Laserfiche WebLink
°� ■ 1.0 25 R <br /> 0 ■ 20 <br /> 30 1251 <br /> ■i o o : 4.0 <br /> 30 0 5.0 <br /> a a9a <br /> Delta T e'0 450 ft <br /> (deg F) <br /> El <br /> El <br /> m.o <br /> pp0 <br /> 1000 ft <br /> Deua r � �000 <br /> (tleg F) Delta T <br /> (deg F) 1Woft <br /> 25 ft <br /> 115 11 y5 ■20 <br /> ao 125 R <br /> ° a.o <br /> ❑ so <br /> ❑ &0 250 R <br /> Figure 21: Comparison of Winter Surface Water Temperatures for Dry Water Year Flowrates at(A) aft 450 R <br /> 9.87 MGD(ADWF)and(B)27 MGD(ADWF). Discharge is located at 0'on the Figures. <br /> Della T <br /> (deg F) 1000 ft <br /> 1500 ft <br /> Figure 22: Winter Cross Sectional Temperature Differential for Dry Water Year Flowrates at(A) <br /> 9.87 MGD(ADWF)and(B)27 MGD WQCF(ADWF) <br /> The largest cooling effort to achieve the Thermal Plan requirements occurs during the Fall <br /> critical condition. Model runs were performed successively decreasing the effluent temperature <br /> for the project build-out case to determine the required cooling to comply with the 1°F <br /> temperature differential over less than 25%of the receiving water cross section. Results from <br /> the analysis are presented in Table 28. From the modeling results,the effluent temperature must <br /> be within 3-4°F of the ambient river temperature to comply with the cross sectional requirement. <br /> Due to the low dilution available from the critical flows,if the effluent meets the cross sectional <br /> requirement of the Thermal Plan,then all objectives of the Thermal Plan will be met as well. <br /> City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 67 June 2007 City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 68 June 2007 <br />