 2.1-5 are based on 30
measurements made at Oil Trough between April 1974 and December 1976.
The nearest location to the site at which the White River water tem-
perature is continuously monitored is at Sylamore.  The Sylamore tem-
perature recording station, number 07060660, is in Izzard County roughly
70 miles upstream of the site; measurements were begun at this station
in October 1966.  The maximum recorded temperature at the station was
30.5°C (86.9°F) in July 1971, and the minimum was 1.0°C (33.8°F) in
February 1971 (US6S, 1976).
2.1.7  Water Quality and Sediment Field Monitoring Program
     Dames & Moore collected baseline water quality data from the White
River in the site vicinity in November 1976, May 1977, and July 1977.
                                 2.1-11

-------
Sampling was also conducted in Wall and Round Lakes during the July 1977
period.  All water quality sampling was accomplished in conjunction with
the aquatic ecological monitoring program  (TSD Part 5) conducted by Dames &
Moore.  Sampling efforts were scheduled with the intent of obtaining
data representative of the fall, spring, and summer seasons.  Sediment
samples were collected only during the summer effort at the White River
stations which are located closest to the  proposed intake and discharge
structures.
     Sampling stations on the White River were selected with the purpose
of providing data from points upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of
the site boundaries so that it would be possible to make meaningful com-
parisons between pre- and post-operational water quality data at a later
date, if necessary.  Stations 1 through 4 were designated, in accordance
with the above criteria, for intensive sampling during the fall program.
This field effort provided a greater familiarity with the site which,
coupled with a clearer definition of site boundaries, led to the addi-
tion of Stations 1A, 2A, and 5 in the spring and summer.  Of these three
stations, Station 5 was sampled intensively while the other two were
monitored only for parameters which could be measured in the field.
Detailed water quality analyses were eliminated at Station 4 during the
spring and summer because it was felt that Station 5 would provide
comparable data.
     In the summer, Stations 6 and 7, located on Wall and Round Lakes,
respectively, were added to the field sampling program.  These stations
were included since both lakes receive drainage from the site area and
eventually discharge into the White River.
     Sediments were collected only from Stations 2 and 2A during the
summer.  These sampling locations were chosen on the basis of their
proximity to the proposed intake and discharge structures.
     All sampling locations are shown on EIS Figure 5.2-2; a description
of each is provided in TSD Part 5.   Water quality parameters  measured
at all  locations during each sampling period are shown in Tables 2.1-6
and 2.1-7; parameters analyzed from sediment samples are presented in
Table 2.1-8.
                                 2.1-12

-------
2.1.7.1  Methods
     Dames & Moore selected Individual water quality parameters to be
monitored during the field sampling efforts on the basis of:  1) the
availability of Arkansas water quality criteria for that parameter;
2) the USEPA's definition of a parameter as a pollutant associated with
steam electric generating stations (USEPA, 1974a); and 3) the likelihood
that a particular substance would be released to the aquatic environment
as a result of plant construction and/or operational activities.  Particle
size and heavy metals were chosen as the parameters of concern for the
sediment samples due to their relationship to potential impacts from
sediment resuspension during construction activities.
     The following water quality parameters were measured in the field
with portable equipment:  air temperature, water temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and transparency.  A Yellow Springs
Instrument Company meter (YSI Model 57) was used to measure air and
water temperatures as well as dissolved oxygen levels.  The pH was
measured with a Fisher Accumet 150 meter during the fall and spring
programs, but a Taylor slide comparator was utilized during the summer
effort.  Specific conductivity measurements were made with a Yellow
Springs Instrument Company meter, YSI Model 33.  A Wildco #59 Secchi
disc, approximately 20 cm in diameter and divided into alternating black
and white quadrants, was used to determine transparency.  All meters
were calibrated at least twice daily, once before initiation of each
day's field efforts and again approximately mid-way through the day's
activities.  Field water quality measurements were made by lowering the
appropriate meter probes to a depth of approximately 0.2 m, allowing the
meter readings to stabilize, and then recording the results.  Secchi
disc readings were taken by lowering the disc and noting the water depth
at which it was no longer visible; this process was duplicated for each
transparency reading, and the recorded depths were averaged to give the
final measurement.
                                 2.1-13

-------
     In addition to the above field measurements, whole water samples
were collected at subsurface depths of approximately 0.2 m with an Alpha
bottle.  Samples were placed in containers with appropriate preserva-
tives and held on ice until laboratory analysis (Table 2.1-7).  With the
exception of BOD,- and fecal coliforms, all parameters were analyzed
within the recommended time frame (USEPA, 1974b; American Public Health
Association and others, 1976).  It was not always possible to complete
the field efforts and transport the samples to the laboratory within the
recommended holding times for BOD,, and fecal coliform samples, 6 hr and
8 hr, respectively.  In those instances in which the recommended time
limits coyld not be met, approximate holding times are noted on Table
2.1-7 along with analysis results.  Analyses of all parameters except
pesticides were performed in accordance with procedures outlined by the
USEPA (1974b) in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" or
with procedures included in "Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater" (American Public Health Association and others,
1971).  Pesticides were analyzed in accordance with methods cited in the
USEPA (1976) "Manual of Analytical Quality Control for Pesticides in
Human and Environmental Media."
     Sediment samples were collected with a plastic scoop, placed in a
plastic bag, and transported on ice to the laboratory for analysis.
Analytical procedures were performed in accordance with guidelines
presented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1976).
2.1.7.2  Results
     Results of water quality analyses conducted in the field during
each of the sampling programs are shown in Table 2.1-6; data derived
from laboratory analyses of water samples collected during these field
efforts are presented in Table 2.1-7.   The results of particle size and
heavy metal analyses of sediments are shown in Table 2.1-8.
2.1.8  Water Discharges
     Table 2.1-9 provides a summary of the significant industrial dis-
chargers in the White River basin within Arkansas.  A detailed description
                                 2.1-14

-------
of surface water discharges within the White River basin is provided in
"Arkansas Water Quality Inventory Report, 1975," published by the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (1976).
     Arkansas Eastman Company, a new unit of the Eastman Chemicals Di-
vision of Eastman Kodak Company, has begun work on a $30,000,000 chemi-
cal plant near Batesville.  Upon completion, it is estimated that employ-
ment will be approximately 200 persons and that the plant will produce
several organic chemical intermediates and hydroquinone.  The initial
annual capacity planned for hydroquinone production is estimated at
10,000,000 pounds.  Hydroquinone is an important chemical in photography
and other industrial uses.
     Arkansas Eastman has submitted complete plans and studies for con-
trol of both air and water discharges.  These plans have been approved
by the ADPCE.  The total cost of the wastewater treatment system for
Eastman is estimated at $2,200,000.  The State water discharge permit
requires that Eastman provide monitoring data of their treatment system
discharge, as well as downstream water quality.  After 6 months of
operation and monitoring, Arkansas Eastman and the ADPCE will assess the
need for additional monitoring of the effluent stream as well as stream
quality.  After complete treatment, the final effluent BODg concentra-
tion is expected to average 150 mg/liter from the industrial wastes.
                                 2.1-15

-------
                            Table 2.1-1
                Flow Characteristics of White River
                    Average Monthly Flows (cfs)
                  (October 1965 - September 1975)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Average
Maximum
Minimum
Period of
Calico Rock
(Mile 359.1)
13,580
15,230
14,550
16,095
14,101
8,382
9,248
8,658
7,256
6,930
9,066
12,007
Average
Over
10,160
310,000
305
Record 36 years
Plant Site
(Approx. Mile 270J
15,934
17,802
17,214
19,399
17,286
9,798
10,019
9,367
7,992
7,626
10,347
14,000
and Extremes Flows
Period of Record
11,841
314,315
640
- -
Newport
(Mile 257.6)
31 ,584
34,904
34,926
41 ,369
38,463
19,216
15,145
14,082
12,886
12,255
18,861
27,255

23,020
343,000
2,870
42 years
Note:  cfs = cubic feet per second
Source:  USGS, 1967-75, 1976
                                 2.7-16

-------
                                                       Table 2.1-2

                                         Major Historical  Floods  on  White River
                                                 (Batesville to Newport)
ro
•

i
          Date
                              White River at
                               Batesville,
                              datum 237.72,
                               Mile 300.1
Elevation
1915
1916
1927
1933
1938
1939
1943
1945
1949
1950
Apr 4,
May 9,
Feb 1,
Mar 17
Apr 3,
Apr 28










1957
1961
1969
, 1969
1969
, 1970
269.3
269.6
269.1
262.6
265.1
259.3
265.7
267.1
263.4
262.5
257.5
--
--
--
--
~ ~
                   White River at
                    Oil  Trough,
                   datum 200.00,
                    Mile 277.3
Elevation

  238.4
  238.0
  237.7
  2363
  237.2
                                                       237.4
                                                       236a
                                                       222.5
                                                       222.3
                                                       230.2
                 White River at
                   Newport,
                 datum 194.09,
                  Mile 257.6
Elevation

  228.0
                                              .4
                                              .7
                                              .2
                                              .5
                                              .4
  228.
  229.
  226.
  227.
  224.
  228.8
  230.0
  228.1
  226.2

  224.25
  224.1
  212.2
  214.8
  219.8
Discharge
   at
Batesville
  (cfs)

 373,000
 382,000
 369,000
 220,000
 260,000
 165,000
 281,000
 324,000
 236,000
 216,000
 124,000
Discharge
   at
 Newport
  (cfs)

280,000
303,000
387,000
199,000
259,000
144,000
304,000
343,000
260,000
194,000

130,000
125,000
                                                                           73,100
          d Estimated

          Note:   cfs = cubic feet/second

-------
                                                                Table 2.1-3
                                                          Historical Low Flows
                                                       White River at  Calico Rock
                      YEAR3         1 DAY      3 DAYS        7 DAYS        14 DAYS          30 DAYS           60  DAYS         90 DAYS
(V3
 I
CO
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
733
2400
310
1720
713
3890
1770
2070
1220
2450
1470
713
920
1340
870
1050
1910
1190
1630
761
848
2540
2280
958
1190
2750
342
2630
2620
4980
3280
3370
1620
2720
1880
1020
1090
1400
1200
1270
2150
1550
2080
906
1160
3290
3820
1130
1590
2880
412
3700
3950
5960
4150
3670
2310
3310
2800
1390
1480
1600
2040
2000
2660
2100
3290
1150
2080
5470
5470
1820
1620
3240
469
3710
4090
6460
4760
4010
2550
3530
2870
1690
1660
2130
2310
2430
2800
2680
4220
1490
3030
6000
7190
2140
1650
3620
498
3810
4240
6900
5360
4620
3040
3830
3610
1990
2110
3090
3050
2960
3220
3830
4820
1880
3780
7330
9500
2940
1780
4200
619
4100
4500
7510
6290
5170
3430
4040
4320
2190
2320
4000
3470
3460
5440
4320
5910
3630
4750
8320
11200
4320
1950
4810
883
4150
4760
7550
6720
5070
3730
4280
4340
2780
2820
4440
3950
4590
6540
4620
5880
4260
5760
12600
12200
4870
                      Note:   Low flows (cfs)  corresponding to indicated durations
                             cfs = cubic feet/second

                      a "Water Year," which begins on October 1  of the previous year and ends on September 30 of the indicated year

-------
                                                                   Table 2.1-4
                                                             Historical Low Flows
                                                            White River At Newport
ro
YEAR3
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1 DAY
5890
2870
4520
3880
11600
6900
6600
5520
5800
5800
4120
4440
5590
5290
4260
5350
5300
7420
3610
4530
11300
8790
3 DAYS
5990
2870
5160
4910
12100
7400
7030
5710
6120
6170
4210
4630
5840
5490
4400
5850
5730
7660
3830
4680
12000
9760
7 DAYS
6090
2960
6010
5790
12400
8020
7530
6060
6490
7120
4360
4980
7310
6010
5250
6590
6040
8570
4280
5710
13400
10700
14 DAYS
6370
3110
6120
5980
12800
8470
7610
6380
6700
7280
4580
5130
8040
6280
6060
6700
6610
9960
4520
6310
14000
12300
  30  DAYS
  6800
  3520
  6340
  6210
 15200
  9190
  8300
  6790
  6970
  7650
  5040
  5170
 8430
 7570
 6510
 8970
 7520
11100
 5130
 8010
15300
14600
  60  DAYS
  7400
  3580
  6570
  6600
 19400
 11000
  8880
  7050
  7130
  8280
  5920
  6490
 8740
 8000
 7100
11100
 8310
12300
 6120
 9580
16600
17400
  90 DAYS
  7850
  3720
  6590
  6840
20300
12600
  9180
  7400
  7500
  8320
  6190
  6840
  9140
 8190
 8640
12000
 8370
12500
 6920
 9730
20500
18500
                     Note:  Lows flows (cfs)  corresponding to indicated durations
                           cfs = cubic feet/second
                     a  "Water Year," which begins on October  1 of the previous year and ends on September 30 of the indicated year.

-------
                                                            Table  2.1-5
                                        Ambient Water  Quality White River  at Oil Trough
PARAMETER
MEASURED

WATER
TURB
COLOR
CNDUCTVY-
00
DO
BOO
COO
PH
HC03 ION
C03 ION
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
N03-N
PHOS-fbf
TOT HARD
CALCIUM "'j'
CALCIUM
MGNSIUM
SODIUM
PTSSIUM
CHLORIDE
SULFATE
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGNESE
TINC "• *
TOT COLI
FEC"COLI
FECST«EP
ALORIN
.ODD
	 DOE"
DOT
OIELDRIN
ENOOSULN
....ENQ8.IN
TOXPHENE
HCHLR
HCHLR-EP
MTHXYCUR
MPARATHN
LINDANE
MERCURY

TEHP'
JKSN
PT-CO
AT 25C

" STf UR~
5 DAY
HI LEVEL

HC03
C03
TOTAL
OISS-105
TOT NFLT
..T.9TAL

CAC03
" "CAC03
CAiOISS
MGtDISS
NAtTOT
ktfof
CL
S04-TOT
AStTOT
' cQifoT
CRtTOT
"CUt'TOt
FEtTOT
P8.TOT
MN
ZNtTOT
MFIMENOO
MFM-FCBR
MF M-ENT
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
W'H'L SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL _
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL.
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
HGt TOTAL
NUMBER OF
UNITS MEASUREMENTS

CENT
JTU
UNITS
MICROMHO
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100ML
/100ML
/IOOML
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L _. 	
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
. _UG/k .. ..
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
30
29
29
30
30
30
30
1
30
11
9
29
29
30
29
30
11
11
11
11
11
11
22
22
20
19
20
20
20
19
19
19
33
34
15
3
2
3
3
	 3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
I
                                                     MEAN
                                                     VALUE

                                                     15.5333
                                                     8.80344
                                                     8.93103
                                                     264.333
                                                     9.93498
                                                     97.8333
                                                     1*66533
                                                     5.50000
                                                     8.06899
                                                     158.000
                                                     .000000
                                                     176.690
                                                     159 .JO 3
                                                     17.5667
                                                     .395172
                                                     .028033
                                                     137.273
                                                     88.5454
                                                     35.5454
                                                     11.9091
                                                     2.17272
                                                     1.11727
                                                     4.93182
                                                     4.72727
                                                     2.71515
                                                     1.63158
                                                     .600000
                                                     3.35000
                                                     250.350
                                                     4.94737
                                                     67.0526
                                                     2.33158
                                                     613.636
                                                     166.912
                                                     87.6000
                                                     .001000
                                                     .002000
                                                     .001000
                                                     .001667
                                                     .001000
                                                     .001000
                                                     .002333
                                                     .085667
                                                     ,001000
                                                     .001000
                                                     .0075QQ
                                                     .004333
                                                     .001000
                                                     .500000
 MAXIMUM
  VALUE

26.0000
55.0000
40.0000
315.000
12.4900
114.000
  .
5.50000
8.33000_
177.000
.000000
222.000
196., ppp.
78.0000
.960000
.120000
196.000
124.000
5P.POOO__
17.0000
4.10000
1.50000
8.00000
14.0000
3.00000
6.00000
3.00000
16.0000
1598.00
32*0000
241.000
21.0000
6000.00
1725.00
480.000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.001000
.OQ4000
.107000
.001000 .
.001000
.ouooo
.007000
.001000
•500000
MINIMUM
 VALUE

5.00000
2.20000
.000000
219.000
7.08000
84.0000
•090300
5.50000
7»5iopg
138.000
.000000
i47.PPP
1?7
-------
                                                       Table 2.1-6
                                                Results of Water Quality
                                       Analyses from the Independence  Site  Area3
     Page 1 of 2
               Station
1A
ro
i
ro
Date
Time
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
pH (units)
Specific Conductiv-
ity (umho/cm)
Transparency (m)
Station
Date
Time
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
pH (units)
Specific Conductiv-
ity (unho/cis)
Transparency (m)
11/02
1200
13.5
12.2
10.2
8.0
185
NDC

11/02
1430
14.5
13.5
10.7
7.6
215
>1.5
11/03
1020
10.0
11.8
9.7
8.1
200
1.4

11/03
1205
14.0
12.5
10.2
7.9
210
ND
11/04
1310
6.0
13.0
10.2
7.6
210
ND

11/04
1220
7.0
13.0
10.8
7.7
200
ND
5/18
1515
23.9
18.0
11.4
MIb
230
ND
2
5/18
1400
26.2
18.5
11.3
MI
230
ND
5/19
1200
25.5
18.0
10.2
MI
210
1.2

5/19
1250
24.5
17.1
10.1
MI
215
ND
7/26
1615
23.5
24.5
8.1
7.6
300
1.3

7/26
1510
24.8
24.8
8.1
7.6
JOO
1.1
7/28
1050
24.9
23.2
7.9
7.6
275
>1.2

7/28
1400
32.0
24.5
7.5
7.5
278
ND
7/29
1130
30.0
24.5
8.7
7.5
275
>1.2
5/17
1720
26.5
19.6
11.2
7.6
225
ND
2A
7/29
1150
32.5
25.0
7.1
7.6
278
ND
5/18
1250
28.0
19.5
9.1
MI
230
0.4
5/18
1620
25.9
18.2
11.1
MI
235
ND

7/29
1225
34.0
26.0
6.1
7.6
285
ND
7/26
1710
23.0
24.8
8.4
7.6
300
>0.3










-------
 I
F\>
ro

Station Number.
Date
Time
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
pH (units)
Specific Conductiv-
ity (pmho/cm)
Transparency (m)
Station Number
Date
Time
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
pH (units)
Specific Conductiv-
ity (iimho/cm)
Transparency (m)


11/03
1450
12.0
13.0
10.1
7.8
210
ND

5/16
1515
27.0
19.5
8.1
7.9
230
0.7


11/04
1030
8.0
13.0
11.0
7.2
200
ND

5/17
1015
26.0
20.0
10.4
7.6
225
1.1


5/17
1305
28.0
19.5
10. '


0

5/18
1850
22.5
18.4
10.7
MI
230
0.8
IdDie

5/18
1040
26.0
18.0
6
MI
225
ND
5
5/19
1350
25.0
17.5
9.5
MI
215
1.0
£.1-0 \\*
3
5/19
1315
25.9
17.5
9.9
MI
215
ND

7/26
1115
22.5
25.4
7.7
7.5
300
ND
oncinue

7/26
1325
22.0
4.5
7.0
7.6
300
0.9

7/28
1730
30.0
24.8
7.7
7.4
285
1.2
a; Page 2 of 2
4
7/28 7/29
1455 1240
27.5 35.5
25.0 25.0
7.9 5.3
7.6 7.5
270 285
1.5 1.2
11/03 11/04 5/16 7/28
1600 1100 1630 1615
14.0 8.0 26.2 29.2
13.2 13.0 23.2 24.5
9.7 10.4 8.1 7.9
8.0 7.7 8.2 7.6
210 205 235 285
1.5 ND >0.2 >0.3
6 7
7/29 7/27 . 7/29
1320 1430 , 1610
34.0 23.0 39.0
26.5 24.2 37.5
6.8 6.5 8.7
7.5 Td T
290 252 320
1.1 <0.03 <0.03
7/27 7/29
1615 1550
21.5 38.0
24.0 37.5
6.0 9.1
7.6 7.6
255 355
0.08 0.08
                     Mean daily White River flow (cfs) at Batesville dam:
                          11/02 :  6400  5/16  : 6000    7/26  : 2800
                          11/03 : 13600  5/17  : 5500    7/27  : 2200
                          11/04 :  8500  5/18  : 10,000  7/28  : 1500
                                         5/19  : 6500    7/29  : 1200
                     Source:  Mines, Marion (US6S) and Bob Rentschler (Corps of
                              Engineers), 1977, Personal communications;
                              From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' data.
 Water quality measurements made about 0.2m below the
 water surface. Stations are shown on EIS Figure 5.2-2.
 MI - meter inoperable
CND - no data collected; water flow too swift for Secchi
 disc reading
 Too turbid for pH measurement with color comparator

-------
                                                           Table 2.1-7

                                                Results of Laboratory Analyses of .
                                             Water from the Independence Site Area*
                                                                                                         Page  1  of  3
 I
INS
Station Number
Date
Turbidity0
pH (pH units)
Color (color
units)*5
Total Hardness
(as CaCo3)
Carbonate Alka-
linity (as CaCo3)
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCo3)
Ammonia6
Nitrite - N
Nitrate - Nf
Organix Nitrogen
Orthophosphate
(as P)
Total Phosphorus
(as P)f
Chloride
Sulfate
Silica
11/4
<0.4
7.7
5
106
0 .
134
<0.1
<0.01
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.02
7.7
3
2.8
1
5/19

-------
                                                        Table 2.1-7  (Continued)
Page 2 of 3
ro
Station Number
Date
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Suspended
Solids
BOD59
CODh
Oil and Grease
Detergents
Phenols
Calcium
Chromium1'
Copper^
Ironf
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury (u9/l)
Zincf
Fecal Conforms*
Pesticides
Atrizine
Treflan
11 /4b
139
1.8
<1
<3
<1
<0.025
<0.005
26
<0.05
0.03
0.12
-
10.2
-
0.01
4

-
_
1
5/19
188
11.6
214
<20
<1
0.080
<0.005
28.3
<0.1
<0.05
<0.1
-
11.7
-
0.06
46

<0.01
<0.6l
7/29
400
<0.1
0.7
<15
<1
0.026
<0.005
23.2
<0.02
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
14.9
<0.2
<0.005
8

<0.01
<0.01
2
11/4 5/19
132 187
3.5 13.2
<1
<3
<1 <1
<0.025
<0.005
25 30.1
<0.05 <0.1
0.03 <0.05
0.17 <0.1
-
10 11.6
-
0.02 0.67
8 49

<0.01
<0.01
7/29
290
<0.1
1.0
<15
<1
<0.025
<0.005
23.9
<0.02
0.02
0.05
<0.05
15.0
<0.2
<0.005
7

<0.01
<0.01
11/4
130
5.0
<1
<3
<1
<0.025

-------
                                                                  Table 2.1-7  (Continued)                                 Page  3 of 3
             aUnits expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/1) unless otherwise Indicated.
              Values shown In this column represent averages of results obtained for 2 water  samples collected consecutively at the station.
             cFall (11/4) and summer (7/29) values presented 1n nephelometrlc units; spring  (5/19)  values are presented as Jackson units.
              Measured at pH given above.
             eChange in analysis sensitivity due to elimination of "background"  ammonia  levels  present in laboratory.  Analysis methodology similar for all
                  sampling periods.
              Change in sensitivity due to use of more sensitive equipment.   Sample preparation for analysis same for each sampling period.
ro
'—>           ^Sensitivity for most BOD,- was higher in spring and summer than in  fall analyses .due to substitution of more sensitive method of dissolved
 '                 oxygen measurement.  Sample holding times were longer than the recommended  6-hour limit.  Maximum holding times for individual samples
tn                were approximately as follows:  Fall - St. 1, 10 hr.; St.  2 -  11.5 hr.;  St. 3, 13.5 hr.; St. 4, 12 hr.  Spring - St. 1, 9 hr.; St. 2,
                  8 hr.; St.  3, 7.5 hr.; St. 5, 7 hr.  Summer - St. 1, 11.5  hr.; St. 2,  11 hr.; St. 3. 10.5 hr.; St. 5, 9 hr.; St. 6, 6 hr.; St. 7, 7 hr.
              Sensitivity decreased in spring and summer due to laboratory determination that the procedure for detection of higher COD levels was more
                  reliable than that for low COD levels.
              Preservative not completely mixed In the sample.
             ^Sensitivity changes due to normal variability in sensitivity of atomic absorption unit.
              Change in apparent sensitivity of summer analyses due to utilization of a  different analysis method which yields results comparable to the
                  method used for previous analyses.  Results expressed as colonies /100 ml  in  fall and spring and MPN/100 ml In summer.  In some instances
                  the recommended sample holding time of 8-hours was exceeded.  See footnote  "g" for holding times.
             Note:  A dash (-) Indicates that samples were not collected for this parameter during  the particular sampling period.

-------
                                       Table  2.1-8
     Results of Analyses on Sediments  Collected  from the  White  River  in  the  Site  Area
                               (Summer 1977 Sampling Effort)
                                        Particle  Size  Distribution
                                           (Percent retained)
Station Number
     U.S.  Standard Sieve Number/Opening Size (mm)
                                   12/1.68
               20/0.840
            40/0.420
                           80/0.177
               PAN/<0.177
     2
     2A
16
 0
1.5
0
               3.2
               0
73
33
        7
       67
                                                          Metal  Analyses
                                                              (ppm)
Station Number
                          Parameter
                                         Cr
                   Cu
             Fe
                               Pb
             Hg
         Zn
     2
     2A
     1.70
     6.01
0.40
1.87
             649
            2870
   2.03
   7.45
0.08
0.12
 4.4
14.9

-------
                           Table 2.1-9

    Significant Industrial  Dischargers in the White  River  Basin


          Basin Rank     State Rank     Industry

               1            20          Helena Chemical  Company,
                                        West Helena

               2            27          Arkansas Technical  Industries
                                        Batesville

               3            28          Tharp Brothers Egg Plant,
                                        Hickory Flat

               4            32          General  Electric Company,
                                        Jonesboro

               5            33          Baxter Laboratories,
                                        Mountain Home

               6            37          Revere Copper & Brass,
                                        Newport

               7            39          Victor Metals Company,
                                        Newport

               8            49          Quality Metal Finishers,
                                        Batesville

               9            50          Aerojet Ordnance & Manufacturing,
                                        Batesville

              10            66          Silica Products Corp.,
                                        GUI on

              11            68          Marine Protein Corporation,
                                        Mammoth Spring

              12            77          Metal Art Frame Company,  Inc.,
                                        Hardy
Note:  Ranks, by magnitude of discharge, are those assigned by ADPCE (1976)



                               2.1-27

-------
LEGEND:	less
-1961
                                                    2000    i ooo
                                                          2000
        	1949   (BASE) 1976
                                                                                                                               Figure 2.1-1.
                                                              SCALE  IN FEET
                                                                                                                      Historical movement of
                                                                                                                      White River at Hulsey Bend,
                                                                                                                                                             2.1-29/30

-------
2.2  CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
2.2.1  Chemical and Biological Pollutants
     Pollution from petroleum products generally occurs from improper
disposal of waste material such as crankcase oil and various cleaning
solvents, leakage of fuels and oil from storage facilities, and damaged
or improperly maintained vehicles; fuel spills during equipment re-
fueling operations; and the use of oils for dust control on roadways.
     Herbicides and/or pesticides are used on some construction sites to
control undesirable vegetations, insects, and rodents.  The primary
causes of pollution from the use of these chemicals are in the improper
use, handling, and disposal of waste materials.
     Fertilizers are extensively utilized in the revegetation of areas
affected by grading operations.  Like herbicides and pesticides, the
primary causes of damaging pollution are improper use, i.e., applying
too much fertilizer or improper preparation of the ground surface prior
to applications.
     The biological pollutants which generally enter receiving streams
and other water bodies as an indirect result of construction activities
are primarily bacteria, fungi, worms, and viruses.  Biological pollution
is primarily a result of poor sanitary conditions at a construction
site; generally improper disposal of human wastes, garbage, and other
organic material.  The disturbance, exposure, and subsequent erosion of
surface soils that contain bacteria and other organisms are also con-
tributing factors.  Regardless of their origin, biological pollutants of
major concern are the pathogenic organisms associated with human wastes.
     The mitigation and/or prevention of this type of chemical and
biological pollution will be obtained through proper application, han-
dling, and disposal of these materials.  Also, programs to educate the
onsite personnel to the need for preventive measures to control this
pollution should aid in this process.  Some impact during construction
is unavoidable but it is not expected to be significant.
                                 2.2-1

-------
2.2.2  Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent
     The permanent package sewage treatment plant for the station is
designed to provide 90 percent BOD removal and a total chlorine residual
of 1.0 mg/liter after 20 minutes contact time.  The BOD of the effluent
stream from the treatment plant operating at its design capacity of
12,250 gal /day (0.019 cfs) is computed using the following equation:
          Cl •  t
Where, C, = BOD concentration of sewage effluent
       P  = percent BOD removal (90 percent)
       B  '= BOD content of sewage (35 Ib/day)
       Q, = flow of sewage effluent (12,250 gal/day)
Therefore, C] = 2.86 x 10"4 Ib/gal
              = 34.2 mg/liter
     Consistent with the requirements of the Arkansas Water Quality
Standards, the effects of wastes on the receiving stream must be deter-
mined after the wastes have been thoroughly mixed with the stream water,
providing that the mixing zone does not exceed 25 percent of the stream
cross sectional area and/or volume of streamflow.  To be conservative,
the potential impact on water quality resulting from the blowdown dis-
charge was computed during conditions of the 7-day average low flow
having a return period of 10 years.   This flow condition, is identified
in EIS Section 5.2.1.3 as the minimum flow below which the Arkansas
water quality standards do not apply, is approximately 1506 cfs in the
site vicinity.  Applying the 25 percent mixing zone criterion discussed
above, a minimum flow of approximately 376.5 cfs is available in the
White River for dilution of the sewage treatment plant effluent.
2.2.2.1  BOD
     The increase in BOD in the White River due to sewage effluent dis-
charge is computed using the following equation:
          C3 = (Q1C1
                                 2.2-2

-------
Where,    C- = fully mixed BOD concentration of White River mixing zone
          Q7 = flow of mixing zone under 10-year, 7-day low flow con-
           *   ditions
             = 376.5 cfs, as determined above
          C2 = ambient BOD concentration of White River at Oil Trough
               from Table 2.1-5 (4.2 mg/liter, maximum)
      Q,, C, = defined in previous formula
Therefore, C3 = 4.202 mg/liter
     The computed increase in BOD concentration in the White River
mixing zone, 0.002 mg/liter or less than 0.05 percent of the ambient, is
both beyond the accuracy of determination and insignificant.  Therefore,
no detectable reduction in dissolved oxygen levels or other impacts
associated with increased BOD are anticipated.
2.2.2.2  Chlorine
     The increase in chlorine concentration in the White River attri-
butable to sewage effluent discharge is computed using the following
equation:
          C6 = (Q2C4 + Q1C5)/(Q1 + Q2)
Where, Cg = fully mixed chlorine concentration in White River mixing
            zone
       C« = ambient chlorine concentration in White River
          = assumed to be zero
       C5 = chlorine concentration in sewage effluent
          =1.0 mg/liter, as determined above
  Q,, Q9  = as defined previously
                         -5
Therefore, Cg = 5.05 x 10   mg/liter
     A concentration of 5 x 10"  mg/liter total  chlorine residual rep-
resents such a small quantity that it is probably not detectable or is
impossible to measure accurately.   At that concentration, it would dis-
appear because the river water contains dissolved inorganic and some or-
ganic compounds which would consume the residual  chlorine.  Therefore,
no impacts associated with the sewage effluent chlorine residual are
anticipated.
                                 2.2-3

-------
2.3  OPERATION IMPACTS
2.3.1  Temperature
     The increase in temperature in the White River due to blowdown dis-
charge is computed using the following equation:
          T3 = (Q1T1 + Q2T2)/(Q1 + Q2)
     Where:
          T, = temperature of White River mixing zone
          Q, = flow of mixing zone under 10-year, 7-day low flow con-
               ditions [365 cfs:  Note, for operational low flow con-
               siderations, the maximum withdrawal makeup water of 45.5
               cfs is removed from the 10-year, 7-day low flow con-
               dition prior to determining the 25 percent mixing zone
               criterion (EIS Section 6.2.1.2).]
          T, = ambient temperature of White River at Oil Trough
            1   (Table 2.1-5)
          Q2 = flow of blowdown discharge (11.2 cfs)
          T« = temperature of blowdown discharged (95° F maximum)
Therefore, T3 = (365^ + 1064)/376.2
     The maximum recorded water temperature from Table 2.1-5 is 26.0°C
(78.8°F).  Under these conditions:
          T3 = 79.3°F
          AT = T3-T] = 79.3 - 78.8 = 0.5°F
     The minimum recorded water temperature from Table 2.1-5 is 5.0°C
(41.0°F).  Under these conditions:
          T3 = 42.6°F
          AT = Tg-Tj = 42.6 - 41.0 = 1.6°F
2.3.2  Blowdown Reconcentration
     The chemicals constituents in the plant blowdown will contain a
number of elements native to the White River, as shown in Table 2.1-5,
but concentrated approximately 4 to 6 times above the naturally oc-
curring levels.  The increase in concentration of these constituents
after mixing with the White River is computed as follows:
               C3 = (QjCj + Q2C2)/(Q1 + Q2)

                                 2.3-1

-------
     Where:
               C3 = concentration in White River mixing zone
               Q, = flow of mixing zone under 10-year, 7-day low
                    flow conditions (365 cfs)
               C, = ambient concentration of White River at Oil Trough
                 1   (Table 2.1-5)
               Q2 = flow of blowdown discharged (11.2 cfs)
               G£ = concentration of blpwdown (4C,)
Therefore, C~ =  1.09 C,
     Thus, the concentrations of the chemical constituents in the White
River after mixing will be 109 percent of the ambient concentrations
shown in Table 2.1-5 due to blowdown reconcentration.  This increase
does not pertain, however, to those constituents discussed in the sec-
tions entitled "Chemicals Present in Drainage" and "Chemical Additives"
which follow.
2.3.3  Chemicals Present in Drainage
     The surge pond drainage water may contain chemical constituents,
present in the water of the surge pond, which may not be completely
removed by chemical treatment prior to entering the plant makeup.  A
discussion of the surge pond drainage treatment and chemical constituency
of the treated effluent stream is provided in EIS Section 6.2.1.2.  Be-
cause these chemicals are present in the plant makeup, the resulting in-
crease in concentrations in the White River will be greater than if
determined using the procedures in the proceeding section, "Blowdown
Reconcentration."
2.3.3.1   Combined Makeup
     The steady state concentrations in the combined makeup are computed
as follows:
          C3 = (Q]C1 + Q2C2)/(Q1  + Q2)
     Where:
          C3 = concentration in combined makeup
          Q, = flow of treated discharge from surge pond
               (4.9 cfs average)
          C-j = concentration in flow Q, (Column 2 of Table 2.3-1)
                                 2.3-2

-------
          Q2 = flow of makeup contribution from White River
               (40.6 cfs average, at peak load)
          C2 = concentration in flow Q2 (Column 3 of Table 2.3-1)
Therefore, C3 = (4.9 C] + 40.6 C2)/45.5
The computed values of C~ appear in Column 4 of Table 2.3-1.
2.3.3.2  Slowdown
     The steady state concentrations in the blowdown are computed as
follows:

          C4 = 4 C3
     Where:
          C4 = concentration in blowdown, due to operation at 4
               cycles of concentration
          C3 = as defined previously
The computed values of C. appear in Column 5 of Table 2.3-1.
2.3.3.3  White River
     The steady state concentrations after mixing with the White River
are computed as follows:
          C5 = (Q2'C2 + Q4C4)/(Q2' + Q4)
     Where:
          C,- = concentration in White River mixing zone
         Q2' = flow of mixing zone under 10-year, 7-day low flow
               conditions (365 cfs)                     *
          Q4 = flow of blowdown discharged (11.2 cfs)
      C2, C. = as defined previously
Therefore, CB = (365 C2 + 11.2 C4)/376.2
The computed values of C,- appear in Column 6 of Table 2.3-1.
     Due to the application of sulfuric acid to the cooling water, the
sulfate concentration in the White River mixing zone is not given.  The
increase in sulfate concentration and other chemical constituents re-
sulting from chemical additives is discussed in the section which follows.
                                 2.3-3

-------
2.3.4  Chemical Additives
2.3.4.1  Chlorine
     Under worst-case conditions, a maximum chlorine concentration of
0.5 mg/1 could theoretically occur in the plant blowdown.  The increase
in concentration of chlorine under these conditions is computed as fol-
lows:
          C3 = (Q1C1 + Q2C2)/(Q1 + Q2)
     Where:
         . C., = chlorine concentration in White River mixing zone
          Q, = flow of mixing zone under 10-year 7-day low flow
               conditions (365 cfs)
          C, = ambient chlorine concentration in White River (assumed
               to be zero)
          Q« = flow of blowdown discharged from one unit being
           *   chlorinated (11.2 cfs/2 = 5.6 cfs)
          Co = chlorine concentration in blowdown (Column 5 of Table
           2   2.3-1)
Therefore:   C~ = 5.60 C9/370.6
             O         £
The computed value of C3 appear in Column 6 of Table 2.3-1.
2.3.4.2  Sulfuric Acid
     The application of sulfuric acid to the cooling water will control
the blowdown pH and increase the sulfate concentration.  The pH of the
plant blpwdown .wi11 be in the range of 6.5 to 7.0.
     The effect on the pH of the White River is computed as follows:
          C6 = -log [(Q1  log'1^) + Q5 log'1 (-C5))/(Q1  + Q5)]
     Where:
          Cg = pH of White River mixing zone
          C. = ambient pH of White River (Column 3 of Table 2.3-1)
          Q5 = flow of blowdown discharged (11.2 cfs)
          C5 = pH of blowdown (Column 5 of Table 2.3-1)
          Q, = as defined above
Therefore Cg = -log [(365 log"1(-C4)  + 11.2 log"1(-C5))/(376.2)]
                                 2.3-4

-------
The computed value of Cg appears in Column 6 of Table 2.3-1.
     In addition to controlling the pH, the application of sulfuric acid
will increase the sulfate concentration of the blowdown above the range
61 to 125 mg/liter as computed in the previous section.  The amount of
increase in the sulfate concentration is controlled by the alkalinity of
the makeup water.  In the absence of carbonate (C0~), the alkalinity may
be computed from the bicarbonate (HC3) concentration by the following
equation:
     Alkalinity = (concentration of HC03)/1.22
From Table 2.1-5, the bicarbonate concentration ranges from 138 to 177
mg/liter.  Therefore, the alkalinity has a range of 113 to 145 mg/liter.
     The maximum alkalinity level maintained in the cooling towers is 60
mg/liter.  Therefore, the alkalinity reduction required is computed as
follows:
     Minimum alkalinity reduction = 4(113) - 60 = 392 mg/liter @ CaCO.,
     Maximum alkalinity reduction = 4(145) - 60 = 520 mg/liter @ CaC03
The above alkalinity reductions may be converted to sulfate increases by
the ratio of the two molecular weights:
          Mol. wt. CaC03 = 40 + 12 + 3(16) = 100 atomic units
          Mol. wt. S04 = 32 + 4 (16) = 96 atomic units
          (Mol. wt. CaC03)/(Mol. wt. S04) = 100/96 = 1.0417
     Minimum sulfate increase = 392/1.0417 = 376 mg/liter @ S04
     Maximum sulfate increase = 520/1.0417 = 499 mg/liter @ S04
     Therefore, the total sulfate concentration in the blowdown is com-
puted as follows:
          Total sulfate = (sulfate in blowdown prior to acid) +
                          (sulfate increase due to acid)
     Therefore:
     Minimum sulfate concentration = 61 + 376 = 437 mg/liter
     Maximum sulfate concentration = 125 + 499 = 624 mg/liter
These values appear in Column 5 of Table 2.3-1.
                                 2.3-5

-------
     The effect of blowdown discharge on the sulfate concentration of
the White River is computed as follows:
          Cg = (Q-,C7 + Q5C8)/(Q1 + Q5)
     Where :
          Cg = fully mixed sulfate concentration in White River
          Cj = ambient sulfate concentration in White River
             = Column 3 of Table 2.3-1
          Cg = sulfate concentration of blowdown discharge
             = Column 5 of Table 2.3-1
      QI ,. Qr = as defined previously
Therefore:  Cg = (365 C? + 11.2 Cg)/376.2
The computed values of Cg appear in Column 6 of Table 2.3-1
2.3.5  Overflow of Surge Pond
     The inflow volume to the surge pond resulting from drainage from
the ash disposal  area, coal storage area, and plant yard drainage is
computed using the following operation:
             = CD (A] + A2 + A3)/12
     Where :
          V, = volume of drainage inflow
          C  = runoff coefficient (assumed to be 1.0)
          D  = depth of rainfall contributing to overflow (0.8 inch)
          A, = ash disposal area (approximately 450 acres)
          A2 = coal storage area (approximately 200 acres)
          Ag = plant yard areas (approximately 200 acres)
Therefore, V, = 56.7 acre-feet
     The inflow volume resulting from rainfall interception on the
surface of the surge pond is computed using the following equation:
          V2 = DA4/12
     Where:
          V0 = volume of rainfall  inflow
                                2.3-6

-------
          A, = surge pond surface area (approximately 40  acres)
          D  = as defined previously
Therefore, V2 = 2.7 acre-feet
     The sum of the two volumes of inflow, 59.4 acre-feet,  are assumed
to overflow from the surge pond.  This corresponds  to an  average  over-
flow rate of approximately 30 cfs.  The additional  overflow produced  by
the inflow contribution from the sewage treatment facility, approx-
imately 0.02 cfs, is considered to be insignificant.
     The steady state concentrations after mixing with the  White  River
are computed as follows:
          C3 = (Q^ + Q2C2)/(Q1 + Q2)
     Where:
          C3 = concentration in White River mixing zone
          Q, = overflow rate (30 cfs, as determined above)
          C-,  concentration in surge pond (EIS Table 6.2-3)
          Q9 = flow of mixing zone under 10-year, 7-day low flow  con-
           L   ditions (365 cfs)
          Cp = ambient concentrations in the White River  (EIS Table  6.2-3)
Therefore, C3 = (30 C] + 365 C2)/395
The computed values of C3 appear in EIS Table 6.2-3.
     The effect of the pH of the White River is computed  as follows:
          C6 =  -log[(Q1 log'^-C^ + Q2 log-1(-C5))/(Q1  +  Qg)]
     Where:
          Cg = pH of White River mixing zone
          C^ = pH of surge pond (EIS Table 6.2-3)
          C5 = ambient pH of White River (EIS Table 6.2-3)
      Q-j, Q2 = as defined above
Therefore, Cg = -log[(30 log"](-C4) + 365 log"1
The computed values of Cg appear in EIS Table 6.2-3.
                                 2.3-7

-------
                                                 Table  2.3-1

                      Effects  of  Slowdown Discharge on Chemical Water Quality  Parameters
I
00
(1)
Parameter

(2)
Surge Pond Effluent
After Treatment
Mi n . Max .
Makeu
Rive
Min.
Chemicals Present In Drainage
Chloride
Calcium
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmi urn
Copper
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium
Boron
Struntium
Titanium
TDS
TSS
Chemical Addi
Chlorine
PH
Sulfate
10.
40.
125.
0.033
0.042
0.024
0.15
1.78
0.024
0.29
2.94
0.026
700.
50.
tives
N.A.
N.A.
125.
50.
60.
175.
0.033
0.042
0.024
0.15
1.78
0.024
0.29
2.94
0.026
750.
100.

N.A.
N.A.
175.
3.5
27.
2.
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
*
*
*
127.
3.

0.0
7.51
2.
                                               (3)
                                               from  White
                                               (ambient)
                                                     Max.
                                                   8.0
                                                  50.
                                                  14.
                                                   0.021
                                                   0.006
                                                   0.016
                                                   0.003
                                                    *
                                                    *
                                                    *
                                                 196.
                                                  78.
                                                    0.0
                                                    8.33
                                                   14.
                                                                         (4)

                                                                    Combined  Makeup
                                                                    Min.       Max.
     (5)

  Slowdown
Mi n.     Max.
      (6)
  White River
  After Mixing
Min.      Max.
Note:   All  concentrations expressed in mg/liter
       * =  not measured; N.A.  = not applicable

aPrior to the application of sulfuric acid

 Indicated under "Chemical Additives"
4.20
28.4
15.2
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.016
0.192
0.003
0.031
0.317
0.003
189.
8.1
N.A.
N.A.
15.2
12.5
51.1
31.3
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.016
0.192
0.005
0.031
0.317
0.003
256.
80.4
N.A.
N.A.
31.3
16.8
114.
61. Oa
0.014
0.018
0.010
0.065
0.767
0.010
0.125
1.266
0.011
755.
32.2
0.0
6.5
437.
50.1
204.
125a
0.089
0.040
0.067
0.065
0.767
0.021
0.125
1.266
0.011
1023.
321.
0.5
7.0
624.
3.90
29.6
b
0.0004
0.0005
0.0003
0.002
0.023
0.0003
0.004
0.038
0.0003
146.
3.9
0.0
7.40
15.0
9.3
54.6
b
0.021
0.007
0.018
0.002
0.023
0.004
0.004
0.038
0.0003
221.
85.2
0.008
8.12
32.2

-------
2.4  REFERENCES

American Public Health Association and others, 1971,  Standard methods
     for the examination of water and wastewater.   American Public
     Health Association, 13th Edition, p.  874.

          , 1976, Standard methods for the examination of water and
     wastewater.  American Public Health Association,  Nth Edition,
     p. 907.

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,  1975, Arkansas
     water quality standards.  Regulation No. 2, as amended, Arkansas
     Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Little Rock,  Arkansas.

	, 1976, Arkansas water quality inventory report, 1975.
     Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Little Rock,
     Arkansas.

Hines, Marion, 1977, U. S. Geological Survey, personal communication.

Rentschler, Bob, 1977, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,  personal
     communication.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973, Floodplain information: White
     River, Polk Bayou, Millers Creek; Batesville, Arkansas. U.  S. Army
     Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas.

          _, 1974, Floodplain information:  White River, VillagCreek;
     Newport, Arkansas.  U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little
     Rock, Arkansas.

	, 1976, Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of
     dredged or fill material into navigable waters.  U. S.  Army Corps
     of Engineers, miscellaneous paper, d-76-17.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a, Development document for
     effluent guidelines and new source performance standards for the
     steam electric power generating point source category.   U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, 440/1-74 029-a, Group  I.

           _, 1974b, Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 625/6-74-003.

	, 1976, Manual of analytical quality control  for pesti-
     cides in human and environmental media.  U. S. Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency, 600/1-76-017.

	, 1977, STORET water quality data for the White  River at Oil
     Trough, Arkansas.  Arkansas Department of Pollution Control  and
     Ecology, unpublished.

U. S. Geological Survey, 1967-75, Water resources data for Arkansas.
     Part 1:  Surface water records for water years 1966-74.   U.  S.
     Geological Survey, Little Rock, Arkansas.
                                2.4-1

-------
        1973, Flood flow characteristics  of White  River  at State
Highway 127, at Oil  Trough,  Arkansas.   Prepared  by  U.  S.  Geological
Survey in cooperation with the Arkansas State  Highway  Commission,
Little Rock, Arkansas.

 	, 1976, Water  resources data for Arkansas, water year
1975.  Water data report AR-75-1,  U.  S. Geological  Survey, Little
Rock, Arkansas.
                           2.4-2

-------
  PARTS
GEOLOGY

-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT



          PART 3



          GEOLOGY

-------
                               CONTENTS
                                                                   Page
3.1  GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY	3.1-1
     3.1.1  Regional Geology 	  3.1-1
     3.1.2  Seismology	3.1-2
     3.1.3  Soils	3.1-3
3.2  SITE GEOLOGY	3.2-1
3.3  REFERENCES	3.3-1

                                TABLES
                                                                   Page
3.1-1   The Geologic Time Scale	3.1-5
3.1-2   Generalized Geologic Column  	  3.1-6
3.1-3   Chronological List of Epicenter Locations Within
        Region (Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI of Greater). .  .  3.1-7
3.2-1   Summary of Borings	3.2-2

                                FIGURES
3.1-1   Physiographic regions  	  3.1-9
3.1-2   Generalized geologic map 	  3.1-11/12
3.1-3   Seismotectonic regions 	  3.1-13/14
3.1-4   Soil association and site vicinity map 	  3.1-15
3.2-1   Plot plan - boring locations	3.2-3
3.2-2   Logs of borings	3.2-4
through                                                            through
3.2-22   	  3.2-24
3.2-23  Unified soil classification system 	  3.2-25

-------
                                 PART 3
                                GEOLOGY
3.1  GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY/SOILS
     This section presents information regarding the geology, seismology,
and soils of northeastern Arkansas with emphasis on Independence and
Jackson Counties and the immediate area of the site.  The geologic time
scale in Table 3.1-1 is presented as a reference for geologic discus-
sions; more detailed information on geologic formations in the area is
provided in Table 3.1-2.
3.1.1  Regional Geology
     As noted in EIS Section 5.1, the site is in an area of transition
between two physiographic provinces (Figure 3.1-1).  Most of Jackson
County and the White River Valley eastward from Batesville are in the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain, while most of Independence County, with the
exception of the southeasternmost portion of the county and the White
River Valley, is in the Ozark Plateaus.
     Topographically the region ranges from flat bottomland along the
White River, through a belt of rolling hills, to fairly rugged, hilly
country where the Plateaus Province begins.  Surface elevations gen-
erally range between 500 and 700 feet above sea level in the Springfield
Plateau to less than 300 feet in the White River Valley.
     The rocks in the region are of two types:  hard consolidated rocks
of Paleozoic age crop out in the Ozark Plateaus, and unconsolidated
deposits of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age occur in the Coastal Plain Prov-
ince. The rocks found at the surface and in the subsurface in the region
are shown in Figure 3.1-2, a generalized geologic map of the area.
     The Paleozoic rocks consist basically of chert, limestone, sand-
stone, and shale deposited during the Ordovician to Pennsylvanian
periods.  At the embayment edge, Coastal Plain deposits overlap the
eroded surfaces of the Paleozoics.  Deposits of Cretaceous age rest
unconformably on rocks of Paleozoic age.  The Cretaceous sediments are
primarily of marine origin and consist basically of calcareous sands,
                                 3.1-1

-------
clays, chalks, and marls.  The Tertiary sediments are mostly uncon-
solidated and consist mainly of sand, clay, and shale.
     Holocene alluvium and terrace deposits cover much of the lowlands
and provide the surface materials in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and
along the rivers.  The recent alluvium has been deposited by streams and
consists of sand, gravel, clay, and silt.  The terrace deposits are
generally Pleistocene in age, representing former levels below which
streams have now cut.
     Structurally the Ozark Plateaus Province is a broad, irregular
flattened,dome whose core is exposed in the Precambrian granite of the
St. Francis Mountains in southeastern Missouri (Caplan, 1954).  In
general, the dips are of low order; however, locally the regional dip is
obscured by occurrence of minor folds.  Normal faulting predominates,
with the downthrown sides south in most cases.  South and east of Bates-
ville the strata slope to the east and south, and the prominent escarp-
ment gives way to low hills and ridges with the Coastal Plain sediments
overlapping the Paleozoics.
     The Mississippi Alluvial Plain is a comparatively level south- to
southeast-sloping plain.  The Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks dip gently
toward the southeast in the direction of the embayment axis, which
generally follows the present course of the Mississippi River.
     No evidence of faulting has been recorded in rocks exposed within
the immediate area of the site.
3.1.2  Seismology
     The region (which includes portions of Kentucky, Missouri, Ten-
nessee, and Arkansas) has been divided into five seismotectonic regions
by Stearns and Wilson (1972).  These are defined principally by structural
geology and have different relative earthquake expectancies (Figure 3.1-3).
In order of decreasing earthquake expectancy these are:  1) the New
Madrid (Reelfoot) Seismotectonic Region; 2) the West Embayment Seismotec-
tonic Region;  3) the East Embayment Seismotectonic Region;  4) the Western
Kentucky Faulted Belt; and 5) the Nashville Dome.
                                 3.1-2

-------
     The site lies along the westernmost extent of the West Embayment
Region which is the evenly sloping western segment of the Mississippi
Embayment.  It is a seismotectonic region of low to medium activity,
with a maximum associated event of Modified Mercalli (MM) VI.   Within
the State of Arkansas the eastern region is more apt to experience
damage than the western portion due to the proximity to the Reel foot
Structure (Stearns and Wilson, 1972).  Historical observations have
shown the majority of earthquake activity has been in the Mississippi
Embayment area east of Crowleys Ridge in this northeastern section of
the State.  Only five earthquakes, intensity V or greater on the
Modified Mercalli scale (MM V), have occurred outside the northeast
section of the State.
     The historical seismic activity within a 40-mile radius of the site
has consisted of three events with MM intensities of V or greater.  They
are the 1883 MM V event near Morriston, the 1918 MM V event at Portia,
and the 1919 MM IV-V event near Fender.  The strongest ground motion  to
have affected the site in historic time resulted from the 1811-1812 New
Madrid, Missouri events (MM XII) which produced an intensity of VIII-XI
at the site (Nuttli, 1973).
     A record of earthquakes in the region with MM intensity of VI or
greater (strong enough to cause structural damage) is presented in Table
3.1-3.
     There are no mapped faults in the unconsolidated Gulf Coastal Plain
deposits in the area of the site.  However, there are mapped faults in
the Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks of the Ozark Plateaus Province;  all  of
them are at least Cretaceous in age, or more than 135 million years old
(Croneis, 1930).
3.1.3  Soils
     There are two soil associations present on the immediate site:
1) Egam-Staser-Hontas association; and 2) Amagon-Dundee-Sharkey
association.
     The Egam-Staser-Hontas is the major association and is present
except in the extreme northeastern portion of the site (Figure 3.1-4).
                                 3.1-3

-------
This association is characterized as moderately well  drained and well
drained, level, deep, loamy soils on floodplains.   Egam soils have very
dark grayish brown silty clay loam surface soils over mottled brown and
gray silty clay subsoils.  Staser soils have dark brown silt loam sur-
face soil over dark brown loam subsoil, and Hontas soils have brown silt
loam surface soil over dark yellowish brown or yellowish brown,  mottled
silty clay loam subsoil  (USDA, 1977).
     The Amagon-Dundee-Sharkey association which is very minor in areal
extent is classified as  poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained level
and gently undulating deep, loamy and clayey soils on low natural levees.
Amagon soils have light  brownish gray silt loam surface soil over gray
or dark gray mottled silt loam or silty clay loam subsoil.  Dundee
soils have brown silt loam surface soils over light brownish gray mottled
silt loam, silty clay loam or loam subsoil.  Sharkey soils have  dark
grayish brown and dark gray silty clay loam surface soil over dark gray
and gray mottled clay subsoil (USDA, 1977).
                                 3.1*4

-------
ERA
             Table 3.1-1
       The Geologic Time  Scale


PERIOD          EPOCH
APPROXIMATE AGE (in yrs)
    BEFORE PRESENT
CENOZOIC

QUATERNARY Holocene
Pleistocene
TERTIARY Pliocene
Miocene
Oligocene
Eocene
Pal eocene
10,000
1,000,000
13,000,000
25,000,000
36,000,000
58,000,000
63,000,000
MESOZOIC
CRETACEOUS
JURASSIC
TRIASSIC
     135,000,000
     180,000,000
     230,000,000
PALEOZOIC
PERMIAN
PENNSYLVANIAN
MISSISSIPPI
DEVONIAN
SILURIAN
ORDOVICIAN
CAMBRIAN
     280,000,000
     310,000,000
     345,000,000
     405,000,000
     425,000,000
     500,000,000
     600,000,000
PRECAMBRIAN
                                    4,500,000,000
                                        3.1-5

-------
                                Table 3.1-2
                        Generalized Geologic  Column
ERA
CENOZOIC
MESOZOIC
PALEOZOIC
SYSTEM
QUATERNARY
rtRTlARYf?)
TERTIARY
CRECTACEOUS
PENNSYL-
VANIAN
MISSISSIP-
PIAN
DEVONIAN
SILURIAN
ORDOVIC1AN
SERIES
Holocene
Pleistocene
PHocene(?)
Eocene
Pal eocene
Upper
Atoka
Morrow
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower or
Middle
Middle
Upper
Middle
Lower
GEOLOGIC UNIT
Alluvium and
terrace deposits
Loess
Undlfferentlated
deposits
Mil cox Group
Midway Group
Arkadelphia Marl
Nacatoch Sand
Saratoga Chalk(?)
Atoka Formation
Morrow Group
PUkln Limestone
Fayetteville
Shale
Batesville
Sandstone
Ruddell Shale
Moorefield Forma-
tion
Boone Formation
and St. Joe
Limestone Member
Chattanooga Shale
and Sylamore Sand-
stone Member
Penters Chert
Lafferty Limestone
St. Clair Limestone
Cason Shale
Fernvale Limestone
Klmmswlck Limestone
Plattln Limestone
Joachim Dolomite
St. Peter Sand-
stone
Everton Formation
Black Rock
Formation
DESCRIPTION
Sand, fine to very coarse, and gravel; abundant silt and clay near
surface. 0-155 feet.
S1lt, light-tan to reddish-brown. 0-12 feet.
/and and yravel to boulder size; contains some sandy clay. 0-25 ft.
Sand, silt, and clay, gray and greenish- to dark-brown. Does not
appear at surface. 0-350 feet.
Clay, silty in part, black with some dark-gray and green; and
limestone, sandy, fossiliferous. 0-350 feet.
Clay, silty and sandy in part, interbedded, Iign1t1c 1n part
contains shell fragments. Does not appear at surface. 0-30 feet.
Sand, medium to coarse, clayey in part, glauconitic, ohosphatlc.
0-300 feet.
Clay, sand and clay, chalk Interbedded. Does not appear at
surface. 0-117 feet.
Sandstone, medium-grained, light brown; locally Interbedded with
black shale; contains basal conglomerate in southern Indepdendence
County. 200-250 feet.
Shale, fissile, brown or dark gray to black; limestone and sand-
stone; gray to brownish-grey. 120-250 feet.
Limestone, finely crystalline comptct, fossiliferous, bluish-gray
to black; lenses of brown to black shale. 240 feet.
Shale, platy to fissile, dark-gray to black; and limestone, fine
to coarse-grained, brownish-gray to dark-gray fossiliferous.
330-355 feet.
Sandstone, medium-grained, calcareous, brown or buff to gray;
lenses of limestone and dark-gray shale. 70 feet.
Shale, fissile, calcareous in part, dark-gray and green. 120-272ft.
Shale, platy, calcareous, dark-gray to black, and dark siliceous
limestone. 25-199 feet.
Chert, dense, brown and brownish-gray to black, and gray to white
finely crystalline or cherty limestone. 132-295 feet.
Shale, fissile, bituminous, black to brownish-black; sandstone,
brown to white phosphatic fine to coarse grained. 25 feet
Chert, light-gray to black with interbedded gray crystalline
limestone, and dolomite. 85 feet.
Limestone, earthy, thin-bedded, red to gray. 85 feet.
Limestone, pinkish-gray, finely crystalline, fossil fragments.
100 feet.
Shale, platy to fissile, calcareous in part, black and gray to
bluish green; some phosphatic sandstone and limestone. 20 feet.
Limestone, coarsely crystalline, massive crossbedded, white to
pinkish gray. 125 feet.
Limestone, saccharoldal to finely crystalline, fossiliferous, .
white to light gray. 60 feet.
Limestone, dense, subllthographlc, light-gray to bluish-gray.
250 feet.
Dolomite, finely crystalline, slightly saccharoldal , silty In part
gray to brown; some calcareous sandstone. 150 feet.
Sandstone, fine to coarse grained, white to buff; contains some
shale, clayey sand, and dolomite. 100-175 feet.
Dolomite, very finely crystalline, dense, slightly sandy, gray to
brown, and dolomitic limestone; beds of fine to coarse grained
sandstone.
Limestone, dolomitic, slightly sandy, fossiliferous, dark-gray,
cherty. 55-425 feet.
Adapted from Albin and others (1967)
                                    3.1-6

-------
                             Table 3.1-3

                                                                 Page 1  of 2

        Chronological List of Epicenter Locations Within Region3
             (Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI or Greater)


YEAR           DATE               LOCALITY                    INTENSITY (MM)
1811
1812
1812
1838
1843
1857
1865
1878
1882
1883
1883
1889
1895
1903
1903
1905
1915
1916
1917
1923
1927
1931
1933
1934
1941
1947
1952
1954
1955
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Jun.
Jan.
Oct.
Aug.
Nov.
Oct.
Jan.
Apr.
Jul.
Oct.
Feb.
Nov.
Aug.
Dec.
Dec.
Apr.
Oct.
May
Dec.
Dec.
Aug.
Nov.
Jun.
Jul.
Feb.
Jan.
16
23
7
9
4
8
17
18
22
11
12
19
31
8
4
21
7
18
9
28
7
16
9
19
16
29
16
2
25
New Madrid, Mo.
New Madrid, Mo.
New Madrid, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Western Tennessee
St. Louis, Mo.
Southeastern Missouri
Southeastern Missouri
Arkansas
Cairo, 111.
Cairo, 111.
Memphis, Tenn.
Charleston, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Mississippi Valley
Near mouth of Ohio River
Hickman, Ky.
Eastern Missouri
Marked Tree, Ark.
Mississippi Valley
Northern Mississippi
Manila, Ark.
Rodney, Mo.
Covington, Tenn.
Near St. Louis, Mo.
Dyersburg, Tenn.
Missouri -Arkansas border
Tennessee-Missouri-Arkansas
border
XII
XII
XII
VI
VIII
VI
VII
VI
VI-VII
VI
VI-VII
VI
VIII
VI
VI-VII
VI
V-VI
VI-VII
VI
VII
VII
VI-VII
VI
VII
V-VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
                                   3.1-7

-------
Table 3.1-3 (Continued)                                          Page 2 of 2

YEAR           DATE               LOCALITY                    INTENSITY (MM)
1955
1955
1956
1956
1956
1962
1962
1963
1965
1965
1967
1967
1968
1970
1971
1972
Mar.
Apr.
Jan.
Oct.
Nov.
Feb.
' Jul.
Mar.
Aug.
Oct.
Jun.
Jul.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Feb.
29
9
28
30
25
2
23
3
14
20
4
21
14
16
1
1
Fin ley, Tenn.
West of Sparta, 111.
Tennessee-Arkansas border
Northeastern, Okla.
Wayne County, Mo.
New Madrid, Mo.
Southern Missouri
Southeastern Missouri
Southwestern 111.
Eastern Missouri
Near Greenville, Miss.
Missouri
Durant, Okla.
Northeastern Arkansas
Northeastern Arkansas
Northeastern Arkansas
VI
VI
VI
VIII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
V-VI
V-VI
location:  Area bounded by approximately 89°W to 96°W and 32°N to
            38.5°N.
                                   3.1-8

-------
        r^i	|_   ___
        nL   o   u
Figure 3.1-1.   Physiographic regions.
                                 3.1-9

-------
N
                       INDEPENDENCE  CO
SOURCE:  ADAPTED FROM ARKANSAS
       GEOLOGIC COMMISSION, 1976.
                                                                                   NEWPORT
L.
                                                                                        JACKSON  CO.
                                                                                                                       KEY:
                                               QUATERNARY



                                               TERTIARY



                                               CRETACEOUS



                                               PENNSYLVANIAN



                                               M!SS I SSI PPIAN



                                               MISSISSIPPI AN-DEVON I AN



                                               SILURIAN



                                               ORDOVICIAN


                                               NORMAL  FAULTS
                                                                                                                             5    2-1/2    0
                                                                                                                                   SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                                                                       Figure 3.1-2.   Generalized geologic map.
                                                                                                                                                                  3.1-11/12

-------
                                                                 \Il  '1 L!L
                                                                                         SS&'V^**
                                                                                         ' .-   N3p^ i  -»:-.*:.--:   ,.
                                        wsijfei-;-     ^v,
                                        •x-^:^^ -    i-^f
                                ^»f^sUMf^-^^-
                                ^7?^f^  r ?:>?:;x-/TV  y«s^
                                &iul^ir  /^   /    ^^  A
                                                       M IS S
* . _     	

Stearns and Wilson, 1972
                                                                                                              Figure 3.1-3.   Seismotectonic regions.
                                                                                                                                     3.1-13/14

-------
      Independence  County
         Jackson County








   I I Egam-Staser-Hontas



  £J Amagon-Dundee-Sharkey



  3J Summit-Ashwood-Gasconade



  4j Captina-Portia-Loring
 SOURCE: U.S.O.A. SOIL  CONSERVATION SERVICE, 1977
 MILES




Linker-Hartsel1s-Mounta1nburg




Leadvele-Linker




Jackport-Crowley
Figure 3.1-4.  Soil  association and site vicinity map.

-------
3.2  SITE GEOLOGY
     The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling  39
borings at locations shown on Figure 3.2-1.  Borings B-l, B-3,  and  B-4
were drilled in conjunction with preliminary foundation evaluation
studies while the remaining 36 A-Series borings were drilled as part  of
the environmental studies.  Logs of the borings are presented on Figures
3.2-2 through 3.2-22, and a key to symbols used on the logs is  given  in
Figure 3.2-23.
     The results of the borings indicate that subsurface conditions are
fairly uniform.  The site is blanketed by a surficial zone of fine-
grained alluvial soils which vary in thickness from approximately 15  feet
to 33 feet (Table 3.2-1).  Generally, the surficial soils are clays and
silts grading from stiff to very stiff in the upper portion to  medium
stiff in the lower portion (Figure 3.2-23).  Immediately underlying the
surficial soils is a relatively thick (25 to 45 feet) fine to medium-
grained sandy subrounded to subangular chert gravel with varying amounts
of silt and clay.  The gravels vary from loose to very dense, but gener-
ally are medium dense to dense.  The gravel is underlain by sands,  silts,
clays, and clayey gravels which in turn overlie an interbedded  shale  and
limestone bedrock.
     During the field explorations, the ground water was generally
observed to be approximately 24 feet below the ground surface.   The
measured water level at each boring is presented on Table 3.2-1 and at
the bottom of the log of borings.
                                 3.2-1

-------
    Table 3.2-1



Summary of Borings
Boring Number
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-15
A-16
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-28
A-29
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
A-42
B-l
B-3
B-4
Ground Elev.
(MSL)
235.1
236.0
226.5
231.7
232.7
235.7
235.6
233.9
219.6
232.7
235.0
226.8
227.4
233.9
= 233.7
230.5
229.8
230.2
235.0
235.3
234.2
233.8
222.2
229.6
229.3
235.9
233.4
232.7
235.3
230.7
227.9
234.1
230.1
z 235.2
235.2
233.4
234.9
230.3
235.3
Depth to
Water (Ft.)
8/22/77
25.7
14.2
7.7
20.5
—
25.9
26.4
25.5
6.1
—
27.4
7.6
22.5
25.4
18.1
24.7
22.5
24.2
26.5
—
26.0
25.6
18.4
25.1
—
27.7
25.4
24.2
24.5
24.7
17.9
26.7
23.2
---
—
23.4
25.2
24.4
22.3
Depth to top
of Gravel (Ft.)
23.0
20.0
25.1
23.5
34.8
28.7
23.6
26.5
28.0
15.0
20.4
32.5
26.5
23.0
28.5
23.7
33.5
33.0
28.0
23.0
23.5
33.0
21.7
26.5
29.0
27.5
32.0
27.0
36.5
23.5
27.0
30.0
27.5
23.0
23.5
33.0
19.0
23.0
32.0
       3.2-2

-------
     IflKlFlth Httcli^y
       BANDONEDJJ&
                 //-,  ••'•>--• k'.vS '"'4
                    Legend:
                         B - Borings drilled for use in site evaluations
                      •  A - Borings drilled for environmental studies
Figure 3.2-1.   Plot  plan  -  boring locations.
                                        3.2-3

-------
         BORING    B-l

         ELEVATION: 234.9'
                SYMBOLS
                                     DESCRIPTION

. "•

. '••
III
_
sa/a'B

irQ

-
"a

na

ZTB
"
•
4
w
^
^
» *•
1
* b
4
*
*
*
*• t
*
•*,
*• »
**
/*



CL


X,



GW






11 111 ML
iiniiiiiiiii i
Pn
80S

• 6B




SP

DARK BROUN SILTY CLAY UITH TRACE FINE SAND
OCCASIONAL ROOTS (DESICCATED) (HARD)
GRADES LIGHT GRAY AND BROUN UITH TRACE OF
DARK BROUN DECAYED VEGETATION (FISSURED,
VERY STIFF)


GRADES YELLOUISH BROUN UITH TRACE OF SAND
YELLOU- BROUN FINE TO COARSE SANDY GRAVEL
TRACE SILT (VERY DENSE)
(GRADES MEDIUM DENSE)








LIGHT BROUN CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF)
SAND LENSES
BROUN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE)



100
ISO/
S'H
r"B
•ID
loo/i^'a
»%|»%
- T%
531

'„*
.
OK
DM

3%

$p

m

f
if
if
IN
$1
1
GW
GC

GC







BROUN MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAVEL UITH COBBLES
(VERY DENSE)
DARK GRAY AND BLACK SANDY GRAVEL UITH
CLAY AND CHERT LAYERS
CHERT LAYER

BLACK CARBONACEOUS SHALE



BORING TERMINATED AT 91.0' 7/20/77
UATER LEVEL AT 25'-3" ON 8/2/77
      LEGEND:

        •OtM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
        H04M TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
        ODJM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
        B SPT SAMPLER
        BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)


     NOTE:
        1. THE 3.25 ' 0.0. DAMES i MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER UERE DRIVEN UITH A 140
          POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOUS REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE
          SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
        2. BLOUCOUNT UITH DAMES i MOOSE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TUO TIMES THE STANDARD PENETRATION
          TEST  I.E. DIM • SPT
Figure  3.2-2.    Log  of  boring.
                                                            '  '3.2-4

-------
         BORING   B-3

         ELEVATION:  230.3'
                  SYMBOLS
                                           DESCRIPTION
           100/l'g
                  »*
                         GW
                        
-------
          BORING   B-4
          ELEVATION: 235.3'
                 SYMBOLS
                                          DESCRIPTION
                       CL
                       SP
                            BROUN AND GRAY SILTV CLAY  U1TH OCCASIONAL
                            GRAVEL (STIFF)
                              GRADES VERY  STIFF
                              GRADES MORE SILTV (MEDIUM STIFF)
                            BROUN SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES
                            OF SILTY SAND (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF)
STD
40B
101 •
tea
	 ,

%
i

SP
GC
X
SP
(DENSE)
BLUE GRAY CLAYEY SANDY GRAVEL (VERY DENSE)
(DENSE)
GRAY MEDIUM SAND UITH GRAVEL
(DENSE)
                                                                                                  WATER LEVEL AT 22'-f ON 8/2/77
                            YELLOW-BROWN FINE TO COARSE SANDY GRAVEL
                            (DENSE)
                              (LOOSE)
                              (MEDIUM DENSE)
BROUN TO TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND TRACE
OF GRAVEL  (MEDIUM DENSE)
    LEGEND:
        • DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
        81 DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
        OOtM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
        asPT SAMPLER
        0 SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)

    NOTE:
       1. THE 3.25 " 0.0. DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER UERE DRIVEN UITH A 140
         POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOUS REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE
         SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.

       2. BLOUCOUNT UITH DAMES > MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD PENETRATION
         TEST I.E. DIM • SPT
Figure  3.2-4.     Log  of  boring.
                                                                 1     3.2-6

-------
        BORING    A-2
        ELEVATION   235.1'
BORING   A-3
ELEVATION:  236.o'
                  SYMBOLS
                                      DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                        SYMBOLS
                                                                                                           DESCRIPTIONS
                >oa
                •a
                              DARK BROUN SILTY CLA« UITH OCASS10NAL ROOTS
                                (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                 GRADES BROUN AND GRAY UITH SPOTS OF BLACK
                                 DECAYING VEGETATION
                              LIGHT BROUN VERY FINE SILTY SAND TO CLAYEY SAM)
                              UITH TRACE SHALL GRAVEL
                              BROWN FINE TO HEDIUH SANDY GRAVEL TRACE OF SILT     O
                                (MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                                     «a
                     DARK BROUN SILTY SAND TOPtOIL OCCASIONAL
                     GRAVEL  TRACE OF ROOTS
                       (DESSICATEO)
                     DARK BROUN SILTY CLAY TRACE OF UHITl TO
                     BROUN COARSE SAND TO SHALL GRAVEL SIZE
                     CHERT FRAGMENTS
                       (HEOIUM STIFF)

                     YELLOU-BROUN SILTV CLAY
                       (MEDIUM STIFF TO SOFT) (PLASTIC)
                     ORANGE BROUN SILTV FINE SAND
                       (LOOSE)
                     BROUN FINE TO HEOIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL TRACE
                     OF SILT
                       (MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                                                   BORING TERMINATED AT )!>.!>' ON  7/U/7/
                                                                                                   UATER LEVEL AT 14'-?"
             •DIN TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
             HDIM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
             QOW TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
             BSPT SAMPLER
             BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
          NOTE:
             1.
                THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES I MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER UERE DRIVEN UITH
                A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                BLWCOUHT UITH DAMES > WOKE SAMPLER IS APPROJ1MATELY TUO TIMES THE STANDARD
                PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DM • SPT.
Figure  3.2-5.    Log  of  borings.
                                                               3.2-7

-------
          BORING   A-4
          ELEVATION:  226.5'
                                                 BORING     A-5
                                                 ELEVATION:  231.7'
                                                                                         SYMBOLS
                                                                                                             DESCRIPTIONS
     !r  20-
                          CL
                              DARK BROUN AW GRAY SI LTV CLAY TOPSOIL
                              ROOTS
                                (DESSICATEO)

                                  GRADES DARK GRAY KITH TRACE OF BROWN
                                  DECAYED VEGETATION
                                (HEDIUM STIFF)
                                  GRADES SLIGHTLY STIFFER MORE PLASTIC
GRAY SILTY CLAY
  (STIFF) (PLASTIC)
                               GRAY-BROW FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                               TRACE OF SILT
                                (HEDIUM DENSE)
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5' ON 7/27/77
                               HATER LEVEL AT 7'-8" ON 8/2/77
                                                       torn
                                                                                       •a
                                                                 CL
                                                                                                CL
                                                                                               CL
                                                                 OW
                                                                      DARK BROUN SILTY CLAY TOPSOIL U1TH TRACE OF
                                                                      FINE SAND AND GRAVEL ABUNDANT ROOTS
                                                                        (VERY STIFF)
                                                                                                     BROWN SILTY CLAY UITH OCASSIONAL ROOTS
                                                                                                      (STIFF)
                                                                                                     BROUN SILTY FINE SAND
                                                                                                      (LOOSE)
                                                                                                    MOTTLED BROUN AND GRAY SILTY CLAY
                                                                                                      (STIFF)
                                                                                                    BROUN FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                                                                                    TRACE OF SILT
                                                                                                      (KtDIUX OtHSE)
                                                                      BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5' ON 7/29/77
                                                                      UATfR LEVEL AT 20'-6" ON fl/2/77
            LEGEND
               •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               BDW TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               ODIM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               BSPT SAMPLER
               0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
            NOTE:
               1.
                  THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES » MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER HERE DRIVEN UITH
                  A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                  TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                  8LOWCOUNT UITH DAMES I MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                  PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DSX • SPT.
Figure   3.2-6.    Log   of  borings.
                                                                .3.2-8

-------
         BORING    A-6
         ELEVATION.  232.7'
                                                BORING    A-7
                                                ELEVATION:  235.7'
                   SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                         SYMBOLS
                                                                                                             DESCRIPTIONS
                         CL
                DO
                         SP
                               BROUN SILTY CLAY TOPSOIL UITH UHITE EVAPORITE
                               DEPOSITS ABUNDANT SHALL ROOTS
                                (DESSICATED) (HARD)

                               REDDISH BROUN SILTY CLAY UITH OCCASIONAL
                               SMALL ROOTS
                                (DESSICATEO) (HARD)
REDDISH BROUN SILTY FINE SAND UITH OCCASIONAL
SMALL ROOTS AND DECAYED VEGETATION
  (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)


TAN FINE SAND UITH OCCASIONAL STRINGER OF
BROUN SILTY CLAY
  (LOOSE)
                                  GRADING MEDIUM DENSE
                                  GRADING MEDIUM GRAINED UITH OCCASIONAL
                                  CHERT GRAVEL
   THIN SEAM OF GRAY CLAY

YELLOU-BROUN SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5' ON 7/28/77
                                           •-   is -
                                           Ul    r
                                           UJ
                                           u.

                                           Z


                                           X  20
                                                                                               CL
                                                                                               ML
                                                                                               CL
                                                                                       edl
                                                                                      JOB
                                                                                              ICH
                                                                      GRAY-BROm SILTY CLAY UITH TRACE DECAYED
                                                                      VEGETATION
                                                                        (VERY HARD)

                                                                         GRADING DARK BROUN UITH SLIGHT
                                                                         ORANGE MOTTLING
                                                                        (VERY STIFF)
                                                                      MOTTLED BROUN AND ORANGE CLAYEY SILT UITH
                                                                      DARK BROUN STAINING
                                                                        (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                      MOTTLED GRAY AND ORANGE SILTY CLAY UITH
                                                                      TRACE OF DARK BROUN DECAYED VEGETATION
                                                                        (STIFF)
                                                                                                    GRAY SILTY  CLAY
                                                                                                      (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                    ORANGE-BROWN SILTY SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                                                                                      (MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                                                        GRADING LESS SILTY UITH MORE SAND
                                                                                                      (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                                                    BORING TERMINATED AT 39.O1  ON 7/16/77
                                                                                                    UATER LEVEL AT ZS'-II" ON B/J/77
               •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               BDSM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               QD1M TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               aSPT SAMPLER
               BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
            NOTE:
               1.
                  THE 3.25" O.D. DANES I MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER UERE DRIVEN UITH
                  A 140 POUND HAHtER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE Of 30 INCHES.  THE BLOUS REQUIRED
                  TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS
                                                IS                               5-
Figure  3.2-7.     Log  of  borings.
                                                                   3.2-9

-------
         BORING    A-8
         ELEVATION:  235.6'
BORING    A-9
ELEVATION:  233.9'
                   SYMBOLS
                                        DESCRIPTIONS
                          'CH
                                                                                         SYMBOLS
                                                                                                              DESCRIPTIONS
                              DARK BROWN SILTY CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT
                              TOPSOIL
                                  ROOTS (DESICATEDHVERY STIFF)
                              GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                  GRADING LIGHT BROWN AND TORE PLASTIC
                               YELLOW BROUN FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT
                               GRAVEL
                                  TRACE OF SILT (VERY DENSE)
                                  GRADING LESS DENSE


                                  GRADING WITH LESS SAND
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 35.0 FT.  ON 7/16/77
                               WATER LEVEL AT 26' -5" ON 8/2/77
       rod
                                                                                       •a
        •a
                                                                                          mm
                                                                                          ml
                                                                                                CL
                 OW
BROWN SILTY CLAY TOPSOIL WITH ORGANIC BLACK
GRANULES
    (DESSICATEOKVERY STIFF)
                                                                                                     GRA1-BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                                                                                         (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                        GRADING TO MOTTLED ORANGE-BROWN WITH
                                                                                                        OCCASIONAL ROOTS
                                                                                                        GRADING WITH OCCASIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL
                                                                                                     BROUN TO TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
                                                                                                        (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)
BROWN FINE 10 COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
TRACE OF SILT
   (MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE)

BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FT. ON 7/14/77
WATER LEVI1  AT Z5'-6" ON 8/2/77
            LEGEND:
               •DiM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               BDiM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               DDSM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               1JSPT SAMPLER
               BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
               1.  THE 3.25" 0.0.  DAMES I MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                  A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                  TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
               2.  BLOWCOUNT UITH  DAMES 1 MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                  PENETRATION TEST, I.E. 0»M • SPT.
Figure  3.2-8.    Log  of  borings.
                                                                '  3.2-10

-------
         BORING   A-IO
         ELEVATION:  219.6'
BORING   A-ll
ELEVATION:  232.7'
                  SYMBOLS
                                     DESCR IPTIONS
                                                                                    SYMBOLS
                                                                                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                «a
                        CL
                        CH
                
-------
         BORING    A-12
         ELEVATION:   235.0'
                   SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                          CL
                          OP
                              DARK BROWN SILT* CUV TOPSOIL

                              GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY (DESSICATED)
                                 (MEDIUM STIFF)


                                 GRADES ORANGE-BROWN KITH OCCASIONAL
                                 ROOTS (VERY STIFF)
                                 GRADES GRAY-BROWN
                              ORANGE-BROWN SIITY VERY FINE SAND
                              TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                 (VERY CLEANMMEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE)
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 35.5 FT. ON 7/14/77
                              WATER LEVEL AT 27'-5" ON 8/2/77
BORING   A-15
ELEVATION:  226.8'
             mom TYPE U SAMPLER  (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
             BOW TYPE U SAMPLER  (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
             Q04M.TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
             HSPT SAMPLER
             0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
             1.  THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPI FB urof nnti/ru UITU

                                         S! A °IS™*E ™* "«™-  ™BOW   W  S
                                         ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS
                                                                              5-
                            T, I.E. DSM • SPT.
                                                                                       SYMBOLS
                                                                                                           DESCRIPTIONS
       "Bill
                                                                                              CL
                                                                                              CH,
                GM
BROWN CLAYEY SILT TO SIITY CLAY TRACE OF
FINE SAND AND DECAYED VEGETATION
   (STIFF)
                        GRADES TO MOTTLED BROWN AND GRAY
                    MOTTLED nROUN AND GRAY SILTY CLAY  TRACE Ot
                    DARK BROWN DECAYED VEGETATION (MEDIUM STIFF)

                    DARK GRAY SILTV CLAY WITH ABUNDANT DECAYED
                    VEGETATION
                        (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF)(PLASTIC)
                                                                                                     GRADES MEDIUM STIFF   INCLUSIONS OF LIGHT
                                                                                                     GRAY SILTY CLAY
                                                                                                     GRADES SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF
                                                                                                     GRADING WITH SOME SMALL GRAVEL
                                                                                                  LIGHT GRAY SILTY TINE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                                                                                     (MEOIUK OENSC)
                                                                                                     GRADING YLLI OW-IIROUN

                                                                                                  BORING TERMINATE" AT 40.5 H. ON 7/2V/7
                                                                                                  WATER I.IVH. AT 7'-7" ON H/2//7
Figure   3.2-10.     Log  of  borings.
                                                                3.2-12

-------
         BORING    A-16
         ELEVATION:  227.4'
                                              BORING   A-18
                                              ELEVATION:  233.9'
                   SYMBOLS
                                      DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                      SYMBOLS
                                                                                                          OESCRIPTIONS
                         CL
                             BROUN CLAYEY SILT IOPSOIL WITH ABUNDANT SMALL ROOTS
                             GRAY-BROW SILTY CLAY WITH OCCASIONAL ROOTS,
                             TRACE OF SLACK DECAYED VEGETATION
                                 (DESICATEOHHARO)

                                 GRADES WITH MORE SILT
                                 GRADES BROW TO LIGHT BROUN
                 •a
                    • >*
                    .»...*
                          GW
                             BROUN FINE SANDY CLAVET SILT
                                 (MEDIUM DENSE TO MEDIUM STIFF)
                              LIGHT TAN FINE SAND INTERBEDDED UITN BROUN
                              SILT? CLAY (MEDIUM DENSE TO STIFF)
                              BROUN SILTY FINE SMID
                                 (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)
                              TAN FINE SAND WITH TRACE OF SILT
                                 (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)
VELLOU-BROUN FINE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
   (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE)
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5FT. ON 7/29/77
                              UATER LEVEL AT Z2'-6- ON 8/2/77
                                                                                    •'ft
                                                                   MOTTLED BROW-GRAY MLTY CLAY TO CLAYtY
                                                                   SILT TOPSOIL  (MEDIUM SUIT)

                                                                   MOTTLED GRAV-BROUN SILT* CIAY
                                                                      (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                 MOTTLED GRAY AND REDDISH BROUN SU1Y CLAt
                                                                                                     (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                    POCKETS OF REDDISH OROUN GRAVELLV SAND
                                                                                                 BROUN flNL TO MEDIUM SANDY CHL'RT GRAVO.
                                                                                                     (DFNSL TO VERY DENSE)
                                                                                                     GRADES TAN TO BROUN
                                                                                                 BOBING TFRMINATFII AI -H.O TT. ON 7/1W
                                                                                                 UATIR LEVEL AT Jl'-'i' ON H/2/77
            LEGEND:

               •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               BOW TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               ODIM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               BSPT SAMPLER
               0SPI SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
                                               SWIPLE AND THE SPT
                                              *^
                                         IT01 IS APPR011IMATEU "•Tlltts
Figure  3.2-11.    Log  of  borings.
                                                                  3.2-13

-------
         BORING    A-19
         ELEVATION: =233.7'
                                                 BORING    A-20
                                                 ELEVATION:  230.5'
                   SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                        SYMBOLS
                         ML
                         CL
BROUN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL WITH ABUNDANT
SHALL ROOTS (LOOSE)
LIGHT BROUN SILTY CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT UITH
UNITE EVAPORITE DEPOSITS
   OCCASIONAL ROOTS (DESICATEDl(HARD)

   GRADES UITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL

MOTTLED GRAY-BROUN SILTY CLAY TO CLAYEY
SILT UITH TRACE OF DECAYED VEGETATION
   (STIFF)
   GRADES MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF UITH MORE
   SILT
                         'CL
                                 GRADES UITH RED-BROUN MOTTLING
                                 (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF)
                              1ARK GRAY SILTY CLAY
                                (MEDIUM STIFF)
                             YELLOU BROUN FINE TO COARSE SANDY GRAVEL UITH
                             [RACE SILT  (MEDIUM DENSE)
                             BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5 FT. ON 7/30/77.
                             UATER LEVEL AT ]8'-I" ON 8/2/77
                                                                                     I2B
                                                        "B
                                                                                               ML
                                                                                               CL
                                                                                         **l
                                                                                                             DESCRIPTIONS
BROUN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL UITH TRACE OF
FINE SAND AND GRAVEL  OCCASIONAL ROOTS

BROUN SILTY CLAY UITH UHITE EVAPORITE DEP-
OSITS  OCCASIONAL ROOTS (OESICCATED)IHARD)
    GRADES TO MOTTLED DARK BROUN AND GRAY
    TRACE OF BUCK DECAYED VEGATATION(STIFF)

    GRADES VERY STIFF
                                                                                                       GRADES STIFF
                                                                      BROUN FINE SANDY CLAYEY SILT (SOFT-MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                      MOTTLED BROUN AND GRAY SILTY CLAY UITH TRACF
                                                                      VERY FINE SAND TRACE DECAYING VEGATATION
                                                                          (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                      BROUN VERY FINE SANDY CLAYEY SILT
                                                                          (SOFT-MEDIUM STIFF)

                                                                      BROUN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVI'L
                                                                          (MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                          GRADES LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE
                                                                      BORING TERMINATED AT 30.b  FT.  ON 7/30/77
                                                                      UATER  LEVEL AT 2V-9" ON 6/2/77
              • DM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
              BDUI TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
              DD4M TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
              aSPT SAMPLER
              HSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
             1.
                V™-U^K
             «. KK^^^
Figure  3.2-12.    Log  of  borings.
                                                              '     3.2-14

-------
         BORING    A-21
         ELEVATION: 229.8'
                                                 BORING   A-22
                                                 ELEVATION:  230.2'
                   SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTION
    U  13
                          CL
                          CL
DARK BROW SILTY ClAV TOPSOIL
WUNDANT SHALL ROOTS (VERY STIFF)
                              BROUN SILTY CLAV  (VERY STIFF)
    GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY-DROWN WITH
    TRACE BLACK DECAYED VEGETATION
                                  GRADES TO LIGHT GRAV AND BROWN
                                  (VERY STIFF)
                                  GRADES SILTIER  (MEDIUM STIFF)
                              GRAV SILTV CLAV WITH TRACE BLACK DECAYED
                              VEGETATION  (MEDIUM STIFF)

                              GRAV FINE SAND  (MEDIUM STIFF)
                              YELLOW-BROWN FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT
                              GRAVEL  (MEDIUM DENSE)
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 35.5 FT. ON 7/29/77
                              WATER LEVEL AT 22'-6" ON 8/2/77
              •DIM TVPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
              BDW TVPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
              QDIM TVPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
              HSPT SAMPLER
              BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
              1.  THE 3.25* O.D.  DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER HERE DRIVEN WITH
                 A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
              2.  BLOWCOUNT UITH  DAMES > MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                 PENETRATION TEST, I.E. DIM • SPT.
                                                                                        SYMBOLS
                                                                                                             DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                      •a
                                                                                      >a
                                                                                               CL
                                                                  SM
                                                                                               GW
MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL



GRAY-BROWN SILTV CLAV  (STIFF)







    GRADES LIGHT BROWN






    GRADES TO MOTTLED RED-BROWN






    GRADES MEDIUM STIFF



MOTTLED ORANGE-BROWN SILTV CLAV TO CLAVCVSILT





ORANGE-HROVN SILTY FINE SAND (MEDIUM BFNSI )
                                                                                                   BROWNISH ORANGE AND SII.TY MEDIUM TO IINl
                                                                                                   CHERT GRAVEL  (MEDIUM DCNSl )
                                                                                                   BORING TERMINATED AT «0.5 IT. ON UVtlU
                                                                                                    WATER Ltvn. AT 24'-?"  ON ll/?/77
Figure   3.2-13.    Log  of  borings.
                                                                   3.2-15

-------
         BORING   A-23
         ELEVATION:  235.0'
                   SYMBOLS
                                        DESCRIPTIONS
                teB
                          ML
                    * *
                          GW
                              TAN SANDY CHERT GRAVEL  (LOOSE)
                              THIN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND LENS (MEDIUM DENSE)'
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 39.0 FT. ON 7/19/77
                              WATER LEVEL AT 26'-6" ON 8/2/77
                                                 BORING   A-24
                                                 ELEVATION:  235.3'
JROUH CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL WITH TRACE OF FINE
TO MEDIUM GRAVEL
MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN AND REDDISH BROUN SILTY
CLAY  (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF)

    GRADES WITH TRACE FINE TO MEDIUM GRAVEL
                                  GRADES GRAY-BROWN «!TH OCCASIONAL TRACES           ,0
                                  DARK BROWN ORGANICS  (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                  GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY AND REDDISH BROUN
                                  OCCASIONAL GRAVEL
                                                                           I-
                                                                           UJ
                                                                           £ 20
              •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
              BOW TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
              ODSM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
              flSPT SAMPLER
              0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
             1.  THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES I MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                 A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
             2.  BLOUCOUNT UITH DAMES t MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TUO TIMES THE STANDARD
                 PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DSM • SPT.
                                                                                         SYMBOLS
                                                                                                              DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                          '•
                                                               ?
                                                                                                CL
                                                                                                GW
BROUN-CJIAY SILT* CLAY 10 CLAVE*  SILT TOPSOIL
    (VERY STIFF)
GRAY-BROUN SIITV CLAV WITH TRACE OF MEDIUM
SAND  (STIFF)
                                                                                                        GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY-BROUN AND ORANGE


                                                                                                        GRADES WITH INCREASED SILT
                                                                                                        GRADES TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                                                           GRADES WITH A TRACE OF VERY FINE SAND
                                                                                                    ORANGE BROWN HEOIUH TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRA-
                                                                                                    VEL  TRACE OF SILT  (DENSE)
                                                                                                         GRADES HEOIUH DENSE
                                                                                                         GRADES MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE
                                                                                                     BORING UKM1NATIO AT 40.5 FI. ON 7/1P/7/
Figure  3.2-14.    Log   of  borings.
                                                               .3.2-16

-------
         BORING   A-25
         ELEVATION: 234.2'
BORING    A-26
ELEVATION:   233.8'
        10 -     »•
                  SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                         CL
                (IB
                         CL
                lid
                         sc
                        low
                              MOTTLED GRAY-WHITE AND RED-BROW SILTY CLAY
                                  (VERY STIFF)
                              MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN CLAYEY SILT
                              MOTTLED GRAY AND RED-BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                  (HEDIUM STIFF)
                                   GRADES MOTTLED RED-BROWN
                              TAN CLAYEY SAND
                                  (LOOSE)
                              ORANGE-BROWN HEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY CHERT
                              GRAVEL TRACE OF SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE)
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5 FT. OH 7/19/77
                              HATER LEVEL AT  26'-0" ON 8/2/77
              •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
              BOW TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
              QDIM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
              aSPT SAMPLER
              BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
              1.  THE 3.25* O.D. DAMES > MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER HERE DRIVEN KITH
                 A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
              2.  8LWCOUNT KITH DAMES 1 MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                 PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DIM • SPT.
                                                                                       SYMBOLS
                                                                                                           DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                     "Q
                                                                                     •a
                ML
                                                                                              CL
                                                                                              cw
                                                                                                  LIGHT GRAY CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL
                                                                                                  GRAY-3ROWN SILTY CLAY WITH TRACE FINE SAND
                                                                                                      (VERY STIFF)
                                                                                                      GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN AND RED-
                                                                                                      BROWN  (VLRY STIFF)
                         GRADES WITH LESS SILT
                         (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                      GRADES LIGHT BROWN
                                                                                                  BROWN VERY FINE SANDY SILTY CLAY TO CIAYEY SILT
                                                                                                      (SOFT)
                     ORANGE-BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY CIIFRT GRAVEL
                     TRACE OF SILT  (DENSE)
                         GRADES MEDIUM DENSE TD DENSE
                     BORING TERMINATED AT 40.0 FT. ON ll\'tlll
                     WATER LEVEL AT ?b'-7" ON B/2/77
Figure   3.2-15.    Log  of  borings.
                                                                  3.2-17

-------
         BORING    A-28
         ELEVATION:  222.2'
BORING    A-29
ELEVATION:  229.6'
                   SYMBOLS
                                       DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                      SYMBOLS
                                                                                                          DESCRIPTIONS
                is a
                20B
                         ML
                         SP
                         GW
                              DARK BROUN CLAYEY SILT TOP SOIL
                              DARK BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                  (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                  GRADES WITH TRACE OF VERY FINE SAND
                                  (MEDIUM STIFF TO SOFT)
                              LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM TO FINE SAND WITH TRACE
                              OF GRAVEL
                              BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                              TRACE SILT  (MEDIUM DENSE)
                              BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FT. ON 7/13/77
                              WATER LEVEL AT 18'-5" ON 8/2/77
                     GRAY-BROWN SII.TY CLAY TOPSOIL WITH TRACE
                CL   GRAVEL  (STIFF)
                                                                                                  MOTTLED BROWN-GRAY SILTY CLAY TO CLAYCY
                                                                                                  SILT  (STIFF)
                                                                                             CL
                                                                                             GW
                                                                                                  GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                                                                                     (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                     GRADES UITH TRACE VERY FINE SAND
                     ORANGE-BROWN CLAYEY SILTY VERY FINE SANK
                        (MEDIUM DENSE TO SOFT)

                     ORANGE-BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANOY CHERT
                     GRAVEL  (VERY DENSE)
                                                                                                     GRADES DENSE TO MEDIUM DENSE
                                                                                                  BORING TERMINATED AT 34.0 FT.  ON
                                                                                                  WATER LEVEL AT 23'-1" ON 8/5/77
             •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
             BOSH TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
             DOJM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
             USPT SAMPLER
             0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
             1.
                THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES. THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                BLOWCOUNT WITH DAMES I MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                PENETRATION TEST, I.E. D»M • SPT.
Figure  3.2-16.    Log  of  borings.
                                                             ,  .3.2-18

-------
        BORING   A-31
        ELEVATION:  229.3'
BORING   A-32
ELEVATION:  255.9'
                SYMBOLS
                                 DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                          SYMBOLS
                                                                                           DESCRIPTIONS
0


5

10

t- '5
ul
tf .
2
iao
a.



25

50


35
JllfflU
429111 |l|||jl|L
-It


— iz9|lj|ll |ll|l

-


"B




>a

2 •


ow




DARK BROUN CLAYIY SILT TOPSOIL
LIGHT GRAY CLAYIY Sll T
r.RADIS TO MOTTLEO GRAY-BROWN

GRAYISH OROUN SILTY CLAY
(VERY STIIF)

GRADES LESS SILTY
(STIFF)


GRADES MEDIUM DROWN UITH TRACE OF VERY
FINE SAND AND GRAVI.L (STIFF)

YELLOU-BROUN SILTY TO CLAYIY FINL' SANII
(LOOSE)



BROUN FIM TO COARSl SANDY f.W.RT GRAVll
UITH TRACE OF SILT
(LOUSE)


GRADING MEDIUM nKSt.




UAIIR LIVFI AT '/!'-'<" (IN «/>///
,
          LEGEND:

            • DM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
            BOtM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
            QOW TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
            aSPT SAMPLER
            0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           JIL:
            1.  THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES i MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER HERE DRIVEN UITH
               A 1<0 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
               TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
            2.  8LOUCOUNT UITH DAMES 1 MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
               PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DIM • SPT.                        >i«™»"u
Figure  3.2-17.    Log  of borings.
                                                         3.2-19

-------
          BORING     A-33
          ELEVATION:  253.4'
                                                   BORING   A-34
                                                   ELEVATION: 232.7'
                    SYMBOLS
                                         DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                           SYMBOLS
                                                                                                                DESCRIPTIONS
                           ML
                           CL
BROWN TO GRAY CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL
    (VERY STIFF)
MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN AND REDDISH BROUN
SILTY CLAY
    (KEOIUK STIFF)
                                  GRADES LESS SILTY
                                  GRADES TO MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY AND
                                  RED-BROWN
                                  GRADES RED-BROWN WITH DARK BROWN
                                  ORGANIC MATERIAL
                                   GRADES WITH COBBLES AND SMALL BOULDERS


                                   GRADES WITH OCCASIONAL FINE GRAVEL
                               TAN TO GRAY SILTY TO CLAYEY  FINE SAND
                                  (MEDIUM DENSE)
                               BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                               TRACE OF SILT
                                  (KEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE)
                                   GRADES WITH INCREASED SAND
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5 FT. ON 7/20/77
                               WATER LEVEL AT 25'-5" ON 8/2/77
                                                                   GW
                •OKI TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
                BDSM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
                DD1M TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
                USPT SAMPLER
                BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
             NOTE:
                1.
                   THE 3.25" 0.0.  DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                   A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                   TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                2.  BLOWCOUNT WITH  DAMES i MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIKES THE STANDARD
                   PENETRATION TEST, I.E. DSM • SPT.
BROUN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL WITH ABUNDANT
ROOTS AND DFCAYED VEGETATION

DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH TRACE OF ROOTS
AND DECAYED VU.tTATlON

   ROOTS GRADING OUT
                                                                                                          GRADES TO BOTTLED GRAY AND RED-BROWN
                                                                                                          (VERY STIFF)
                                                                           GRADES YELLOW-BROWN WITH INCREASED SILT
                                                                           WITH TRACE OF BLACK DECAYED VEGETATION
                                                                           (STIFF)
                                                                           LIGHT TAN FINE TO KEDIUM SAND
                                                                           (LOOSE)
YELLOW-BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT
  ,VEL
    (KEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE)
                                                                                                      BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5 FT. ON 7/31/77
                                                                                                      WATER LEVEL AT 2V-5" ON 8/5/77
Figure  3.2-18.     Log  of  borings.
                                                                 ',   .  .3.2-20

-------
        BORING   A-35
        ELEVATION:   235.3'
BORING   A-36
ELEVATION.  230.7'
                  SYMBOLS
                                     DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                     SYMBOLS
                                                                                                         DESCRIPTIONS
                I4B
                        CL
                         CL
                             DARK 8ROWN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIl
                                (STIFF)
                             GRAY-BROWN SILTV SAND TO SILTY SANDY GRAVEL
                                (MEDIUM DENSE)
                             GRAY SILTV CLAYEY VERT FINE SAND
                                (SOFT)
                             GRAYISH BROUN SILTV CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT
                                (STIFF)

                             LIGHT BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                (MEDIUM STIFF)
                             ORANGE-BROWN TO GRAY ClAYEY VERY FINE SAND
                             TO SILTY CLAY
                                (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF)
                             DARK GRAY VERY FINE CLAYEY SILT TO
                             SILTY CLAY
                                (SOFT)


                             DARK GRAY VERY FINE SANDY SILTY CLAY WITH
                             TRACE OF SMALL GRAVEL
                                (MEDIUM STIFF)

                             GRAY-BROWN FINE TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                             TRACE OF SILT
                                (HED1UM DENSE)
                             BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5 FT. ON 7/15/77
                             WATER LEVEL AT 24'-6" ON 8/2/77
0



5
10

1- 13
UJ
bj
U.
Z
X 20
H
o.
Id
O

25



10


33

4O
•alDIIIIIIIL HL.



'•a
nB

ma
•a




»a



I»H

M

•
P
F
P
'P^
4%:
'//,?.,
%i
• fiS
'.'Si
-l|
.i)'!1®
*,T{
:?*
M
uBM^w
|^>^y,.


CL










ew



GRAY-BROWN CLAYEY SILT TOPSOIL WITH TRACE
OF SAND
GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY
(STIFF)









GRADES LIGHT GRAY WITH LESS SILT
GRADES RED-BROWN WITH TRACE OF VERY
FINE SAND


ORANGE -BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY
GRAVEL (DENSE)



GRADES MEDIUM DENSE

GRADES WITH INCREASED SAND

BORING TERMINATED AT 35.5 Fl. ON
WATER LEVEL AT ?4'-b" ON U/Z/77



CHERT








7/14/77

             • DM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
             • DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
             DUSK TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
             BSPT SAMPLER
             BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
             I.
                THE 3.25* 0.0. DAMES I MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                BLOWCOUNT WITH DAMES > MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                PENETRATION TEST, I.E. DSH • SPT.
Figure  3.2-19.    Log  of  borings.
                                                                 3.2-21

-------
          BORING    A-37
          ELEVATION:  227.9'
                                                 BORING    A-38
                                                  ELEVATION:  234.1'
                    SYMBOLS
                                         DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                          SYMBOLS
                                                                                                               DESCRIPTIONS
                          ML
                 taa :••
                 ••a
                           CL
                           GW
MOTTLED GRAY-BROUN CLAYEY  SILT TOPSOIL
    (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF)
GRAY-BROUN SILTY CLAY UITH TRACE OF DARK
BROUN ORGANIC MATTER
    (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                  GRADES STIFF TO VERY STIFF
                                  GRADES UITH LESS SILT
                                  (STIFF)
                                  GRADES GRAY WITH LENSES OF RED-BR
                                  VERY FINE SILTY SAND
                                  (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF)

                               GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                  (MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE)
                                  GRADES TAN (MEDIUM DENSE)
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5 FT. ON 7/8/77
                               UATER LEVEL AT 17'-11" ON 8/2/77
                                                                                           It
                                                                                           i;8J
                                                                                           •?.;.•;•'•
                                                                                                 CL
MOTTLED GRAY-UHITE AND REDDISH BROUN SILTY
CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT
   (HED1UM STIFF)
GRAY-BROUN SILTY CLAY UITH TRACE OF ORGANICS
   (STIFF)
                                                                                                         GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN AND RED-
                                                                                                         BROHN (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                         GRADES TO LESS SILTY AND LIGHT BROUN
                                                                                                         GRADES MOTTLED GRAY AND RED-BROW
                                                                                                         GRADES TO ORANGE-BROUN
                                                                       TAN FINE SAND
                                                                          (MEDIUM DENSE)

                                                                       BROUN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                                                                      TRACE OF SILT
                                                                         (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE)
                                                                                                         GRADES LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE
                                                                                                         GRADES MEDIUM DENSE
                                                                      BORING TFRMINAUI) AT 40.b FT. ON 7/1B/77
                                                                      UATER LCVI.L AT ?&'-«" ON B/J/77
             LEGEND:
               •DiM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               HOiM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               DOW TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               3SPT SAMPLER
               BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
             NOTE:
               1.
                   THE 3.25" 0.0. DAMES 1 MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLED HERE DRIVEN UITH
                   A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE SLOUS REQUIRED
                   TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                   BLOUCOUNT UITH DAMES 1 MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TINES THE STANDARD
                   PENETRATION TEST. I.E.  DJM • SPT.
                                      ~T
Figure  3.2-20.    Log   of  borings.
                                                                     3.2-22

-------
       BORING    A-39
       ELEVATION:  230.1'
BORING   A-40
ELEVATION: =235.2'
                 SYMBOLS
                                     DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                      SYMBOLS
                                                                                                         DESCRIPTIONS
                        CL
                            MEDIUM GRAY SILTV CLAY UIIH TRACE OF SAND
                               (MEDIUM STIFF)
                               GRADES GRAY-GREEN WITH INCREASED SILT
                               GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY AND RED-BROWN
                               (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF)
                               GRADES LESS SILTY
                               GRADES TO ORANGE-RED
                            MOTTLED GRAY TO REDDISH BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                (SOFTKMEOIUH PLASTIC)
                             1RAY SILTY CLAYEY CHERT GRAVEL
                                (MEDIUM DENSE)
                            BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5 FT. ON 8/3/77
                            WATER LEVEL AT 23'-2" ON fl/5/77
                                                                                            CL
                                                                                   >7g
                                                                                            GW
                                                                                                GRAY-BROW SILTV CLAY
                                                                                                 GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY
                                                                                                    (MEDIUM STIFF)
                     ORANGE-BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND
                        (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                 ORANGE-BROWN FINE SANDY CLAY
                                                                                                    (MEDIUM STIFF)
                                                                                                 BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM COARSE SANDY CHERT
                                                                                                 GRAVEL
                                                                                                    (MEDIUM DENSE)
                                                                                                 BOHING TERMINATED Al 3'l.0 FT. ON l/»lll
           LEGEND:

              •OW TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
              BDtH TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
              QDIM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
              BSPT SAMPLER
              BSPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
           NOTE:
              1.
                 THE 3.25" 0.0. DAMES S MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER WERE DRIVEN WITH
                 A 140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
                 BLOWCOUNT WITH DAMES I MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                 PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DM • SPT.
Figure   3.2-21.     Log  of  borings.
                                                                   3.2-23

-------
         BORING    A-41
         ELEVATION:   235.2'
                                                  BORING     A-42
                                                  ELEVATION:  233.4'
                    SYMBOLS
                 TCI
                          CL
                          6W
                                         DESCRIPTIONS
                                                                                           SYMBOLS
                                                                                                                DESCRIPTIONS
GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAY WITH TRACE OF BLACK
ORGANIC MATERIAL
                                  GRADES WITH INCREASING SILT AND TRACE
                                  OF VERV FINE SAND
                                  GRADES TO GREENISH GRAY WITH LESS SILT
                                  GRADES WITH TRACE OF SILT AND
                                  OCCASIONAL RED-BROWN MOTTLING
                               BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY CHERT GRAVEL
                               WITH TRACE OF SILT
                                  (MEDIUM DENSE)
                               BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FT. ON 8/3/77
            LEGEND:

               •DIM TYPE U SAMPLER (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLE)
               HDiM TYPE U SAMPLER (DISTURBED SAMPLE)
               QOJM TYPE U SAMPLE (NO RECOVERY)
               BSPT SAMPLER
               0SPT SAMPLER (NO RECOVERY)
            NOTE:
              1.  THE 3.25" O.D. DAMES S MOORE TYPE U SAMPLE AND THE SPT SAMPLER HERE DRIVEN WITH
                  A  140 POUND HAMMER DROPPING FREELY A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES.  THE BLOWS REQUIRED
                  TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERS ONE FOOT ARE RECORDED TO THE LEFT OF THE SAMPLE SYMBOLS.
              2.  BLOWCOUNT WITH DANES 1 MOORE SAMPLER IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TIMES THE STANDARD
                  PENETRATION TEST. I.E. DIM • SPT.
                                                                                                 CL
                                                                                                 CL
                                                                   CL
nROUN SILTV CLAY TOPSOIL WITH OCCASIONAL
GRAVEL AND HOOTS

GRAV-DROWN SILTY CLAY WITH TRACE OF FIN!
SAND   ABUNDANT SMALL ROOTS AND SOMC
OtCAVED VI.GETATION  (VERY STIFF)

   SAND, GRAVEL AND ROOTS GRADING Oil I

   GRADES Htm TRACE OF BLACK OECAVtO
   VEGETATION

   GRADES TO MOTTLED GRAY-BROWN WITH LISS
   SILT (VERY STIFF)
                                                                                                      GRAY-BROWN SILTY CLAYEY VERY FINE SAND TO
                                                                                                      SILTY CLAY
                                                                       MOTTLED YELLOW-BROWN AND GRAY SILTY CLA'
                                                                       Ultll BLACK DECAYED VEGETATION
                                                                          (STIFF TO VERY STIFF)
                                                                           GRADES STIFF TO MEDIUM STIFF
                                                                          GRADES TO DARK GREEN-BROWN SILTV CLAV
                                                                          WITH THIN (I/? In.) SAND SEAM
                                                                          (VERY STIFF)

                                                                       YELLOW-BROWN FINE TO COARSt SANDY CHER!
                                                                       GKAVEL   (LOOK TO MEDIUM DENSE)

                                                                       BORING TERMINATED AT .10.b 11. ON 7/30/7/
                                                                       WATFR LEVEL AT 23'-'/" ON 8/2/77
Figure  3.2-22.     Log  of  borings.
                                                                     3.2-24

-------
MAJOR DIVISIONS £
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
•OM THAN 10 %
or KATIIIIAL is
LAMtH THAN NO.
too iievt iizi
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
WMIC THAN «0 %
Or HATCIIIAL II
iMALLtH THAN NO
too siKvr SIZE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
•OM THAN K> %
or COAUSI rN AC-
TION atTAINKD
ON NO. 4 IIWI
SANO
AND
SANDY
SOILS
Mont THAN B0%
TION >Ai«IM«
NO 4 IKVI
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
.
CLEAN GRAVELS «
ILITTH 01 NO *•
iljtl
V
'
GRAVELS WITH FINES !
lAmUCIAIlf AMOUNT *
or rimu 4Z
\
CLEAN SAND
riNls
SANDS WITH FINES ]'
or rmisi £/5
\
'RAPH
YMBOL
1 • •
i « .*;«
**fm\
II
i


::f|
•
1
1,00,0 ^«"M lljpp''
1
1
Hg
LIOUID L,«,T mjK
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS |-£
•
H
WM

='*-T-'?!

\LETTER
SYMBOL
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
\ CL
r
MH
CH
OH
PT
TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

HO fiNIS

SANO Mil TUMI S, LI T Til OH
SILTV QRAVlLS. OUAVIi. - SAND-
SILT wnTuKCt
CLATIV OUAVILI. OHAVtL-IANO-
WELL • 0*ADtD SANDS. OUAVlLLV


SANDS, DTTLC 0« HO flNCS




INOHQANIC SILTS AND VIMY FINt
SANDS, MOCM rLOUff. SlLTV 01
SILTS WTH RI«HT PLASTICITY
INOMAHIC CLAYS Of LO* TO MIDIIM
VLASTICtTV, ONAVILLV CLAYS.
CLAYS
OMOANIC tlLTI AND ORGANIC

INOMANIC lltTS, MIC AC COUS ON
OlATOMACIOUS FINC SAND OB
IILTV 10' LS
IMOAQANlt CLAYS Of Mtfttl

OHO A NIC CLAYS or MDIUM TO W«H
'LASTtCTV, OKOANlC WLlt



                  NOTC: DUAL SYMBOLS ARC USCD TO INDICATL UOHULKLINC >oii. CLASSITICATIONS.
                          SOIL   CLASSIFICATION  CHART
Figure 3.2-23.  Unified  soil classification  system.
                                         3.2-25

-------
3.3  REFERENCES

Albin, D. R., Hines, M. S., and Stephens, J. W., 1967, Water resources
     of Jackson and Independence Counties, Arkansas.   U.  S.  Geological
     Survey, Water Supply Paper 1839-G.

Arkansas Geological Commission, 1976, Geologic map of Arkansas.   Arkansas
     Geological Commission.

Caplan, W. M., 1954, Subsurface geological and related oil  and gas pos-
     sibilities of northeastern Arkansas.  Arkansas Resources and
     Development Commission Division, Geology Bulletin 20.

Croneis, Carey, 1930, Geology of the Arkansas Paleozoic area, with a
     special reference to oil and gas possibilities.   Arkansas Geological
     Survey, Bulletin 3.

Nuttli, Otto W., 1973, The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and
     1812, intensities, ground motion and magnitudes.  Seismological
     Society of American Bulletin, vol. 63, no. 1, p. 227-248.

Stearns, R. G., and Wilson, C. W., 1972, Relationship of earthquakes and
     geology in West Tennessee and adjacent areas.  Tennessee Valley
     Authority.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Soil survey of Independence
     County, Arkansas.  U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conser-
     vation Service, unpublished.
                                3.3-1

-------
                 PART 4
AIR QUALITY/METEOROLOGY

-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT



          PART 4



  METEOROLOGY/AIR QUALITY

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

4.1  REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY 	  4.1-1

     4.1.1   Surface Winds	4.1-1
     4.1.2   Temperature	4.1-1
     4.1.3   Relative Humidity	4.1-2
     4.1.4   Precipitation	4.1-2
     4.1.5   Fog	4.1-3
     4.1.6   Thunderstorms	4.1-4
     4.1.7   Tornadoes	4.1-4
     4.1.8   Windstorms	4.1-4
     4.1.9   Tropical Cyclones	4.1-4
     4.1.10  Atmospheric Stability	4.1-5
     4.1.11  Air Pollution Potential	4.1-5
     4.1.12  Average Wind Speed in the Mixing Layer 	  4.1-7
     4.1.13  Average Wind Speed and Direction at Stack Height .  .  4.1-8
     4.1.14  Temperature Inversion Frequency	4.1-8

4.2  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY	4.2-1

     4.2.1  Sulfure Dioxide Control 	  4.2-1
     4.2.2  Nitrogen Oxides Control 	  4.2-3
     4.2.3  Particulates Control	4.2-3

            4.2.3.1  Combustion 	  4.2-3
            4.2.3.2  Coal and Ash Handling	4.2-4

     4.2.4  Other Facility Emissions	4.2-5

4.3  DIFFUSION MODELS 	  4.3-1

     4.3.1  Introduction	4.3-1
     4.3.2  Model  for Annual  Concentrations 	  4.3-3

            4.3.2.1  Calculation Concepts 	  4.3-3
            4.3.2.2  Mixing Height	4.3-5
            4.3.2.3  Plume Rise	4.3-6
            4.3.2.4  Meteorological Input 	  4.3-8

     4.3.3  Models for 24-Hour and 3-Hour Concentrations	4.3-9

            4.3.3.1  Meteorological Input 	  4.3-10
            4.3.3.2  Plume Rise 	  4.3-12
            4.3.3.3  Wind Speed 	  4.3-13
            4.3.3.4  Terrain	4.3-13
            4.3.3.5  Receptor Orientation 	  4.3-13
            4.3.3.6  Emission Data	4.3-14
            4.3.3.7  Program  Output 	  4.3-14
            4.3.3.8  Interpretative Remarks 	  4.3-14
            4.3.3.9  Validation Studies 	  4.3-16

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)
     4.3.4  Models To Evaluate Compliance With Arkansas
              30-Minute Standards 	 4.3-17

            4.3.4.1  Introduction 	 4.3-17
            4.3.4.2  TVA Modeling Approach  	 4.3-18
            4.3.4.3  NOAA Modeling Approach 	 4.3-31
            4.3.4.4  Rawinsonde Data Reduction and Utilization.  . 4.3-33

4.4  MODELING RESULTS	4.4-1

     4.4.1  Annual Average Concentrations 	 4.4-1
     4.4.2  24-Hour Concentrations	4.4-2
     4.4.3  3-Hour Concentrations - CRESTER Model 	 4.4-3
     4.4.4  30-Minute and 3-Hour Concentrations -
              TVA, NOAA Models	4.4-4

            4.4.4.1  Emission Source/Modeling Concept
                       Combinations 	 4.4-4
            4.4.4.2  30-Minute Concentration Modeling Results .  . 4.4-7
            4.4.4.3  3-Hour Concentration Modeling Results. . .  . 4.4-8

4.5  ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS OF COOLING TOWERS	4.5-1

     4.5.1  Introduction	4.5-1
     4.5.2  Drift Deposition. .	4.5-1
     4.5.3  Visible Plumes	4.5-3
     4.5.4  Ground Level Fogging/Icing	4.5-5
     4.5.5  Modification of Precipitation/Cloud Formation .... 4.5-6
     4.5.6  Stack and Cooling Tower Plume Interaction 	 4.5-7

4.6  SULFATES ANALYSIS	,	4.6-1

     4.6.1  General Analysis	4.6-1

            4.6.1.1  Introduction 	 4.6-1
            4.6.1.2  Sulfate Formation	4.6-2
            4.6.1.3  Concentrations  and Transport of S0?
                       and Sulfates	4.6-5
            4.6.1.4  Visibility  Effects of Sulfates 	 4.6-7
            4.6.1.5  Effects of  Flue Gas Desulfurization
                       (Scrubber) Systems on Sulfates 	 4.6-7

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)
     4.6.2  Measured Sulfate Concentrations In Arkansas 	 4.6-8

            4.6.2.1  Introduction 	 4.6-8
            4.6.2.2  Data Source	4.6-9
            4.6.2.3  Seasonal Distribution	4.6-9
            4.6.2.4  Geographic Distribution	4.6-10
            4.6.2.5  Emission Rates and Emission Densities. . .  . 4.6-11
            4.6.2.6  Arkansas Point Source Emissions	4.6-11
            4.6.2.7  Meteorological Factors 	 4.6-12
            4.6.2.8  Summary	4.6-14

4.7  TRACE ELEMENT RELEASES  	 4.7-1

4.8  REFERENCES	4.8-1

-------
                                TABLES

                                                                   Page

4.1-1   Values of Mean and Average Daily Maximum and Minimum
        Temperatures (°F) at Little Rock (1941-1970)	4.1-10

4.1-2   Monthly and Annual Precipitation Little Rock and
        Batesville, Arkansas (Inches) 	  4.1-11

4.1-3   Class A Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-12

4.1-4   Class B Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-13

4.1-5   Class C Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-14

4.1-6   Class D Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-15

4.1-7   Class E Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-16

4.1-8   Class F Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-17

4.1-9   Class G Wind Frequency Distribution 	  4.1-18

4.1-10  Wind Frequency Distribution for All Stabilities 	  4.1-19

4.1-11  Frequency of Occurrence of Average Winds Speeds Through
        the Mixing Layer for Non-Precipitation Cases When the
        Mixing Height is 500 m or Greater  	  4.1-20

4.1-12  Annual Joint Distribution (Percent Occurrence) of Wind
        Speed and Direction at 300-Meter Level (Based on Little
        Rock Rawinsonde Observations, 1960-1964)	4.1-21

4.1-13  Seasonal and Diurnal Distribution of Inversion Frequency
        (Based on Little Rock Rawinsonde Observations,
        1960-1964)	4.1-22

4.1-14  Seasonal and Diurnal Frequency Distribution of Inversions
        Based Below 250 Meters and at Least 500 Meters Thick
        (Based on Little Rock Rawinsonde Observations,
        1960-1964)	4.1-23

4.2-1   Nitrogen Oxides Emissions vs. Boiler Operating Level. . .  4.2-7

4.3-1   Nomenclature for Terms Used in TVA and NOAA Equations . .  4.3-36

4.3-2   TVA Model Equations 	  4.3-38

4.3-3   Mean Monthly Load Factors; Sunrise and Sunset 	  4.3-41

-------
                           TABLES (Continued)

                                                                   Page

4.3-4   Stack Exit Characteristics for Ten Percent Operating
        Level Increments	4.3-42

4.3-5   Stability Categorizations 	  4.3-43

4.3-6   NOAA Model Equations  	  4.3-44

4.3-7   Examples of Actual Upper Air Data	4.3-47

4.4-1   Maximum Predicted Annual Average Concentrations 	  4.4-9

4.4-2   Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Concentrations	4.4-10

4.4-3   Maximum Predicted 3-Hour Concentrations Based on
        CRSTER Model	4.4-11

4.4-4   Emission Source/Modeling Concept Combinations 	  4.4-12

4.4-5   Maximum 30-Minute S09 and Particulate Concentrations -
        TVA, NOAA Models. .	4.4-13

4.4-6   Meteorological Variables Associated with Maximum
        30-Minute Concentrations	4.4-14

4.4-7   Maximum 3-Hour S09 Concentrations TVA Limited
        Mixing Model. .	  4.4-15

4.5-1   Independence Steam Electric Station Natural Draft
        Cooling Tower Characteristics 	  4.5-9

4.5-2   Percent Occurrence and Saturation Deficit Little Rock
        AFB, Arkansas; Data Record 1956-1962	4.5-10

4.6-1   High Sulfate Concentration Days From 1973-1976	4.6-15

4.6-2   Stations Which Reported on Greater Than 50 Percent of the
        High Sulfate Concentration Days 	  4.6-16

4.6-3   Estimated 1972 Total Sulfur Oxides Emissions and
        Emission Density for Arkansas and Neighboring States. .  .  4.6-17

4.6-4   Total Sulfur Dioxide Point Source Emissions for Counties
        in Arkansas, 1976	4.6-18

-------
                          TABLES (Continued)
4.6-5   Difference Between Little Rock Dew Point on High
        Sulfate Concentration Days and Mean Monthly
        Dew Point 	  4.6-19

4.7-1   Coal Trace Element Analysis (Dry, Whole Coal Basis) .  .  .  4.7-3

4.7-2   Estimated Maximum Emission Rates of Trace Elements. .  .  .  4.7-4

4.7-3   Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
        Workplace Exposure Standards	4.7-5

-------
                                FIGURES

                                                                 Page
4.1-1   Annual wind frequency distribution - Little Rock
        (1955-1964) 	   4.1-24

4.3-1   Determination of hourly mixing heights by the
        CRSTER model preprocessor program 	   4.3-48

4.3-2   Illustration of limited mixing and inversion breakup
        conditions	4.3-49

4.3-3   AP&L system load curve (winter maximum, 1/2/74) ....   4.3-50

4.3-4   AP&L system load curve (summer maximum 8/20/73) ....   4.3-51

4.3-5   TVA horizontal and vertical diffusion coefficients,
        a  and az	4.3-52


4.3-6   Typical limited mixing case, 0000 GMT sounding
        (1715 CST release)	4.3-53

4.3-7   Typical inversion breakup case, 1200 GMT
        sounding (0515 CST release) 	   4.3-54
                                                           2
4.6-1   Number of high sulfate concentration days (>JO pg/m  at
        75% or more of reporting stations) per month	4.6-20

4.6-2   Location of 6 highest and 6 lowest sulfate
        concentration stations	4.6-21
                                                       2
4.6-3   1972 sulfur oxides emission densities (kg/yr-km ) . .  .   4.6-22

4.6-4   Arkansas 1976 sulfur dioxide point source emissions
        by county (kg/yr x 103)	4.6-23

4.6-5   Typical 850 mb chart for a day of high sulfate
        concentrations in Arkansas	4.6-24

-------
                              PART 4
                      METEOROLOGY/AIR QUALITY
4.1  REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY
     This section describes baseline climactic features which are con-
sidered to be representative of conditions at the proposed site.  Long-
term climatological records from the National Weather Service (NWS)
station at Little Rock, supplemented by data from locations near  the
site were used in this study.  Because of the homogeneous climactic
conditions over the eastern part of Arkansas, these data are considered
to be generally representative of climatic conditions at the site.
4.1.1  Surface Winds
     An annual wind rose for the period from 1955 to 1964 at Little  Rock
is shown in Figure 4.1-1.  These data indicate that winds from south
through west-southwest are most common, although the distribution is
fairly uniform over all directions.  The annual average wind speed is
7.3 kt (8.4 mph), and the frequency of calms is 5.2 percent (USDC,
1973a).  This compares favorably with a 32-year mean wind speed at
Little Rock of 7.1 kt (8.2 mph) (USDC, 1974).
     The "fastest mile" of record at Little Rock during the period from
1942 to 1974 was 65 mph (USDC, 1974).  The fastest mile is defined as
the highest wind speed lasting for any time interval during which a
length of air one mile long passes a wind instrument.
4.1.2  Temperature
     Monthly and annual values of daily mean temperatures, and average
daily maximum and minimum temperatures for Little Rock (USDC, 1974)  are
shown in Table 4.1-1.  Based on these data, the annual mean temperature
is 61°F.  The highest average daily maximum temperature, near 93°F,
occurs during the months of July and August, while the lowest average
daily minimum temperature, 29°F, occurs in January.  Data published  for
stations nearer the site (Batesville and Newport) are in close agreement
with the above averages (USDC, 1965).  Data for Batesville and Newport
indicate annual averages of 59.9°F and 61.7°F, respectively.  The highest
average daily maximum value of temperatures, 92-93°F, occurs
                                  4.1-1

-------
during July and August.  The lowest average daily minimum occurs in
January, with 27°F at Batesville and 30°F at Newport (USDC, 1965).
     Summer weather is consistently quite warm, with maximum tempera-
tures equal to or greater than 90°F approximately 75 days each year.
The temperature can be expected to drop to freezing or below about  60
days each year (USDC, 1968a).  The extreme highest temperature recorded
at Little Rock (about 100 years of record) was 110°F, while the extreme
lowest was -13°F (USDC, 1974).  However, long-term records at Batesville
yield an extreme high of 115°F and an extreme low of -18°F (USDC, 1965).
Extremes at Newport based on data records from 1891 through 1960 were
114°F and'-14°F.
4.1.3  Relative Humidity
     Relative humidity is generally high in the site area.  Based on
Little Rock data from 1961 to 1974 (USDC, 1974), the annual average
relative humidity is approximately 70 percent, while monthly averages
range from near 65 percent in March to over 75 percent in September.
Diurnally, the relative humidity averages 79 percent at midnight, 84
percent at 6:00 a.m., 57 percent at noon, and 61 percent at 6:00 p.m.
4.1.4  Precipitation
     Monthly and annual precipitation means and extremes at both Little
Rock and Batesville are set forth in Table 4.1-2.  Although the periods
of record are different, the annual mean at both stations was 49.5  in.
These data indicate that rainfall is rather evenly distributed through-
out the year, with a peak in spring and a minimum in late summer and
early fall.  Maximum monthly totals of approximately 18 in. at Little
Rock and 14 in.  at Batesville occurred in January at both stations.   The
maximum rainfalls (inches) at Little Rock from 1900 to 1961 (USDC,  1963)
for various time periods to 24 hours are as follows:
     Period (min.)    	5       	lp_        15        30        60
     Rainfall (in.)
     Period (hrs.)
     Rainfall (in.)   4.60       6.82      7.68      8.19      9.58
0.63
2
1.01
3
1.35
6
2.07
12
3.00
24
                                   4,1-2

-------
     Data presented for Batesville from 1951  to 1960 (USDC,  1965)  in-
dicate that daily rainfall rates of 0.5 in.  or more can be expected
about 2 or 3 days each month, or approximately 30 days per year.   Measur-
able precipitation (0.01 in. or greater) occurs on an average of  104
days each year (USDC, 1974).
     The annual average snowfall is approximately 5 in. at Little  Rock
(USDC, 1974) and almost 7 in. at Batesville (USDC, 1965).   Extremes  of
snowfall (inches) for both Little Rock and the State of Arkansas  are set
forth below (Ludlam, 1970):

                    Little Rock
Period              (1885-1970)    State of Arkansas
24 hr.                 13.0        25.0 (Corning, 76-year period)
Single storm           13.0        25.0 (Corning, 76-year period)
Calendar month         19.4        48.0 (Calico Rock, 66-year period)
Season                 26.6        61.0 (Hardy, 64-year period)

     Precipitation in the form of freezing rain (glaze and ice storms),
although infrequent, is at times severe.  Moderate to heavy ice storms
are estimated to occur about once every 4 years and can be very damaging
to utility lines and trees, as well as being a serious traffic hazard.
     Hail is another form of frozen precipitation and is usually  as-
sociated with moderate to severe thunderstorms.  Hard hail (which  does
not shatter on impact) of 1 in. diameter and larger will cause heavy
damage to roofs, pit thin steel surfaces such as automobiles, and  may
break windows.  For the period 1955-1967, there was an average of  about
one report per year of hail 0.75 in.  or greater in diameter within the
one-degree latitude-longitude square containing the proposed site
(Pautz, 1969).  Almost half of these occurrences were in April.
4.1.5  Fog
     Heavy fog is defined as that fog which reduces visibility to  0.25
mile or less.  The average number of days each year with heavy fog is
16, based on Little Rock data from 1943 to 1974 (USDC, 1974).  The
                                    4.1-3

-------
average number of days each month with heavy fog reaches a peak of 3 in
January, and a minimum of less than 0.5 in June.
4.1.6  Thunderstorms
     Thunderstorms can be expected on 55 to 60 days each year (USDC,
1974).  Thunderstorm occurrences reach a peak in July with an average of
9 days, and average about 6 days a month during both spring and summer.
Thunderstorms generally occur on about two days each month during the
rest of the year.
4.1.7  Tornadoes
     During the period from 1955 through 1967, a total of 27 tornadoes
were recorded in the one-degree latitude-longitude square containing the
proposed site (Pautz, 1969).  According to Thorn (1963), the probability
and return period of a tornado occurrence at a specific point in this
area would be 0.00151 and 663 years, respectively.  For comparison, the
maximum probability in the United States, based on the 1955 to 1967 data
set, is 0.00588 (return period of 170 years).  This maximum occurs near
Oklahoma City.
4.1.8  Windstorms
     Strong, gusty surface winds, 50 kt or greater, usually occur in
association with severe thunderstorm activity.  On occasion, winds of
such magnitude may occur in association with intense extra-tropical
cyclones (low pressure areas), and strong winds also may accompany well-
developed cold fronts.  From 1955 through 1967, 18 windstorms with winds
equal to or greater than 50 kt were reported in the one-degree latitude-
longitude square containing the proposed site (Pautz, 1969).
4.1.9  Tropical  Cyclones
     Tropical  cyclones, including hurricanes, lose strength rapidly as
they move inland.   Their greatest potential  impact in the site area
comes from flooding due to heavy rainfall; high winds are seldom as-
sociated with them.  Wind and precipitation extremes presented in pre-
vious sections include hurricane effects.  An average of one tropical
                                    .4.1-4

-------
cyclone per year, none with hurricane-force winds,  affected Arkansas
during the period from 1931 to 1960 (Cry, 1967).
4.1.10  Atmospheric Stability
     Atmospheric stability in conjunction with the  general  ventilation
(winds) indicates the ability of the atmosphere to  disperse airborne
effluents.  Analyses of dispersion, based on these  variables,  are
presented in subsequent sections.  The mean annual  frequency distri-
bution of Pasquill stability classes for the 10-year period from 1955 to
1964 at Little Rock (USDC, 1973a) is presented below:
    Pasquill
Stability Class     Description              Percent Occurrence
     A              Extremely Unstable                 0.6
     B              Unstable                           6.0
     C              Slightly Unstable                 13.3
     D              Neutral                           43.6
     E              Slightly Stable                   14.9
     F              Stable                            14.9
     G              Extremely Stable                   6.7
     Stability determinations are based on the well-known Turner (1964)
or STAR method which assigns a stability class on the basis of surface
wind speed, cloud cover, and solar angle.  Joint annual frequency dis-
tributions of wind speed, wind direction, and stability class  at Little
Rock for the period 1955 to 1964 are shown in Tables 4.1-3 through 4.1-10.
4.1.11  Air Pollution Potential
     Meteorological conditions conducive to high air pollution potential
on a regional basis are light winds accompanied by  a shallow mixing
height.  Mixing height is defined as the vertical extent of the surface
layer in which relatively vigorous vertical mixing  takes place.
Holzworth (1972) has compiled isopleths of seasonal and annual mean
mixing heights for both morning and afternoon cases.  The Little Rock
mean mixing heights and associated average wind speeds through the
mixing layer (period 1960 to 1964) are as follows:
                                      4.1-5

-------
                    Morning                  Afternoon
               Mixing    Wind           Mixing         Wind
               Height    Speed          Height         Speed
Season        (Meters)   (m/s)          (Meters)	(m/s)
Winter           541       5.2           1101            6.6
Spring           544       5.7        ,1612            7.0
Summer           375       3.7           1851         .4.9
Autumn           342       3.8           1401            5.2
Annual           450       4.6           1491            5.9
The above data show that, on the average, the greatest air pollution
potential-occurs on summer and autumn mornings because of the more
shallow mixing depths and lower wind speeds.
     The persistence of high meteorological potential for air pollution
is indicated by what Holzworth calls episodes and episode days.   An
episode occurs if a mixing height of 2000 meters or less, combined with
a wind speed of 6 meters per second or less, persists without precip-
itation for at least 2 days.  Holzworth determined the frequency of
2-day and 5-day episodes for several combinations of wind speeds and
mixing heights.   Episode days are the total number of days included in
the episodes. The number of episodes in 5 years (1960 to 1964) at Little
Rock, lasting 2 or more days and 5 or more days, are:
Mixing Height       Two or More Days      •   Five or More Days
  (meters)          Wind Speed (m/s)         Wind Speed (m/s)
                     <2    <4    £6             <4     £6
  £500                012              00
 £1000                0     9    30      ,02
 £1500                0    23    68              05
 £2000                0    39   126              1     16
These data show that there were only 16 episodes in 5 years lasting 5 or
more days; of these only 2 had a mixing depth of 1000 meters or  less.
     Based on a  40-year period of record (1936-1975), Korshover  (1976)
tabulated the number of times stagnating anticyclones persisted  for 4 or
more and 7 or more days.  Occurrences of stagnation were determined
                                        4.1-6

-------
primarily on the basis of a surface pressure-gradient analysis.   In the
general site area, there were 20 stagnation cases which persisted for at
least 4 days during the 40-year period, involving a total  number of 92
stagnation days.  Of the 20 cases, 12 occurred during the fall and 8
during the summer season.  There was only one case which persisted for 7
or more days during this period.
     The above indicates that conditions condusive to high air pollution
in the region are infrequent.  This is due to frequent air mass changes
resulting from frontal passages in this region.
4.1.12  Average Wind Speed in the Mixing Layer
     Depending on the type of model and plume rise calculation technique
used, the results of a modeling analysis sometimes show that low wind
speeds are associated with higher ground level concentrations for
elevated, buoyant emission releases.  To determine the frequency with
which such winds occur, an evaluation of average wind speeds repre-
sentative of the Independence site within the entire mixing layer was
conducted.  This evaluation is based on twice-daily (morning and after-
noon) rawinsonde soundings made at Little Rock during the 5-year period
1960 to 1964.
     Wind speed averaged over the entire mixing layer is a more meaning-
ful statistic than surface wind speed, since a plume released from a
1000-ft stack will be affected by winds throughout the vertical extent
from ground level to the top of the mixing layer and not just by surface
winds.  Furthermore, the mixing layer must be of sufficient height,
or a buoyant plume released from a tall stack will ascend above the
mixing height and not contribute significantly to ground level concen-
trations.  Computations performed using Briggs1 plume rise equations
(Briggs, 1971; Briggs, 1972) indicate that the plume from the Indepen-
dence Steam Electric Station when both generating units are operating
will be above 500 m during very low wind speed conditions.  Therefore,
only those non-precipitation cases were considered when the mixing
height, determined by the Holzworth (1972) technique, was 500 m or
greater.
                                          4.1-7

-------
     The resulting frequency of occurrence of mixing layer average wind
speeds has been tabulated by the National Climatic Center (USDC, 1968b)
and is presented in Table 4.1-11 for both morning and afternoon soundings,
Average wind speeds of 2 m/s or less are very infrequent, occurring only
5 percent of the time during the 429 morning cases when the mixing
height was 500 m or greater, and only 3 percent of the time during the
1377 afternoon cases when the mixing height was at least 500 m.
4.1.13  Average Wind Speed and Direction at Stack Height
     As a means of estimating prevailing transport conditions for a
plume released from the Independence site at a height of 1000 ft (305
m), average annual percent frequency of winds at the 300 m level are
presented in Table 4.1-12.  These data are based on twice-daily Little
Rock rawinsonde measurements over the period 1960 to 1964 (USDC, 1973b).
Although wind direction is resolved only to the four primary compass
directions, it appears that westerly wind flow between 5 and 10 m/s is
the most common morning condition, and southerly wind flow between 5 and
10 m/s the most common afternoon condition.
4.1.14  Temperature Inversion Frequency
     A temperature inversion exists in the atmosphere when temperature
increases with height rather than decreases as is usually the case.  An
estimate of morning and afternoon temperature inversion frequency at the
Independence site is provided in Table 4.1-13 and is based on twice-
daily rawinsonde observations taken at Little Rock over the 5-year
period 1960 to 1964 (USDC, 1973b).  This table includes both surface-
based inversion frequency and frequency of inversions with bases above
the surface.   Surface-based inversions are more frequent in the early
morning and are due primarily to radiational  cooling effects.  Elevated
inversions are more common during the late afternoon and are presumably
largely attributable to subsidence heating when high pressure systems
are present.
     Information is presented in Table 4.1-14 regarding the seasonal
frequency with which a plume emitted from the Independence Steam Electric
Station's 1000-ft stack might actually be embedded within an inversion
                                          4.1-8

-------
layer.  This table shows the precentage frequency of occurrence of
inversions which are based below 250 m, i.e., below the top of the
stack, and are at least 500 m thick so that they extend well  above the
top of the stack.  Such inversions are most common in the early morning,
particularly during the winter months when they occur about 26 percent
of the time.
                                 4.1-9

-------
                          Table 4.1-1
                 Values of Mean and Average
         Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperatures (°F)
                 at Little Rock (1941-1970)


Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December


Mean
39.5
42.9
50.3
61.7
69.8
78.1
81.4
80.6
73.3
62.4
50.3
41.6
Average
Daily
Maximum
50.1
53.8
61.8
73.5
81.4
89.3
92.6
92.6
85.8
76.0
62.4
52.1
Average
Daily
Minimum
28.9
31.9
38.7
49.9
58.1
66.8
70.1
68.6
60.8
48.7
38.1
31.1
Annual
61.0
72.6
49.3
Source:  USDC, 1956, 1965, 1974.
                          4.1-10

-------
                               Table 4.1-2
                   Monthly and Annual Precipitation
                 Little Rock and Batesville, Arkansas
                               (Inches)
                      Little Rock
Batesville
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Mean
(1941-1970)
4.24
4.42
4.93
5.25
5.30
3.50
3.38
3.01
3.55
2.99
3.86
4.09
48.52
Maximum
(1935-1974)
18.04
11.02
9.49
14.20
12.74
7.82
7.60
14.46
9.09
9.68
9.54
8.33
74.39
                                                Mean       Maximum
                                             (1931-1960)  (1931-1960)
                                                  4.40
                                                  4.17
                                                  4.68
                                                  4.34
                                                  4.94
                                                  4.17
                                                  3.81
                                                  3.43
                                                  3.23
                                                  3.27
                                                  4.27
                                                  3.87
                                                 48.58
        13.85
        10.53
        10.48
        10.63
        12.07
        10.81
         7.88
         7.99
         9.56
        11.34
        11.32
         9.96
        65.25
Source:  USDC, 1956, 1965, 1974.
                                 4.1-11

-------
AMMUAL
            Table 4.1-3
Class A-Wind Frequency-Distribution

  RELATIVE  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION
STATION =13963 LI TILE RUCK>AR-







SPFFDUTS)
DIRECTION
N
IINE
NE
ENE
E
FSE
SE
SSE
S
SSH
SH
wsw
w
WNW
NK
NNH
TOTAL
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
0-3
o.ooo-o is
0.00007;:
0.000071
O.OOOOB:*
0.00012^
0.000180
0.00015V
O.OOOT25
0.000] 01
0.000053
0.000091
0.000123
0.000060
0.00006ft
0.000037
0.000006
0.001*16
FREQUENCY OF
FREQUENCY OF
4-6
•0.0'I0183
O.OOOP.51
0.0003R8
0.000377
0.000548
0.000491
0.0^0400
0.0^0297
0.000?97
0.000320
0.000331
0.000274
O.OOOU*
0.000183
0.000137
0.000069
0.004659
OCCURRENCE OF A
CALMS DISTRIBUTED
7-10
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
STABILITY
ABOVE HITH
11-16
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.ocoooo
o.ocoooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
« 0.006075
A STABILITY .
17 - 21
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
.0.000000
o.oooooo
. o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0,000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo

•= C.0004Q1
GREATER THAN 21
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
O.GOOOOO
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooc
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
O.OOOOOG
0.000000
0*000000
0.000000


1955-6/1

TOTAL
0.000199
0.000323
0.000*^0
0.000*60
O.OOC671
0.000671
O.OCC559
0.000*22
0.000398
0.000373
0.000*22
0.000398
0.000174
0.000243
0.000224
0.000075




-------
                                 Table 4.1-4
                     Class B Wind Frequency Distribution
AMMUAI
RULATIVt FUFQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION «13<>63 LITTLE RUCK>AK  24UBS
1955-64
SPEFD(KTS)
DIRECTION
M
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
sw
wsw
w
WNW
NH
UNH
TOTAL
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
0-3
0.000*42
O.OOQ707
0.00079C,
• O.OOOK37
0.000905
0.00092*
0.000064
.0.000762
0.000739
0.000517
0.000*9"
O.OOOB67
0. 000*52
0.00041Z
0.000''ll
0.000263
0.0101599
FREQUENCY OF
FREQUENCY OF
4-6
O.OHH76
0.001507
0.001998
0.002284
0.002204
0.0'"2581
0. 0^2729
0.0l2i)32
0.001644
0.001576
(I.00177Q
0.0-H964
0.000891
0-001028
0.001005
0.000959
0.0?7347
OCCURRENCE OF B
CALMS OISTRI8UTFD
7-10
0.000617
0.001020
0.001450
0.002147
0.002090
0.0019B7
0.00l«5o
0.001279
0.001*67
0.001861
0.002227
0.001621
0-000559
0.000674
0.000765
0.000582
0.0224Q3
STABILITY
ABOVE WITH
11 - 16
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o'.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
« 0.060448
E STABILITY
17 - 21
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo .
o.ooooon
o.ooooon
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo

= 0.002135
CRbATEP. THAN 21
• o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000


TOTAL
0.002334
0.003241
0.004245
0.005260
0.005199
0.005495
0.005443
0.004073
0.004050
0.003954
0.004694
0.004452
0.0019Q2
0.002113
0.002180
0.0018Q4




-------
                                  Table 4.1-5
                      Class C Wind Frequency Distribution
ANNUAL
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION »13>»63 UllTlE RUCK,AK  240RS
• 1955-64
SPEED(KTS)
DIRECTION
N
NNE
ME
F.NE
E
ESE
SE
, SSE
S
ssw
SH
wsw
w
HNW
NW
NNW
TllTAL
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
0-3
0.000?B1
0.00024'J
0.000327
0.000414
0.000444
0.00043U
0.000492
0.000?5g
•' 0.000432
O.OC0342
0.000484
0.000^67
0.00024?
O.OOOl'fr
0«000?40
O.OOOlP"
0.005^95
FREQUENCY OF
FREQUENCY OF
4-6
0.001599
O.001&78
0.00l«l6
0.0n2626
0.002501
n.on2«77
0.00?512
0.001975
0.0'M998
O.OT2124
0.0:)2592
0.00274Q
0-001325
0«0"15B7
0.0ol5o7
0«0l
0.000662
0.000754
0.000^48
0.000731
0.000400
0.000411
0.000697
0.001103
0.00223B
0.002044 .
0.001P.33
0-000320
0.000525
0.000^05
0.000148
0.013074
= 0.132852
C STABILITY
17 - ?.)
o.OQOOno
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000011
o.oooooo
0.000011
0.000000
o.oooooo
.0.000080
0.000126
O.OOOOPO
0.000046
0.000023
o.oooosn
0.000034
o.oooooo
0.000491

«= 0.001758
GRfcATER THAN 21
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000011
o.oooooo
0.000011
o.oooooo
0-000034
o.oooooo
0-000000
0.000057


TOTAL
0.004973
Ow006V5i
0.007863
0.010^07
0.009750
0.009858
0.008040
0.007221
0.009909
0,012034
0.013193
0.011315
0.004331
0.00546Q
0-006520
0.004527
-



-------
                                 Table 4.1-6
                     Class D Wind  Frequency Distribution
AMMUAI
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION -13963 LITTLE ROCK,AK  240B.S
1955-64
SPEED(KTS)
DIRECTION
N
NNE
NE
F.NE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
SW
wsw
w
WNW
NW
NNW
TQT4L
RELATIVE
•RELATIVE
0 -
0.000060
0.000960
0.001?56
0.001405
0.001576
0.001227
0.001645
O.OOOC-51
0.00099*
0.000*17
0.000997
0.000^39
0.000*3?.
0.000*50
0.00049*
0.000*25
0.0)5038
FREQUENCY OF
FREOUFNCY OF
3 4-6
0.004305
0.0^5184
6.005675
0.006771
0. 005778
0. 006212
0.005709
0.004978
0. nn5024
0.0-13996
0.004579
0.0"363l
0.002386
0.002489
0.002912
0.003083
0.072711
OCCURRENCE OF D
CALMS DISTRIBUTED
7-10
0.013188
0.015072
0.016648
0.010121
0.011110
0.009728
0.009591
0,011669
0.017070
0.0149B1
0.012423
0.008689
0.004624
0.007102
0.008404
0.009431
0.1*7353
STABILITY
ABOVE WITH
11 - 16
0.009728
0.009945
0.008792
0.008415
0.004796
0.004739
0.004442
0.005721
0.015266
0.017527
0.011315
0.007742
0.0047Q4
0.012389
0-009751
0.008587
0.143058
» 0.436200
D STABILITY
17 - 21
0.001U9
O'.0003&5
0-000320
0.000251
0.000137
0.0003o8
0.000205
0.000388
0.001553
0.002352
0.001176
0.000776
0.001016
0.002843
0-001507
0.000719
0.015118

= 0.004910

GREATER THAN ?l
0.000069
0.000023
0.000000
0.000011
0.000023
0.000034
0.000023
0.000046
0.000091
0.000240
0.000091
0-000251
0.000183
0.000343
0-000126
0.000069
0.001621



TCITAL
0.029269
0.031550
0.032690
0.034975
0.023419
0.022248
O.Q21695
0.023654
0.0*0004
0.039V14
0.030582
O.Q217Z8
0.013346
0.025616
0.023199
0.022313




-------
                                                         Table 4.1-7
                                             Class E Wind Frequency Distribution
                       ANNUAL
RELATIVF FRI-QUENCY DISTRIBUTION
SUTtON »13Vc>3 LITTLE RUCK,AK  24UBS
en
• 1955-64
SPLCD(KTS>
DIRECTION
N
NNE
NE
F.NF.
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
SU
WSH
W
WNH
NW
MNW
TOTAL
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
0-3
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.ooonoo
' o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0-000000
0*000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
FREQ'JfcNCY OF
FREQUENCY OF
4-6
0.00320V
0.003266
0.0o4n3l
0.0'i42 *
0.001&10
0.0*2078
0.002386
0.060825
OCCURRENCE PF E
CALMS DISTRIBUTED
7-10
0.00733]
0.006257
0.004010
0.003631
0.002352
0.002272
0.002603
0.004659
0.008529
0. 00?034
0.00^569
0«0o94o9
0-003^4
0.005184
0.005287
0.005743
0.087*52
STABILITY
ABOVE WITH
11-16
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.ooocoo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0-000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
B 0.148677
F STABILITY
17 - 21
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
.0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0*000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo

« o.oooooo
GR6ATF.R THAN 21
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oocooo
O'OOOOOO
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000


TOTAL
0.010539
0.009523
0.008050
0.007924
0.006052
0.006634
0.006931
0.010C71
0.013725
O.OH247
0.014787
0-014764
0-006143
0,006794
0.007365
0.008130




-------
                                   Table 4.1-8
                       Class  F Wind Frequency Distribution
ANHMAt
RFLATIVF. FREQUfcNCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION -13963 LtTTLE RUCK»AK  24647
0.005412
0.0n6668
0.008472
0.008061
0,007616
0.0'3805
0.0?2048
0.006737
0«0o35l7
0.004670
0.00513B
' 0.120611
nCCURRENCF. OF F
CALMS DISTRIBUTED
7-10
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
STABILITY
ABOVE WITH
11 - 16
0.000000
0.000000 •
O'.OOOOOO
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
'o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0-000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
.0.000000
= 0.14896-*
F STABILITY <
17 - 21
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.ooooon
o.oooooo-
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
0*000000
0-OOOOon
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo

> 0,012218
GREATER THAN 21
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
O'OOOOOO
0*000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo


'TOTAL
0.007339
0.007675
0.007090
0.007053
0.006692
0.007426
0.008981
0.01Q573
0.010125
0.009254
O.Q16513
0. Q25347
0.008160
0.004304
0.005597
0.006331




-------
                                   Table 4.1-9
                       Class 6 Wind Frequency Distribution
ANNUM
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION "13953 LITTLE
24UBS
1955-64
SPEED(KTS)
DIRECTION
N
?|N6
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSH
W
WNW
NW
NNH
TOTAL
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
0-3
0.002235
o.ooi^a4
0.003043
0. 003926
0.004532
0.004302
0.005221
. 0.0045R7
' 0.004386
0.004448
0.007631
0.009057
0.003780
0.002151
n.o020B8
0.001316
0.066785
FREQUENCY OF
FREQUENCY OF
4-6
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.onoooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0,000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
OCCURRENCE OF c
CALMS DISTRIBUTED
V - 10
o.oooooo
o.oooouo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0*000000
0.000000
STABILITY
ABOVE WITH
11 - 1.6
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
.0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
- 0.06.6785
G STABILITY
17 - ?l
o.oooooo
o.'ooootio
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.ocoooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
o.oooooo
O.OOOOQC

* 0.030270
GREATER THAN 21
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooc
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
o.oooooc
o.ooocoo
o.oooooo
0.000000
0.000000


TOTAL
0.002235
0.001934
0.003843
0.003*26
0.004532 .
6.0043o2
0.005221
0.004687
0.0043B6
0.004448
0.007831
0.009857
0.003730
0.002151
0.002088
0.001316




-------
                                 Table 4.1-10
                Wind Frequency Distribution for all Stabilities-
ANMUM.
UFTLF KUCK,AK
1955-64

niRcrnnM
N
NNE
NE
ENE
f E
L ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
sw
WSW
w
WNW
NH
NNW
TQTftL

0'- 3
0.005704
0.006155
n.nofll 4n
0.008712-
0.009606-
0.009334"
0.010615-
. 0.009121
0.008H94
0.0077Q4.
0-011°5l
0-013630
0.005958-
0«004(i65 •
0.004'. I''
0.003*74
0.127HR4
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY
-TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY
t
/. - ft
0.016511
O.OlBy75
0.01.9331
0.0?1718
0.019377
0-0>1934
0.0?2346
0.0?3168
0.0?2220
0-019845
0. 0>8294
0.0^6812
0*013622
0-010413
0-012309
0.012800
0.318775
OF OBSERVATIONS
SPEFD(KTS)
7-10
0.02397ft
0.026719
O.OP70B4
0.030B06
0.021626
0.020119
0.018669
0.021797
0.033558
0.031069
0-o'32211
0.026536
0.011578
0.015997
0.018589
0.018783
0.379120
3 1.000001
OF CALMS DISTRIBUTED ABOVE «
11 - 16
0.009980
0.010MB-
0.009546'
0.009.?63
0-005526-
0.00513H
0.004K53-
6.006417
0.016374
0.019765
0-013359
0.008v75
0-005c24.
0-012914
0-010356
0-008735
0'. 156932

0.051782
17 - 21
• O.OOHI9
0.000363
0.000320
0.000263
0.000137
0.000320
0.0002F5
0. 0003f.fi
0.001633
0.002478
0-001256
0-000822
0.001039
0.002V23
0-001541
0.000719
0.015609


GREATER THAN 21
0.000069
0.000023
0.000000
0-000011
0.000023
0.000034
0.000023
0.000046
0.000091
0.000251
0-000091
0-000263
0-0001 83
0-000377
0-000126
0-000069
0.001678


TOTAL
0,o573hQ
0.061^4
0.0^4421
0.070S7J
0.056295
0.056300
0.056790
0.060?37
O.OB2770
o.oanu
O.OH7162
0«087044
0.0374Q4
O.Q46689
0.04733*
0.04*>9BQ




-------
                             Table 4.1-11

                  Frequency of Occurrence of Average
                 Wind Speeds Through the Mixing Layer
                 for Non-Precipitation Cases When the
                   Mixing Height is 500 m or Greater
                                Number of Occurrences
Morning Average
(0600 CST)
Month

January -
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Total Percent
Frequency
Wind
0-2.0
0
1
1
1
2
3
5
3
0
2
0
2
20

5%
Speed
2.1-6.
17
15
18
6
16
18
5
13
13
6
10
18
165

38%
(m/s)
0 >6.0
22
27
30
40
20
11
11
6
10
17
24
26
244

57%
Afternoon Average
(1800 CST)
Wind
0-2.0
4
1
'0
0
5
6
4
4
3
9
5
3
44

3%
Speed
2.1-6.
55
49
42
43
66
82
90
107
94
89
68
49
834

61%
(m/s)
0 >6.0
38
41
69
65
66
34
39
21
26
35
31
44
499

36%
Source:  USDC, 1968b
                                4.1-20

-------
                             Table 4.1-12
            Annual Joint Distribution (Percent Occurrence)
            of Wind Speed and Direction at 300-Meter  Level
                   (Based on Little Rock Rawinsonde)
                       Observations, 1960-1964)
                                      Percent Occurrence
                         Morning (0600 CST)       Afternoon  (1800  CST)
Wind Speed                    Direction               Direction
  (m/s)                  _N_  _E_  J_   W         N     E     S     W
0.1-2.5                  1.7  1.8  1.8  2.5        1.7  3.6   3.7   1.8
2.6-5.0                  6.0  7.5  6.9  5.9        6.5 12.9  12.0   5.3
5.1-10.0                10.8  9.5 12.1 14.0        7.3  8.0  18.9   9.5
>10.0                    3.3  0.9  7.8  7.5        1.5  0.6   3.9   3.1
Source: USDC, 1973b
                                 4.1-21

-------
                                  Table 4.1-13
                        Seasonal and Diurnal Distribution
                          of Inversion Frequency (Based
               on Little Rock Rawinsonde Observations, 1960-1964)
                                           Percent Occurrence
   Season
Dec-Jan-Feb
Mar-Apr-May
Jun-Jul-Aug
Sep-Oct-Nov
Annual
                          Morning (0600 CST)
Surface-
 Based
  49.6
  57.0
  75.9
  73.4
  64.0
Elevated
  47.9
  36.2
  14.7
  20.7
  29.8
                                  Afternoon (1800 CST)
Surface-
 Based
 20.0
  2.8
  3.9
 20.5
 IT.8
Elevated
 69.6
 66.2
 33.4
 49.3
 54.5
Source: USDC, 1973b
                                       4.1722

-------
                                  Table 4.1-14
                   Seasonal and Diurnal Frequency Distribution
                      of Inversions Based Below 250 Meters
                          and At Least 500 Meters Thick
                 (Based on Little Rock Rawinsonde Observations,
                                   1960-1964)
                    	Percent Occurrence	
Season                     Morning (0600 CST)               Afternoon (1800)
Source:  USDC, 1973b
Dec-Jan-Feb                        26.1                          5.3

Mar-Apr-May                        13.4                          0.2

June-Jul-Aug                       10.2                          0.6

Sep-Oct-Nov                        19.2                          0.6

Annual                             17.4                          2.2
                                      4.1-23

-------
                       NNW
                                    N
NNE
            NW
            NE
   WNW
   WSW
                   ENE
    20
                    ESE
           SW
             SE
                      SSW
 SSE
                                                       LEGEND:
                                                       0-6  7-10  >IO
                                                    SPEED CLASSES (KNOTS)
Figure-4.1-1.  Annual wind -frequency distribution - Little Rock (1955-1964).

                                   4.1-24

-------
 4.2  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
 4.2.1   Sulfur Dioxide Control
      Control  of sulfur dioxide emissions  at the Independence  Steam
 Electric Station will be achieved through the use of low-sulfur  coal
 obtained from mines in eastern Wyoming.   This coal,  contracted to meet
 the fuel requirements of both  units,  will have a  typical  sulfur  content
 of 0.28 percent by weight (as  received).
      Additional reductions in  sulfur  emissions can be expected when
 using Wyoming coal.  Investigations of sulfur balances at subbituminous-
.and lignite-fired power plants indicate that over 50 percent  of  sulfur
 in the coal  may be retained in the fly ash.  The  variables which affect
 the quantity of sulfur retained are:   coal  mineral matter, boiler
 temperature,  load, and combustion gas residence time.
      The three forms of sulfur which  are  present  in coal  are  organic,
 pyritic, and sulfate.  Organic sulfur generally predominates  in  low
 sulfur coal.   Pyritic sulfur (FeS2) is easily oxidized to sulfate.
 Sulfate sulfur in fresh coals  is usually  less than 0.05 percent, and  its
 presence in  more than this amount indicates the coal has  weathered.
 Sulfate sulfur usually occurs  as CaSO, and FeSO..
      During  combustion, organic sulfur and pyritic sulfur are oxidized
 to SOp and FeSO. respectively.  FeSO. decomposes  at 330°F to  form Fe^O,
 and sulfur oxides.  Calcium sulfate decomposes to CaO and sulfur oxides
 at temperatures above 1900°F.   Since  furnace temperatures will range
 from 2100 to  2200°F, all three forms  of sulfur can result in  sulfur
 oxides emissions.
      The more alkaline coals such as  low  sulfur Wyoming coal  have a
 greater tendency to retain sulfur in  collected ash.   An example  of this
 sulfur retention factor is provided in a  study of a  350 MW coal-fired
 generating unit performed for  USEPA by Radian Corporation (USEPA, 1977).
 The fuel used udring this study was sub-bitumious, low sulfur Wyoming
 coal  very similar to that which will  be used by the  Independence Steam
 Electric Station.  Sulfur balance data obtained over a 7-day  sampling
                                 4.2-1

-------
period during which the boiler was operating, essentially at full load,
demonstrated that the percentage of sulfur retention was between 14 and
16 percent.
     Operating conditions also have an effect on sulfur retention.  At a
reduced load or with a low heat release, the gas temperature is lowered,
and the residence time is longer.  This results in greater sulfur re-
tention in the ash.  Sulfur balances conducted at Neil Simpson Power
Station and Black Hills Power indicate that sulfur retention in ash in-
creased from approximately 30 percent at rated capacity to approximately
65 percent at half load.  Studies conducted on plants burning German
brown coals have also shown that the sulfur retained in the ash is
greatly influenced by boiler load and gas residence time.
     Tests have shown a wide variation in the amount of sulfur retained
in the various ash fractions.  These fractions depend upon the amount of
alkali and the temperature of the ash.  The ash fraction highest in sul-
fur is the fine fly ash.  Less sulfur is retained in the dust collection
fly ash and least sulfur is found in slag.  Thus, ash collected by
electrostatic precipitators is considerably enriched in sulfur compared
to the slag.                           :
     Analysis of the coal to be, used for the Independence Steam Electric
Station indicates that sulfur retention should be greater than 10
percent.  However, a 10 percent value has been used for all  mathematical
modeling.  At the time Unit One becomes operational, tests will be
conducted measuring sulfur content in the coal and quantity of sulfur
dioxide leaving the stack.  The results of these tests will  provide an
accurate prediction of what the actual retention rates will  be.  Such
information will be used to determine operating procedures.
     More detailed information is presented in EIS Tables 6.3-4 and 6.3-5
on specific coal analysis.  Emissions for various operating levels are
listed in Section 4.3.  The coal  will  be tested to insure compliance
with the Federal New Source Performance Standard for coal-fired steam
generators (1.2 Ib SO^/IO  Btu).   Typical coal used is expected to
produce an emission rate approximately half of the allowable.
                                4.2-2,

-------
4.2.2  Nitrogen Oxides Control
     Control of nitrogen oxides is accomplished through control of the
combustion process.  At present there are no feasible flue gas cleaning
systems for nitrogen oxides.  The use of tangentially fired boilers has
been found to be the most effective means of reducing nitrogen dioxide
emissions.  Both units at Independence Steam Electric Station will use
boilers of this design.
     Tangential firing is a technique of locating burners in the corners
of the box-like furnace area and distributing the fuel and combustion
air tangentially about the center of the furnace, resulting in a fire-
ball-type flame.
     Through a USEPA sponsored program, Combustion Engineering (the
boiler manufacturer for the Independence Steam Electric Station) joined
with ESSO Research and Engineering Company for extensive testing of one
500 MW, twin furnace, tangentially coal-fired unit.  As a result, many
quantitative and qualitative observations were made regarding the effect
of change in operation or design variables on nitrogen oxides emission
for tangentially fired units.  The burners designed by Combustion
Engineering for use at the Independence Steam Electric Station incor-
porate control technology gained from studies such as these.  Table 4.2-1
is a listing of expected nitrogen oxides emissions vs boiler load.
Based on this information supplied by the manufacturer, the greatest NO
                                      6                                X
emission rate anticipated is 0.6 lb/10  Btu, less than the allowable
Federal  New Source Performance Standard for coal-fired steam generators
of 0.7 lb/106 Btu.
4.2.3   Particulates Control
4.2.3.1  Combustion
     Experience at other coal-fired generating plants has shown that ap-
proximately 20 percent of the total ash produced by the burning of the
coal will be collected in hoppers at the furnace bottom and in the
economizer section of the furnace.  The remaining 80 percent of the
total ash can be expected to be entrained in the flue gas stream which
leaves the furnace.  Downstream of each steam generator will be an
                                4.2-3

-------
electrostatic precipitator for removal of the fly ash from flue gases.
These precipitators will be located on the upstream side of the air
preheater.  Temperatures in this area are in the range of 750-800°F and
experience throughout the power industry has shown that higher collection
efficiencies are more readily attainable with these "hot" precipitators
in conjunction with Western coals than with "cold end" precipitators.
The precipitators at Independence will be guaranteed at a collection
efficiency of 99.5 percent.  As an extra margin to insure that this
efficiency is reached, AP&L will require that the precipitators be
designed to handle 100 percent of the ash produced, whereas only 80
percent is expected to leave the steam generators.  Also, each precip-
itator will be required to have 110 percent of the collector plate area
actually needed, as determined by design calculations, to reach the
rated efficiency.
4.2.3.2  Coal and Ash Handling
     Other potential sources of particulate air contamination include
dust blown from coal during transportation; dust produced during coal
unloading; dust produced by the coal handling equipment; particulates
becoming airborne during the transfer of fly ash from ash silos to
trucks for hauling to the ash disposal area; dust resulting from unload-
ing of these trucks; and particulates blown by wind from the surface of
the stacked ash in the disposal area and from the coal storage area.
     Fly ash which is collected from the electrostatic precipitator will
be conveyed within piping by air pressure to fly ash silos.  The fly ash
will  then be loaded on trucks and hauled to the ash storage area.   The
dry ash silos are fitted with water injection systems combined with
dustless rotary truck loading devices to prevent escape of particulates.
Therefore, fugitive dust emission should not be a problem during the
transport of ash to the ash disposal area.
     The bottom ash will be sluiced from the boiler area to dewatering
bins.   The dewatering bins separate excess  water from the ash, and a 75
percent solid and 25 percent liquid mixture will be trucked to the ash
disposal area.   The excess water from the dewatering bins will be
                                4.2-4

-------
returned to the recycle water pond for reuse in the ash sluice system.
Bottom ash will thus be transported to the onsite waste disposal  area in
a semi-dry state, thereby minimizing dusting conditions.
     Measures of controlling dust from coal unloading and transfer
operations include dust suppression and removal systems.  In addition,
all conveyors from the crusher house to the silos at the boilers  will be
of covered design to minimize any dusting due to high winds.  Coal will
be delivered to the plant site in approximately 110-car unit trains.
Cars will be open-type, each containing 100 tons of coal.  Discussion
between AP&L and coal suppliers who operate similar unit trains has
established that dusting along the railroad right of way should not be  a
problem.  The coal delivered in the cars will be of a relatively  large
size (2 inches nominal diameter), and the smaller pieces that are loaded
will have a tendency to settle to the bottom of the car preventing their
being blown out onto the right-of-way.  Also, the coal is of a high
moisture content (28 percent typical) with entrained surface moisture
amounting to 5 percent.  These high moisture levels will resist dust
formation and further reduce the problem of dust blowing during coal
delivery.
     There is no practical method of modeling these fugitive dust sources
due to the many variables involved.  It is expected, however, that the
effects of such random and unpredictable emissions will, in light of the
control measures to be used, be indistinguishable from normal background
at points outside the plant boundary.  This assertion will be confirmed
by the use of post-operational particulate monitoring near site boundaries.
4.2.4  Other Facility Emissions
     While most emissions will come from the boiler stack and cooling
towers, there will also be a number of minor, mostly intermittent
sources of air contaminants.
     Fugitive dust can be produced from many operations at the proposed
facility.  These include the various phases of coal manipulation,
transfer of fly ash, vehicle movement on the property, and particle
                               4.2-5

-------
entrainment when winds blow across the coal storage pile and the ash
disposal area.  Control of these sources has been discussed in the
section on particulates control.  The level of total suspended solids
beyond the site boundary is not expected to be noticeably affected by
these fugitive dust sources.
     The auxiliary boiler will emit nitrogen oxides, particulates, and
sulfur dioxide.  This boiler will burn a No. 2 light fuel oil with a
very low sulfur content, typically on the order of 0.18 percent by
weight.  The fuel consumption rate is expected to be 12,696 Ib/hr at an
operating level 100 percent of rated capacity.  Based on this consump-
tion rate, a sulfur content of 0.18 percent, and an oil density of 7.24
Ib/gal, expected emissions are as follows:
               S02                 46 Ib/hr
               NO  (as N09)        39 Ib/hr
                 A       ^
               Particulates         4 Ib/hr
NO  and particulate emission rates are derived from USEPA emission
factors (USEPA, 1976).
     The No. 2 fuel oil to be used by the auxiliary boiler will be
stored in an 80,000 barrel storage tank.  Some hydrocarbon vapors will
escape as a result of tank loading and storage losses.
     Other minor emissions include the emergency diesel generators.   Due
to the fact that their use is for emergencies only, emissions will very
seldom occur.  Exhaust from vehicle traffic on the site constitutes
another minor source of emissions.
                                 4.2-6

-------
                              Table 4.2-1

                 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions vs. Boiler
                            Operating Level
          Operating                          Nitrogen Oxides
            Level                               Emissions
          (Percent)                            (lb/106 Btu)

             30                                   0.20

             50                                   0.30
             70                                   0.40
            100                                   0.55

            110                                   0.60
Note:  Federal New Source Performance Standard = 0.70 lb/10  Btu
                                4.2-7

-------
4.3  DIFFUSION MODELS
4.3.1  Introduction
     Recent publications issued under the auspices of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (1977a, 1977b) contain the conclusion that
Gaussian diffusion modeling is generally considered a state-of-the-art
method for both single and multiple emission source evaluations in areas
which are not dominated by peculiarities in terrain or other factors
which might produce atypical dispersion patterns.  The word Gaussian
refers to the statistical distribution of pollutant concentrations about
a plume centerline; a distribution with a well-defined analytical
expression which can be applied readily to the calculation of pollutant
concentrations so long as values for each variable in the expression are
available.  All models applied in evaluating the air quality impact of
the Independence Steam Electric Station are basically Gaussian models.
     In Gaussian models, pollutant concentration is a function of trans-
port by the mean wind speed and diffusion in both the crosswind (hori-
zontal) and vertical directions.  Diffusion refers to the spread of a
plume from a region of high concentration at the plume centerline to
regions of lower cencentration farther away from the centerline.  In the
programs employed for this study, the variation in concentration from
the plume centerline outward is defined by the Gaussian statistical
distribution.  The basic equation which specifies the concentration at
ground level resulting from the emissions of an elevated point source
is:
    X  =

where,
                                         o
     X = ground level concentration, yg/m
     Q = pollutant emission rate, g/s
     y = crosswind (horizontal) distance from the plume centerline, m
     H = effective stack height (physical stack height + plume rise), m
                                 4.3-1

-------
     u = mean wind speed, m/s
    a  = standard deviation of plume concentration distribution in the
         crosswind (horizontal) direction, as a function of atmospheric
         stability and downwind distance, m
    a  = standard deviation of plume concentration distribution in the
         vertical direction as a function of atmospheric stability and
         downwind distance, m
     TT = 3.14159
This formulation stems from several  important assumptions:
     0  There is total reflection of the plume at the earth's surface,
        and none of the material emitted is lost by chemical  trans-
        formation, deposition at the ground, or any other removal
        mechanism.  In other words,  the amount of material  passing
        through a vertical plane of infinite size oriented  perpendicular
        to the wind direction is always the same regardless of downwind
        distance.
     0  The concentration, x» represents an average value which is ap-
        propriate for the sampling time used to derive estimates of
        a , and a ; x usually represents a 3- to 15-minute  average
        concentration.
     0  The emission rate, Q, is assumed to be continuous over time so
        that diffusion in the direction of transport can be neglected.
     0  The material  emitted is assumed to be a stable gas  or a small
        aerosol  (less than about 20  microns in diameter) which behaves
        as a stable gas and remains  suspended in the air for  a long
        period of time.  (This is similar to the assumption of perfect
        reflection and no deposition.)
     0  Pollutant concentrations are distributed "normally" (in the
        Gaussian sense) in both the  crosswind and vertical  directions;
        the standard deviation of plume spread is assumed to  be a
        function of atmospheric stability and downwind distance only.
                                  4.3-2

-------
4.3.2  Model for Annual Concentrations
     The primary program used to calculate annual average concentrations
is the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM), a model which was originally
developed for regional air quality evaluations and one which has been
widely used  (U.S. Public Health Service, 1969a).  The basic product of
this model is an estimate of annual arithmetic average ground level
concentrations at specified receptor points resulting from the emissions
of one or more pollutant sources.
4.3.2.1  Calculation Concepts
     Calculations are based on Gaussian diffusion concepts with hori-
zontal plume spread assumed to be uniform across sectors 22.5 degrees in
width, corresponding to 16 compass directions (N, NNE, NE, E, etc.).
This assumption is based on the reasonable expectation that over an
annual period discrete wind directions within any given sector will
occur with equal frequency.  In actual practice, this assumption would
result in discontinuities in calculated concentrations at sector bound-
aries; therefore, a modification is inserted which provides for linear
interpolation of concentrations between sector centerline values.  The
concentration at a given receptor is thus composed of contributions from
both the sector containing the receptor and the nearest adjacent sector.
     Under this linear crosswind distribution modification, the form of
the standard Gaussian equation for ground level concentrations resulting
from an elevated source becomes:

     X - 2 ' ™! Q (C-^/C    exp [-1/2 (Jl )2]
         uaz S2v (2 X/16)                az

where,
     x = annual  average ground level  concentration, yg/m
     Q = pollutant emission rate, g/s
     c = width of a sector (centered at the emission source) at the
         receptor location, m
                                 4.3-3

-------
     y = crosswind distance between the receptor and the sector center-
         line, m
     u = wind speed, m/s
    o  = standard deviation of plume concentration in the vertical
         direction as a function of stability and downwind distance, m
     X = downwind distance, m
     H = effective stack height, m.
This equation is referred to as the univariate form of the Guassian
distribution, since plume spread in the Gaussian sense (the familiar
bell shape) is permitted only in the vertical dimension and not in both
the vertical and horizontal (crosswind) dimensions.
     A further modification is made to account for the presence at some
elevation above ground of a stable layer which acts as a cap to prevent
any further dispersion in the vertical direction.  A plume having
reached this cap will be reflected downward so that at some distance
from the emission source the plume will be uniformly mixed from the
ground to the top of the mixing layer.  The equation for ground level
concentrations after uniform mixing occurs can be simplified to the
following form:
       -  IP6 Q (c-y)/c
     x "  Lu (2ir X/16)
where L is the mixing layer height (m) and all other variables are as
previously defined.   Concentrations are calculated using the univariate
Gaussian equation out to a distance X.  at which a  = 0.47 L. (At this
distance, pollutant concentration at the top of the mixing layer will be
one-tenth that of the plume centerline concentration.)  At distances
beyond 2 X. , the limited mixing equation is used.  At intermediate
distances, concentrations are calculated by linear interpolation between
the concentration at X,  and the concentration at 2 X. .  If the effective
stack height is above the top of the mixing layer, the plume is assumed
to remain above the ground and no ground level concentration is calculated.
                                4.3-4

-------
     The meteorological input required for operation of AQDM consists of
a normalized annual joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind
direction, and atmospheric stability.  Average annual mixing values are
also required.  For a particular source-receptor combination, the
average annual concentration is computed by summing all individual
concentrations computed for each wind speed, wind direction, and sta-
bility class combination where each individual concentration is weighted
by the frequency of occurrence of each combination.  The general com-
putational formula is therefore:
            F (e,u,s) • x(e,u,s)
     x  eus
where,
     F (e,u,s) = annual frequency for joint combination of wind
                 direction sector e, wind speed class u, and
                 stability class s.
     The total concentration at a specific receptor is obtained by
summing the results obtained by the procedure above for all emission
sources.
4.3.2.2  Mixing Height
     A modification of the original AQDM program was made in the treat-
ment of mixing height in recognition of the higher than average height
at which emissions will be released.  In the original program, a mixing
height of 100 meters is assumed for all  Class E occurrences.  With a
stack height of over 300 meters, this would mean no ground level con-
centrations calculated for stable (E) cases.  The program was modified
to allow specification of any desired mixing height value to be as-
sociated with Class E rather than a fixed value of 100 meters.  Other
than this modification, mixing height is treated the same as in the
original program.   An annual average afternoon mixing height, typically
taken from Holzworth (1972), is used for Class B and C calculations.
This afternoon value is multiplied by a  factor of 1.5 for Class A
calculations.  A separately assigned mixing height, which can be equi-
valent to Holzworth's annual average morning mixing height or any other
                                 4.3-5

-------
value lower than the afternoon mixing height, is used for Class  E.   For D
stability, 60 percent of the occurrences of this class are associated
with the afternoon mixing height value, and the other 40 percent with  a
mixing height which is intermediate between the afternoon value  and  the
lower Class E value.  This 40 percent represents the transition  between
daytime neutral  (Class D) conditions and nighttime stable (Class E)
conditions.
4.3.2.3  Plume Rise                             '
     Another modification introduced in the current application  of AQDM
is substitution  of Briggs' (1971, 1972) plume rise equations  for the
original  Holland equation.  Using the Briggs method, plume rise  is
calculated as follows:
     For unstable or neutral conditions, the plume rise, Ah,  is  calcu-
lated as:
                  *,             *
     when X <3.5 X   (where 3.5 X  is the distance to the point  of final
     plume rise),
     Ah = 1.6
                   *
     when X _> 3.5 X ,
     Ah = 1.6 F1/3 (3.5 X*)2/3 .
                   u
For stable conditions,  plume rise is  calculated  as:
     for normal  wind speeds and X > X.r ,
     Ah = 2.4 (  £s )1/3 ;
     for very light wind speeds and X > X. ,
     Ah-BF1'4  ;
          s3/8
     for X £ Xf ,
     Ah=1.6F1/3X2/3,
     if this value of Ah is  less  than  the  value  computed when  X  >  Xf;
     otherwise,  Ah is set equal to  the value  computed when  X > Xf.
                                 4.3-6

-------
     The symbols used in these expressions have the following definitions:

                         9 Vf  ( VT }   m4/s3
     F = buoyancy flux = -^-  —^	 ' m /s
                                            _p
     s = stability parameter = c[ de/dz, sec
                               T
    X* = distance at which turbulence begins to dominate, m
       = 14 F5/8 for F < 55
       = 34 F2/5 for F >_ 55
    Xf = distance to final plume rise for stable conditions, m
       = TTU_
         SV2'
     and
                                                2
     g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.8061 m/s
     T = ambient temperature, °K
    T  = stack gas temperature, °K
     u = wind speed, m/s
                                          3
    Vf = stack gas volumetric flow rate, m/s
     X = downwind distance from source, m
 de/dz = potential temperature lapse rate, °K/m
       = 0.02 for Class E
       = 0.035 for Class F
     TT = 3.14159
     Briefly summarizing, at some point downwind of an emission source
it can be assumed for practical purposes that the centerline of the
plume levels off and remains at a constant height above the ground (over
level terrain).   This final plume rise is calculated by one formula for
unstable and neutral conditions and by another formula for stable con-
ditions.  At distances prior to the point at which final  plum occurs,
plume rise is calcuated by the same formula for all stabilities; how-
ever, calculation of the distance to the point of final plume rise is
dependent on stability.  The value of plume rise calculated at distances
less than the distance of final plume rise is compared with the final
plume rise value, and the lower of these two values is used for further
computations.
                                 4.3-7

-------
4.3.2.4  Meteorological Input
     Primary meteorological information needed for the AQDM model  con-
sists of a joint frequency distribution of wind direction, wind speed,
and stability class.  Wind direction is specified as one of 16 sectors
22.5 degrees in width.  Wind speed is divided into six categories  with
the following upper and lower limits:  0-3, 4-6, 7-10, 11-16, 17-21,
>21 knots.  A representative speed within each category is used for
computation purposes, namely, the metric equivalent of 1.3, 4.8, 8.7,
13.5, 18.7, and 23.3 knots.  Stability class can be one of five values
corresponding to the Pasquill classes A (extremely unstable), B (un-
stable), C (slightly unstable), D (neutral), and E (stable).
     As previously stated, the required joint frequency distribution was
derived from Little Rock surface observations made over a 10-year period
from 1955 to 1964.  The well-known STAR method, based on techniques
proposed by Turner (1964), was used to develop distribution tables.
These tables are reproduced as Tables 4.1-3 through 4.1-10.  The tables
supplied by the National Climatic Center have stable cases split into
three classes (E, F, and G).  For computation purposes, all stable cases
are lumped into one class (E).  The resulting stability class distribution
for the 10-year Little Rock data set is as follows:
          Class                              Percent Frequency
           A                                      0.6
           B                                      6.0
           C                                     13.3
           D                                     43.6
           E                                     36.5
 The relative infrequency of extremely unstable occurrences (Class A) is
a characteristic result of the STAR method but is certainly not in-
appropriate for tall-stack, elevated plume modeling.   The existence of
an extremely unstable condition is basically a near-surface phenomenon,
and its occurrence at the effective height of a buoyant plume emitted
from a 1000-ft stack would be a rare event. In fact there is some
                                '  4.3-8

-------
question if such conditions would ever persist at this elevation for a
long enough time (more than a few minutes) to be accurately modeled.
4.3.3  Models for 24-Hour and 3-Hour Concentrations
     Ambient concentrations for 24-hour and 3-hour averaging periods
were estimated primarily through use of the CRSTER program developed for
USEPA and recommended for application to single-source modeling eval-
uations (USEPA, 1977a).  This model incorporates Gaussian diffusion
concepts similar to those discussed above and calculates ground level
concentrations using hourly values of meteorological variables.  The
Briggs equations previously discussed are used to compute plume rise.
     The equations for calculating concentrations under limited mixing
conditions differ somewhat from those discussed in connection with the
AQDM model.  The top of the mixing layer is treated as a reflecting
boundary so that multiple reflections of the plume occur between the
ground and the mixing layer boundary until at some distance downwind of
the source uniform vertical concentration within the mixing layer is
achieved.  The equations used to calculate ground level concentrations
under this approach are as follows:
     if a  <_ 1.6L,
               X =
     if az > 1.6L,
               X =
where all variables are as previously defined.  The summation term is
continued until the contribution from the next two terms is less than
        3
0.01 s/m , or to a maximum of 45 iterations.
     Concentrations for 24-hour averaging times are determined by con-
sidering successive midnight-to-midnight periods.   The concentration at
each receptor is simply the average concentration  obtained by summing up
the concentration obtained from each hourly observation and dividing by
10

tra



J
6Q

a U
y z
io6q

^ r,
exp [-


ex

i ii
1
2


P

(*-)
°y

[4

J-
n=-°°

£->
y
exp [-2 (


2]

h+2nl_
o
z



                                 4.3-9

-------
the total number of hours.  Three-hour concentrations are obtained in a
similar manner.  Concentrations are calculated for each successive 3-hour
block within the basic midnight-to-midnight time period.  In this way
eight 3-hour concentrations are obtained for each complete day of data.
     The latest version of the CRSTER program is described in a recent
publication (USEPA, 1977c).  The version used for analyzing projected
emissions from the Independence site differs slightly from this published
description, primarily in terms of the available output options, but the
calculation principles are essentially identical.
4.3.3.1  Meteorological Input
     The hourly meteorological input data required for the CRSTER model
must be created from two separate data base files through application of
a preprocessor program.  One data base consists of hourly surface ob-
servations of wind speed, wind direction (to the nearest ten degrees),
temperature, and cloud cover specifications.  Based on these data, the
preprocessor program reformats the wind and temperature and determines a
stability class for each hour based on the STAR method developed by
Turner (1964).   In addition, reported wind direction to the nearest
10 degrees is randomized to the nearest degree by addition of a random in-
teger between -4° and +5°.  By removing the directional bias created by
a forced reporting to the nearest 10 degrees, the wind direction ran-
domization procedure provides a means of simulating natural  fluctuations
in direction which serves to adjust the instaneous (3- to 10-minute)
concentrations  calculated by CRSTER to values more representative of
hourly concentrations.
     The second primary data base required to execute the preprocessor
program consists of a morning and an afternoon mixing height for each
day considered.  These heights are determined from twice-daily upper air
soundings using the Holzworth method (Holzworth, 1972).
     From these morning and afternoon mixing heights, a mixing height
for each hour is assigned based on an interpolation technique.  Actually
two techniques  are used, one for urban sites and one for rural sites.
Only rural  mixing heights were considered in the Independence site
                                 4.3-10

-------
analysis.  The following narrative taken from the CRSTER User's Manual
(USEPA, 1977c) describes the method used to calculate both rural and
urban mixing heights.
          "The method by which hourly mixing heights are determined is
     depicted schematically in [Figure 4.3-1].  The procedure uses
     values for the maximum mixing height (MAX) from the previous day
     (i-1), the computation day (i) and the following day (i+1) and for
     the minimum mixing height (MIN) for days (i) and (i+1).  For urban
     sites between midnight and sunrise under neutral stability (i.e.,
     Class D), the interpolation is between MAX. , at sunset and MAX. at
     1400 1ST.  Under stable conditions (i.e., Class E or F), the value
     for MIN. is used.  During the hours between sunrise and 1400 1ST,
     if the stability was classified as neutral in the hour before
     sunrise, the earlier interpolation between MAX. , and MAX. is
     continued; if the hour before sunrise was classified as stable, the
     interpolation is between MIN. and MAX..  For the period 1400 LST to
     sunset, the value for MAX. is used.  During the hours between
     sunset and midnight under neutral stability the interpolation is
     between MAX. at sunset and MAX.+, at 1400 LST the next day; if the
     stability is stable, the interpolation is between MAX. at sunset
     and MIN.+, at midnight.
          For rural sites between midnight and sunrise, the inter-
     polation is between MAXi_1 at sunset and MAX^ at 1400 LST.  During
     the hours between sunrise and 1400 LST, if stability was classified
     as neutral in the hour before sunrise, the earlier interpolation
     between MAX^_, and MAX, is continued; if the hour before sunrise
     was classified as stable, the interpolation is between 0 and MAX.
     For the period 1400 LST to sunset, the value for MAX. is used.
     During sunset to midnight, the interpolation is between MAX^ at
     sunset and MAXi+1 at 1400 LST the next day."
     In the actual operation of the CRSTER program, the effective stack
height (stack height plus plume rise) for any given hour is compared
with the mixing height.  If the effective stack height exceeds the
mixing height, no concentration computation is made.
                                 4.3-11

-------
      It is possible for the preprocessor program, in its utilization of
the Turner (STAR) stability determination method, to compute a stability
class 7 corresponding to what might be called a Pasquill Class G - a
highly stable, ground-based nocturnal temperature inversion situation
with erratic wind flow conditions.  The CRSTER program makes no attempt
to calculate a concentration for this stability condition because of the
uncertain meandering of wind direction which would be expected to occur
when this condition exists.
     As many days of meteorological data as desired can be used in
running CRSTER.  A typical practice is to use hourly data for the year
1964.  The significance of this year is that it is the first year in
which wind direction was stored on readily available National Climatic
Center tapes to the nearest 10 degrees rather than to the nearest 22.5
degrees, and the last year in which each hourly observation was stored,
rather than observations every 3 hours.  No doubt some bias is created
when any specific year is selected in preference to others, but the
large number of hourly values in any given year guarantees that a wide
range of conditions is examined regardless of the year selected.
     For the Independence site study, hourly surface observations from
Little Rock for the year 1964 were used.  Mixing heights for the year
1964 were taken from observations made at the Little Rock upper air
sounding station.  Little Rock is the closest major surface observation
station to the Independence site (only major stations observe and record
the type of data required for the CRSTER main program and preprocessor),
and is also considered to be the most representative from a standpoint
of geographical and climatological similarities.  Furthermore, Little
Rock is the only station within 200 miles or more of the Independence
site where both surface and mixing height data are available for the
same location.
4.3.3.2  Plume Rise
     The CRSTER program version used in this study contains the same
form of the Briggs plume rise equations as previously described.
                                 4.3-12

-------
4.3.3.3  Wind Speed
     The raw wind speed data input to the CRSTER program are represen-
tative of conditions a few meters above ground level  (usually about
7 m).  The program adjusts these speeds to obtain values more represen-
tative of conditions at the top of the stack where emissions first enter
the atmosphere.  This is accomplished by a power law relationship of the
form
                         u = UQ (h/7)p
where
                         u = wind speed at stack height (m/s)
                         UQ= wind speed near 7 m above the ground (m/s)
                         h = stack height (m)
                         p = wind profile exponent
The value of p is specified as 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, and 0.30
for Pasquill Classes A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively.  No adjustment
of wind direction is made.
4.3.3.4  Terrain
     CRSTER allows for a simple consideration of terrain variation.  For
all stabilities, plume centerline height is reduced by the difference
between receptor elevation and stack base elevation.   However, when the
receptor height is above the top of the stack, making plume impaction a
possibility, this terrain correction method is not considered valid,
and no concentration calculation is attempted.
     No terrain adjustment is applied to mixing height values.  As the
terrain height increases, the distance between the ground and the top of
the mixing layer is assumed to remain constant.
4.3.3.5  Receptor Orientation
     The receptor grid used in CRSTER is a concentric grid centered on
the emission source with receptors spaced along each 10-degree azimuth.
Through multiple program runs, as many distances can be specified along
each azimuth as are required to pinpoint maximum concentrations.
                                  4.3-13

-------
4.3.3.6   Emission Data
     The  CRSTER program version used for the Independence site analysis
permits consideration of monthly variations in pollutant emission rate
but does  not provide for simultaneous consideration of changes in exit
velocity  and temperature which would accompany changes in emission rate.
A discussion of emission input variations used in the actual modeling
analysis  appears in a later section where modeling results are presented.
4.3.3.7   Program Output
     Output available from the program version used in the Independence
site analysis consists of the highest and second highest 24-hour con-
centration at each receptor and the highest and second highest 3-hour
concentration.  The annual average concentration at each receptor is
also given.  In addition, the day for which each 24-hour concentration
was calculated and the day and hours for each 3-hour concentration are
included  as part of final output so that it is possible to go into the
meteorological input file and identify the meteorological data resulting
in highest concentrations.
     Only the highest 3-hour and 24-hour concentrations are summarized
in the presentation of results below even though national ambient air
quality standards for 3-hour and 24-hour periods are stated in terms of
second highest values (values not to be exceeded more than once a year).
This in part compensates for analysis of only one year of meteorological
data.
4.3.3.8   Interpretative Remarks
     The following remarks are based in part on a discussion of model
limitations contained in the CRSTER User's Manual (USEPA, 1977c).
     The CRSTER program, in common with typical Gaussian models, assumes
steady-state emission and meteorological  conditions.   Included in these
steady-state assumptions is the assumption of a homogeneous horizontal
wind field.  This assumption has less validity the greater the distance
from the emission source and the more irregular the terrain.  Within
15 km of the Independence site where highest concentrations are
                                  4.3-14

-------
 calculated to occur, the terrain is relatively flat, and the assumption
 of uniform wind conditions is probably a fairly good one.
      Also assumed is an absence of changes in wind direction with height.
 This assumption is less valid the greater the effective stack height.
 The implication of this assumption for a 1000-ft stack with a large
 plume rise is uncertain, but it is probable that if wind shear were
 considered there would be greater plume spread and lower calculated
 ground  level concentrations.
      The values of the dispersion coefficients 0  and a , simulated in
. CRSTER  by analytical expressions segmented on the basis of downwind
 distance, are the Pasquill-Gifford estimates based on measurements taken
 in open, generally level terrain at points fairly near the ground.
 These dispersion coefficients are less representative of conditions
 affecting emissions from stacks above 100 m in height; in other words,
 they are probably not independent of source height. They are also
 probably less accurate at distances beyond a few kilometers from the
 emission source.  Furthermore, expression of discrete dispersion coef-
 ficient values for a finite number of stability categories is only an
 approximation of the continuum of conditions present in the atmosphere.
      The CRSTER model makes no provision for chemical transformations,
 deposition, or other depletion mechanisms.  It is therefore not well
 suited  to the modeling of pollutants which quickly enter into complex
 reactions when emitted into the atmosphere.  It should provide an
 adequate depiction of SOp behavior so long as the distances to receptors
 considered do not involve excessive travel times.  Suspended particulate
 matter  consisting primarily of particles less than about 20 microns in
 diameter also fits the non-depletion assumption fairly well.
      The construction of hourly mixing height values from measurements
 which are taken only twice daily leads of course to values which are
 only approximations of actual conditions.  This constitutes an addi-
 tional  limitation for the model.  However, sensitivity tests which have
 been conducted to check the effect of changes in model input parameters
 (both source terms and meteorological terms) on predicted concentrations
                                  4.3-15

-------
indicate that the model is relatively insensitive to variations in
mixing height, particularly with regard to 24-hour averages (Tikvart and
Mears, 1976; Freas and Lee, 1976).
     The CRSTER model also allows computations to be made for extremely
unstable, Class A, conditions.  This is not an unreasonable procedure
when modeling the effect of emissions released from short and medium
height stacks, but the likelihood of Class A stability extending far
enough above the surface to affect a buoyant plume from a 1000-ft stack
is very remote.  One of the concerns raised at the recent specialists'
conference on proposed modeling guidelines (USEPA, 1977b) was that there
is evidence indicating the a^ curve for A stability may result in
serious overestimates of short-term maximum concentrations resulting
from tall-stack emissions.  However, to maintain consistency with the
form of the model recommended and previously applied in other power
plant studies, calculation of concentrations under Pasquill Class A
conditions was allowed in the evaluation of the Independence Steam
Electric Station.
4.3.3.9  Validation Studies
     Validation studies of the CRSTER model have been performed at one
power plant in Massachusetts and three power plants in Ohio (Tikvart and
Mears, 1976; Lee, Mills, and Stern, 1975).  Unfortunately these plants
are not directly representative of the Independence Steam Electric
Station because of differences in terrain setting and source parameters
(particularly volumetric flow and stack height).  However, the results
obtained at least provide an estimate of the accuracy limitations of the
model.
     Without going into great detail concerning the conduct of these
studies, the basic approach was to obtain measurements at a number of
fixed sampling sites and then compare these observations with predicted
concentrations obtained from the CRSTER model.   A basic conclusion drawn
from these studies is that the model is generally accurate within a
factor of two (in line with the widely accepted accuracy limitations of
                                 4.3-16

-------
point-source Gaussian models), but demonstrates a tendency  to  under-
estimate highest and second highest 24-hour and 3-hour concentrations.
4.3.4  Models To Evaluate Compliance With Arkansas 30-Minute Standards
4.3.4.1  Introduction
     Experience accumulated by other utility systems,  particularly with-
in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) system, indicates that maximum
short-term ground level concentrations tend to be associated with two
types of atmospheric conditions:  limited layer mixing (hereafter re-
ferred to as limited mixing) and inversion breakup.  These  conditions
are illustrated schematically in Figure 4.3-2.
     Limited mixing (also referred to as trapping) is  basically a mid-
morning to mid-afternoon phenomenon associated with fair skies and large
high pressure systems.  Under such conditions there can often  be a
stable layer aloft which traps emissions and restricts upward  diffusion,
causing confinement of an elevated plume within a limited layer and
thereby leading to high ground level concentrations as the  plume mixes
to the surface.  Provided there is rapid enough mixing within  the con-
fining layer - that is, the atmosphere below the stable air aloft has
suitable stability characteristics to promote rapid mixing  - high ground
level concentrations can occur at fairly close distances to the emission
source.  TVA's experience, for example, has demonstrated highest con-
centrations at distances of 3 to 10 km from tall power plant stacks
(Montgomery and others, 1973a; Carpenter and others, 1971).
     Inversion breakup (also referred to as fumigation) is  basically a
mid-morning occurrence, again associated primarily with fair weather
patterns.  Within large air masses dominated by high pressure, a very
stable layer originating at the ground and extending several hundred
feet upward typically develops during nighttime hours.  This condition
arises as a result of rapid cooling of the ground and  the adjacent
atmospheric boundary layer, causing a temperature inversion -  an in-
crease of temperature with height.  A plume emitted into this  very
stable layer can remain essentially intact with very little spread,
particularly in the vertical dimension.  (A plume pattern of this type
                                 4.3-17

-------
is often referred to as a fanning plume.)  As the sun rises and the
ground surface warms, a neutral or unstable layer will eventually build
upward from the ground until reaching the embedded plume.  At this point
the plume can be brought rapidly to the ground producing high concen-
trations for a short period of time generally no more than an hour in
duration.  This event can occur at distances well removed from the
emission source depending upon the length of time required for the
nocturnal inversion to be eroded by daytime heating.
     Estimation of 30-minute S02 and particulate concentrations associ-
ated with limited mixing and inversion breakup has been performed based
on concepts developed by TVA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
4.3.4.2  TVA Modeling Approach
     The general TVA modeling methodology has been previously described
in reports submitted in applications for permits for AP&L's White Bluff
project (AP&L, 1974a; AP&L, 1974b).  TVA's experience in the field of
air quality modeling and analysis covers a period of many years and has
included the assessment of many types of power generation facilities in
a variety of geographic settings.  Two aspects of TVA's experience
especially significant for evaluation of the Independence Steam Electric
Station are the extensive field testing programs and analytical studies
which have been directed towards evaluation of large, tall-stack facilities
analogous to those planned for the Independence site.
     Development of modeling methodologies by TVA's air quality manage-
ment staff has of course not remained static over the years, so that it
is not correct to speak of the TVA model when summarizing the extensive
experience of this organization.   A number of modeling concepts and
modeling components have been considered and used for one purpose or
another.   For example, at the present time, assessment of USEPA models,
particularly the CRSTER model, is being conducted (TVA, 1977).  This
is in line with encouragement of greater standardization in modeling
techniques, in part to foster more common ground for comparisons be-
tween projects of a similar nature.  Also, because of the standards
                                 4.3^18

-------
applicable in states where its plants are located, TVA's major concern
when evaluating planned new projects is in evaluation of pollutant
concentrations over averaging periods of 3 hours or more, another reason
for interest in the USEPA models which are oriented toward such periods.
Another area of active development by TVA is refinement of time-depen-
dent models which can utilize frequently updated measurements from TVA's
meteorological monitoring network on a day-by-day basis to predict
concentrations which can be used as part of the sulfur dioxide emission
limitation (SDEL) program which has been implemented at some of TVA's
existing plants.
     The TVA limited mixing and inversion breakup modeling approach
which has been used in evaluating the impact of the Independence Steam
Electric Station had its conceptual and empirical origins in the late
1960s and has been utilized with refinements in a variety of applica-
tions since that time.  At present, these concepts are being used by
TVA's environmental planning staff in initial evaluations of new and
modified generating stations (TVA, 1977).
     The basic modeling package used is presented in Table 4.3-2, in the
form of an equation with explanatory notes.  Terms used are defined in
Table 4.3-1.  For brevity, this package will be referred to below as the
TVA model.  The term model refers not only to the basic plume rise and
dispersion equations, but also to dispersion coefficients, atmospheric
stability class designations, peak-to-mean ratios, and the method of
applying calculation expressions.  The basic equations have been presented
in a number of TVA publications (Carpenter and others, 1970, 1971; TVA,
1970, 1974; Montgomery and others, 1973a;).  TVA peak-to-mean ratios,
used to adjust the nearly instantaneous concentration values produced by
direct application of dispersion equations to longer averaging periods,
are from Montgomery and Coleman (1975).  In addition, discussions with
TVA staff members have been held to further clarify various technical
points.  It should be noted that the equation used to calculate hori-
zontal dispersion coefficients under inversion breakup conditions (Equa-
tion 8 in Table 4.3-2) is also being increasingly used by TVA to calcu-
late coefficients for limited mixing cases in place of Equation 6 in
                                 4.3-19

-------
Table 4.3-2.  Use of this alternative equation would have resulted in
lower maximum concentrations, for example, a 23 percent decrease in the
highest limited mixing concentration shown in Table 4.4-5.  However, in
the interest of conservatism, only those limited mixing concentrations
obtained from use of Equation 6 are reported in this discussion.
Emission Source Characteristics
     Realistic estimates of the air quality impact of the proposed
facility require not only appropriate specification of meteorological
parameters, but also definition of the most probable source character-
istics occurring simultaneously with the meteorological conditions of
interest.  To this end, an assessment of plant operating levels as a
function of month and time of day was performed.
     For the fifteenth of each month, the times of sunrise and sunset
were determined for the Independence site.  From these times, the
release periods of emissions most likely to participate in limited mix-
ing and inversion breakup episodes were obtained.  The limited mixing
episodes were regarded to range in average length from 2.5 hours in
winter to 4 hours in summer, and the time of their termination was
treated as some two hours before sunset.  For a minimum limited mixing
distance of 3 to 10 km, with wind speeds in the range of 2 to 4 m/s
(worst cases), the travel time for limited mixing emissions is about
1 hour.   Therefore, the termination time of emissions affected by
limited mixing was regarded to be some 3 hours before sunset, and the
onset as the termination time minus the mean duration of limited mixing
(see Figures 4.3-3 and 4.3-4).
     The maximum concentration from inversion breakup results from
emissions occurring when the inversion has been dissipated to stack
height but the plume is still emitted into a stable layer (Turner,
1970).   The time required for insolation to produce this condition is
variable depending on season and cloud cover.   The emissions for each
month resulting in maximum inversion breakup concentrations were ob-
tained by centering a 1 1/2 hour period upon the time 2 hours after sun-
rise (see Figures 4.3-3 and 4.3-4).
                                 4.3-20

-------
     Load factor curves used for these analyses were the monthly system
peak days for August and December 1973 and January and February 1974.
These are projected to be representative of summer and winter maximum
load profiles.  The January 1974 curve exhibited the highest mean load
of the three winter maxima, and therefore was used for subsequent cal-
culations.
     The summer maximum profile was used to represent daily variations
for the months April through September, and the winter maximum profile
was used for the months October through March.
     Load factors applicable to limited mixing and inversion breakup
diurnal emission periods were obtained from the diurnal load profiles  in
conjunction with mean monthly load factors shown in Table 4.3-3.  The
procedure used can be illustrated by considering the month of January.
An average system load value was obtained from the January diurnal curve
(Figure 4.3-3) by arithmetic averaging of each hourly load level.  This
results in an average of 1710 MW which is assumed to correspond with the
mean monthly load factor of 0.59 (equivalent to an operating level of  59
percent).  Next, an average system load of 1900 MW during the inversion
breakup emissions period and an average load of 1950 MW during the
limited mixing emissions period were determined using an equal areas
graphical method.  The ratio of 1900:1710 multiplied by the mean monthly
load factor of 0.59 gives an inversion breakup load factor of 0.66.  The
ratio 1950:1710 similarly applied gives a limited mixing load factor of
0.68.  Load factors for each month were determined in this manner.
     This method of treating site emissions as a function of month and
time of day provides a means of matching probable emission character-
istics with variations in meteorological conditions, which is more
realistic than assuming that peak emissions are always in effect.
However, for comparison purposes, calculations based on peak emission
characteristics have also been made as reported in a later section.
     Variations in stack exit characteristics were available only for
selected operating levels within the range 30 to 110 percent.  From these
values, exit characteristics for each 10 percent increment were created
                                 4.3-21

-------
by interpolation (Table 4.3-4).  For each inversion breakup and limited
mixing load factor Tying intermediate between 10 percent levels, a
probabilistic treatment was used to obtain appropriate stack character-
istics.  For example, the load factor relevant to the limited mixing
phenomenon in the month of August was determined to be 1.09.  This was
treated as 90 percent of the time at the load factor 1.10 and 10 percent
of the time at load factor 1.00.  The 4-hour period of limited mixing
emissions in August was assumed to have this distribution.  Because each
monthly value is intermediate, each month had to be treated in this
manner for both inversion breakup and limited mixing.
Meteorological Input Data and Selection Criteria
     One of the basic objectives in selecting meteorological data was to
duplicate as near as possible the range and frequency of conditions to
which a plume emitted at the Independence site from a 1000-ft stack
would actually be exposed.  It is of interest to consider hypothetical
worst-case meteorology as well, but the greater concern is to simulate
conditions which are known to have occurred based on historical data and
therefore have a reasonable probability of recurring.  Allied with this
objective is the objective of matching the monthly and, if possible,
diurnal variations in plume characteristics with most probable con-
current meteorological conditions.   For example, if peak emissions occur
most often during a particular season at a particular time of day, it is
reasonable to evaluate the impact of these emissions using meteorological
data charateristic of the applicable season and diurnal period.  In
applying the TVA (and NOAA) models  to assessment of maximum 30-minute
concentrations, the time periods of concern are those associated with
inversion breakup and limited mixing conditions.  Assignment of emission
characteristics for these periods is discussed above.  Specification of
meteorological factors is the subject of the following paragraphs.
     To obtain the upper air meteorological data needed for computer
modeling, each of the twice daily rawinsonde balloon soundings made at
Little Rock (Adams Field) during the period 1966 to 1970 was analyzed.
Sounding data are available in tape form, and an automated method has
                                  4.3-22

-------
been developed to process these data without the need for laborious
manual examination of each sounding as plotted on a thermodynamic
diagram.  This data reduction method is described more fully in
Section 4.3.4.4.
     Limited Mixing Case
     For the purpose of investigating conditions resulting in limited
mixing, afternoon soundings were examined.   Afternoon balloon ascents
are taken at a nominal time of 0000 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), or  1800
Central Standard Time (CST).  However, the  actual balloon release  time
is about 1715 CST because the entire rawinsonde run requires about 1  1/2
hours.  As a result, the lowest 10,000 feet of the atmosphere are  tra-
versed by about 1730 CST.  This is particularly advantageous for the
investigation of limited mixing conditions.  In the summer, this prob-
ably represents a time less than 1 hour after termination of limited
mixing.  In the winter, it is less than 2 1/2 hours after limited  mixing
has occurred.  For such short time lags, no drastic changes aloft  would
be expected on the stationary weather pattern days associated with worst
limited mixing cases.
     The first condition sought on each 0000 GMT sounding was the
presence of an inversion or isothermal layer between the top of  the
stack and 700 mb, a pressure level which is usually found at about
10,000 feet above the surface.  A further check is made to see if  the
layer below the lid has stability characteristics suitable to produce
vigorous mixing.  (This is further discussed below.)  If a mixing  lid  is
not found or there is no indication of sufficient mixing below the lid,
no further data are obtained and the next sounding is examined.  For
those cases meeting the selection criteria, the following items  are
extracted or calculated for further processing:
     1)  Date
     2)  Change of potential temperature (de/dz) from stack height
         level to the top of the mixing layer (°K/100m)
     3)  de/dz from the top of the mixing layer to 30 mb above the
         top of the mixing layer
                                 4.3-23

-------
     4)  Mean wind speed within the mixing layer
     5)  Resultant wind direction within the mixing layer.
     Before making concentration calculations utilizing the TVA equa-
tions presented in Table 4.3-2, the following criteria and  adjustments
were applied:
     1.   Stability within the mixing layer - The concept of limited
          mixing entails thorough mixing of a plume beneath a capping
          layer.  For this to happen within the relatively  close dis-
          tances of 3 to 10 km where highest concentrations have been
         .observed to occur, this mixing must be fairly rapid,  implying
          that the stability of the atmosphere from the top of  the stack
          to the top of the mixing layer should be no more  stable than a
          neutral condition.  As an initial approach, therefore, a de/dz
          value of 0.135 °K/100 m, intermediate between the TVA neutral
          and slightly stable mid-point values (see Table 4.3-5), was
          used as a cutoff point.  For potential  temperature lapse rate
          greater than this value, rapid mixing would not be expected.
          However, as a more conservative check for comparison  purposes,
          an upper cutoff of 0.455 °K/100 m (intermediate between TVA
          slightly stable and stable classes) was also considered.
     2.   Stability within the mixing lid - Because limited mixing
          requires capping by a stable layer to prevent vertical  (up-
          ward) diffusion and to limit the vertical  growth  of the mixing
          layer, a minimum stability (de/dz) in the mixing  lid  was
          specified.   For each sounding, a search was first made for a
          layer at least 30 mb thick (approximately 1000 ft) with a  do/dz
          value of 1.0 °K/100 m or greater, corresponding to the TVA
          isothermal  stability class.   If no such layer was found below
          700 mb, a layer with a de/dz value of at least 0.64 °K/100 m
          (TVA stable class) was considered to satisfy the  necessary
          capping lid stability requirement.
     3.   Minimum wind speed - At very low wind speeds, the fluctuation
          of wind direction is so great that high ground level
                                 4.3-24

-------
     concentrations would not be expected.   When the mean wind
     speed in the mixing layer was less than 2 m/s,  no calculation
     was made.
4.   Plume penetration - As a conservative  initial  approach in eval-
     uating SCL associated with mean monthly, rather than peak,
     operating levels, a plume was considered to participate in a
     limited mixing episode if the level  defined by stack height
     plus 70 percent of final plume rise was at or  below the top of
     the mixing layer.  In other words, a sizable portion of the
     plume (all of that above the plume centerline  and also that
     from the centerline downward to a height 30 percent of plume
     rise below centerline) could penetrate through the top of the
     mixing layer and all of the plume would still  be considered as
     contributing to limited mixing concentrations.   Furthermore,
     no minimum mixing height was specified even though TVA's
     experience indicates that limited mixing cases typically occur
     with mixing heights at least 760 m above ground level (Car-
     penter and others, 1971; Montgomery and others, 1973a).  When
     evaluating highest S0? emissions, those associated with peak
     operating levels, an approach more in  line with TVA recom-
     mendations for evaluating maximum limited mixing concentra-
     tions was used (TVA, 1977).  TVA evaluates worst case concen-
     trations by establishing mixing heights below  which the entire
     plume is located.  Actually a more conservative approach than
     this was taken in evaluating highest S0? emissions from the
     Independence Steam Electric Station by allowing limited mixing
     calculations to be made whenever the final plume centerline
     height was at or below the mixing height.  This still permits
     a significant portion of the plume to  penetrate through the
     mixing layer and yet be considered for calculation purposes.
     Also, because the model was set up to  make calculations for
     the nearest 10 percent operating level increments below and
     above the monthly mean, peak operating level limited mixing
     calculations were actually made for the summer months (when
                            4.3-25

-------
           the mean operating level  is  above 100 percent)  with  the  70
•           percent plume penetration assumption  in  effect.   This  conser-
           vative procedure has an important bearing  on  the  maximum
           concentration predicted by the TVA model.
      In addition to these criteria  applied  to the  upper air data,  others
 were applied to surface observations in  order to ascertain  whether
 limited mixing could have occurred.   Limited mixing  generally  occurs
 under anticyclonic flow with subsidence  aloft.   Such conditions  produce
 relatively cloud-free skies, strong insolation, and  a lid to vertical
 mixing (Carpenter and others, 1971).   If the sky conditions are  such
 that surface insolation is strongly inhibited,  vigorous mixing in  the
 vertical  will  not be generated.   Even  though rawi'nsonde data may exhibit
 conditions satisfying the upper air criteria, limited mixing may be
 impossible.   One example of such an instance would be a day on which
 thunderstorms  and rainshowers were  occurring for most of  the day,  there-
 by creating  a  conditionally unstable sounding,  but otherwise eliminating
 limited mixing conditions.
      The period of interest for determining whether  limited mixing could
 have occurred  on the basis of surface  data  was  defined  to be the 6-hour
 period ending  one hour prior to the end  of  the  occurrence of limited
 mixing (as a function of month).  The  exclusion criteria  adopted for
 limited mixing are as follows:
      1.   Cloud conditions - If either (a)  an overcast  deck below  12,000
           feet, or (b) a broken deck below  12,000  feet  with a  rate of
           change of surface temperature  with time  less  than 1.5°F  per
           hour persisted for 5 hours of  the period,  limited mixing was
           excluded (Montgomery and  others,  1973b).
      2.   Precipitation - If precipitation  was  occurring  for at  least
           two  hours during the  period, limited  mixing was excluded.
      3.   Frontal  passage - If a  frontal  passage occurred during the
           period,  limited mixing  was excluded.
                                  4.3-26

-------
     4.   Diurnal surface temperature variation - If the difference
          between the minimum and maximum temperatures for the day was
          less than 11°F, limited mixing was excluded (Montgomery and
          others, 1973b).
     5.   Maximum temperature - If the maximum temperature for the day
          exceeded 92°F, limited mixing was excluded (Montgomery and
          others, 19735).
     Inversion Breakup Case
     Morning rawinsonde soundings, made at a nominal time of 1200 GMT
(0600 CST), were used as the basis of assessing the effects of inversion
breakup.  The 0515 CST release is advantageous for the investigation of
inversion breakup because the ultimate stabilization of the atmosphere
due to ground radiation in the layer of interest should be present by
this time during each season.  From each 1200 GMT sounding the following
data were extracted for further processing:
     1.   Date
     2.   Surface pressure (mb)
     3.   de/dz from stack height level to 40 mb above stack height
     4.   Mean wind speed within the surface to 40 mb above the stack
     5.   Wind direction at first level below 40 m above stack height.
     Calculations were made using the equations set forth in Table 4.3-2.
The de/dz used in the plume rise and dispersion equations was defined
over the layer from stack top to 2000 feet above ground level.  The
same de/dz was used in the calculation of the minimum inversion breakup
distance.  Only two restrictions were applied.  First, the minimum
permitted mean wind speed in the layer of interest was 1.5 m/s.  At
lower wind speeds, the meander of wind direction renders inversion
breakup at any one point extremely transient.  Second, if de/dz was less
than 1.0 °K/100 m, no calculations were made.  This requires that there
be at least an isothermal layer present if not an actual inversion
layer.
     In addition to the criteria which were applied to the upper air
data, surface data conditions were also considered in order to determine
                                 4.3-27

-------
whether inversion breakup could have occurred.  An inversion breakup
fumigation occurs when a plume which is initially expelled into a stable
atmosphere is dispersed to the ground as a result of thermally induced
mixing, with light to moderate wind speeds (TVA, 1970).  The plume rise
is inhibited because of the stability of the atmosphere, as are the
vertical and horizontal diffusion of the plume, thereby resulting in
high contaminant concentrations when the plume is brought to the sur-
face.  If strong insolation at the surface is prevented or substantially
delayed by cloud cover, fumigation cannot take place.
     The period of interest for determining whether inversion breakup
could have occurred on the basis of the surface data was defined to be
the 5-hour period following sunrise.  The exclusion criteria adopted are
as follows:
     1.   Cloud conditions - If either (a) an overcast deck below 12,000
          feet, or (b) a broken deck below 12,000 feet with a rate of
          change of temperature with time less than 1.5°F per hour,
          persisted for 4 hours of the period, inversion breakup was
          excluded (TVA, 1974).
     2.   Precipitation - If precipitation was occurring for at least 2
          hours during the period, inversion breakup was excluded.
     3.   Frontal passage - If a frontal  passage occurred during the
          period, inversion breakup was excluded.
     Additional Calculations
     The 5 year Little Rock upper air data base constitutes a repre-
sentative portrayal  of atmospheric conditions likely to affect the
Independence site during periods of limited mixing and inversion break-
up.  For comparison purposes, however, some assumed meteorological data
were also considered based on those suggested by TVA (Montgomery and
others, 1973a; TVA, 1977).  Conditions assumed for limited mixing are as
follows: de/dz (used to calculate plume rise) =1.15 °K/100m; wind speed
= 3 m/s; mixing height = 762 m or the top of the plume, whichever is
greater; downwind distance = 3 km. For inversion breakup, the same
values of de/dz and wind speed are used as for limited mixing.
                                 4.3*28

-------
 Plume Rise
      The plume rise equation  used,  with  symbols  as  defined  in Table 4.3-1,
 is as follows:
           Ah
= (114) (CC) F1/3u"]
 This is the form of the plume rise  equation  as  presented  in Carpenter
 and others (1971) and Montgomery and  others  (1973a).  The importance of
 the equation in this form is  not just in  the way  plume  rise is cal-
 culated but in how this method of calculation fits  together with other
 components of the modeling approach.   There  are,  of course, many other
'ways of predicting plume rise, including  other  expressions which have
 been developed by TVA (e.g.,  Montgomery and  others, 1972). The objective
 in using the equation shown above is  to remain  consistent in major
 respects with the overall  modeling  approach  which has been selected as
 representing a TVA-developed  evaluation of maximum  concentrations under
 limited mixing and inversion  breakup  conditions.
      In order to provide an alternative approach  to calculation of
 30-minute concentrations,  Briggs1 plume rise equations  have also been
 applied, as part of the NOAA  model  to be  described  later.  In comparing
 results obtained from use of  the TVA  and  Briggs plume rise equations, it
 can be shown that the TVA equation  predicts  much  higher plume rise with
 very light winds (<3 m/s)  and stable  conditions,  comparable plume rise
 with moderate winds and stable conditions, and  lower plume rise with
 high winds and stable conditions and  with neutral and slightly stable
 conditions at all wind speeds.  Again, however, the TVA plume rise
 equation should be considered for this evaluation as part of a total
 modeling approach rather than as an isolated segment.
      Another point to bear in mind, with  regard to  limited mixing, is
 that plume rise does not appear explicitly in the calculation equation.
 Instead, mixing height is  used.   Plume rise  serves  only as a check to
 determine if a sufficient  portion of  the  plume  is beneath the top of the
 mixing layer.
                                  4.3-29

-------
Stability Classifications and Dispersion Coefficients
     The field work which has been conducted by TVA on tall stacks in-
dicates that atmospheric stability at these heights varies from neutral
conditions to the extremely stable conditions associated with intense
inversions.  For descriptive and computational purposes, the continuum
of stability over this range has been separated into six discrete cate-
gories, analagous to the way in which stability has been stratified for
many modeling studies on the basis of Pasquill classes.  TVA stability
classes are defined on the basis of the change in potential temperature
with height (de/dz).  The average de/dz value for each class is tabu-
lated in Table 4.3-5.  For example, a de/dz value of 1.0 °K/100 m de-
fines the class labeled as isothermal, and a value of 1.36 °K/100 m
defines the moderate inversion class.
     For each stability class, curves have been developed on the basis
of empirical studies giving the value of horizontal standard deviation
of plume distribution (a ) and vertical standard deviation of plume
                        «/
distribution (a ) as a function of downwind distance from an emission
source.  These curves are reproduced in Figure 4.3-5.  Not surprisingly,
comparison of these curves with the familar Pasquill-Gifford (P-G)
curves (which were developed for fairly low emission sources) displays
several differences when looking at stability classes which can be
considered as basically similar.  Of particular significance, the TVA
a  and o  values for isothermal and moderate inversion classes are lower
than those for Pasquill  Class E at distances beyond 2 km.
     The significance of this difference relates to the TVA model's
assumption that plume spread under limited mixing conditions is governed
by a stability between the isothermal and moderate inversion classes
equivalent to a potential temperature gradient of 1.15 °K/100 m.  There-
fore, even though the limited mixing concept entails vigorous mixing of
a plume within a layer no more than slightly stable, the coefficients
used to model  this mixing are restricted to those of a much more stable
atmosphere, thereby introducing a conservative element into the com-
putation of limited mixing concentrations.
                                 4.3-30

-------
Peak-to-Mean Concentrations Ratios
     The concentrations produced by direct application of the basic TVA
equations are peak concentrations valid for an averaging period of about
3 to 5 minutes.  To convert to longer time periods, a peak-to-mean ratio
factor is needed.  TVA has developed such factors based on field mea-
surements made at the Paradise Steam Plant (Montgomery and Coleman, 1975;
Montgomery, Carpenter, and Lindley, 1971.)  The procedure followed was
to take 5-minute average measurements at various sampling points and
compute 1-hour, 3-hour, and longer period concentrations from the 5-min-
ute samples.  Ratios between the computed average concentrations and the
peak measured concentrations were then determined.  Results are expressed
in terms of percentile values, i.e., the peak-to-mean ratio which exceeds
99 percent of the computed values, 95 percent of the computed values,
etc. TVA recommends using the 95th percentile ratio for modeling purposes
(TVA, 1977).  In evaluating the Independence Steam Electric Station, a
peak-to-mean ratio of 1.2 was used to convert to 30-minute concentrations
and a ratio of 1.8 to convert to 3-hour concentrations.  (3-hour averages
relate to limited mixing conditions only.)
     Although the Paradise Plant monitoring program was not set up to
identify separate peak-to-mean ratios for limited mixing, coning, and
inversion breakup occurrences, the clustering of monitoring instruments
at distances less than 10 km suggests that the results are less likely
to apply to inversion breakup cases.  Use of a 1.2 factor for conversion
of inversion breakup calculations to 30-minute concentrations is pro-
bably an overly conservative adjustment, particularly for emissions from
a 1000-ft stack where the resulting ratio of 30-minute to shorter term
concentrations is less likely to be near unity than is the case for the
lower stack emission sources around which most measurement programs have
been conducted.
4.3.4.3 NOAA Modeling Approach
     The equations making up what is here called the NOAA model are
presented in Table 4.3-6 with terms used defined in Table 4.3-1.  The
                                 4.3-31

-------
source of dispersion equations, diffusion coefficients and peak-to-mean
ratios is Turner (1970).  The plume rise equations are those of Briggs
(previously referenced in the discussion of annual average modeling).
The auxiliary equations needed to calculate the distance at which max-
imum inversion breakup concentrations occur are from Pooler (1965).  The
method of calculating minimum limited mixing distances is that used in
the Southwest Energy Study (NOAA, 1972), which is more conservative than
that found in Turner.  Stability classes were determined using the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission dT/dz criteria (USNRC, 1972) shown in
Table 4.3-5.  The upper air and surface exclusion criteria used with the
TVA model-were also used with the NOAA model, the only change being that
a dT/dz value of -0.5 °K/100 m (equivalent to a de/dz of 0.48) was used
as a cutoff point in deciding if inversion breakup conditions were
present.
     Differences between the TVA and NOAA models as used in this study
include the form of the equations applied and the way in which some of
the equation variables are developed.  Two major differences are as
follows:
     1.   The NOAA model computes a distance at which maximum limited
          mixing concentrations occur, whereas with the TVA model dis-
          tances are specified as input data.
     2.   For limited mixing episodes, the TVA model calculates o  and
                                                                 J
          a  using a de/dz value of 1.15 °K/100 m (equivalent to a very
          stable condition).   The NOAA model takes the change in tem-
          perature with height as determined from rawinsonde soundings
          and uses this temperature gradient to compute a  and a
          values.  Therefore, because of the selection criteria imposed
          to determine if sufficient mixing is present in the mixing
          layer, the stability conditions from which NOAA a  and a
          values are produced are less stable than that used in the TVA
          model.

     The emission source characteristics used in both the TVA and NOAA
models are the same.  Plume penetration for limited mixing cases was
                                 4.3-32

-------
 handled in the same way,  and  the  same  meteorological  data  set and data
 reduction methods were used.
 4.3.4.4  Rawinsonde Data  Reduction  and Utilization
 Data Input
      Upper air soundings  are  taken  twice  daily  at a  number of rawinsonde
 stations throughout the country.  Nominal  observation times  are  1200 GMT
 and 0000 GMT.   Data transmitted from the  balloon-borne instrument pack-
 age and recorded by ground tracking facilities  are transcribed to data
 tapes maintained in the archives  of the National Climatic  Center and
"available for  purchase by the general  public^
      Recorded  data are stored in  what  is  called TDF  56 Format.   This
 format provides for documenting information  at  up to 79 different height
 levels beginning with the surface.   At some  stations, including  Little
 Rock, data are available  for  both standard and  significant levels, where
 "significant"  refers to significant changes  in  temperature or humidity.
 For each standard level,  measurements  of  height (geopotential meters),
 temperature (°C), relative humidity (%),  wind direction (degrees), and
 wind speed (m/s) are recorded.  The standard levels  through  700  mb are:
 surface, 1000  mb, 950 mb, 900 mb, 850  mb,  800 mb, 750 mb,  700 mb.  For
 significant levels, temperature and relative humidity are  recorded, and
 in some cases  wind direction  and  wind  speed.
 Data Processing and Output
      Limited Mixing
      For limited mixing,  the  0000 GMT  sounding  is used.  A typical
 limited mixing case, as plotted on  a temperature-pressure  diagram, is
 shown in Figure 4.3-6.  The processor  program which  extracts required
 data from the  upper air tape  first  requests  a stack  height value in
 meters.   This  height is then  converted to  a  pressure in millibars.  The
 following steps are then  taken:
      1.    Check to see if the stability in the  immediate layer from the
           top  of the stack to 15  mb above  the top of the stack is too
                                  4.3-33

-------
          stable to allow a plume penetrating this layer to return to
          the ground.  If this layer is too stable, no further process-
          ing of that sounding is completed.
     2.   Check to find a suitably stable layer to serve as the mixing
          layer cap.  Initially a search is made for a layer at least 30
          mb thick in which de/dz is 1.0 °K/100 m (TVA isothermal  class)
          or greater.  Temperatures and heights for 30 mb intervals are
          obtained from successive measurement levels by log-linear
          interpolation.  If no layer meeting this criterion is found,
          another search is made to see if a 30 mb layer with a de/dz of
          0.64 °K/100 m exists.  If so, this less stable layer is  used
          as a mixing cap.
     3.   Check to see if the stability between the cap and the stack
          top is sufficient to promote mixing.  This is done by com-
          paring the actual de/dz in this layer with a selected value.
          In evaluating the Independence Steam Electric Station, values
          of 0.135 and 0.455 °K/100 m were used as selection criteria.
          If the actual value is greater (more stable) than the selected
          value, limited mixing is assumed not to occur and no further
          processing is completed.
     4.   If all previous tests have been satisfied, mean wind speed and
          resultant wind direction from the surface to the top of  the
          mixing layer are computed.
     For days on which limited mixing is judged to occur, the output of
the meteorological data processor program is the mixing height (level  at
which the top of the mixing layer is found), de/dz within the capping
layer, de/dz from stack top to the top of the mixing layer, mean wind
speed and resultant wind direction within the mixing layer.  The TVA
model uses these output data directly for all calculations.  The NOAA
model conyerts de/dz in the mixing layer to dT/dz prior to calculating
plume rise and diffusion coefficients.
                                  4.3-34

-------
     Inversion Breakup
     For inversion breakup, the 1200 GMT sounding is used.   A typical
inversion case, as plotted on a temperature-pressure diagram, is  shown
in Figure 4.3-7.  Very few operations are performed on the  sounding data
for further use in making inversion breakup calculations.   A log-linear
relationship between pressure and temperature is used to calculate
temperature at the top of the stack and at 40 mb (approximately 1000
feet) above the top of the stack.  These temperatures are then converted
to a de/dz value for the 40 mb layer.  The wind direction at the  first
recorded level below 40 mb above the stack and the mean wind speed
between the surface and 40 mb above the stack are also determined.
     The TVA model takes these data and computes an inversion breakup
concentration whenever d /dz is greater than or equal to 1.0 °K/100 m
and mean wind speed in the layer of interest is greater than or equal  to
1.5 m/s.  With the NOAA model, de/dz is converted to dT/dz  and a  check
is made to see that dT/dz is greater than -0.5 °K/100 m.  If dT/dz is
lower than this value, this is considered a demonstration that an inver-
sion breakup situation will not occur and no calculation is made.  (In
the stability typing scheme used with the NOAA model, a change in tem-
perature with height of less than -0.5 °K/100 m indicates unstable or
neutral conditions.)  The 1.5 m/s wind speed criterion is also applied
to the NOAA model.
Examples
     As an example of actual input used in calculations, data taken
directly from the upper air data tape are listed in Table 4.3-7 for
soundings resulting in highest limited mixing and inversion breakup
concentrations using the TVA model, and highest inversion breakup con-
centration using the NOAA model.
                                 4.3-35

-------
                              Table 4.3-1                    Page 1 of 2

         Nomenclature for Terms Used in TVA and NOAA Equations

Note:  Dimensions of each term are given in brackets:
CC     =   Atmospheric stability coefficient for buoyant plume rise
           [dimensionless]
C      =   Specific heat at constant pressure [cal/g-°K]
de/dz  =   Vertical potential temperature gradient [°K/m]
F      =   Momentum flux, gvr2 (T^"T) [m4/s3]
                                          o
g      =   Gravitational acceleration [m/s ]
h      =   Stack height [m]
H      =   Effective stack height = h + Ah [m]
Hp     =   Height of plume top prior to inversion breakup
       =   1.1 (H + 2.15 oz) [m]
L      =   Mixing height [m]
Q      =   Contaminant emission rate [g/s]
r      =   Stack inside radius [m]
R      =   Net rate of sensible heating of an air column by solar
           radiation [cal/m2-s]
RT     =   TVA inversion breakup 5- to 30-minute peak-to-mean ratio
           [dimensionless]
RI -jn   =   TVA limited mixing 5- to 30-minute peak-to-mean ratio
 LJUm      [dimensionless]
RL3H   =   TVA limited mixing 5-minute to 3-hour peak-to-mean ratio
           [dimensionless]
RRj    =   NOAA inversion breakup 10-to 30-minute peak-to-mean ratio
           [dimensionless]
RR. ~«  =   NOAA limited mixing 10- to 30-minute peak-to-mean ratio
           [dimensionless]
RRL3H  =   NOAA Timited mixing 10-minute to 3-hour peak-to-mean ratio
           [dimensionless]
                                  4.3-36

-------
                        Table 4.3-1, continued              Page 2 of 2


s      =   (g/T) de/dz = Restoring acceleration oer unit vertical
           displacement for adiabatic motion [s~2]

t      =   Time required to heat stable column of air between stack top
           and plume top [s]

T      =   Ambient air temperature [°K]

T      =   Stack effluent exit temperature [°K]

u      =   Wind speed [m/s]

v      =   Stack effluent exit velocity [m/s]

X      =   Downwind distance [m]

X*     =   Distance at which turbulence begins to dominate; Briggs plume
           rise, unstable and neutral cases [m]

X.p     =   Distance to final plume rise; Briggs plume rise, stable cases [m]

Ah     =   Plume rise [m]

9      =   Potential temperature [°K]

K      =   Eddy conductivity of the atmosphere [cal/m-°K-s]
                                   o
p      =   Ambient air density [g/m ]

o      =   Horizontal diffusion coefficient [m]
 J
a f    =   Horizontal diffusion coefficient for inversion breakup,
 yT        TVA Model [m]

a .     =   Horizontal diffusion coefficient for limited mixing,
 yt        TVA Model [m]

a      =   Vertical diffusion coefficient [m]
                                           •j
X      =   Ground level  concentration [yg/m ]
                                  4.3-37

-------
                              Table 4.3-2
                                                   Page 1 of 3
                          TVA Model Equations
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
1.0 =
z
r\ _
y
where,
TVA
Stability -Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
(4.5)
aXb

cXd




o.:
i.:
3.1
5.;
8.:
9.J
6.^
                                  Coefficients
                               0.749
                               0.509
                               0.3336
                               0.227
                               0.167
                               0.141
                               0.201
                               0.377
                               0.562
                               0.729
                               1.128
                               1.456
                               1.839
                               1.318
0.760
0.692
0.642
0.576
0.5256
0.486
0.545
     with stability class defined by TVA de/dz criteria (see Table 4.3-5).


PLUME RISE

     3.   (All stability classes)

          Ah  =  (114)  (CC)  F1/3 u"1

          where

     4.   CC = 1.58 - (41.4)  (de/dz)


LIMITED MIXING

     5.   Ground level concentration (5-minute)

                  ^6  '
X =

              /2T a ,  uL
                                   at any selected distance X
           and
     6.    0yt = ay + .47 (L/l.l - 2.15 a.,)

          where
                                 4.3-38

-------
                        Table 4.3-2, continued               Page 2 of 3

          a  and a  are specified by the selected distance X and TVA
          stability class 4.5 (de/dz = 1.15°K/100 m).

INVERSION BREAKUP
     7.   Ground level concentration
                     106 Q
          x	a	
                   
-------
                        Table 4.3-2,  continued               Page 3 of 3


REFERENCE SOURCES FOR EQUATIONS


     Equation Number               Source

          1.                   Developed  from  curves  in TVA, 1970
          2.                   Developed  from  curves  in TVA, 1970
          3.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          4.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          5.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          6.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          7.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          8.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a;
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
          9.                   Montgomery and  others, 1973a:
                                   Carpenter  and others, 1971
         10.                   TVA,  1970
         11.                   Carpenter  and others,  1970
         12.                   Montgomery and  Coleman, 1975
         13.                   Montgomery and  Coleman, 1975
         14.                   Montgomery and  Coleman, 1975
                                 4.3-40

-------
GO
                                                       Table 4.3-3
                                               Mean Monthly Load Factors
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
SUNRISE
(CST)
0658
0631
0602
0528
0500
0445
0451
0515
0547
0620
0649
0705
SUNSET
(CST)
1702
1728
1728
1832
1900
1915
1909
1844
1812
1740
1710
1654
HOURS OF
LIMITED MIXING
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
HOURS OF
INVERSION
BREAKUP
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
MEAN
MONTHLY
LOAD FACTOR
.59
.59
.58
.59
.67
.85
.88
.89
.79
.69
.64
.64
MEAN
LIMITED MIXING
LOAD FACTOR
.68
.68
.67
.72
.82
1.03
1.07
1.09
.97
.79
.73
.73
MEAN
INVERSION BREAKUP
LOAD FACTOR
.66
.66
.65
.44
.49
.62
.65
.65
.58
.77
.71
.71
          Note:  Load factors are fractional equivalents of percent operating levels.

-------
                 Table 4.3-4

Stack Exit Characteristics for Ten Percent
        Operating Level Increments
                                    S02 EMISSION
S02 EMISSION
OPERATING LEVEL
(Percent of
Rated Capacity)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
VELOCITY
(ft/s)
31.84
36.80
44.42
51.30
59.45
66.10
74.30
81.99
89.74
TEMPERATURE
(°F)
219
225
230
236
241
247
253
258
264
RATE, TYPICAL
COAL
(Ib/hr)
2722
3629
4536
5442
6348
7255
8162
9069
9907
RATE, HIGH
SULFUR COAL
(Ib/hr)
4265
5687
7109
8528
9948
11369
12790
14212
15524
                    4.3-42

-------
                                       Table 4.3-5
                                Stability Categorizations

                                       TVA CRITERIA
Description              Class
Neutral                    1
Slightly Stable            2
Stable                     3
Isothermal                 4
Moderate Inversion         5
Strong Inversion           6
(Applied to L.M.)         (4.5)
                    Mid-Point d9/dzc
                         (°K/100 m)
                         0.00
                         0.27
                         0.64
                         1.00
                         1.36
                         1.73
                        (1.15)
Range of de/dz
     (°K/100 m)
 <0.135
  0.135 to 0.455
  0.455 to 0.820
  0.820 to 1.180
  1.180 to 1.5455
 >1.5455
  (N/A)
Description
Extremely unstable            A
Moderately unstable           B
Slightly unstable             C
Neutral                       D
Slightly stable               E
Stable                        F
      NRC CRITERIA (FOR NOAA MODEL) c
Pasguill Class           Range of dT/dz (°K/100 m)
                          -1.9 to -1.7
                          -1.7 to -1.5
                          -1.5 to -0.5
                          -0.5 to 1.5
     'Source:  TVA, 1970
     'Range limits are halfway between successive mid-point values.
     :Source:  USNRC, 1972
                                       4.3-43

-------
0.45
0.11
0.061
0.033
0.023
0.015
2.1
1.1
0.92
0.6
0.51
0.45
0.2
0.16
0.1
0.07
0.052
0.035
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
                              Table 4.3-6                    Page 1 of 3

                         NOAA Model Equations


DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS

     1.        °z   =  1000 a Xb

     2.        cy   =  1000 c Xd

               where


          Pasquill                           Coefficients
     Stability Class            a^          b^          £        d_

            A
            B
            C
            D
            E
            F

          with stability defined by AEC dT/dz criteria (see Table 4.3-5)


PLUME RISE

          Neutral and Unstable

     3.   Ah  =   1.6 F1/3  (3.5X*)2/3 if1, if X ^3.5X*

     4.   Ah  =   1.6 F1/3  (X)2/3 u"1, if X < 3.5X*

          and

     5.   X*  =   14 F5/8, if F < 55

     6.   X*  =   34 F2/5, if F >_ 55


          Stable

     7.   Ah  =   2.4 (^j)1/3, if X >_ Xf

          where
          and
                                 4.3-44

-------
                              Table 4.3-6, continued            Page 2 of 3

          9V    —   / *^ \ ' / ^
          A.p   -  Tf(— I

    10.   Ah   =   1.6 F^V'V1, if X < Xf

LIMITED MIXING

    11.   Ground Level Concentration (10-Minute)
           x =
                /2~Tr a  u L
                                 at distance X
          where X is twice the distance at which
    19       _  0.75L
    12'   °z -  2J5-

INVERSION BREAKUP
    13.   Ground Level Concentration (10-Minute)
                                                at distance X
                    u (a  + H/8) (H + 2oz)
          where
    14.   X  =  utm
          and
                PC  de/dz
             =   ~    -    (Ah + 2a} (h + Ah/2
          where
    16.   R  =  66.7 cal/m2/sec
PEAK-TO-MEAN RATIOS
    17.   RRj  =  1.245
    18.   RR..nm  =  1.245
            L30m
    19.   RRi -I.   = 1.8
                                 4.3-45

-------
                        Table 4.3-6, continued                Page 3 of 3


REFERENCE SOURCES FOR EQUATIONS


Equation number                          Source

     1.                       Developed from curves in Turner, 1970
     2.                       Developed from curves in Turner, 1970
     3.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     4.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     5.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     6.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     7.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     8.   -                    Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
     9.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
    10.                       Briggs,  1971; Briggs, 1972
    11.                       Turner,  1970
    12.                       NOAA,  1972
    13.                       Turner,  1970
    14.                       Pooler,  1965
    15.                       Pooler,  1965
    16.                       Pooler,  1965
    17.                       Turner,  1970
    18.           ,,           Turner,  1970
    19.                       Turner,  1970
                                 4.3-46

-------
                               Table 4.3-7
                    Examples of Actual Upper Air Data

Date/Time
6/10/66
1800 CST





1/22/70
0600 CST





10/28/67
0600 CST





Pressure
(mb)
1007
1000
993
950
914
900
850
1019
1001
1000
976
950
948
925
1011
1000
998
966
950
900

MSL Height
(m)
79
142
200
600
920
1047
1535
79
210
220
410
620
630
820
79
167
190
460
600
1039

Temperature
(°C)
25.0
23.4
21.1
18.5
15.4
17.9
17.5
-12.8
-10.3
-10.5
-11.7
- 9.0
- 8.9
- 6.5
1.1
8.2
8.6
11.5
10.6
7.5
Wind
Direction
(°)
40
43
*
42
*
10
340
130
*
136
*
224
*
*
no
104
*
*
249
234
Wind
Speed
Mil
7
4
*
3
*
4
5
2
*
2
*
1
*
*
3
2
*
*
1
2
Not reported
                              4.3-47

-------
•p.  .

c»>
I
**
CO
    o

    UJ
    CD
    or
     ui
     x
     oc
     :D
     (C
                 PREVIOUS  DAY
 COMPUTATION  DAY
FOLLOWING  DAY
                          MAX.
                              i-l
                                  I
              I      I
                                Sunset
Sunrise       1400 Sunset
                            MAX;
                                i-l
                                Sunset
 Sunrise     1400   Sunset


         TIME
                                                                                                    MAX
                                                                                                        i + I
              1400
                                                                                                     MAX.
                                                                                                         + 1
              I40O
Figure 4.3-1.  Determination of hourly mixing  heights by the CRSTER model  preprocessor  progrwa.

-------
                       INVERSION  BREAKUP
     UJ
        TEMPERATURE
           PROFILES
                              DISTANCE
    Note:  Dashed line represents dry adiabatic  lapse rate.
Figure 4.3-2.
Illustration of limited mixing and inversion breakup
conditions.
                                   4.3-49

-------
                                                                  HOUR OF DAY
                            3AM
                                           6AM
                                                         SAM
                                                                       I2N
                                                                                      3PM
                                                                                                   6PM
                                                                                                     9PM
                                                      I2M
U)
I
          i
         o
         g
         O
         X
         UJ
         o:
         (0
         a.
            3000
             1710
1500
             1000
              500
      MEAN MONTHLY LOAD FACTOR

                    59% (JAN.)
                                              SUNRISE
                                                                                SUNSET
                                                   2 HOURS
                                                         IHR.
OCCURRENCE

  OF L.M.
2 HOURS
                 Figure  4.3-3.  AP&L  system load curve (winter maximum, 1/2/74).

-------
   I2M
3000
                         3AM
                                        6AM
                                                     SAM
HOUR  OF DAY

       I2N
                                                                                 3PM
                                                                                               6PM
                                                                                                            9PM
                                                                                                                          I2M
co
in
                                                                   1 HR.
                                                                  OCCURRENCE
                                                                    OF L.M.
                                                                                           2.25 HOURS
              Figure 4.3-4.  AP&L system load curve  (summer maximum, 8/20/73).

-------
                                   : Average potential temperature gradient with height
                                     Neutral
                                     Slightly stable
                                     Stable
                                     Isothermal        1.00° K/100 meters
                 0.00° K/100 meters
                 0.27» K/100 meters
                 0.64s K/100 meters
                                     Moderate inversion  1.36° K/100 meters
                                     Strong inversion    1.73° K/100 meters
                                                   10*               10*
                                           Downwind distance from the source, i (meters)

                                     Horizontal Gaussian standard deviation of plume distribu-
                            tion as a function of downwind distance from the source.
                              10.000
                              1.000
                                100
                                 10
                                    "Average potential temperature gradient with height,
                                    "~ A ft              '
                                    e- - '-K/100 meters):
- Neutral           0.00° K/100 meters
"Slightly stable      0.27° K/100 maters
-Stable            0.64° K/100 meters
 Isothermal        1.00° K/100 meters
E Moderate inversion  1.36° K/100 meters
-Strong inversion    1.73° K/100 meters
•*&•
                                  10Z               103              10*
                                           Downwind distance Irom the source, « (meltrs)
                                                  10s
                                     Vortical Qausslan standard deviation of plume distribution
                           as a function ol downwind distance from the source.
    Source:    Carpenter and others,  1971
Figure 4.3-5.   TVA horizontal   and  vertical  diffusion  coefficients, 
-------
            750
         (8090)
            800

         (6390)
       u.

       z~
       o
«J
zd

UJ*rJ
(T ^

CO Q

uj !£
       V)
            850

         (4780)
            900

          (3240)
            950

          (1770)
            1000

           (360)
                                               TEMPERATURE

                                                SOUNDING
                                                                 GROUND

                                                                  LEVEL
                                     20°        30°




                                TEMPERATURE , °C
Figure 4.3-6.
         Typical limited mixing  case, 0000 GMT sounding

         (1715 CST release).
                                    4.3-53

-------
              750
            (6090)
              BOO
            (6390)
       2
       O
  650
(4780)
       .U
      lijl
              900
            (3240)
              950
            (1770)
              1000
             (360)
        STACK
                        \ /
                                                     TEMPERATURE
                                                     SOUNDING
                                                                  GROUND
                                                                   LEVEL
                  0°
                 10°        20°        30°         40*


                      TEMPERATURE, °C
Figure 4.3-7.  Typical  inversion breakup case, 1200 GMT  sounding
             (0515 CST release).
                                4.3-54

-------
 4.4  MODELING RESULTS
 4.4.1  Annual Average Concentrations

      In calculating annual average concentrations using the Air Quality
 Display Model (AQDM), emission source characteristics representative  of
 an average operating level were used.  This annual  average level  is
 estimated to be 65 percent of rated capacity, which for modeling pur-
 poses was rounded to 70 percent.  Stack parameters  for the 70 percent
 operating level are shown in Table 4.3-4.  Pollutant emission rates on
 an annual basis are those resulting from use of typical coal, i.e., coal
' with a sulfur content of 0.28 percent and an ash content of 5.99 percent.
      In running AQDM, receptor points are specified by a rectangular
 grid array which allows up to 225 points per run.  To determine maximum
 annual concentrations, successive runs were made with grid arrays ori-
 entedjn different directions and distances from the Independence site.
 A grid spacing (distance between adjacent receptor points) of 2 km was
 used at distances within approximately 20 km of the site, and a spacing
 of 4 km at greater distances.  Calculations were made to distances
 beyond 100 km.  Basic meteorological input consisted of the Little Rock
 wind/stability frequency distribution previously discussed, an ambient
 temperature of 289°K, an ambient pressure of 1000 mb, an afternoon
 mixing height of 1431 m and a mixing height for Class E calculations  of
 700 m.
      Within 100 km of the Independence site, the highest annual  average
 SOp concentration is calculated to be less than 1 pg/m .  Since N0?
 emissions (all NO  assumed to be N09) and particulate emissions are less
                  f\                 £m
 than S09 emissions, maximum annual average N09 and  particulate concen-
                                                    3
 trations are also calculated to be less than 1 yg/m .  These results  are
 summarized in Table 4.4-1.  Although the concentration distribution
 pattern is not very meaningful with concentrations  this low, the area of
 highest concentration is indicated to be about 90 km northeast of the
 site.
                                 4.4-1

-------
     The extremely low annual average concentrations predicted by the
model are not surprising considering the height of the stack and plume
rise from the stack.  Other studies have indicated that tall stacks are
very protective of annual ambient standards.
4.4.2  24-Hour Concentrations
     Concentrations over an averaging period of 24 hours were calculated
using the CRSTER model.  The version of the model used permits consider-
ation of monthly variations in emission rate but does not provide for
introduction of corresponding monthly variations in the exit gas con-
ditions (.temperature and velocity) which affect plume rise.   Given this
restriction and given the objective of computing concentrations for both
typical coal and high sulfur/high ash coal, the following emission
source configurations were modeled:
                                    EXIT GAS
                EMISSION RATES   CHARACTERISTICS         COAL
CONFIGURATION
1
2
3
4
Monthly
Average
X
X


110%


X
X
70%
X
X


110%


X
X
Typical
X

X

High Sulfur/
High Ash

X

X
Monthly average emission rates refer to rates obtained by correcting the
emission rate for the 70 percent operating level  (the average level  when
generating units are in operation) in accordance  with the monthly mean
operating levels shown in Table 4.3-3.  The "110%"  emission rates column
refers to peak load emission rates.  (An assumption of 24 continuous
hours at peak load generation is not very realistic but was included for
comparison purposes.)  The two columns shown for  exit gas conditions
refer to velocity and temperature characteristic  of a 70 percent operating
level and a 110 percent operating level.
     In applying the model, only S02 concentrations were calculated
directly.  Particulate concentrations were obtained through multiplica-
tion of S02 concentrations by the ratio of particulate emissions to  S02
emissions.
                                4.4-2

-------
     Each model run is capable of including up to five downwind  dis-
tances along each 10-degree azimuth line.  To determine the distance  at
which the maximum concentration occurs, successive model  runs  were  made
until a maximum concentration, using distance spacings of 0.1  km, was
apparent.
     Table 4.4-2 summarizes highest SOp and particulate concentrations
for each emission source configuration in comparison with national
ambient air quality standards.  Also shown in this table are the dis-
tance and direction at which the maximum concentration is calculated  to
occur.  Although the second highest concentration at each receptor  point
is also computed by the model, these concentrations have not been
included in the summary of results.
     As can be seen in Table 4.4-2, predicted 24-hour concentrations  are
well below ambient air quality standards.  Also, the distances at which
maximum concentrations are expected to occur are barely beyond site
boundaries.  These close distances result from allowing Class  A  sta-
bilities to be included in modeling computations.  The day on  which
highest concentrations occurs includes two hours of Class A conditions
during which the wind is blowing toward the point of maximum concentra-
tion.  Since existence of Class A stabilities at plume height  is an
unlikely event, as has been discussed, this adds a degree of conser-
vatism to the modeling results.
4.4.3  3-Hour Concentrations - CRSTER Model
     Concentrations over a 3-hour averaging period have been  calculated
using the CRSTER model and, for comparison, the TVA and NOAA  models.
TVA and NOAA model results are presented in a later section.
     The same emission source configurations considered in  computation
of 24-hour concentrations were also considered in computing 3-hour
concentrations.  Results for SOp (the only pollutant for which  a  3-hour
standard exists) are shown in Table 4.4-3.  Predicted concentrations are
well below applicable standards.  Also, as was the case with  24-hour
concentrations, maximum 3-hour concentrations occur near the  emission
source, again the result of including Class A stabilities in  computations
                                  4.4-3

-------
4.4.4  30-Minute and 3-Hour Concentrations - TVA. NOAA Models
4.4.4.1  Emission Source/Modeling Concept Combinations
     Several combinations of emission source characteristics and model-
ing concepts were tested - both those considered most realistic and
those conceivable but not likely to occur.  Combinations tested by both
the TVA and NOAA models are outlined in Table 4.4-4 and further explained
in the following paragraphs.
     Emission Characteristics - Use of mean monthly limited mixing load
factors (as listed in Table 4.3-3) and the emission characteristics
associated with these factors is considered the most realistic approach
to the modeling of maximum 30-minute concentrations when combined with
measured (as opposed to hypothetical) meteorological conditions.  There
will be brief periods during afternoon hours when both units will
operate at peak load (110 percent), however.  Therefore, peak load
emission characteristics were also used in the calculation of limited
mixing concentrations with mixing lid penetration constraints as ex-
plained below.  In the case of inversion breakup, emissions participat-
ing in this condition are released early in the morning when peak load
levels are not likely to be in effect.   Therefore, mean monthly load
factors were used for inversion breakup calculations.
     Coal  Quality - Emissions from the Independence Steam Electric
Station will most commonly result from combustion of coal which has
previously been described as "typical" coal.  However, since the coal
contract which has been obtained specifies a quality range, high sulfur/
high ash coal  emissions characteristic of coal  at the upper end of the
contracted range were also modeled.
     Mixing Lid Penetration - In application of the TVA model  to anal-
ysis of monthly mean limited mixing load factors, calculations were made
provided the height defined by the stack height plus 70 percent of the
plume rise (0.7 Ah) was at or below the mixing  height and other selec-
tion criteria  were met.  As previously explained, this allows  a sizeable
portion of the plume to penetrate into the capping lid and still partic-
ipate in the limited mixing occurrence.  This adds an element of
                                 4.4-4

-------
conservatism considered reasonable when using monthly mean factors  since
conditions on any given day may differ from the mean.  When assuming
emissions are at peak level, however, the factor of deviation from  the
mean does not exist.  The modeling approach in this case was to allow
limited mixing calculations whenever the height defined by stack height
plus total plume rise (1.0 yh) was at or below the mixing height.   As
discussed above, since plume rise computations are in reference to  plume
centerline, the technique used to model peak load emissions still permits
that part of the plume above the centerline to penetrate into the capping
lid and still contribute to ground level limited mixing concentrations.
This technique is also conservative with respect to a typical TVA prac-
tice of comparing mixing height with plume top rather than plume center-
line (Carpenter and others, 1976; TVA, 1977).  In using the NOAA limited
mixing model, the 70 percent plume rise approach was used for all calcu-
lations since this model is somewhat less conservative than the TVA
limited mixing model.
     MixingLayer Stability - To achieve the fairly vigorous thermal
mixing required to uniformly mix a plume between the ground and an  ele-
vated trapping lid during limited mixing conditions, stability within
the mixing layer cannot be excessively stable.  As previously discussed,
the initial procedure used with the TVA limited mixing model to determine
if adequate mixing could occur was to make calculations only if the
change of potential temperature with height (de/dz) was no greater  than
0.135 °K/100m.  This value corresponds to an intermediate level half-way
between the mid-point values of TVA's neutral and slightly stable
classes.  Additional calculations were made with a less restrictive
value of 0.455 °K/100m, intermediate between TVA's slightly stable  and
stable classes.  Since these limits are tested in the meteorological
processing program prior to execution of the TVA and NOAA concentration
computation programs, they apply to both modeling concepts.
     Hypothetical Conditions - In the absence of actual upper air data,
TVA has suggested hypothetical conditions which can be applied as a
preliminary estimate of high concentrations during limited mixing and
inversion breakup situations (Montgomery and others, 1973a).  Although
                                 4.4-5

-------
the main objective pursued in evaluating the Independence Steam Electric
Station was simulation of most probable concurrent emission and meteo-
rological characteristics, calculations were also made based on TVA's
hypothetical conditions and peak load emission characteristics.  The
conditions suggested for limited mixing are as follows:
     1.   potential temperature lapse rate = 1.15 °K/100m (for plume
               rise computations)
     2.   wind speed = 3 m/s
     3.   mixing height = 762 m or the top of the plume, whichever is
               greater (TVA, 1977)
     4.  . distance = 3 km
     5.   horizontal dispersion coefficient = 108 m
     6.   vertical dispersion coefficient = 36 m
Suggested conditions for inversion breakup are:
     1.   potential temperature lapse rate = 1.15 °K/100m
     2.   wind speed = 3 m/s
     3.   horizontal dispersion coefficient = 1.32 (X   ) °
                                                     maxx 21
     4.   vertical dispersion coefficient = 6.71  (X ,„)
                                                   max
     5.   distance to point of max concentration (X   ) determined using
                                              •5
               ambient air density of 1220 g/m ,  specific  heat of air  of
               0.24 cal/g-°K, and eddy conductivity of 800 cal/m-°K-s.
For the limited mixing case, the top of the Independence Steam Electric
Station plume at peak load for the conditions  given is 938 m.   This was
the value used for mixing height since it exceeds 762 m.
     Downwind Distance - The downwind distance at which maximum concen-
trations occur is calculated automatically when using the  TVA  inversion
breakup equations and NOAA inversion breakup and  limited mixing equations.
To apply the TVA limited mixing calculation program, distances have to
be assigned.  TVA experience indicates that maximum concentrations occur
at distances between 3 and 10 km from the emission source  (Carpenter and
others, 1971; Montgomery and others-, 1973a).   Since the tall stack
planned for the Independence Steam Electric Station could  conceivably
project high concentrations to even greater distances, calculations were
                                 4.4-6

-------
made over a range of 3 to 15 km at the following specific  distances:
3 km, 5 km, 8 km, 10 km, and 15 km.
4.4.4.2  30-Minute Concentration Modeling Results
     TVA and NOAA 30-minute concentration modeling results are  presented
in Table 4.4-5.  These are the results obtained after application of  the
exclusion criteria previously listed.   No 30-minute particulate concen-
trations are higher than 21 yg/m , and are therefore well  below the
                    3
standard of 150 yg/m . The highest 30-minute S09 concentration  is a
                                        3
limited mixing concentration of 516 yg/m , just slightly below  the
                    3
standard of 533 yg/m .  However, it should be noted that this concen-
tration results from use of the most conservative horizontal dispersion
coefficient equation, whereas if the other equation had been used the
                                                            3
resulting maximum concentration would have been the 481 yg/m  NOAA
inversion breakup maximum.  Also, this concentration is associated with
use of higher sulfur coal and is calculated for a summer day  (6/10/66)
when the mean limited mixing operating level is above 100  percent, and
therefore calculations are actually made for peak operating level
emissions even though the 70 percent plume penetration assumption is  in
                                     3
effect.  In other words, the 516 yg/m  value results from  essentially
worst case conditions which would not be expected to occur with any
degree of regularity.  This conclusion regarding frequency of occurrence
is based on the concentration frequency distribution tables which are
part of the output from the TVA and NOAA modeling programs. Under
limited mixing conditions, for Combination TVA-2 (higher sulfur coal  and
de/dz cutoff of 0.135) only 0.3 percent of all  concentrations are greater
than 450 yg/m .  For Combination TVA-4 (higher sulfur coal and  de/dz
cutoff of 0.455) only 0.7 percent of all concentrations are above this
level.  And for inversion breakup Combinations  NOAA-2 or NOAA-4, which
produce the second highest maximum concentration of 481 yg/m  ,  only 0.1
percent of all concentrations are above 450 yg/m .   (These distributions
are based on calculations made prior to any exclusions on  the basis of
surface data conditions.)  Also, it should be remembered that the limited
mixing concentrations cited here are at a downwind distance of  only
3 km, the distance at which highest concentrations are calculated by  the
                                 4.4-7

-------
                                                               3
TVA model.  At greater distances, concentrations above 450 yg/m  would
be extremely unlikely based on modeling results.
     For better understanding of the results presented in Table 4.4-5,
values of key meteorological variables associated with maximum concen-
trations are shown in Table 4.4-6.  These key variables include mixing
height, wind speed, de/dz from the top of the stack to the top of the
mixing layer (for TVA limited mixing) and from the top of the stack to
40 mb above the stack (for TVA inversion breakup), and dT/dz from the
top of the stack to 40 mb above the stack (for NOAA inversion breakup).
No information is provided for NOAA limited mixing cases since predicted
concentrations are so low.  It will be noted that dT/dz for the maximum
NOAA inversion breakup case (-0.288 °K/100 m) is within the Pasquill
Class E category and does not actually represent a true inversion
situation.  For this case, an emitted plume might not even remain intact
enough to be brought rapidly to the ground in high concentrations as
typically visualized for inversion breakup occurrences.
4.4.4.3  3-Hour Concentration Modeling Results
     Using peak-to-mean ratios, 3-hour SOp concentrations have been cal-
culated from maximum TVA 30-minute limited mixing concentrations and  are
presented in Table 4.4-7.  No 3-hour concentrations have been extrapolated
for inversion breakup since this phenomenon typically is not of sufficient
duration to result in high concentrations over a period of more than  an
hour.  Also, no 3-hour concentrations are shown for the NOAA limited
mixing model since the 30-minute concentrations predicted by this model
are so low.
     Maximum concentrations are higher than those predicted by the
CRSTER model but still far below applicable standards.  Comments made
regarding frequency of occurrence of 30-minute concentrations also apply
to 3-hour concentrations, that is, highest concentrations are rarely
predicted.  Concentrations over 300 jjg/m., for 3-hour duration, are
calculated by the TVA limited mixing model on less than one percent of
all days during the 5-year test period.
                                 4.4-8

-------
                                 Table 4.4-1
               Maximum Predicted Annual Average Concentrations

                Predicted            National Primary         National Secondary
               Concentration       Air Quality Standard     Air Quality Standard
Pollutant        (yg/m3)                (yg/m3)	          (yg/m3)	

   S02             <1                      80
   N02             <1                     100                      100
   Particulate
     Matter        <1                      75                       60
                                  4.4-9

-------
                             Table 4.4-2
             Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Concentrations
                    Maximum S0?
Emission Source    Concentration
Configuration*1
               Maximum
             Particulate
            Concentration
               (ug/m3)
   Distance/Direction
of Maximum Concentration
           Point
     1
     2
     3
     4
15
24
18
28
National S0? Primary 24-Hour Standard:
National Particulate Primary 24-Hour Standard:
National Particulate Secondary 24-Hour Standard:
Arkansas Particulate 24-Hour Standard:
Class II Area S02 24-Hour PSD Increment:
Class II Area Particulate 24-Hour PSD Increment:
     1.5 km / 30°
     1.5 km / 30°
     1.6 km / 30°
     1.6 km / 30°
                         365
                         260
                         150 pg/m
                          75 pg/m
                          91 pg/m
                          37
a Legend for emission source configurations (see text for further
  information):
     1  = Monthly average emission rates; 70 percent operating  level  exit
         gas characteristics; typical  coal
     2  = Monthly average emission rates; 70 percent operating  level  exit
         gas characteristics; high sulfur/high ash  coal
     3  = Peak load (110 percent)  emission rate and  exit  gas  characteristics;
         typical coal
     4  = Peak load (110 percent)  emission rate and  exit  gas  characteristics;
         high sulfur/high ash coal
                                4.4-1-0

-------
                            Table 4.4-3
              Maximum Predicted 3-Hour Concentrations
                       Based on CRSTER Model
Emission Source
Configuration9
 Maximum SCL
Concentration
   (yg/m3)
   Distance/Direction
of Maximum Concentration
          Point
     1
     2
     3
     4
     109
     171
     106
     166
     1.6 km / 280°
     1.6 km / 280°
     1.5 km / 290°
     1.5 km / 290°
National S09 Secondary 3-Hour Standard:  1300 pg/m
Class II Area S02 3-Hour PSD Increment:
                 512 ug/nT
a Legend for emission source configurations (see text for further
  information):
     1  = Monthly average emission rates; 70 percent operating  level  exit
         gas characteristics; typical  coal
     2  = Monthly average emission rates; 70 percent operating  level  exit
         gas characteristics; high sulfur/high ash coal
     3  = Peak load (110 percent) emission rate and exit  gas  characteristics;
         typical coal
     4  = Peak load (110 percent) emission rate and exit  gas  characteristics;
         high sulfur/high ash coal
                                4.4-11

-------
                                                    Table 4.4-4

                                   Emission Source/Modeling Concept Combinations
                       Limited Mixing
                         Emission
                      Characteristics
Coal  Quality
Mixing Lid
Penetration
Mixing Layer
   de/dz
ro
Hypothetical
 Conditions
Emission Source/
Modeling Concept
Combination
TVA-1
TVA-2
TVA-3
TVA-4
TVA-5
TV A- 6
TVA-7
TVA-8
TVA-9
TVA-10
NOAA-1
NOAA-2
NOAA-3
NOAA-4
NOAA-5
NOAA-6
NOAA-7
NOAA-8
Mean
Monthly
X
X
X
X






X
X
X
X




Peak




X
X
X
X
X
X




X
X
X
X
Typical
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

High Sulfur/
High Ash

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
0.7 Ah 11.0 Ah
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.135
X
X


X
X




X
X


X
X


0.455


X
X


X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X

-------
                                                    Table 4.4-5
co
                                       Maximum 30-Minute S02 and Particulate
                                         Concentrations - TVA, NOAA Models
                                        Limited Mixing
                                                                                  Inversion Breakup
Emission Source/
Modeling Concept
Combination	
     TVA-1
     TVA-2
     TVA-3
     TVA-4
     TV A-5
     TVA-6
     TVA-7
     TVA-8
     TVA-9
     TVA-10
     NOAA-1
     NOAA-2
     NOAA-3
     NOAA-4
     NOAA-5
     NOAA-6
     NOAA-7
     NOAA-8
     Arkansas 30-Minute S02 Standard = 533 yg/m
     Arkansas 30-Minute Particulate Standard = 150 yg/nT
S02
Concentration
(yg/m3)
329
516
329
516
267
419
290
455
312
489
31
49
30
47
35
55
35
55
Particulate
Concentration
(yg/m3)
16
21
16
21
13
17
14
18
15
20
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Distance
(km)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
39.5
39.5
38.5
38.5
43.1
43.1
43.1
43.1
S02
Concentration
(yg/m3)
207
324
207
324
-
'
-
-
94
147
307
481
307
481
-
-
-
-
Particulate
Concentration
(yg/m3)
10
13
10
13
-
-
-
-
5
6
15
19
15
19
-
-
-
-
Distance
(km)
43.2
43.2
43.2
43.2
-
-
-
-
78.2
78.2
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
-
-
-
-

-------
                      Table 4.4-6

       Meteorological  Variables Associated With
           Maximum 30-Minute Concentrations
Limited Mixing
Inversion Breakup



-p»
•
-P»
-p.



Emission Source/
Modeling Concept
Combination
TVA-1,2,3,4.
TV A- 5, 6
TVA-7,8
TVA-9,10

NOAA-1,2
NOAA-3,4
NOAA-5,6,7,8
Date
6/10/66
4/24/67
1/30/66
N/A

-
-
-
Mixing
Height
(m)
841
701
741
938

-
-
-
Wind
Speed
On/s)
3.5
6.0
5.0
3.0

-
-
-
de/dz
(°K/100m)
0.127
0.073
0.359
1.15

-
-
-
Date
1/22/70
-
•
N/A

10/28/67
10/28/67
-
Wind
Speed de /dz
(m/s) (°K/100m)
1.5 2.105
-
-
3.0 1.15

1.5
1.5
-
dT/dz
(°K/100m)
-
-
-
-

-0.288
-0.288
-

-------
                         Table 4.4-7
              Maximum 3-Hour SCL Concentrations
                  TVA Limited Mixing Model
Emission Source/
Modeling Concept                        Concentration
Combination	                          (yig/m )
     TVA-1                                   219
     TVA-2                                   344
     TVA-3                                   219
     TVA-4                                   344
     TVA-5                                   178
     TVA-6                                   279
     TVA-7                                   193
     TVA-8                                   303
     TVA-9                                   208
     TVA-10                                  326
National S02 3-Hour Secondary Standard = 1300
National Class II Area S02 3-Hour PSD Increment = 512
                              4.4-15

-------
4.5  ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS OF COOLING TOWERS
4.5.1  Introduction
     The heat dissipation system for the Independence Steam Electric
Station consists of two natural draft cooling towers, one for each unit
of operation.  The towers have the design characteristics as presented
in Table 4.5-1.  These characteristics, it should be noted, are general-
ly peak or maximum values and will vary depending on the plant load
condition and the ambient atmospheric temperature and humidity.  These
towers represent the best compromise between economic cost of construc-
tion/operation and anticipated environmental impact.
     The areas of atmospheric concern with the operation of cooling
towers are the presence of:
          0  large drift deposition
          0  long visible plumes
          0  frequent ground level fog/icing
          0  plume generated cloud formation
          0  modified precipitation
          0  interaction of flue and cooling tower plumes
4.5.2  Drift Deposition
     The design maximum drift rate for these towers is 0.01 percent of
the circulation flow rate.  This means that, at the maximum flow rate of
310,000 gpm, 31 gpm of water may be emitted from the towers in the form
of small  water droplets.  The design of baffles (drift eliminators) for
the towers enables the manufacturer to guarantee such low rates of drift.
This low rate, especially for natural draft towers, ensures low impact
from cooling towers due to the increased dilution that will occur prior
to reaching ground level.  It should be noted that this maximum drift
rate is an order of magnitude greater than that possible from a well-
maintained tower (DeVine, 1975) thus indicating the conservative nature
of these analyses.
                                 4.5-1

-------
     The settling speed of droplets in the plume (cloud droplets)  is
less than a few centimeters per second and, therefore, these droplets  do
not contribute significantly to the ground level settling.   Drift
droplets settle at speeds of almost 1 meter per second and  are of  con-
cern in the deposition of water and salts on the surface.   Much work has
been done in modeling this aspect of the cooling tower impact with very
little verification.  These models have been found to yield large  dif-
ferences in deposition rates (McVehil and Heikes, 1975).  Many studies
of drift from saltwater natural draft cooling towers are  available and
will be used to represent the extreme values expected at  the Indepen-
dence site (Edmonds, Roffman and Maxwell, 1975; Roffman and Grimble,
1975; DeVine, 1975).  The maximum centerline chloride deposition rate
was estimated to be 1.2 to 17.4 Ibs/acre-month for natural  draft cooling
towers (Edmonds, Roffman and Maxwell, 1975).  Roffman and Grimble
(1975) estimate the maximum deposition from a natural draft cooling
tower to occur under slightly unstable conditions and at  a  distance of
                                                      fi     ?
1500 meters.  This rate was estimated to be 1.24 x 10"  kg/m -day.
(0.33 Ibs/acre-month).  The characteristics of the cooling  tower used  in
this study are such that these calculations are very conservative  in
comparison with the characteristics of the cooling towers at the Inde-
pendence site.
     Another indication of the small magnitude of the impact expected
from the drift of the cooling towers can be seen through  the conserva-
tive calculation of drift deposition assuming all the drift material is
deposited within 3.0 km of the site and within the sector having the
highest frequency of occurrence.  This calculation indicates a  maximum
of 9.278 x 10"7 Ibs/ft2-day (1.2 Ibs/acre-month) deposition for each
                               fi       P
tower; a maximum of 1.856 x 10"  Ibs/ft -day (2.4 Ibs/acre-month)  from
both towers.  Such concentrations of salts may be injurious to  some
crops but it should be noted that these values are the maximum  calcu-
lated and are not expected to occur.  This is especially true consider-
ing the fact that the rainfall  in this region is both large (40-50
inches) and evenly distributed throughout the year.   Thus high  build-up
of salts is not expected in the plants nor in the soil.
                                 4.5-2  -

-------
     The effects of salt sprays on corn and soybeans  as well as on other
vegetation has been investigated (Mulchi  and Armbruster,  1975; Edmonds,
Roffman and Maxwell, 1975).  These reports indicate  that  salt spray
treatments of 7.28 kg/hectare-week (2.130 x 10"5 Ibs/ft2-day) produce
leaf damage in both corn and soybeans.   This is  at least  an order of
magnitude larger than that expected at  Independence  Steam Electric
Station.  No visual damage or difference in growth occurred for treatments
of 1.82 and 3.54 kg/hectare-week (5.32  x 10"6 and 1.04 x  10"5 lbs/ft2-
day) for an 8 week period.  Reports also point out that exposure to
                 3           -3       2
salts of 100 yg/m  (1.77 x 10"  Ibs/ft  -day) for several  hours during
the growing season causes foliage damage.  Exposure  to 60 yg/m (1.77 x
  -4       2
10   Ibs/ft -day) will affect the vigor and distribution  of plants
(DeVine, 1975).  These concentrations,  assuming  a settle  velocity of 1
meter per second, are two orders of magnitude greater than that expected
from the Independence site.
     In summary, drift from the two natural draft cooling towers at the
Independence site is not expected to produce damaging salt concentrations
in the surrounding areas.  The deposition expected will be at least an
order of magnitude smaller than that which causes damage  to vegetation.
Also, accumulation of salt in the soils is not anticipated due to the
abundant rainfall throughout the year.
4.5.3  Visible Plumes
     The natural draft cooling towers will produce visible plumes of
various lengths depending on plant load characteristics as well as
meteorological conditions.  DeVine (1975) points out that visible plumes,
from 63 large natural draft cooling towers in the United  States, extend
more than 1000 yards (914 meters) downwind less  than 15 percent of the
time and do not contribute to area cloudiness.  The  larger plume lengths
occur with larger plant loads and smaller saturation deficits (difference
between saturation moisture density and ambient  moisture  density).  The
latter condition occurs more frequently during the cooler months of the
year.  Junod and others (1975) presented the visible plume length from
the Leibstadt power plant (144-meter towers and  950  MW power).  Fifty
percent of the winter plumes were about 450 meters (0.28  mile) long,
                                4.5-3

-------
while the summer months had plumes about 600 meters (0.37 mile) in
length 50 percent of the time.  The winter months had plumes of 3000
meters (1.86 mile) or longer 10 percent of the time, while the summer
months had only about 1400 meter (0.87 mile) plume length for the same
percent level.
     DeVine (1975) indicates long visible plumes are possible when the
saturation deficit is less than or equal to 0.5 g/m .  The summary of
the wet bulb depression for various ambient temperatures is presented in
Table 4.5-2.  These data were obtained from observations at Little Rock.
The colder months have 9.0 percent of the observations with less than a
                                                                      •j
2 degree wet bulb depression (saturation deficit of less than 0.63 g/m ).
For the warmer months, 10.8 percent of the observations have saturation
                           o
deficits less than 1.96 g/m .  Based on DeVine's criteria and on the
data presented on Table 4.5-2, it is anticipated that long plumes will
be experienced a maximum of about 120 hours during warmer months and
about 394 hours during the colder months of the year.
     Other studies have shown, from actual observation, that plumes, at
times, persist for long distances (Smith and others, 1974).  Plumes
extending more than 2 miles occurred in 16 cases of 244 observations;
some were in excess of 6 miles.  The majority of the plumes observed in
the Smith study rose quickly to heights of 400 to 7000 feet and dissipated
within 0.5 miles (66.8 percent  of the 244 observations).
     Moore (1975) reports the existence of long visible plumes, mostly
during cloudy or overcast days.  Persistent plumes (length greater than
900 meters) occur during 50 percent of the observations in the December-
February period, but only 10 percent in the May-July period (Barber and
others, 1974).   DeVine (1975) also reports plumes of more than 1000
yards occur less than 15 percent of the time.
     Furthermore, visible plumes greater than  2 miles in length may
occur but are expected to be infrequent and confined to the winter
months.   Normally, plumes of less than 0.5 mile are expected and will
affect only the aesthetic conditions near the  plant, not the clima-
tological  conditions of the area.
                                 4.5-4

-------
4.5.4  Ground Level Fogging/Icing
     Plumes from natural  draft towers have, on ocassion,  been  found  to
reach the ground.  This is generally true in areas  with  terrain  features
that would promote such circulation and/or tower design  that contributes
to such occurrences.  DeVine (1975) reports on a study of the  Forked
River cooling tower where tower-caused ground level  fog was found  to
occur less than 2 percent of the time during the year, with no correspond-
ing occurrences of icing.  Smith and others (1974)  report that their
observations indicate no cooling tower induced fogging;  in fact  the
plumes were observed to rise above existing natural  fog  formation.
Consideration of the increase in humidity at ground level  was  also
discussed by Smith and found to be indistinguishable from natural
variations.  The maximum increase in relative humidity was calculated to
be 1 percent.  Moore (1975) notes that no significant changes  in rain-
fall, sunshine, or occurrence of fog was detected from the inspection of
climatological records for stations between 4 and 112 km  from  a  2000 MW
power plant.  This lack of increase in ground level  humidity was also
reported for the Keystone Station.  The Battelle (1974)  study, which
reviewed the natural draft cooling tower literature to describe  and
evaluate the potential atmospheric effects of operating  towers,  reports
no observed increases in fogging or icing due to tower plumes.  The
Paradise and Keystone tower plumes have never reached the ground under
normal operating conditions.  This is also true of icing.  No  icing  was
observed due to the plumes from operational natural  draft cooling  towers.
Barber and others (1974)  also indicate that during a year of observations
at eight natural draft cooling towers in England, no plumes came in
contact with the ground.
     DeVine (1975) reports that ground level fog will usually  occur  when
                                                      o
the saturation deficit is less than or equal to 0.1  g/m  .  Table 4.5-2
indicates this level of saturation deficit will be equivalent  to the wet
bulb depression of near zero degrees, 4.4 percent of the  total.  Thus,
the maximum potential occurrence of ground fog will  be about 385 hours
per year.
                                 4.5-5

-------
     The results of the above studies are general enough to indicate the
nature of the anticipated impact of fogging and icing at the Independence
site.  Neither ground level fogging nor icing is expected to result from
operation of the Independence Steam Electric Station cooling towers.
4.5.5  Modification of Precipitation/Cloud Formation
     The plumes from natural draft cooling towers have been observed to
merge with existing cloud systems and even, rarely, to form a cumulus
cloud.  It should be noted that persistent plumes generally occur during
overcast and cloudy days and, therefore, may interact with existing
cloud development.  Both of these conditions are occasional occurrences
and do not modify the climatological characteristics of the region.
Results of a number of investigations confirm this conclusion (DeVine,
1975; Battelle, 1974; Huff, 1972; and Martin, 1974).
     Precipitation from natural draft towers has, in the past, been due
to drift of droplets from these towers.  The problem has been solved
through new design configurations of drift eliminators to collect these
droplets prior to discharge.  Most towers with modern drift eliminators
produce smaller droplets that tend to evaporate prior to reaching the
ground.  This should be considered with the fact that reported occur-
rences of precipitation from natural draft cooling towers are infrequent
and do not exceed the normally occurring variability in precipitation
(Martin, 1974).
     Precipitation from plumes is likewise a rare occurrence.   Moore
(1975) reports that persistent plumes occur mainly in conditions of high
ambient relative humidity, with natural clouds usually present and pre-
cipitation is very slight, and only occurs when natural rain is falling
or when rain is possible.   Investigation of weather records near a
2000 MW power station (Martin, 1974) showed a slight increase in rain-
fall after operation, but  the normal scatter in annual  values prevents
concluding that a correlation exists.   The range in the values before
operation is similar to those experienced after operation.
                                 4.5-6

-------
     Huff (1972) points out that the heat and  moisture  from  cooling
towers may contribute to the development of clouds  through the  "trigger"
mechanism, but all indications are that precipitation augmentation will
be insignificant when considering the normal amounts of natural  rain.
     Therefore, modification of precipitation  due to the two natural
draft cooling towers at the Independence site  is  unlikely and not expected.
4.5.6  Stack and Cooling Tower Plume Interaction
     The intermixing of cooling tower plumes with the plume  from the
stack is possible due to the location of the release points  and  to the
plume rise characteristics of the various plumes.  This intermixing has
been observed at the Keystone Generating Station  in Pennslyvania (Aynsley,
1970).  The towers at Keystone are 325 feet in height  (4 towers) with
the stacks at 800 feet (2 stacks).  Acid droplets were  detected  in the
plume, but no data were given on the amount reaching ground  level.  This
observed increase of acid droplets in the plume is  attributed to the
increased rate of oxidation of atmospheric SOp to sulfates due  to the
increase in humidity.  The Central Electricity Generating Board  of
England believe the change in growth rate of water  droplets  due  to SOp
is slow enough that these acid drops seldom reach the ground (Hanna and
Swisher, 1971).  In other words, if tower and  stack interaction  cause
acid droplet development, do the acid droplets reach the ground? This
is a topic that has, heretofore, not been the  subject of extensive
observational research.  Moore (1975) presents observations  that tend to
support the supposition that the interaction of the chimney  and  tower
plumes is not a significant environmental impact  problem. These observa-
tions have been made where natural rainfall measured under a stack plume
showed no significant differences in pH from rainfall measured at stations
not under the stack plume.  Pell (1975) also questions  whether detectable
amounts of acid droplets will reach ground level  receptors.
     The potential for stack and cooling tower plume interaction is
dependent on the relative positions of these release points  in both the
horizontal and vertical planes.  The stack is  about 800 feet north of
the nearest cooling tower and about 1650 feet  north northwest of the
                                4.5-7

-------
second tower.  The release points are vertically separated  by  610  feet.
The six wind direction sectors that would most likely permit plume
interaction (NNW-NNE and SSE-SSW) occur only 39 percent  of  the time
based on yearly observations at Little Rock, Arkansas.   Considering  the
vertical and horizontal  spread of the release points, the frequency  of
time the wind directions are in the correct sectors  and  the generally
short length of the visible plumes, frequent interactions of cooling
tower and stack plumes are not expected.   The relationship  of  these
interactions with ground level impacts is not known.   Based on the above
studies, little impact is expected from the interaction  of  stack and
tower plumes.
                                  4.5-8

-------
                              Table 4.5-1
                 Independence Steam Electric Station
              Natural Draft Cooling Tower Characteristics
Number of Towers
Height
Diameter at Base
Diameter at Mid-height
Diameter at Top
Circulatory Flow Rate (peak)
Maximum Heat Load
Evaporation (Maximum 2.46 percent)
Drift (Maximum 0.01 percent)
393 feet (119.8 meters)
328 feet (100 meters)
210 feet (64.1 meters)
211 feet (64.3 meters)
310,000 gpm (19.6 m3/s)
41 x 108 Btu/hr (2.87 x 108 cal/s)
7,650 gpm (0.48 m3/s)
31 gpm (0.002 m3/s)
                                 4.5-9

-------
                               Table 4.5-2

                Percent Occurrence and Saturation Deficit
            Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; Data Record 1956-1962
Dry Bulb
Temperature
(°F)

80-97
60-80
39-60
Total
Saturation
Moisture
Content3
(Q/m3)

33.67
18.87
9.55

Percent Occurrence/Saturation
Deficit (g/m3)

0
0.0/0.0
2.1/0.0
2.3/0.0
4.4
Wet Bulb
2
0.1/1.96
8.6/1.16
6.7/0.63
15.4
Depression (°F)
4.
0.8/3.80
8.3/2.25
6.4/1.22
15.5

6
1.7/5.56
5.9/3.28
5.8/1.78
13.4
Average for dry bulb interval
                                 4.5*10

-------
4.6  SULFATES ANALYSIS
     Although no national ambient air quality standards  have  been adopt-
ed for aerosol sulfates, concern has been expressed about this  class of
atmospheric particulates.  Because of this concern and because  of the
probable association between sulfur compound emissions from power plants
and ambient sulfate levels, a discussion of the sulfates question is
provided in this section.  This question is a particularly complex  one,
and the studies which have been conducted in relation to it provide no
conclusive means of evaluating the effect which the emissions from  a
single source will have on sulfate levels.  This section therefore
focuses more on (a) some of the general  aspects of the sulfates question
and (b) a discussion of sulfate concentrations which have been  measured
in Arkansas.
4.6.1  General Analysis
4.6.1.1  Introduction
     Sulfates are important because of their reported effect  on human
health, their potential effect on rainfall acidity, and  their fairly
well established relationship to impairment of visibility. One source
of sulfate formation is the oxidation of sulfur dioxide  (SCL) after the
latter is released to the atmosphere.  The thermodynamics of  simple
oxidation are such that almost complete conversion of SCL to  SO- would
occur at ordinary temperatures if the reactions were not kinetically
limited.
     In actuality, the conversion of SOp to sulfates is  a very  compli-
cated and incompletely understood phenomenon.  It is often assumed  that
S02 reacts according to a first-order chemical process,  one of  the
simplest encountered in chemical kinetics.  A first order reaction  is an
attractive process when performing diffusion calculations because a
minimum of mathematical difficulty is involved.  More complicated pro-
cesses in which the reaction rate depends non-1inearly on amounts of
material present are very difficult to incorporate in diffusion estimates,
     An examination of the literature concerning the reactions  of S0?
within the atmosphere reveals widely differing estimates of reaction
                                 4,6-1

-------
rates.  Several extensive literature surveys have been prepared (Bufalini,
1971; Harrison, Larson and Hobbs, 1975; Urone and Schroeder, 1969;
Kellogg and others, 1972; Levy, Drewers and Hales, 1976).   Some in-
formation is also contained in "Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides"
(U. S. Public Health Service, 1969b).  A brief discussion  of information
presented in these and other references is given below for the purpose
of documenting some of the conclusions which have been drawn regarding
the reaction rate of SCL and the transport, concentration  and effect of
resulting sulfates.
4.6.1.2  Sulfate Formation
     Sulfur dioxide (SCL) is a gas at ordinary temperatures.  It is a
product of some natural activities (e.g., volcanic activities) as  well
as man's activities.  Principle sources of S0? related to  man are  the
roasting of metal sulfide ores and the combustion of sulfur-bearing
fuels.  The latter is the most widespread source of S0?, although  the
former produces large amounts of S02 in isolated locations.
     If there were no removal mechanisms for SOp, it would continue to
build up in the atmosphere.  However, no such global buildup has been
observed.  All  of the important removal processes result in  eventual
oxidation of SCL to a higher oxide such as SO- or SO..  This review is
concerned with the conversion of SO^ to sulfates within the  atmosphere.
Sulfates that form as a result of intake by vegetation, washout, dry
deposition, gaseous reaction on solid materials, and gaseous absorption
by bodies of water are not considered.
     Sulfates can form in the atmosphere by oxidation of S02 through
three basic types of mechanisms:   homogeneous gas phase reactions, aqueous
phase reactions, and heterogeneous phase reactions.   Various mechanisms
falling within  these categories have been studied in the laboratory.   In
the atmosphere, the situation is  far more complex than in  the controlled
reaction environment of the laboratory.  Emphasis is placed  in this
review on information obtained from studies in the uncontained,  uncon-
trolled ambient atmosphere where  the oxidation of S02 is undoubtedly
caused by mechanisms falling within all of the above categories.
                                  4.6-2

-------
Thermodynamics
     That S02 can be oxidized directly to sulfates is evidenced  by  the
study of the equilibrium thermodynamics of the following  chemical reac-
tions:
     (1)  S02(gas) + 1/2 02(gas) = S03(gas)
     (2)  S03(gas) + H20(liquid or gas) = H2S04(liquid)
At temperatures commonly obtained in stack gases and ambient atmospheres,
the chemical equilibrium of the first reaction strongly  favors the  for-
mation of S03 (Dow Chemical Company, 1960).  The rate at which reaction
(1) would proceed is not determined by thermodynamics but by complex
kinetic mechanisms.  In other words, although the thermodynamics of
reaction (1) imply almost complete conversion of S02, the rate at which
the reaction occurs would be dependent on many other factors not implied
in the simple chemical equilibrium formula.
     The hydration of S03 to H2SO. is also thermodynamically favored  at
ambient atmospheric temperatures.  Thus, the thermodynamic potential  is
high for sulfate formation as a result of oxidation of SCL.   Whether  or
not the conversion actually occurs (or at what rate) is  a matter of
chemical kinetics and not thermodynamics.
Photo-Oxidation
     The photo-oxidation of S02 has been reported for various concen-
trations of SOp and relative humidities.  The rates vary from 0.05  per-
cent per hour to 0.68 percent per hour.  This corresponds to half-lives
of 1380 hours and 101 hours respectively.  On a quantum  yield basis,  the
results vary by a factor of 100 (Bufalini, 1971).
Reaction In a Plume
     Experiments on power plant plumes and smelter plumes yield  widely
varying results.  Experiments performed on plumes from TVA plants,  for
example, show oxidation rates varying from 0 percent per  hour to 110
percent per hour (Gartrell, Thomas, and Carpenter, 1963).   The TVA
experiments indicate a strong influence of ambient relative  humidity  on
reaction rate.
                                 4.6^3

-------
     Experiments performed at the Four Corners Generating Station  in  the
San Juan Valley of northwestern New Mexico (University of Utah  Research
Institute, 1975) gave much lower conversion rates than the TVA  study.
The Four Corners study consistently showed conversion rates less than
one percent per hour.
     The wide variability of oxidation rates can be explained in part by
variations in meteorological conditions.  Relative himidity is  clearly
an important variable to be considered as is the degree of dilution due
to turbulent mixing.  From reported data, it would appear that  S0?
conversion occurs most rapidly in atmospheres with a relative humidity
greater than 70 percent.  That is, with other meteorological factors
remaining approximately the same, atmospheres with relative humidity
greater than 70 percent show a significantly greater rate of sulfate
formation than atmospheres with relative humidity less than 70  percent.
     There are also indications that heterogeneous reactions of SOp with
airborne particulates can be much more rapid than homogeneous gaseous
reactions of SO^ in air (Foster, 1969; Matteson, Stober and Luther,
1969; Freiberg, 1974).  It has been observed that oxides of aluminum,
calcium, iron, lead, chromium, and vanadium are very efficient  in  re-
acting with S02 even in the absence of ultraviolet light.   Such oxides
are often prevalent in atmospheric particulates resulting both  from
nature and from a variety of man's activities.  For example, one impor-
tant source of many of the above oxides is from the combustion  of
fossil fuels that contain mineral matter.
     The variability in reaction rate of S0? within plumes noted above
is not unexpected.   It is reasonable to recognize the possibility  that
power plants burning coal  of different composition provide different
environments for S0? reaction, and such environments would be signifi-
cantly different from those environments provided by, say, ore  smelters
and refineries.  Reactions within large urban environments are  also
significantly different because of the types of nucleating species which
arise from such sources as automobiles (Bufalini, 1971).
                                 4.6-4

-------
4.6.1.3  Concentrations and Transport of SOg and Sulfates
Concentration Patterns
     The trends in ambient concentration of S02 and sulfate throughout
the United States have recently been analyzed (Altschuller, 1976;
Electric Power Research Institute, 1976).  Substantial  decreases in
ambient S02 concentrations have been noted which correlate well  with
corresponding reductions in SCL emissions.  Measurements of ambient S02
levels at both urban and nonurban stations have indicated a decline in
concentrations over the past 10 years.
     However, ambient sulfate concentrations have not decreased  cor-
respondingly.  For example, at sites in New York City,  Newark, Baltimore,
Indianapolis, Chicago, and St. Louis, S02 concentrations decreased by as
much as 60 to 75 percent during the period 1963 to 1972.  However sul-
fate concentrations definitely decreased at only 4 of these 6 locations,
and the overall average decrease was only 13 percent (Altschuller,
1976).
     The apparent lack of correspondence between S02 emissions and sul-
fate concentrations has been further noted by comparison between several
midwestern U. S. air quality control regions (Altschuller, 1976).  In
regions containing such cities as Detroit, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Chicago,
and St. Louis, the 1972 annual S02 emissions ranged from 700,000 to
1,200,000 tons per year, and annual average sulfate concentrations were
16.7 yg/rn .  In other midwest air quality control regions containing the
cities of Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis, annual S02 emissions were
about 100,000 to 200,000 tons per year, but the average sulfate  con-
centration was 13 yg/m .  In other words, regions with  5 to 10 times
higher S02 emissions had sulfate concentrations only about 28 percent
higher.  Based on these figures, ambient sulfate concentrations  do not
appear to be closely correlated with S02 emissions originating within
the same air quality control region.
     The anomalous differences between trends in S02 emissions and
ambient sulfate concentrations may be related to a shift toward  usage of
lower sulfur fuel  at low-level emission sources combined with larger
                                 4.6-5

-------
quantities of SCL emissions from plants using tall  stacks which emit at
higher levels in the atmosphere (National  Academy of Sciences,  1974).
Thus, the urban monitoring stations measure less SCL from local  low-
level sources, whereas the lack of a similar decline in sulfate con-
centrations can be attributed to an increasing exposure to sulfates
formed in the atmosphere and transported from distant elevated  sources,
possibly over distances of hundreds of kilometers (Altschuller, 1976;
Electric Power Research Institute, 1976).
Transport of SO,, and Sulfates
     The oxidation of SCL can be slow enough in many areas to explain
sulfate formation over widespread regions  possibly hundreds of  kilo-
meters downwind from major urban SCL sources.  Zones of high sulfate
concentrations in the northeastern United  States have been identified
and have been attributed to urban contributions beginning as far away  as
the midwest (Electric Power Research Institute, 1976).
     In situations favoring rapid conversion of SCL to  sulfates, ex-
posure to sulfates over widespread areas can be assumed to occur on  the
basis of transport of sulfate particles.  The tendency  of sulfates to
undergo transport depends on particle size and on processes which
remove suspended sulfates.  Sulfate particle size measurements  (Electric
Power Research Institute, 1976; Weiss and  others, 1977; Hidy and others,
1974) have indicated that over 80 percent  of sulfate particles  have  mass
median diameters less than 2 microns.  Sub-micron aerosol  species have
been shown to be dominated in many cases by sulfuric acid, sulfate of
ammonia, or both (Weiss and others, 1977;  Hidy and  others, 1974; Miller
and others; 1975).   Particles in the sub-micron size range can  stay
suspended in the atmosphere for long periods of time in the absence  of
removal  processes such as washout and coagulation.
     The small size of sulfate particles implies that they could well
constitute a regional problem extending over many miles.   The implica-
tion is that sulfate concentrations in a specific area  can be due to SCL
emissions from sources far removed from the area.  Such an implication
is based on a great deal  of empirical information.   However, this does
                                  4.6-6

-------
not mean that, under appropriate conditions,  sources  of  SC^ can not
contribute to sulfate concentrations in nearby  areas.  Time is the most
pertinent parameter to consider in the formation  and  transport of sul-
fates.  If air mass movement is persistent,  but the conversion rate  is
slow, sulfate exposure will  reach a maximum  at  a  point distant from  the
source.  Conversely, if the air mass is stagnant, SCk may  remain in  the
area long enough for the highest sulfate exposure to  occur in the region
proximate to the SCL source.
4.6.1.4  Visibility Effects of Sulfates
     Sulfates are of interest in part because of  their effect on the
visible (optical) properties of the atmosphere.  One  of  the most effec-
tive mechanisms resulting in visibility impairment is that of light
scattering by aerosols (particles and droplets  suspended in the atmos-
phere).  The effectiveness with which aerosols  scatter light depends on
the size of the aerosol.  Visible light is most effectively scattered by
aerosols whose radii are comparable to the wave length of  the light.  .
Visible light contains wave lengths from 0.4 to 0.7 micron (10~  meter).
It is found that aerosols of diameters between  about  0.1 and 1.0 micron
are most effective in scattering light.
     It has been noted in several investigations  of suspended particu-
late matter that sulfates tend to dominate the  sub-micron  aerosol
species both in urban and rural areas, and that visibility impairment is
directly related to sulfate concentration (Weiss  and  others, 1977; Hidy
and others, 1974).  Aerosol  sulfates, therefore,  can  contribute to visi-
bility impairment to a greater degree than might  be suggested strictly
on the basis of mass concentration.
4.6.1.5  Effects of Flue Gas Desulfurization (Scrubber)  Systems on Sulfates
     Flue gas desulfurization devices, commonly called scrubbers, are a
type of pollution control equipment placed at some point in an exhaust
gas stream to remove sulfur oxides which formed as the result of fuel
combustion or process operations.  Ostensibly,  any method  of S02 removal
will lead to reduction in ambient sulfate formation,  given that a fixed
percentage of emitted SOp will eventually convert to  one sulfate form or
                                 4.6^7

-------
another.  Ideally, then, scrubbers used to control  combustion-related
sulfur oxides emissions have the beneficial  effect  of reducing  both
ambient S(L concentrations and byproduct su'lfate concentrations,  assuming
that the same quality fuel would be used with or without scrubbers,  and
further assuming that sufficient conditioning of fuel  gases  (such as re-
heat) is applied to scrubbed gases so that the plume rise characteristics
of scrubbed and non-scrubbed releases are similar.
     In reality, of course, other factors must be considered.   The in-
centive to use low-sulfur fuel, for example, is not as great if scrubbers
are installed, so that the net effect at any given  installation may  be
little or no decrease in S(L emissions.  Furthermore, the more  humid
plume environment of scrubbed emissions may promote more rapid  con-
version of sulfur oxides to sulfates, possibly resulting in  greater
impact on local sulfate levels.  In addition, there could be carryover
of sulfate droplets which escape scrubber demisting equipment,  with
subsequent fallout of these droplets at distances fairly close  to the
stack.
     Literature concerning the direct effect of scrubber usage  on
ambient sulfate formation is scant.  The general assumption  is  that  any
method or reducing SOp emissions will also eventually result in lower
sulfate concentrations, whether this be accomplished through use  of
scrubbers, fuel with lower sulfur content, fuel cleaning, or other
means.  The exact impact on sulfate levels resulting from any particular
scrubber application depends on the specific scrubbing technique  em-
ployed, fuel characteristics, stack characteristics, geographical  and
average atmospheric conditions, and other interacting factors.
4.6.2  Measured Sulfate Concentrations In Arkansas
4.6.2.1  Introduction
     This section summarizes available Arkansas ambient atmospheric
sulfate data and examines possible sulfate sources  by mapping sulfur
oxide emission source strengths on a local and regional  scale.  A brief
review of meteorological conditions occurring simultaneously with epi-
sodes of high sulfate concentrations is also provided in an  initial
                                 4.6-8

-------
attempt to identify meteorological  factors important in  the  formation
and transport of sulfates.  It should be understood that the results
described in this section are not represented to be a comprehensive
analysis of sulfate concentrations  in Arkansas,  but rather an overview
of the subject based on a limited scope examination of readily available
data.
4.6.2.2  Data Source
     The data base used in this analysis was collected and provided by
the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.  It consists
primarily of four years of sulfate  concentration measurements (1973-
1976),  at a total of 76 monitoring stations located throughout the
state of Arkansas.  High volume samplers were used at the monitoring
stations to collect 24-hour midnight to midnight air samples every sixth
day during the four year interval.   These samples were then  analyzed by
the turbidimetric barium sulfate technique to determine  the  24-hour
                                      3
average sulfate concentration, in yg/m , on the  given day for each
station.  Examination of this data  set disclosed no obvious  seasonal or
area biases in the distribution of  the data.
     The data were initially examined to determine which days had high-
est sulfate concentrations.  In order to make such a determination, the
following criterion was used.  A high sulfate concentration  day was
defined as any day on which 75 percent or more of the stations that
sampled on that day reported sulfate concentrations of 10 ug/m  or more.
A total of 26 days satisfied this criterion and  were thus identified as
the high sulfate concentration days.  These days are listed  in Table 4.6-1
in order of decreasing percentage of reporting stations  with concentra-
ions of 10 yg/m  or more.  This sample set was then used to  determine,
first, the seasonal distribution and, second, the area distribution of
high sulfate concentrations.
4.6.2.3  Seasonal Distribution
     The seasonal distribution of these 26 high  concentration days is
presented in Figure 4.6-1.  This bar graph shows that 65 percent of the
                                 4.-6-T9

-------
days with high sulfate concentrations from 1973-1976 occurred during the
four month period June through September.
4.6.2.4  Geographic Distribution
     The objectives of the geographical analysis were to determine which
monitoring stations reported the highest and lowest mean sulfate concen-
trations for the 26 high concentration days, and then to determine
whether or not there was any pattern in the geographic location of these
stations within the state.  To achieve these objectives, the geometric
mean sulfate concentration from all of the high sulfate concentration
days was calculated for each of the 76 monitoring stations.
     In order to screen out any stations with unrealistically high or
low mean values due to a sporadic sampling record, an initial reduction
was made in the number of monitoring stations under consideration.  Any
station which reported on 50 percent or less of the high concentration
days was dropped from analysis.  The remaining 42 stations are ranked in
Table 4.6-2 in order of decreasing geometric mean sulfate concentrations.
The number of high concentration days on which the station actually
reported is also listed.  This table shows that the six monitoring sta-
tions which reported the highest mean concentrations were:
                         Jonesboro CHFS
                         Blytheville FS
                         Jacksonville PO
                         Mt. Home PO
                         Eldorado PO/M OIL
                         West Memphis FS 3
Conversely the six monitoring stations which reported the lowest mean
concentrations were:
                         Harrison FS
                         Crossett FD/PO
                         Van Buren FS
                         Fayet P&C Bldg.
                         Pine Bluff MC
                         Hope 2
     The geographic locations of these stations are indicated in Figure
4.6-2.   An examination of this map reveals that five of the  six stations
                                  4.6-10

-------
that reported high mean sulfate concentrations  are located  in  the  north-
east quadrant of the state.  Furthermore, the figure also shows  that  the
stations reporting the lowest mean sulfate concentrations are  located in
either the western or southern portion of the state.
4.6.2.5  Emission Rates and Emission Densities
     Total sulfur oxides emissions and emission densities  for  Arkansas
and its neighboring states were estimated and compared.  Total  emissions
are based on 1972 estimates available from the National  Emissions  Data
System (USEPA, 1974).  Emission densities were obtained  by dividing
estimated emission by the surface area of each state.   Total emissions
and emission densities are shown in Table 4.6-3.  When evaluating  these
numbers, it is important to remember that emission density is  an average
value for the entire state, even though the majority of  the emissions
may be concentrated within a small area of that state.  It should  also
be remembered that these figures pertain to the year 1972, prior to  the
sulfate measurement period analyzed.  It is assumed that the ratio of
emission densities is applicable to later years.
     In Figure 4.6-3, the 1972 sulfur oxides emission density  is speci-
fied for each particular state.  This figure indicates that the states
to the north and east of Arkansas have the highest emission densities
(Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama); whereas, the
states to the west have relatively low emission densities  (Kansas,
Oklahoma and Texas).  Arkansas had the lowest sulfur oxides emission
density in the entire 11 state region.  Relationships between  emissio'n
densities also pertain to total sulfur oxide emissions.  That  is,  total
estimated 1972 emissions were lowest in Arkansas and highest in the
states north and east of Arkansas.
4.6.2.6  Arkansas Point Source Emissions
     An additional analysis was performed comparing the  1976 total
sulfur dioxide point source emissions of different counties within the
state of Arkansas.  Table 4.6-4 presents the emission estimates for
nearly all of the counties for 1976.  These emission estimates  are also
indicated on the county map of Arkansas in Figure 4.6-4.  An examination
                                  4.6-11

-------
of this figure reveals that the sulfur dioxide point source emission
estimates are greatest in the southern half of the state (El  Dorado,
Saline, Hot Springs and Columbia Counties).  The emission estimates are
lowest in the northern half of the state, with the exception  of  Benton
County in extreme northwest Arkansas.  It is of interest to note that
three of the six monitoring stations which reported the highest  geo-
metric mean sulfate concentrations (Jonesboro, Blytheville and West
Memphis) are located in counties which had low estimated total sulfur
dioxide point source emissions.  The implication is that these high
concentrations are due to non-local sources either outside the state or
in a different area of Arkansas.
4.6.2.7  Meteorological Factors
Atmospheric Mater Vapor
     Previous studies (Electric Power Research Institute, 1976)  have
indicated that there seems to be a strong positive correlation between
high ground level sulfate concentrations and the moisture content of the
atmosphere (expressed as dew point temperature).  Consequently,  an
additional analysis was performed to determine whether or not this
strong positive correlation was evident on the high concentration days
cited in this report.  Meteorological data from Little Rock,  located
approximately in the middle of the state, were used for this  purpose.
     To perform this analysis, 10-year (1967-1976) mean monthly  dew
point temperatures were obtained for Little Rock.  The observed  dew
point temperatures were then obtained for Little Rock at 1200 Greenwich
Mean Time (GMT) for each of the high sulfate concentration days.  A
comparison between the observed and mean monthly dew point temperatures
was then made for each of these days.  The results of these comparisons,
as presented in Table 4.6-5, indicate that generally the observed 1200
GMT dew point temperature for a given high concentration day does not
have a significant positive deviation when compared to the average dew
point temperature for that month.  Thus, a strong positive correlation
between the high sulfate concentration days and days with unusually high
dew point temperatures was not observed.
                                   4.6-12

-------
Atmospheric Dynamics
     Atmospheric dynamics present during periods of high sulfate  concen-
trations were studied to gain insight into the conditions and possible
sulfur oxide emission source locations associated with high concen-
trations.  The 700 mb (approximately 3000 m MSL) and 850 mb (approxi-
mately 1500 m MSL) synoptic weather analysis maps for the high con-
centration days were reviewed for similarities in dynamic patterns.  The
usual pattern included a large air mass of negligible horizontal  pressure
gradient covering a large portion of the southeast with the jet stream
located near or above the northern edge of the United States.  Figure
4.6-5 is an illustration of a typical 850 mb map on a high sulfate
concentration day.  Lacking a horizontal pressure gradient, the air  is
driven by local forces only, and there is no organized regional flow
pattern.  Under these conditions the upper level wind tends to be weak
(less than 5 m/s) and the direction varies rapidly in time and over
short distances.
     If the air flow patterns over Arkansas could be defined with suffi-
cient precision, the path of a particle arriving at a receptor in Arkan-
sas could be traced backward to its source.  This type of study is com-
monly called a trajectory analysis.  The National Weather Service 850 mb
and 700 mb wind data are collected once every 12 hours at stations lo-
cated roughly 300 km apart.  Regardless of the trajectory technique
used, when the winds are driven by local forces only, the resolution of
these data in both time and space is not sufficient to give a meaningful
result.  Stated differently, any trajectory technique (Petterssen, 1956;
EPRI, 1976) using these data assumes that (a) each reading is repre-
sentative of the winds for 12 hours at a given point, and (b) there  is a
continuous, relatively small change in the winds over the 300 km  distance
between stations.
     Neither of these assumptions are valid when there is no regional
wind driving force.  In the 10 examples analyzed, wind directions at the
upper air stations nearest to Little Rock varied more than 90° and often
some were nearly 180° apart.  It was also apparent from analysis  of  the
850 mb and 700 mb charts that wind direction was strongly a function of
                                   4..6-13

-------
height.  There was often a complete reversal  of direction  between  the
two levels.  Thus, air at different elevations above Arkansas  flowed
from different directions at the time when high sulfate  concentrations
occurred.  Trajectory analysis would require  greater spatial and tem-
poral  resolution of the data.
4.6.2.8  Summary
     On the basis of the information examined, no definitive conclusions
can be reached concerning the  ultimate sources of emissions which  even-
tually result in measured high sulfate concentrations in Arkansas.  High
sulfate episodes are most frequent during summer months  and occur  pre-
dominantly when large-scale air mass movement is sluggish, thus pro-
viding a mechanism for accumulation of sulfates over a large area.
Comparison of sulfur oxide emission densities between Arkansas and
adjoining states implies that  regional emissions are an  important  factor
in Arkansas sulfate concentrations.  Transport of sulfates and sulfate
precursors from areas outside  the state are further implied by the
tendency toward highest sulfate concentrations in the northeast corner
of the state where local sulfur oxide emissions are fairly low.
                                    4.6-14

-------
                             Table  4.6-1
           High  Sulfate Concentration  Days  From  1973-1976C
               Percentage of
               stations  with
               concentrations
Percentage of
stations with
concentrations
Date
9/13/73
6/11/76
8/20/73
8/10/76
7/28/74
6/4/74
7/29/75
6/28/74
6/29/75
8/26/73
10/7/73
4/12/76
7/5/76
1/5/74
>JO ug/mj
100
100
88
100
98
97
97
95
93
91
91
91
91
90
                                        Date
                                      8/21/74
                                      8/20/73
                                      5/24/75
                                      5/24/75
                                      5/30/76
                                      4/30/76
                                      1/11/74
                                      8/22/76
                                      8/4/76
                                      2/27/73
                                      6/5/76
                                      9/8/74
                                      2/6/76
                                      9/20/74
     89
     88
     88
     88
     87
     85
     84
     84
     83
     79
     79
     77
     75
     75
aDays when 75 percent or more of the  reporting  stations
 had sulfate concentrations  of 10 yg/m3 or more
                                     4.6-15

-------
                              Table 4.6-2

        Stations Which Reported on Greater Than 50 Percent of the

                   High Sulfate Concentration Days8


                                          Number of         Geometric  Mean
Rank           Station Name             Reporting Days       S04  Concentration


 1             Jonesboro CHFS                26                  21.11
 2             Blytheville FS                26                  20.34
 3             Jacksonville PO               26                  19.61
 4             Mt. Home PO                   15                  19.31
 5             Eldorado PO/M Oil             26                  19.25
 6             W. Memphis FS 3               25                  19.11
 7      ,      Sherrill                      17                  18.57
 8             Little Rock WB                26                  18.52
 9             Helena FS                     26                  18.40
10             Plum Bayou School             17                  17.97
11             Earle FS                      25                  17.58
12             Magnolia WM                   26                  16.99
13             Bryant School                 25                  16.86
14             Stuttgart PAS                 24                  16.76
15             Conway Mun Bldg               25                  16.72
16             Stuttgart HMS                 25                  16.21
17             Hardy Arkmo PC                17                  16.19
18             Russellville WTEL             26                  16.16
19             W. Memphis Cent.               24                  16.09
20             Forrest City M                25                  15.55
21             Hope PO                       25                  15.41
22             Dumas PO                      14                  15.25
23             Ft. Smith FS1                 17                  15.23
24             England CC                    19                  15.03
25             Rose City PO                  24                  14.64
26             Paragould MFS                 23                  14.44
27             Texarkana REHB                25                  14.41
28             FS&L Stuttgart                24                  14.20
29             Camden FS                     24                  14.16
30             Hot Springs FS/NE             24                  14.13
31             NW Ark RPC                    15                  14.03
32             Rogers                        17                  14.01
33             Arkadelphia FS                25                  13.75
34             Stuttgart AP                  19                  13.45
35             Stuttgart KWAK                19                  13.34
36        -     Altheimer TWR                 16                  13.27
37             Harrison FS                   25                  13.20
38             Crossett FD/PO                24                  12.91
39             Van Buren FS                  17                  12.76
40             Fayet P&C Bldg                26                  12.52
41             Pine Bluff MC                 23                  11.87
42             Hope 2                        16                  11.69
aRanked in order of decreasing geometric  mean  sulfate concentrations

                                     4.6-16

-------
                                                       Table  4.6-3
I

-sj
                           Estimated  1972  Total  Sulfur  Oxides  Emissions  and  Emission Density
                                           for Arkansas and  Neighboring  States
                         Total  Sulfur Oxides  Emissions
Area
Sulfur Oxides Emission
State
Arkansas
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Missouri
Illinois
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
(kq/yr x 108)
.40
7.52
1.31
.87
11.51
20.40
12.01
11.78
8.82
.51
1.66
(km2 x 105)
1.38
6.92
1.81
2.13
1.80
1.46
1.05
1.09
1.34
1.24
1.26
Density (kg/yi
290
1,090
720
410
6,390
13,970
11,440
10,810
6,580
410
1,330
          Note:   Emission  density  was  obtained  for each  state  by dividing  total  emissions  by  surface area,

          Source:   USEPA,  1974.

-------
                              Table 4.6-4

              Total Sulfur Dioxide Point Source Emissions
                   for Counties in Arkansas, 1976
County
   Total Sulfur
   Dioxide Point
Source Emissions
 (kg/yr x IP3)
Arkansas
Ashley
Benton
Boone
Bradley
Carroll
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Cleburne
Columbia
Conway
Craighead
Crawford
Crittenden
Cross
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Faulkner
Franklin
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hemps tead
Hot Springs
Howard
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Lafayette
5
5,805
17,308
0
120
0
4
10
2
0
4,903
1,189
101
0
0
0
30
201
2
0
936
65
46
0
0
6,227
62
1,501
0
141
11,365
0
398
County

Lawrence
Lee
Lincoln
Little River
Logan
Lonoke
Marion
Miller
Mississippi
Monroe
Montgomery
Nevada
Ouachita
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Pope
Prairie
Pulaski
Randolph
St. Francis
Saline
Scott
Sebastian
Sevier
Sharp
Union
Van Buren
Washington
White
Woodruff
Yell
   Total Sulfur
   Dioxide Point
Source Emissions

 (kg/yr x IP3)

          0
          0
          0
      1,434
          0
          0
          0
      1,540
         19
          1
          0
         31
      2,974
      7,909
          8
          1
          1
          0
      1,202
          0
      1,084
      9,512
          0
          5
          0
          0
     20,192
          0
          0
         10
      1,268
          0
Source:  ADPCE, 1977
                                   4.6-18

-------
                              Table 4.6-5

       Difference Between Little Rock Dew Point  on  High  Sulfate
             Concentration Days and Mean Monthly Dew  Point
Date

2/27/73
8/20/73
8/26/73
9/13/73
10/7/73

1/5/74
1/11/74
6/4/74
6/28/74
7/28/74
8/21/74
9/8/74
9/20/74

5/24/75
6/29/75
7/29/75

2/6/76
4/12/76
4/30/76
5/30/76
6/5/76
6/11/76
6/5/76
8/4/76
8/10/76
8/22/76

5/26/77
5/27/77
Observed Dew Point
at 1200 GMT (°C)a

         0
        18
        19
        19
        19

        -3
        -2
        17
        15
        20
        18
        16
        16

        19
        21
        22

        -4
         6
         5
        18
        12
        15
        16

        16
        17
Mean Monthly  .
Dew Point (°C)D

      0
     20
     20
     17
     11

      0
      0
     19
     19
     21
     20
     17
     17

     19
     19
     21

      0
     10
     10
     14
     19
     19
     21
     20
     20
     20

     14
     14
Observed
- Mean (°C)

     0
    -2
    -1
    +2
    +8

    -3
    -2
    -2
    -4
    -1
    -2
    -1
    -1

     0
    +2
    +1

    -4
    -4
    -5
    +4
     *
    -8
    -5
    -4

    +2
    +3
*Data not available.

Source:


a U.  S. Department of Commerce,  1973-1977,

  U.  S. Department of Commerce,  1967-1976.
                                   4.6-19

-------
                                                 h65% OF  HIGH  J
                                                 ONCENTRATION~H
                                                      DAYS       I
                  6.
        NUMBER OF
           HIGH
      CONCENTRATION
        DAYS  PER
          MONTH




2





2
— 1 —










2





2


5






3



6







3





AVG.-2.2


1
                      J    F    M    A    M
                                 J     J

                                 MONTH
A    S    0    N    0
Figure 4.6-1.
Number of high sulfate concentration days (>10 yg/m  at 75% or
more of reporting stations)  per  month.
                                     4.6-20

-------
                           •   MT. HOME  (4)
                     Harrison   (37)
iFayet  (40)
         Van Buren  (39)
                                                        BLYTHEVILLE
                                                            •
                                                     JONESBORO   (1)
                                                     W. MEMPHIS  (6)<
                                 JACKSONVILLE   (3)
                                   Pine Bluff   (41)
               Hope   (42)
                        ELDORADO  (5)   Qossett  (38)
       UPPER CASE indicates stations with highest concentrations days.
       Lower Case indicates stations with lowest concentrations days.
       Parentheses enclose station rank.
Figure 4.6-2.   Location of 6 highest and 6 lowest sulfate concentration stations.

                                   4.6-21

-------
Figure 4.6-3.   1972 sulfur oxides emission densities (kg/yr-km ),
                                        4.6-22

-------
  *No emissions indicated.

  Source:  ADPCE, 1977.
Figure 4.6-4.   Arkansas 1976 sulfur dioxide point  source  emissions  by  county
               (kg/yr x 103).
                                        4.6-23

-------
Figure 4.6-5.
Typical 850 mb chart for a day of high sulfate concentrations
in Arkansas.
                                        4.6-24

-------
4.7  TRACE ELEMENT RELEASES
     A listing and quantitative analysis of significant trace elements
found in the coal to be used at the Independence Steam Electric  Station
is shown in Table 4.7-1.  It is assumed that, with the exception of
mercury, these elements will appear in the ash residue of the combustion
process and will be subject to the removal mechanisms applicable to the
total ash formed - that is, 20 percent of the total  will  fall out prior
to entering the electrostatic precipitators, and 99.5 percent of the
remainder will be removed by the precipitators.  Mercury will be pre-
dominantly liberated as an elemental mercury vapor, and it can be con-
servatively assumed that all of the mercury in the coal will  be  emitted
to the atmosphere.  Based on the maximum trace element content values in
Table 4.7-1 and on fuel consumption rates for coal with Btu content at
the lower end of the coal contract range (8200 Btu/lb), maximum  trace
element emission rates for the peak operating level  of 110 percent of
rated capacity have been estimated.  These rates are reported in Table
4.7-2.
     By comparing trace element emission rates with sulfur dioxide
emission rates, it is possible to derive estimates of trace element
ambient concentrations through proportional reduction of the  SOg. ambient
concentrations obtained by computer modeling calculations. The diffi-
culty lies in interpreting the significance of trace element  ambient
concentrations thus derived.
     As of this time, there are no national or State of Arkansas ambient
air quality standards for trace elements.  Reference can be made, how-
ever, to industrial hygiene standards as an approximate basis of com-
parison. Occupational exposure standards have been adopted by the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for each of  the ele-
ments listed in Table 4.7-1.  These standards are presented in Table
4.7-3 in terms of either an 8-hour average concentration or a short-term
ceiling concentration which is not to be exceeded.
                                  4.7-1

-------
     At peak load with both generating units in operation, S(L emissions
are estimated to be roughly between 10,000 and 15,000 pounds an hour.
This constitutes an emission rate which is 4 to 6 orders of magnitude
higher than maximum trace element emission rates as listed in Table 4.7-2.
Consequently, trace element ambient concentrations will  be 4 to 6
orders of magnitude lower than S02 concentrations and, therefore, con-
siderably below OSHA occupational exposure standards.  For example, the
lowest OSHA ceiling concentration standard, which is roughly analogous
                                                                 3
to a 30-minute concentration, is the beryllium standard  of 5 yg/m .
This value is 2 orders of magnitude less than the Arkansas 30-minute S02
standard, but since beryllium emissions are estimated to be about 6
orders of magnitude less than S02 emissions, beryllium concentrations
will be well below the OSHA standard.
     Although OSHA standards were developed for different purposes and
for different populations than were ambient air quality  standards, the
fact that trace element concentrations are estimated to  be orders of
magnitude below the OSHA standards is a reasonable indication that
adverse health effects attributable to trace element emissions will be
avoided.  It is not possible to judge if continuous trace element emis-
sions will have a cumulative effect on vegetation and soil conditions,
but again the extremely low concentrations involved suggest that adverse
effects are unlikely.
                                   4.7-2

-------
            Table 4.7-1

    Coal Trace Element Analysis

      (Dry, Whole Coal Basis)
Average Content,
Content Range (+_ 2 Std. Dev.),
      Percent by Height
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Fluorine
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Percent by Weight
0.00008
0.00007
0.00005
0.0142
0.0001
0.0007
0.0013
0.0085
0.0012
0.00051
0.0008
0.00001
0.0008
0.00004
0.0018
0.0016
Minimum
0
0
0.00001
0.006
0
0.0003
0.0007
0.0015
0
0.00005
0.0004
0.000001
0
0.00002
0.001
0
Maximum
0.0002
0.00015
0.00009
0.0224
0.00015
0.0011
0.0019
0.0155
0.0032
0.00097
0.0012
0.00002
0.0018
0.00006
0.0026
0.0044
                4.7-3

-------
                    Table 4.7-2
Estimated Maximum Emission Rates of Trace Elements

Element                  Emission Rate, lb/hra
Antimony                         0.02
Arsenic                          0.01
Beryllium                        0.01
Boron                            1.82
Cadmium                          0.01
Chromium                         0.09
Copper                           0.15
Fluorine                         1.26
Lead                             0.26
Lithium                          0.08
Manganese                        0.10
Mercury                          0.41
Nickel                           0.15
Silver                           0.01
Vanadium                         0.21
Zinc                             0.36
 Based on maximum coal trace element content, both
 generating units operating at peak load, and
 assuming coal heat content of 8200 Btu/lb; all
 elements except mercury assumed to be in
 particulate form and subject to removal  by
 particulate control systems; all  mercury
 in coal assumed to be vaporized and to be
 emitted into atmosphere.
                       4.7-4

-------
                           Table 4.7-3

          Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
                    Workplace Exposure Standards
                                    8-Hour Time          Ceiling
                                    Weighted Average     Concentration
  Material                                (ng/m3)             (ug/m3)
Antimony and compounds                    500
Arsenic and compounds                     500
Beryllium and compounds                     2                5
Boron (as boron oxide)                  15000
Cadmium fume                              100              600
Chromium, metal and insoluble salts      1000
Copper fume                               100
Fluorine                                  200
Lead and its inorganic compounds          200
Lithium (as lithium hydride)               25
Manganese                                  -               500
Mercury                                   100
Nickel, metal and soluble compounds      1000
Silver, metal and soluble compounds        10
Vanadium (as V^Og fume)                    -               100
Zinc (as zinc oxide fume)                5000
                                 4.7-5

-------
4.8  REFERENCES

Altshuller, A. P., 1976, Regional transport and transformation of sulfur
     dixoide to sulfate, in the U. S. Journal  of the Air Pollution
     Control Association, vol. 26, no.4, p. 318-324.

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1977, Unpublished
     data printouts.

Arkansas Power & Light Company, 1974a, Amendment to air permit application
     form.  Submitted to State Department of Pollution Control and
     Ecology.

          , 1974b, Supplement to the air permit application.  Submitted
     to the State Department of Pollution Control  and Ecology.

Aynsley, Eric, 1970, Cooling tower effects:  studies abound.   Electrical
     World, p. 42-43.

Barber, F. R., and others, 1974, The persistence of plumes from natural
     draught cooling towers.  Atmospheric Environment, vol. 8,  p.  407-418.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1974, A review of the  atmospher-
     ic effects of natural draft cooling towers for large thermal  power
     plants, final report.  Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Contract
     No. 2311202012.

Briggs, G. A., 1971, Some recent analyses of plume rise observation, jji
     Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, H.  M.
     Englund and W. T. Beery (ed.), Academic Press, New York, p. 507-510.

          , 1972, Discussion on chimney plumes in neutral and stable
     surroundings.  Atmospheric Environment, vol. 6, p.  507-510.

Bufalini, M., 1971, Oxidation of sulfur dioxide in polluted atmospheres.
     Environmental Science and Techology, vol.  5, p. 685-700.

Carpenter, S. B., and others, 1970, Principal  plume dispersion models -
     TVA power plants. Paper No. 70-149, 63rd  Annual Meeting of the
     Air Pollution Control Association, St.  Louis, Missouri.

          , 1971, Principal plume dispersion models:  TVA power plants.
     Journal of the Air Pollution Control  Association, vol.  21, no.  8,
     p. 491-495.

    	, 1976, A study of limited-layer mixing dispersion,  Bull  Run
     Steam Plant.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Environmental
     Planning, Publication No.  E-AQ-76-2.
                                  4.8-1

-------
Cry, G. W., 1967, Effects of tropical cyclone rainfall on the distri-
     bution of precipitation over the eastern and southern United States.
     U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., ESSA Professional
     Paper 1.

DeVine, J. C., Jr., 1975, The Forked River program:  a case study in
     saltwater cooling.  Cooling Tower Environment - 1974, CONF - 740302,
     Technical Information Center, U. S. Energy Research and Development
     Administration, p. 509-557.

Dow Chemical Company, 1960, JANAF interim thermochemical tables.  Ther-
     mal Laboratory, Midland, Michigan.

Edmonds, P. R., Roffman, H. K., and Maxwell, R. C., 1975, Some terrestrial
     considerations associated with cooling-tower systems for electric
     power generations.  Cooling Tower Environment-1974, CONF - 740302,
     •Technical Information Center, U. S. Energy Research and Development
     Administration, p. 393-407.

Electric Power Research Institute, 1976, Design of the sulfate regional
     experiment (SURE), vol. 1 - supporting data and analysis.  Prepared
     by Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.

Foster, P. M., 1969, Oxidation of sulfur dioxide in power station plumes.
     Atmospheric Environment, vol. 3, p. 157.

Freas, W. P. and Lee, R. F., 1976, Sensitivity analysis of the single
     source (CRSTER) model.  Presented at the Seventh International
     Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application,
     September.

Freiberg, J., 1974, Effects of relative humidity and temperature on ion-
     catalyzed oxidation of S02 in atmospheric aerosols.  Environmental
     Science and Technology, vol. 8, p. 731-734.

Gartrell, F. E., Thomas, F. W., and Carpenter, S. B., 1963, Atmospheric
     oxidation of S02 in coal-buring power plant plumes.  Journal of
     American Industrial Hygiene, vol. 24, p. 113-120.

Harrison, H., Larson, T. V., and Hobbs, P. V., 1975, Oxidation of sulfur
     dioxide in the atmosphere:  a review.  Proceedings of the Interna-
     tional Conference of Environmental Sensing and Assessment, Las
     Vegas, Nevada, September.

Hanna, S. R., 1972, Rise and condensation of large cooling tower plumes.
     Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 793-799.

	, 1974, Fog and drift deposition from evaporative cooling
     towers.  Nuclear Safety, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 190-196.
                                   4.8-2

-------
	, 1976, Predicted and observed cooling tower plume rise
     and visible plumes length at the John E.  Amos Power Plant.  At-
     mospheric Environment, vol. 10, p.  1043-1052.

	, and Swisher, S. D., 1971, Meteorological  effects of the
     heat and moisture produced by man.   Nuclear Safety, vol. 12,  no.  2,
     p. 114-122.

Hidy, G. M. and others, 1974, Characterization of aerosols in California.
     Final Report to Air Resources Board of California, September  30,
     1974, p. 3-56.

Holzworth, G. C., 1972, Mixing heights,  wind speeds, and potential  for
     urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United States.   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Publication
     No. AP-101.

Huff, F. A., 1972, Potential augmentation of precipitation from cooling
     tower effluents.  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
     vol. 53, no. 7, p. 639-644.

Junod, A., and others, 1975, Meteorological influences of atmospheric
     cooling systems as projected in Switzerland.  Cooling Tower Environ-
     ment - 1974, CONF - 740302, Technical Information Center, U.S.
     Energy Research and Development Administration, p. 239-264.

Kellogg, W. W., and others, 1972, The sulfur cycle.  Science, vol.  175,
     p. 587-596.

Korshover, Julius, 1976, Climatology of stagnating anti-cyclones east
     of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1975.   Report No. TM ERL ARL-55,  Air
     Resources Laboratories, NOAA, Silver Springs, Maryland.

Lee, R. F., Mills, M. T. and Stern, R. W., 1975, Validation of a single
     source dispersion model.  Proceedings of the Sixth International
     Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application,
     NATO/CCMS, no. 41, September.

Levy, A., Drewes, D. R., and Hales, J. M., 1976, S02 oxidation in  plumes:
     a review and assessment of relevant mechanistic and rate studies.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-
     022.

Ludlam, David, M., 1970, Extremes of snowfall  - states.  Weatherwise,
     vol. 23, no. 6.

McVehil, G. E., and Heikes, K. E., 1975, Cooling tower plume modeling
     and drift measurement; a review of the state-of-the-art.  Contract
     G-131-1, Ball Brothers Research Corporation, Prepared for Research
     Committee on Atmospheric Emissions  and Plume Behavior from Cooling
     Towers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
                                  4.8-3

-------
Martin, A., 1974, The influence of a power station on climate - a study
     of local weather records.  Atmospheric Environment, vol. 8,
     p. 419-424.

Matteson, M. J., Stober, W., and Luther, H., 1969, Kinetics and the oxi-
     dation of sulfur dioxide by aerosols of manganese sulfate.  Indus-
     trial Engineering Chemistry, vol. 4, p. 677.

Miller, D. F., and others, 1975, Haze formation:  its nature and origin.
     Final Report from Battelle Columbus to Coordinating Research
     Council, Inc. and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March, p. 40.

Montgomery, T. L., Carpenter, S. B., and Lindley, H.  E., 1971, The re-
     lationship between peak and mean $62 concentrations.  Presented
     at the American Meteorological Society Conference on Air Pollution
     Meteorology, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 5-8.

Montgomery, T. L., and Coleman, J. H., 1975, Empirical relationships be-
     tween time-averaged S0? concentrations.  Environmental Science and
     Technology, vol. 9, no: 10, p. 953-957.

Montgomery, T. L., and others, 1972, Results of recent TVA investigations
     of plume rise.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
     vol. 22, no. 10, p. 779-784.

            1973a, A simplified technique used to evaluate atmospheric
     dispersion of emissions from large power plants.  Journal  of the
     Air Pollution Control Association, vol. 23, no. 5, p.  388-394.

            1973b, Controlling ambient SO,,.  Journal of Metals, vol.  25,
     no. 6, p. 1-7.

Moore, D. J., 1975, Recent Central Electricity Generating Board research
     on environmental effects of wet cooling towers.  Cooling Tower En-
     vironment-1974, CONF-740302, Technical Information Center, U.  S.
     Energy Research and Development Administration, p. 205-220.

Mulchi, Charles, and Armbruster, J. A., 1975, Effects of salt sprays on
     the yield of and nutrient balance of corn and soybeans.   Cooling
     Tower Environment-1974, CONF-740302, Technical Information Center,
     U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, p. 379-392.

National Academy of Sciences, 1974, The relationship of emissions to
     ambient air quality.  Report by the Coordinating Committee on  Air
     Quality Studies, Air Quality and Automobile Emission Control,
     vol. Ill, no. 93-24, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
     D. C., p. 52-54.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972, Southwest
     energy study.  Draft copy.
                                  4.8-4

-------
 Pautz, M.  E.,  1969, Severe local storm occurrences, 1955-1967.  U. S.
      Department of Commerce, Office of Meteorological Operations,
      Silver Springs, Maryland.  ESSA Technical Memorandum WBTM FCST 12.

 Pell, Jerry, 1975, The Chalk Point cooling tower project.  Cooling Tower
      Environmental-1974, CONF740302, Technical Information Center, U.S.
      Energy Research and Development Administration, p. 88-127.

 Petterssen, S., 1956, Weather analysis and forecasting.  Vol. 1 - motion
      and motion systems, second edition.  McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.,
      p. 27-30.

 Pooler, F., Jr.,  1965, Potential dispersion of plumes from large power
      plants.   U.  S. Public Health Service publication no. 99-AP-16.

-Radian Corporation, 1977, Sampling at station A.  Technical Note No.
      200-13-701,  prepared under USEPA Contract No. 68-01-3702.

 Roffman, A., and  Grimble, R. E., 1975, Drift deposition rates from wet
      cooling systems.  Cooling Tower Environment - 1974, CONF-740302,
      Technical Information Center, U. S. Energy Research and Development
      Administration, p. 585-595.

 Smith, Maynard, and others, 1974, Cooling towers and the environment.
      American  Electric Power Service Corporation, New York, N. Y.

 Tennessee  Valley  Authority, 1970, Report on full-scale study of
      inversion breakup at large power plants.  TVA Air Quality Branch,
      Muscle Shoals, Alabama.

 	, 1974, Summary of Tennessee Valley Authority atmospheric dis-
      persion modeling.  Presented to the Conference on the TVA Experience
      at the International Institute for Applied Analysis, Schloss, Laxen
      burg, Austria, October 28-November 1.

 	, 1977, Personal communication.
Thorn, H. C. S.,  1963, Tornado probabilities.  Monthly Weather Review,
     October - December.

Tikvart, J. A.,  and Mears, C. E., 1976, Application of the single source
     (CRSTER) model.  Presented at the Seventh International Technical
     Meeting on  Air Pollution Modeling and  Its Application, September.

Turner, D. B., 1964, A diffusion model for  an urban area.  Journal of
     Applied Meteorology, vol. 3, p. 83-91.

           , 1970, Workbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs
     publication no. AP-26  (revised).
                                  4.8-5

-------
U. S. Department of Commerce, 1956, Climatic summary of the United
     States - supplement for 1931 through 1952.  Climatology of the
     United States No. 11-3, U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.

          _, 1963, Maximum recorded United States point rainfall for
     5 minutes to 24 hours at 296 first order stations.  Technical  Paper
     no. 2, U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.

    	, 1965, Climatic summary of the United States - supplement for
     1951 through 1960, Arkansas.  Climatology of the United States,
     No. 863.  U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.

          , 1967-1976, Climatological data, national summary, vol.  18-27.
     National Climatic Center, Asheville, N. C.

    	•_, 1968a, Climatic atlas of the United States.  U. S. Department
     of Commerce, ESSA, Environmental Data Service, Washington, D. C.

    	, 1968b, Tabulation I, frequency of occurrence, average wind
     speed through mixing depth for "NOP" cases; Little Rock, Arkansas,
     1/60-12/64. ESSA, Environmental Data Service, National Weather
     Records Center, Asheville, N. C.

    	, 1973a, Seasonal and annual wind distribution by Pasquill
     Stability Classes, 1955-1964, Little Rock, Arkansas.  NOAA,
     Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N. C.

         _, 1973b, EPA inversion study, percentage frequency of temperature,
     relative humidity and wind (seasonal and annual); Little Rock,
     Arkansas, 1/60-12/64.  NOAA, Environmental Data Service, National
     Climatic Center, Asheville, N. C.

    	, 1973-1977, Daily weather maps.  National Oceanic and Atmos-
     pheric Administration, Washington, D. C.

          _, 1974, Local Climatological data, Little Rock, Arkansas.
     NOAA, Environmental Data Service, Climatic Center, Asheville, N.  C.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974, 1972 National  emissions re-
     port, national emissions data system (NEDS) of the aerometric and
     emissions reporting system (AEROS).  Office of Air and Waste Manage-
     ment, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
     Triangle Park, N. C.

          , 1976, Compliation of air pollutant emission factors.   Office
     of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Publication No.  AP-42,
     supplement no. 6, second edition, p.  1.3-2.

    	, 1977a, Guideline on air quality models, 2d draft.   Office of
     Air Quality Planning and Standards.
                                  4.8-6

-------
            1977b, Report to the USEPA of the specialists'  conference
     on the EPA modeling guideline.  Proceedings of a conference spon-
     sored by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Chicago,
     Illinois, February 22-24.

	, 1977c, User's manual for single-source (CRSTER) model.
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards publication no.  EPA-
     450/2-77-013.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1972, Safety guide 23, onsite me-
     teorological programs.

U. S. Public Health Service, 1969a, Air quality display model.  Prepared
     for National Air Pollution Control Administration TRW Systems
     Group, Contract No. PH-22-68-60.

            1969b, Air quality criteria for sulfur oxides.  National  Air
     Pollution Control Administration publication no. AP-50.

University of Utah Research Institute, 1975, Rate of conversion of sul-
     fur dioxide in a power plant plume to particulate sulfate.  Final
     Report, Phase I, APS Contract No. 75-00634, funded by WEST As-
     sociates.

Urone, P., and Schroeder, W. M., 1969, S02 in the atmosphere:  a wealth
     of monitoring data, but few reaction rate studies.  Environmental
     Science and Technology, vol. 3, p. 436-455.

Weiss, R. E., and others, 1977, Sulfate aerosol:  its geographical ex-
     tent in the midwestern and southern United States.  Science,
     vol. 195, p. 979-980.
                                  4.S-7

-------
         PARTS
AQUATIC ECOLOGY

-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT



          PART 5



      AQUATIC ECOLOGY

-------
                                 CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

 5.1   INTRODUCTION	5.1-1

 5.2   SAMPLING  STATIONS   	  5.2-1

 5.3   METHODS	5.3-1

       5.3.1  Aquatic  Flora	5.3-1
       5.3.2  Aquatic  Fauna	5.3-1

 5.4   RESULTS	5.4-1

' 5.5   REFERENCES	5.5-1

-------
                                TABLES
5.4-1   Phytoplankton Collected from the White River in
        the Site Area	5.4-2
5.4-2   Periphyton Collected from Waterways in the Site Area. .  .  5.4-9
5.4-3   Zooplankton Collected from the White River in the Site
        Area	5.4-13
5.4-4   Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected from Waterways in
        the Site Area 	  5.4-14
5.4-5   Fishes Collected From the White River Near the Site
        During 1976-1977 Field Sampling Surveys 	  5.4-17
5.4-6   Length and Weight of Selected Fish Collected During
        1976-1977 Field Sampling Surveys	5.4-19
5.4-7   Fishes Observed in the White River in the Site Area . .     5.4-20
5.4-8   Mussels Collected from the White River
        River Miles 261-276 	  5.4-25
                                FIGURES
5.2-1  Location of aquatic sampling stations	5.2-4

-------
                                PART 5
                          AQUATIC ECOLOGY
5.1  INTRODUCTION
     The various plant and animal components of the aquatic community
are constantly interacting with one another and with the non-living
portions of the environment which surrounds them.  Because of this
relationship, biological impacts resulting from changes in the aquatic
environment can be estimated only if a baseline definition of existing
communities is known.
     In an effort to supplement baseline data available from the litera-
ture, Dames & Moore conducted three comprehensive aquatic field studies
in the site area.  These surveys were conducted in November 1976, May
1977, and July 1977 in order to collect data indicating seasonal dif-
ferences in aquatic populations.  Sampling involved several stations on
the White River during all three programs; Wall and Round Lakes were
also included in the summer survey. The scope of the work involved
varied among the sampling periods, as indicated by the detail of the
results presented for water quality and sediment analyses (TSD Tables
2.1-7 and 2.1-8) and for biological analyses (Tables 5.4-1 through 5.4-7).
     In addition to the comprehensive sampling efforts, a field survey
was conducted in November 1977 solely to characterize the area's mussel
population.  The purpose of the program was two-fold:  1) to provide a
definition of the size and species composition of the mussel populations
and 2) to determine the presence or absence of Proptera capax, listed as
endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 5.5.1.5),
near the site.  Due to the sensitive nature of endangered species issues,
this program was carried out under an agreement with the Arkansas Game &
Fish Commission.  Among other requirements, this agreement stipulated
that collection of any £_.  capax specimens should not be reasonably
anticipated to result in the death or permanent disablement of the
organism.  A representative of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr.
Dennis Jordan (Jackson, Mississippi office), was present during a major
portion of the mussel sampling efforts.
                                 5.1-1

-------
5.2  SAMPLING STATIONS
        With regard to the comprehensive sampling program, sampling
stations on the White River were selected with the intention of providing
data from points upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the intake and
discharge areas so that it would be possible to make meaningful com-
parisons between pre- and post-operational biological data, 1f necessary.
Round and Wall Lake sampling locations were added to the program in
order to provide data on two areas that may receive drainage from the
site.  All station locations are shown on Figure 5.2-1.  Sampling was
conducted in the vicinity of these stations at points considered to be
representative of conditions in the general station area.
        Station 1.  This station was chosen for its location upstream of
the site area and away from any impacts which might occur as a result of
plant construction or operation.  It is situated approximately at river
mile (RM) 273 east of Pleasant  Island near a small, unnamed island.  The
unnamed island supports a stand of trees such as cottonwood, maple, oak,
and hickory, some of which overhang the river.  The bottom substrate is
primarily sand, with some gravel.
        Station 1A.  This station, located on the opposite side of the
island from Station 1, was added to the spring program in order to
obtain information on the aquatic populations in an area away from the
main stream channel.   Stream flow is relatively swift in much of this
station area, but some quiet places are present, and a considerable
amount of debris (fallen trees and logs) has accumulated in the water.
The bottom consists of clay, sand, and organic detritus.
        Station 2.  Located at the downstream end of a slip-off slope on
Hulsey Bend just upstream of RM 270, Station 2 is also upstream of the
proposed intake and discharge structures.   The substrate is sand and
some gravel.
        Station 2A.  Station 2A is located in the mouth of the Swan Lake
Drainage Ditch approximately at RM 269 and near the site of the proposed
intake and discharge structures.  Numerous hardwoods and shrubs line the
shoreline at this station.   Muck, clay, and organic detritus comprise
                                 5.2-1

-------
the substrate.  In the summer, the mouth of the ditch was almost dry due
to the low flow conditions of the White River.
     Station 3.  This station is situated near the mouth of Bear Wallow
Slough just upstream of RM 267.  The small, quiet area formed by the
slough mouth is surrounded by a dense growth of hardwoods, shrubs, and
vines.  During the fall and spring, water movement in this area appeared
to be negligible due to the presence of an underwater sediment deposit
at the slough's intersection with the river.  In the summer period, the
low flow conditions of the river had left the sediment deposit partially
exposed, temporarily eliminating the slough mouth's connection with the
river.
     A large amount of organic debris is present in the area of the
slough mouth; the substrate is sand and organic detritus.  Across the
river from the slough mouth is a slip-off slope which is characterized
by a sand, gravel, and cobble bottom.  Some sampling activites were
conducted at this location.
     Station 4.  Located approximately at RM 266 near a slip-off slope,
Station 4 was selected in the fall  as being representative of conditions
immediately downstream of the preliminary site boundaries. The site
location was more clearly delineated before the spring sampling period,
and intensive sampling at this station was eliminated in favor of a
location farther downstream.  Sand, gravel, and cobble comprised the
substrate here.
     Station 5.  This station was added in the spring to ensure col-
lection of data below the site boundaries.  It is located in the vicinity
of the Wall Lake drainage entrance into the White River approximately
at RM 263.5.  The quiet area formed by this entrance is surrounded by
hardwoods.  During part of the spring effort, a plume of water, ap-
pearing much lighter in color than the river water, was observed to
originate within this tributary mouth and flow into the river.
     In the summer period, the drainage entrance was almost dry. Sam-
pling was conducted in the river channel along the sand bar across from
the ditch entrance into the river.
                                 5.2-2

-------
     Station 6.  This station, sampled during the summer only, is lo-
cated on Wall Lake.  The lake is surrounded by agricultural  land, with a
narrow strip of trees near the shoreline.  The average water depth was
less than 0.3 m.  Muck, commonly as much as 0.8 to 0.9 m deep, comprised
the bottom substrate.
     Station 7.  This station was also surveyed only during  the summer
period.  It is located on Round Lake, which is tree lined along its
border but drains primarily agricultural land.  During the summer sam-
pling effort, the average water depth was about 0.9 m.  The  bottom con-
sisted of muck, ranging in depth from 0.1 to 0.5 m.
     The November 1977 mussel sampling effort was conducted  between White
River miles 261 (near the confluence with the Black River) and 276 (about
1  mile upstream of the old Oil Trough ferry landing).  Gravel was the main
substrate component in most areas studied.  However, a small, unstable
sand bar, located upstream of the Oil Trough ferry, and some sand-gravel
islands and slip-off slopes were also surveyed, providing some habitat
variety.
                                 5.2-3

-------
• IA WATER QUALITY AND
                              AQUATIC SAMPLING STAT
Figure 5.2-1.   Location of aquatic sampling stations.




                                     5.2-4

-------
5.3  METHODS
5.3.1  Aquatic Flora
Phytoplankton
     Twenty liters of whole water were pumped from a water depth of
approximately 0.2 m into a container.  Duplicate 1 liter samples were
removed from the container and preserved with Lugol's solution and
formalin. Organisms were identified and counted in the laboratory.  In
the fall, laboratory analysis involved the use of a Sedgwick-Rafter
(S-R) cell. Spring and summer phytoplankton samples were analyzed by two
methods.  The S-R cell was used in order to provide data which could be
compared with that obtained in the fall; the inverted microscope (IM)
technique was also employed as a back-up method to check results of the
S-R procedure.  Quantitative analyses were performed by counting
individual cells except in the case of blue-green filaments.  Each of
these filaments was counted as an individual cell.
Periphyton
     Periphyton were collected at all stations where suitable substrate
was accessible.  Samples were gathered by scraping material from natural
substrates considered to be submerged at all times under normal condi-
tions or by collecting the entire substrate.  Specimens were preserved
in Lugol's solution and formalin and sent to the laboratory for identi-
fication.
Vascular Hydrophytes
     The presence of significant rooted and floating vascular plant
populations was determined by a general survey of the study area.  When
possible, observed species were identified in the field.  Representative
specimens of unknown macrophytes were pressed and sent to the laboratory
for indentification.
5.3.2  Aquatic Fauna
Zooplankton
     Duplicate 100 liter whole water samples were pumped through a No.
20 plankton net from a depth of about 0.2 m.  Plankton were rinsed


                                 5.3-1 .

-------
 into a container and preserved with LugoTs solution and formalin.
 Organisms were identified and counted in the laboratory with a S-R cell.
 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
     Triplicate benthos samples were collected with a 6-inch Ekman
 sampler and then filtered through a U.S. Standard No. 30 wire mesh
 sieve.  In addition, some specimens were collected incidentally while
 seining for fish.
     During the summer period, a 4-foot brail was employed for the col-
 lection of mussels.  The brail was towed in the vicinity of several
 stations'for a combined distance of approximately 1800 feet, and a total
 area of about 7200 square feet.  All stations as well as other areas
 between stations were also visually searched for live mussels.
     In the fall, only organisms observed with the unaided eye were
 preserved in formalin, stained with rose bengal, and sent to the lab-
 oratory for analysis.  In the spring and summer, all material retained
 after sieving was preserved and then analyzed in the laboratory.
     During the November 1977 mussel survey, a total distance of 3090
yards, representing an area of about 10,300 square yards was brailed.
 In addition, several locations were visually searched, and one site
 upstream of the old Oil Trough ferry was sampled by diving.
     Mr.  K.  C. Ward, a commercial mussel fisherman from Clarendon,  Arkansas,
and Mr.  Raymond Spicer, a mussel  shell buyer from Helena, Arkansas,
operated the brail ing and diving equipment.  Both men are familiar with
 the White River and its mussels.   Brail ing was conducted with a 10-
foot brail consisting of a metal  rod to which approximately 250 14-guage
crowfeet were attached by nylon cording.  The brail  was lowered over the
 side of the boat and dragged for distances ranging from 40 to 150 yards
 per haul.   Areas which were brailed most heavily included:  1) those for
which local  residents indicated the recent presence of small mussel
 populations (RM 275-276, RM 272-273 and RM 267-268), and 2) those near
 the proposed intake/discharge structures (RM 269-270).  Water depths
were estimated from the length of the brail lead line after initial
 lowering or just prior to retrieval of the brail.
                                5.3-2

-------
     Several areas were searched for mussels both visually, in particu-
larly shallow waters where the bottom could be seen, and by the use of
rakes in somewhat deeper waters where the bottom was not visible.  The
rakes were used, while wading, to feel along the bottom for mussel
shells and as a means of retrieval.
     Diving was employed as a sampling method at only one location, just
upstream of the old Oil Trough ferry landing.  No other areas yielded a
sufficient number of specimens as a result of brail ing to justify the
use of a diver.  The diving apparatus consisted of a weighted metal
"helmet" fitted with a hose connected to a reserve air tank on the boat.
After being fitted with the necessary equipment, the mussel fisherman
dived to the river bottom and collected all of the mussels he could find
in a 5-minute period.  The low temperature of the water precluded the
possibility of a more lengthy dive.
     Specimens collected by all methods were identified in the field by
Mr. Clarence Clark, a former professor at Ohio State University and past
Supervisor of Fisheries for the Ohio Game and Fish Commission.  Soft
parts of all specimens were removed, and the shells were retained for
later verification of taxonomy, if necessary.
Fish
     Several methods were employed for fish collection.  In the fall
period, at least three seine hauls were made with a 25-foot, 1/8-inch
mesh net at each station.  A total of six hauls was made at Station 3,
half in the entrance to Bear Wallow Slough and the remainder just across
the river near the slip-off slope.  Six hauls were also made at Station
1, three on each side of the river.  In the fall, two gill nets were set
at Station 2 for approximately 21 hours; one gill net was set at Station
3 in the slough mouth for about 19.5 hours.  Gill nets were not used at
Station 1 or 4 due to the extremely swift river flow and shallow water
conditions, respectively.  Fyke nets were employed in the fall at
Stations 1 and 2 only.  Conditions at the other stations were not con-
ducive to their use.  The fyke net at Station 1 remained in place for
                                 5.3r3

-------
approximately 21.5 hours.  However, the net at Station 2 was not re-
trieved for almost 48 hours; high stream flows made earlier net retrieval
at this station impossible.
     Spring sampling at Stations 1 and 1A included three seine hauls
with a net similar to the one used in the fall; six hauls were made at
Station 3 at the same locations seined in the fall.  The current at
Station 2 was too swift to allow seining.  Fish were collected at Sta-
tion 4 with a dip net.  Gill nets were utilized only at Stations 3 and 5
during the spring due to the presence of unsuitable conditions at the
other stations.  The net at Station 3 remained in place for about 22
hours while the one at Station 5 was set for 19 hours.  Fyke nets were
used only at Station 1A, where two were set for approximately 23 hours.
Conditions at all of the other stations were not conducive to fyke net
sampling during the springtime.
     During the summer, seining was the only method of fish collection
employed since the extremely low water levels made the use of gill or
fyke nets impractical.  A 25-foot bag seine was used in this effort.
Three hauls were made at each station except Station 3 where six hauls
were made, as before, and Stations 6 and 7 where seining was not possible
because of the mucky bottoms.
     During each field survey, large fish were measured and weighed
after identification in the field.  Smaller specimens were preserved in
formalin and sent to the laboratory for identification and permanent
preservation in alcohol.  In the spring, laboratory analysis of all fish
specimens included the designation of life stage.  Some fish collected
in the summer were also classified by life stage.
                                 5.3-4

-------
5.4  RESULTS
     Results of aquatic biological surveys for phytoplankton, periphyton,
zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish conducted during the
three comprehensive aquatic sampling programs are shown in Tables 5.4-1
through 5.4-6.  For comparative purposes, Table 5.4-7 indicates not only
the fish species collected during the Dames & Moore monitoring program,
but also those collected during other efforts in the site area.  The
vascular hydrophytes were not abundant in either the White River or
Round and Wall Lakes.  A few specimens of arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.)
were observed at Station 1A and duckweed (Lemna sp.) was seen floating
in the water at Station 7.  Table 5.4-8 presents the results of the
November 1977 mussel sampling program.
                                 5.4-1

-------
                                                  Table 5.4-1
                       Phytoplankton Collected  from the White  River in  the Site Area'
                                 Page  1  of 7
Species
Station/Sampling Period"

Chlorophyta
Chlorophyceae
^
Vol vocal es
Chlanydomonas spp.
Dysmorphococcus vaHabilis
en
Gonlum sociale
-P> 	
i
IN> Pandorlna morum
Tetrasporales
Gloeocystls plane ton 1ca
Chlorococcales
Actlnastrum hantzschll
AnMstrodesrous convoluta
A. falcatus

Coelastrum microporum
Coelosphaerlum mlcroporum
Cruclgenla irregular 1s
Dlctyosphaerlum pucnellum
Klrchnerlelli obesa
Ped1«stn» boryanum
F Sp Su

2400 49050 58000
01250)c (12950)

2500
(150)
(50)
8000

3500 500
(500)

(1200)
5000
(850)
1000 7500
(600)
(1600)
40000

2500
8000
F Sp Su

13400 21500 46000
(6550) (67600)


(800)

500
(600)

2000
(11500)
6500
(5050)
1000 7000
(8900)
(1600)
(1200)

(13800)
3500
(2600)

F Sp Su

8700 5000 35500
(6450) (88150)

1000
(1350)
(200)

500
(750)

4000
(1700)
7500
(12950)
500 10000
(50) (10700)
(400)
2000
(13800)

3000
(5450)
(3200)
F

6700














Sp Su

7000 8000
(12300) (16100)




1500 (200)
(650)

(400)
500
(400)
1500 4500
(400) (4900)
(3200)
1400




-------
                                                              Table  5.4-1   (Continued)
                                                                                                                               Page  2 of 7
                                                                                       Station/Sampling  Period
on
co
           Species
     P. tetras
     Planktosphaera  gelatinosa
     Scenedesmus  arcuatus
     S. bljuga
     S^_ quadrlcauda

     S. serratus
     Tetraedron minimum

  Chaetophorales
     StlgeocIonium sp.
Coojugatophyceae

  Zygnema tales
     Mougeotla sp.
  Desnldlales
     Closten'um ehrenbergll
     Cosaarlum undulatum
     Staurastrum  turgescens
1
F Sp



2550
(5000)

2000
(4100)



3000
(1100)


3000
(1050)
(50)
2
Su
16000
4000

(2400)
(300)
2000
(7250)
2000
(200)


3500
(2200)

500
(100)
3000
(2100)

F Sp
16000


2000
(2950)
(400)
2000
(600)



1500
(500)


1500
(500)

3 45
Su


4000
8000
(6800)
15000
(17000)-
(200)
(150)

1500
(6500)

500
1000
(6500)

F Sp Su



4000 (16400)
(2200)
(7600)
(2800) 8000
(14800)
(200)
(50)

(600) 4500
(3850)
(200)
500
(350) 4000
(3850)
(50)
F














Sp
(1600)


2000
(5200)

2000
(1800)


(850)
3500
(450)


3500
(450)


Su





3000
(7400)



500
(350)


500
(350)


-------
                                                                  Table  5.4-1  (Continued)
                                                   Page  3 of  7
                      Species
Station/Sampling Period1*
cn
•

4^


Englenophyta
Euglenophyceae
Euglenales
Euglena acus

E. trlpteris
E. variabilis

Strombomonas swirenkol
Trachelomonas cordiformls
T.. hispida
T. volvocina

Cryptophyta
Cryptophyceae
Cryptomonodales
Cryptomonas acuta
C. caudata
C. erosa
C. oval is

Chrysophyta
Chrysophyceae
1
F Sp Su F

500 1000
(1150)
500
500 (1050)
(100)

500

36500
(15100)

6500
(1400)
7000
(5400)
23000
(8300)

2000
(100)
2
Sp Su

(150) 4500
(400)
1000
(50)
(150) 3500
(300)

(50)


53000
(30400)

16000
(10950)
6500
(6000)
30500
(13450)

1500
(1400)
3
F Sp Su

300 (150) 8000
(3050)
(100)
5500
(2000)
(350)

(50)
2500
(700)

45000
(63750)

15000
(30200)
5000
(7650)
25000
(25900)

1000
(1050)
4 5
F Sp Su

500 1500
(700)
(50)
500
1500
(650)




(200) 1200
(11900)

3500
(4000)
3500
(2850)
(200)
5000
(5050)

(50) 500
                         Chrysomadales


                          Dinofaryon diverqens


                          Mallomonas caudata
                           (400)
                                                                      500
                                                                                               (50)

-------
                                                         Table  5.4-1  (Continued)
                                                                                                                         Page  4 of 7
on
en
      Species
   M.  tonsurata


Bad 11 ar 1 ophyceae

  Centrales
   Cyclotella glomerata

   C.  meneghinlana

   C.  stellata

   C.  stelUqera
   Heloslra qranulata

   M.  1s1and1ca

   M.  1tal1ca
   M.  varlans

   Mlcrosolenla sp.

   Stephanodlscus dublus
   S.  nlgrare
         Pennales
          Asterionella formosa
          Cyaatopleura solea
                                                                                   Station/Sampling Period
1 2 3
F Sp Su
1500
(100)
195400 145000 128000
(29800) (39350)
(400) 10500
(1600)
2000
(300)
1000
1000
(250) 18500
(17000)
13500
(1100)
(1400)
1500
(11550)




(100)
F Sp Su
1500
0350)
289300 112500 121500
(22300) (50450)
(500) 37500
(17600)
500
(250)
500
2000
28000
7500
(850)

7500
(5850)


500


F Sp

173500 116500
(53800)
(400)
1500
(400)
1000
(500)


(850)

30000
(18950)


(200)
(400)
(150)
4
Su
1000
(650)
128500
(136050)
16000
(31000)


500
27500
(51050)



2500
(3200)




F

153400













Sp
(50)
139000
(38350)
(600)
500
(3350)
500


18500
(5850)

15500
(4850)

(100)
500
(250)

(150)
5
Su
500
19500
(40400)
3000
(1500)


500
8000
(20400)









-------
                                                        Table 5.4-1  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     Page 5  of 7
    'Species
                                                                           Station/Sampling Period'
CJl
•
->
i"
o>
Cymbella cymblfontrls
C. finis
C. lanceolata
C. tunrida
C. ventrlcosa
Dlatona vulgare
FragllaHa capusina
F. crotonensls
Soaphonema sp.
Gyroslgma spencerl
Navlcula decussls
N. pupula

N. trlpunctata
Nltzschla adculaHs
H. arcldularls

N. dentlculata
N. dlsslpata

I. qncllls
F Sp
(250)


5500
(400)

20000
(2450)
(450)
18500
(2750)


12500
(2250)
8500
(2700)
(800)
50000
(1350)

3000
(250)
7000
(1050)

Su


(50)
2000
(2600)



15500
(550)
1500
(50)

6000
(2500)
500
(1150)


16000
(11800)

37500
(1050)

F Sp
(150)
(50)

5500
(550)

22500
(4200)
(800)
7000
(900)


12000
(3000)
7000
(1550)
(800)
31000
(1750)

5000
(250)
5000
(750)

Su


500
2500
(2500)



18000
(7000)
1000
(550)

500
2500
(2700)


10500
(16250)

10500
(350)

F Sp Su


500
6000 1500
(2450) (4750)

19000
(14500)

11500 19000
(1650)

(50)
11000
(8400)
5000 4500
(750) (5050)
(350)
17000
(2300)
34500
(30750)
4000
(1550)
10500 6000
(1400)

F


















SP
(200)
(50)

3000
(3150)
5000
12500
(5600)

43500
(1300)


10000
(3200)
1500
(1600)
(350)
17500
(6050)

5000
4000
(1350)
Su







(2150)


1000
(2550)
4000
(11150)


2000
(1500)

1000
(1150)


-------
                                                             Table 5.4-1  (Continued)
                                                                                                                              Page 6  of  7
en
        Species
     N.  kuetzingiana
     Rholcosphenia curvata
     Surirella  patella
     Synedra  ulna

Cyanophyta
  Cyanophyceae

    Chroococcales
     Aphanocapsa pulchra
     Coelosphaerium kuetzlnglanum
     Gomphosphaeria aponina
     Her i sopped la glauca
     Microcystls flos-aquae

     M.  Incerta
    Osclllatorlales
     Anabaena var1ab111s
     Aphanlzomenon flos-aquae
     Lyngbya  hleronymusll
     Oscillatorla limosa
                                                                                  Station/Sampling Period
             Sp1ru11na princeps
1 2 3
F Sp Su
13500


2000 5500
(1000)
1500 (50) 7000
(7050)

(150)
500
500
1000
(250)


(50)
4500
(6400)
500
(250)
F Sp Su
5000
(50)
500
1000 2500
(50) (3500)
3700 (550) 4500
(4850)
(400)

(150)
(50)
2000
(2250)




(100) 3500
(3200)
1000
(1500)
F Sp

(50)
(50)
(100)
2000 500
(200)






(100)
(50)

500
(50)

4 5
Su
12000

500
3500
(8600)
5500
(10700)

(150)

(1050)





3500
(6050)
(1200)
F




2300











Sp Su



1500
(350)
500 8000
(250) (5350)
(250)
(50)

500
(1250)
(2600)




500 5000
2500
(1450)

-------
                                                              Table 5.4-1  (Continued)
                                                                                                                              Page  7 of 7
         Species
                                                                                       Station/Sampling Per1odb

Total
Total

Density
Number of Species
(both methods)
1
F Sp
199300 197550
(42200)
31
2
Su
236000
(77900)
45
F Sp
306400 135500
(30050)
33
3
Su
232500
(161600)
39
F Sp
184500 122000
(61200)
36
4
Su
228000
(306600)
39
F
162400

SP
150500
(51600)
36
5
Su
50000
(74800)
25
. I"
 CO
'Densities expressed as average number of organisms per liter from duplicate samples at each station except Station 3,  fall  period,
 for which only one sample was analyzed.

bF=Fall; Sp=Spr1ng; Su=Summer


""Density values without parentheses represent data obtained by analysis with a  Sedgwlck-Rafter cell; densities reported with parentheses
 are results  from analyses by the Inverted microscope technique.

-------
                                   Table 5.4-2

                       Periphyton Collected from Waterways
                                in the Site Area
                            Page 1  of 4
Species
         Sampling Station/Sampling Period
                                                                        a,b
Sp Su Su Su Su
Chlorophyta
Chlorophyceae
Chlorococcales
Ankistrodesmus sp. M W
Oocystis sp. W
Pediastrum sp. W
Scenedesmus sp. R W
Chaetophorales
Aphanochaete sp. R
Cladophorales
Cladophora glomerata W
Rhizoclonium sp. R W
Oedogoniales
Oedogonium sp. W R W W,R R
Conjugatophyceae
Zygnema tales
Mougeotia sp. W
Spirogyra sp. M,R W W,R
Zygnema sp. W
Desmidiales
Closterium moniliferum W
Closterium sp. R W
Cosmarium undulatum W
Cosmarium sp. W VI
Hyalotheca dissi liens W
Su
V
V
Chrysophyta
  Xanthophyceae
    Heterosiphonales
      Vaucheria sp.

  Bacillariophyceae
    Centrales
      Cyclotella sp.
      Melosira granulata
      M. varians
P
P
      Melosira sp.
      Stephanodiscus nigrarae  P
                                     5,4-9

-------
Table 5.4-2  (Continued)
                                                            Page 2 of 4
Species
                               Sampling Station/Sampling Period
                                                                        a,b
    Pennales
      Achnanthes clevei
      A.
      A.
      A.
deflexa
lanceolata
linearis
Achnanthes sp.
Amphipleura sp.
Amphiprora sp.
Amphora oval is
Amphora sp.
Asterionella formosa
Caloneis ventricosa
Cocconeis diminuta
£. pediculus
£. placentala
Cocconeis sp.
Cymatopleura solea
Cymbel1 a affinis
£. cymbiformis
C. hustedtii
C.
C.
C.
C.
C.
         laevis
         prostrata
         sinuata
         tumida
         ventricosa
      Cymbella sp.
      Diatoma vulgare
      Diatoma sp.
      Eunotia sp.
      Fragilaria capucina
      £.  crotinensis
      £.  leptostauron
      Fragilaria sp.
      Frustulia sp.
      Gomphonema longiceps
      G.  olivaceum
      (5.  parvulum
      £.  sphaerophorum
      Gomphonema sp.
      Gyrosigma obtusatum
      CL  spenceri
      Gyrosigma sp.
      Hantzschia sp.
      Mer i di on~c"i rcul are
      Navicula bacinum
      N.  cryptocephala^
1 2
Sp Su Su
P
P
P
P
357
Su Su Su
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P

                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P

                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                      P
                                                 P
                                                 P
                                                 P
                              P
                              P
                                           P
                                           P
                                        P
                                        P
P
P
                                                     P
                                                     P
P
P
                              P
                              P
                                                     P

                                                     P
                    P

                    P
                                     5.4-10

-------
Table 5.4-2  (Continued)
                                      Page 3 of 4
Species
                     Sampling Station/Sampling Perioda,b
NL decusis
N^. gastrum
H_. pseudoreinhordtii
N^. radiosa
hL tripunctata
N_. tuscula
Navicula sp.
Neidium dubium
Nitzschia acicularis
PL denticulata
]!• dissipata
N_. fonticola
j^. gracilis
Nitzschia sp.
Pinnularia mesogongyla
Pinnularia sp.
Rhoicosphenia curvata
Rhopolodia sp.
Surirella angustata
S^ suecia
Surirella sp.
Synedra vaucheriae
Synedra sp.
                               Sp

                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P

                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P
                               P
                    Su
Su
                                                     Su
Su
Su
                               P
                               P
                                                 P

                                                 P
                                                           P

                                                           P
                                                  P

                                                  P
                              P

                              P
Rhodophyta
  Rhodophyceae
    Goniotrichales
      Chroodactylon ramosum
    Namalionales
      Rhodochorton
violaceum   W
Cyanophyta
  Cyanophyceae
    Chroococcales
      Aphanothece sp.
      Microcystis sp.
    Oscillatoriales
      Haplosiphon hibernicus
      Lyngbya sp.
      Oscillatoria tenera
      Oscinatoria sp.
      Phormidium inundatum
      Phormidium sp.
            W
                    M

                   M,R
M
                                        R
                                        R
                                                    W,R

                                                     W

                                                     W
                    R
                    R
R

R
                                        5.4-11

-------
Table 5.4-2  (Continued)                                              Page 4 of 4
a Sampling Periods:  Sp = Spring, Su = Summer

  Substrate Designations:  M = Mud or soil
                           R = Rock
                           W = Wood
                           V = Vascular macrophyte
                           P = Present in sample; substrate type undetermined

c Two varieties of this species were observed
                                       5.4-12

-------
                                    	Table  5.4-3
            Zooplankton Collected  from the White  River in  the  Site .Area
Species
Station Umber/Sampling Period
                                                                                  a,b
*•
Rotatorla 1.38
Asplanchna sp.
Bdelloidea sp.
Brachlonus bidentata
B. calyclflorus
BT caudatu?
.17 haranaensls
BT qyadrldentatus
EFachlonus sp.
CephalodeFla sp.
Conochloldes sp.
Conochllus sp.
Euchlanls sp.
Flllnra longlseta
Hexarthra sp.
Honostyla sp.
Hytnina sp.
Notholca sp.
Platylas quadrlcornls
Polyarthra sp.
Trlchocerca cyllndrlca
Trlchocerca sp.
Trlchotrla sp.
Unidentified sp.
Cladocera 0.01
Alona guttata
A. rectangula
Bosmlna longlrostHs
Bosmlna sp.
Chydoru's sphaerlcus
Daphnla pulex
Leydlgla quadrangular Is
Ilocryptus sordldus
Imature cladoceran
Unld. Chydorlnae sp.
Copepoda 0.04
Cyclops blcuspldatus
Cyclops spp.
Cyclopold copepodlte
Calanold copepodlte
Harpactlcold copepodlte
Nauplll
Total Density 1.43
Sp Su
1.41 2.8

0.24
0.02
0.02


0.12
0.6
0.16
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.36
0.04
0.02
0.35
0.02

0.06 0.8



0.2
0.30 0
0.04
0.04
0.08

0.06
0.06
0.02



1.66 0.4
0.02
0.28
0.02

1.34 0.4
3.37 3.2
F Sp Su
1.84 1.56 2.8
0.2
0.50




0.04
0.6
0.12

0.8

0.46
0.06
0.06 0.2
0.26
0.4

0.2
0.04
0.4
D.02

0.01 0.78 0
0.16
0.44
0.08

0.08
0.02




0.04 1.70 0
0.04
0.26
0.10
0.04
1.26
1.89 4.04 2.8
F Sp
2.00 2.42

0.44

0.02


0.06

0.12



0.62
0.14
0.12
0.76
0.02
0.02



0.10

0.01 1.08
0.16
0.62
0.16

0.08


0.06


0.06 1.52
0.02
0.22
0.04
0.04
1.20
2.07 5.02
Su
3.6
0.2



1.2


0.4


0.4




1.2



0.2


0.2









0.2
0.6

0.2


0.4
4.4
F
5.68






















0.03










0.22





5.93
Sp
1.98

0.22
0.04
0.02


0.04

0.26



0.82
0.04
0.24
0.10

0.08
0.02

0.10

1.08
0.06
0.58
0.22

0.04
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.06

4.44
0.18
0.22
0.14
0.02
3.88
7.50
Su
3.4
0.2




0.2

0.6

0.8
0.6




0.6



0.4


0.2



0.2






0.8

0.4


0.4
4.4
 a Densities expressed as average number of organisms/liter
 b  Saepling Periods:  f  * Fall; Sp • Spring;  Su = Sunner.

-------
                                                                    Table 5.4-4
                                 Benthic  Macroinvertebrates Collected from  Waterways in the Site Area'
                                                            Page 1  of  3
         Species
         Olptera

           Chironomidae
             Chironomus spp.
             Coelotanypus sp.
             Cricotopus spp.
             Cryptochi ronomus demeiji
             Cryptochi rononius' sp.
             Demicryptochironomus sp.
             Dicrotendipes sp.
             Harnischia spp.
             HicropsecTra sp.
             Microtendipes aberrans
             Orthocladius sp.
01           Paracladopelma sp.
^           Para1auterborniel1a spp.
 i            Paratanytarsus sp.
^           Paratendipes spp.
             Pentaneura sp.
             Phaenopse'ctra sp.
             Polypedilum spp.
             Procladius spp.
             Pseudochironomus spp.
             Rheotanytarsus spp. .
             Tanypus sp.
             Tanytarsus coracina
             Tanytarsus spp.
             Tribelos Tp.
             Trichocladius sp.
             Unidentified chironomld spp.
             Unidentified chironomld pupa
             Chironominae (unid. sp.)
             Tanypodinae (unid. sp.)

           Culicidae
             Chaoborus sp.
           Ceratopogonidae
             Probezzia sp.

           Tabanidae
             Tabanus sp.

         Ephemeroptera

           Baetidae
             Baetis spp.

           Caenidae
             Caenis Sp.
Station Number/Sampling  Period  /Bottom Substrate0
1
F Su
S S.G
e
P 787




115



14


29
14




416





99


P

57
43


P
>
P

1A
So
CL.S.O

442
172




14

14



14





129
14
14
14


43
14











2
F Su
S S.G

P 185




43






14

14

14

57





43


P









2A
So
CL.O

230
144

14














58

14
















3
fd Sp Su
S.G S.O C

2141 1563
1710

37
14
179

296

37
88
37


37
29

14
438
431
37



254




52
14



14 14

14
5
So Su
S S.G

1063 602
115

14

58 57

43
115


29
43
43

14


489 187


158 14

14
172
14
14

29
43




86

86
6
Su
M

8826

1352



















7374 f'









100




7
Su
M

1076

847
i

14
















115








i
57 ':





-------
                                                           Table 5.4-4  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                          Page  2 of 3
Species
                                                                               Station Number/Sampling Period /Bottom Substrate6
I

CJ1
  Ephemeridae
   Hexagem'a sp.

Henri ptera
  Corixidae
    Trichocorixa  sp.
    Unidentified  sp.

  Gerridae
    Trepobates sp.
    Gerris sp.
  Notonectidae (unid.  sp.)

Odonata
  Unidentified sp.

Trichoptera
  Hydroptilidae (unid.  sp.)
  Molannidae
    Hoi anna sp.

Coleoptera
  Elateridae (unid.  sp.)

  Gyrinidae
    Gyrinus sp.

Oecapoda
  Astacidae
    Palaemonetes  sp.

Oligochaeta
  Lumbriculidae (unid.  sp.)

  Naididae
    Nais sp.
    Paranais frici
  Tubificidae
    Aulodrilus pigueti
    Branchiura sowerbyi
1
F Su
S S,G



















1A
So
CL.S.O

14


14










259



2
F Su
S S,G



















2A
So
CL.Q

14
14
P
P






P

P


172
14
14
14
3
F So Su
S,G S,0 C
14 P




P
P
14
14

14
14

P P
P P
1335 72

14

5
So Su
S S.G















315 14

14
14
6
Su
M

14
14












1076



7
Su
M

43
43




14

14





1205


29

-------
                                                      Table  5.4-4  (Continued)

                                                                     Station  Dumber/Sampling Period /Bottom Substrate0
Page  3 of 3
1
F Su
S S,G








P 28
P . 28



815
1A
Sp
CL.S.O




259

14
14





729
2
F Su
S S,G













m
2A
Sp
CL.O


72

58

14
14





430
3
f Sp Su
S,G S,0 C
230

129 29
14
948 43








3504 1663
5
Sp Su
S S,G

14
72

201 14

29
29
14
14
P
P
P
1407 716
6
Su
M


875

201








9916
7
Su
M


330

832
14







2338
    Limnodrilus  cervix
    U  clapardeanus
    U  hoffmeisteri
    L_.  udekemianus
    Immature tubificids
    Unidentified sp.

Nematoda
  Unidentified sp.

Pelecypoda
  Corbiculidae
    Corbicula sp.
  Unionidae
    Amblema perplicata
    Fusconaia ebena
    Proptera  laevissima
Total  Organism Density
   a Density values  reported as the average number of organisms/m  in  three replicate samples
   b F=Fall; Sp=Spring; Su=Summer

   c S=Sand; G=Gravel; CL=Clay; 0=0rganic detritus; C=Cobble;  M=Muck
     During the  fall  and  summer periods, samples were collected from the main river channel; in the spring,
     samples were  taken in  the slough mouth.

   e Species present;  sampled qualitatively only

-------
                     Table 5.4-5



Fishes Collected  From the White River  Near the Site



      During  1976-1977 Field Sampling  Surveys





            Station Hunter/Sampling Period *'b
Page 1 of  2
CoMMon HaMe 1
F Sp Su
Shortnose gar
Bowfln
Gizzard shad
Threadfln shad
Stoneroller
£ ^
_J__ Silvery Minnow 10
•^ Speckled chub
Blgeye chub 1A.1Y
Gravel chub 1A
Homyhead chub 1
Solder, shiner
Emerald shiner 101A.2Y 16
Blgeye shiner 1Y
Striped shiner
Pugnose Minnow
Hhltetall shiner
Medgespot shiner
Ouskystrlpe shiner
Rosyface shiner 4A
Telescope shiner 1
Heed shiner
Blacktall shiner 145A.2Y 18
MlHlc shiner 2A
Steclcolor shiner
•luntnose winnow
•ullhMd Minnow
1A
Sp Su




1

40





2A.3Y



1A

3



2A 283


7

2
F Su












24
1
1

1





71 1090


2

3
F Sp Suc

1
1A 1A
1A
2J
1A
1A




8
41A.88Y 1
3A.37Y

103


1


3
10 204A.104J 182
16A 1
2J
5 1
8
4
F Sp Su












1 3Y



1 2

1



115 159
1

3

5
Sp Su
2A
1A
2A


1A

1




24




2
2
6


139
3




-------
                                                 Table 5.4-5  (Continued)
                                                     Station Number/Sampling Period"'6
                                                                                                                                    Page 2 of 2
: Common Name . 1
'• F Sp Su
j River carpsucker 2Y
j Northern hog sucker 1Y
| Smallmouth buffalo 6Y
; Ictlobus sp.
; Spotted sucker 2Y
1 Black redhorse
Moxostoma sp. 6Y
Northern studflsh 1 1A
Blacks potted topnlnnow
01 Kosqultoflsh
-> Brook sllverslde 8
£ Hannouth
Blueglll
Longear sunflsh
Spotted bass 1Y
Largemouth bass
Rainbow darter 4 2A
Bluntnose darter
Freshwater drum
Total Number of
Individuals 6 276 58
Total Number of
Species 3 12 8
1A
Sp Su

2Y
5Y

3Y
1A
27Y
2

3


1Y
3Y
2Y




41 350
6 12
2
F Su
807Y





12

9 1
3








85 1937
6 6
3
F Sp . Suc
1 2A 6Y
5Y
1Y

6Y

484Y
7
13 16
20
1
3 1J 2J.298Y
1 4Y

2

14

40 994 679
10 15 17
4
F Sp Su
3Y

10Y
7


67Y
1 55

2









129 80 222
7 3 .6
5
Sp Su
2A
1A










1Y




1A
10 178
7 8
aF - Fall  sampling period; Sp - Spring period; Su - Summer  period
 Some species numbers for the spring and summer efforts  are categorized by life stage:
     A - adult and subadult; 0 - juvenile; Y - young-of-year and postlarval stage.
cSaap1e partially destroyed 1n shipment to the laboratory.

-------
                             Table 5.4-6

        Length and Weight of Selected Fish Collected During
                 1976-1977 Field Sampling Surveys
                              Collection Period:       LengthrWeight
Common Name                       Station	          (cm:g)
Shortnose gar                      Sp:5                69.0:U76
                                                       67.7:872

Bowfin                              F:3                49.5:1220
                                   Sp:5                44.5:1305

Gizzard shad                       Sp:3                20.0:227b
                                   Su:3                17.8: -
                                   Sp:5                29.2:212
                                                       27.0:160

Carp                               Sp:3                38.9:511
                                   Sp:5                69.8:4200

River carpsucker                    F:3                37.5:630
                                   Sp:3                40.4:851
                                                       31.0:341
                                   Sp:5                41.2:1022
                                                       22.5:192

Northern hog sucker                Sp:5                42.2:571

Black redhorse                     Sp:lA               35.0:378

Freshwater drum                    Sp:5                24.2:180
 F = Fall                 Estimated length and weight;
Sp = Spring               fish partly destroyed by predator
Su = Summer
                                   5.4-19

-------
                                   Table 5.4-7
                       Fishes Observed in the White River
                                in the Site Area
Scientific Name
Common Name
                                                                 Page 1 of 5
   Investigator
Observing Species
Petromyzontidae
  Ichthyomyzon castaneus
  L gagei
Polyodontidae
  Polyodon spathula
Lepisostidae
  Lepisosteus osseus
  L platostomus
  IL. spatula
Amiidae
  Ami a calva
Clupeidae
  Alosa chrysochloris
  Dorosoma cepedianum
  ]D. petenense
Hiodontidae
  Hiodon alosoides
  H_. tergisus
Esocidae
  Esox lucius
  £. niger
Cyprinidae
  Campostoma anomalum
  £. oligolepis
  Carassius auratus
Chestnut lamprey
Southern brook lamprey

Paddlefish

Longnose gar
Shortnose gar
Alligator gar

Bowfin

Skipjack herring
Gizzard shad
Threadfin shad

Goldeye
Mooneye

Northern pike
Chain pickerel

Stoneroller
Largescale stoneroller
Goldfish
        AE
         B
         B
        B,P
         B
         B
     AE.B.P
       B,P

         B
         B

         B
         B

     AE.B.P
         B
         B
                                    5.4-20

-------
Table 5.4-7  (Continued)

Scientific Name
Cyprinidae (cont'd)
  Cyprinus carpio
  Dionda nubila
  Hybognathus hayi
  H. nuchal is
  Hybopsis aestivalis
  H.. amblops
 .H.. dissimilis
  H_. storeriana
  H.. x-punctata
  Nocomis biggutatus
  Notemigonus chrysoleucas
  Notropis atherinoides
  N_. boops
  N^. chrysocephalus
  fj. emiliae
  N^. galacturus
  N_. greenei
  N^. ozarcanus
  N^. pilsbryi
  N,. rubellus
  N. sabinae
  N^ telescopus
  j^. texanus
  N_. umbratilis
  N^. venustus
  N^. volucellus
  N.. whipplei
  Phoxinus erythrogaster
  Pimephales notatus
  £. promelas
  £. tenellus
  P^ vigil ax
  Semotilus atromaculatus
Common Name

Carp
Ozark minnow
Cypress minnow
Silvery minnow
Speckled chub
Bigeye chub
Streamline chub
Silver chub
Gravel chub
Hornyhead chub
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Bigeye shiner
Striped shiner
Pugnose minnow
Whitetail shiner
Wedgespot shiner
Ozark shiner
Duskystripe shiner
Rosyface shiner
Sabine shiner
Telescope shiner
Weed shiner
Redfin shiner
Blacktail shiner
Mimic shiner
Steel col or shiner
Southern redbelly dace
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Slim minnow
Bullhead minnow
Creek chub
     Page 2 of 5
   Investigator  .
Observing Species*


        B,P
      AE.B
         D
     AE.B.P
         P
     AE.B.P
       AE.B
         B
     AE.B.P
        B,P
        B,P
  AE.B.D.P
    AE.B.P
       B,P
       B,P
   AE.B.P
   AE.B.P
      AE.B
   AE.B.P
   AE.B.P
        B
      B,P
        P
        B
  AE.B.D.P
  AE.B.D.P
       B,P
        B
    AE.B.P
       B
       B
     B.D.P
       B
                                    5.4-21

-------
Table  5.4-7   (Continued)
Scientific Name
Common Name
     Page 3 of 5
   Investigator
Observing Species*
Catostomidae
  Carpi odes carpi o
  £. cyprinus
  £. velifer
  Erimyzon oblongus
  Hypentelium nigricans
  Ictiobus bubal us
  JL cyprinellus
  JL niger
  Mi ny trema melanops
  Moxostoma carinatum
  fl. duquesnei
  M. erythrurum
  fl. macrolepidotum
Ictaluridae
  Ictalurus furcatus
  ±. melas
  1. natal is
  I_. punctatus
  Noturus exilis
  N.. flavater
  H. gyrinus
  N_. miurus
  Pylodictis oil van's
Aphredoderidae
  Aphredoderus sayanus
Cyprinodontidae
  Fundulus catenatus
  £. olivaceus
Poeciliidae
  Gambusia af finis
River carpsucker
Quillback
Highfin carpsucker
Creek chubsucker
Northern hog sucker
Smallmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
Black buffalo
Spotted sucker
River redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
Shorthead redhorse

Blue catfish
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish
Slender madtom
Checkered madtom
Tadpole madtom
Brindled madtom
Flathead catfish

Pirate perch

Northern studfish
Blackspotted topminnow

Mosquitofish
     AE,B,D,P
         B
         B
         B
        B,P
        B,P
         B
         B
        B,P
         B
        B.P
         B
         B


         D
         B
         B
         B
         B
         B
         B
         B
         D
     AE.B.P
     AE.B.P


     AE.B.D.P

-------
Table 5.4-7  (Continued)
Scientific Name
Common Name
     Page 4 of 5
   Investigator
Observing Species'
Atherinidae
  Labidesthes sicculus
Percicthyidae
  Morone chrysops
Centrarchidae
  Ambloplites rupestris
 • Elassoma zonatum
  Lepomis cyanellus
  L_. gulosus
  L humilis
  L_. macrochirus
  L marginatus
  L.. megalotis
  L microlophus
  L.. punctatus
  Micropterus dolomieui
  M. punctulatus
  M. salmoides
  Pomoxis annularis
  £. nigromaculatus
Percidae
  Ammocrypta asprella
  A. clara
  A. vivax
  Etheostoma blennioides
  £. caeruleum
  IE. chlorosomum
  £. euzonum
  E. histrio
  £. punctulatum
  E. spectabile
Brook silversides

White bass

Rock bass
Banded pygmy sunfish
Green sunfish
Warmouth
Orangespotted sunfish
Bluegill
Dollar sunfish
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Spotted sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie

Crystal  darter
Western sand darter
Scaly sand darter
Greenside darter
Rainbow darter
Bluntnose darter
Arkansas saddled darter
Harlequin darter
Stippled darter
Orangethroat darter
    B
AE.B.D.P

  AE,B

    B
    B
  AE.B
    P
    B
AE.B.D.P
    B
  AE.B.P

    B
    B
   B,P
AE.B.D.P
  AE.B
    B

    B
    B
  AE.B
    B
 AE.B.P
    P
    B
    B
    B
    B
                                   5.4-23

-------
Table 5.4-7  (Continued)
Scientific Name
Common Name
     Page 5 of 5
   Investigator  .
Observing Species'
Percidae (cont'd)
  £. stigmaeum
  £. whipplei
  £. zonale
  Percina caprodes
  £_. evides
  £. maculata
  P_. nasuta
  £. phoxocephala
  £. sciera
  P. shumardi
  £• uranidea
  Stizostedion canadense
  _S. vitreum
Sciaenidae
  Aplodinotus grunniens
Cottidae
  Cottus bairdi
  C. carolinae
Speckled darter
Redfin darter
Banded darter
Logperch
Gilt darter
Blackside darter
Longnose darter
Slenderhead darter
Dusky darter
River darter
Stargazing darter
Sauger
Walleye

Freshwater drum

Mottled sculpin
Banded sculpin
         B
         B
         B
       AE,B
         B
         B
         B
         B
         B
         B
       AE,B
         B
         B

     AE,B,P

         B
       AE,B
Species observed in White River system between Batesville and Black
 River confluence by:
     AE - Arkansas Eastman (1974)
      B - Buchanan (1973)
      D - Davis (1971)
      P - Present survey by Dames & Moore (1976-1977)
                                    5.4-24

-------
                                                         Table  5.4-8


                                           Mussels Collected from  the White  River3

                                                   (River Miles  261  to 276)
CJI
i
ro
en
Ri ver
Mile
261-262
262-263
263-264
264-265
265-266
266-267
267-268
268-269
269-270
270-271
271-272
272-273
273-274
274-275
275-276
Total :
261-276
Approx.
Water
Depth (ft)
8-14
3-10
8
6-8
12-14
5-8
2-12
6-8
7-12
10
4-15
12
12-40
4-12
No.
Hauls
3
3
2
2
2
1
6
3
6
1
0
4
1
1
5
40
Distance
Bra i led
(yd)
250
250
100
200
200
100
500
200
500
50
0
300
40
50
350
3090
Area
Bra i led
(yd)
833
833
333
667
667
333
1667
667
1667
167
0
1000
133
167
1167
10301
Name of Species
Scientific Name
Quadrula metanevra
Proptera alata
Lampsilis ovata
Plagiola lineolata
Ligumea recta
P. lineolata
Fusconaia ebenus
Amblema costata^
Fusconaia undata
Quadrula quadrula .
Tritogonia verrucosa
Actinonais carinata
L_. ovata
Leptodea fragilis
Obovaria olivaria

Collected
Common Name
Monkey face
Blue Mucket
Grandma
Butterfly
Black sandshell
Butterfly
Black niggerhead
Three- ridge
Pig-toe
Maple-leaf
Pistol grip
Mucket
Grandma
Fragile paper
shell
Eggshell
Number
Collected
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
20
        Unless otherwise noted, all specimens were collected by  brail ing.

        One specimen collected by diving.

      c Collected by hand in shallows.

-------
5.5  REFERENCES
Arkansas Eastman Company, 1974, Environmental  impact assessment.
Buchanan, Thomas M., 1973, Key to fishes of Arkansas.
Davis, Bill, 1971, Department of Zoology, Louisiana Tech University,
     Ruston, Louisiana, unpublished data.
                                 5.5^1

-------