Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Testing the CORMIX model using thermal plume data from four
Maryland power plants
S.P. Schreiner *, T.A. Krebs, D.E. Strebel, A. Brindley
Versar, Inc., 9200 Rumsey Road, Columbia, MD 21045, USA

Received 29 June 2000; received in revised form 22 March 2001; accepted 3 August 2001

Abstract

Historical thermal plume studies from four Maryland power plants (Calvert Cliffs, Chalk Point, Dickerson, and Wagner) were
used to test the realism of the CORnell MIXing Zone Expert System (cormix). Test data were from a wide range of challenging
discharge environments, including a large freshwater river (Potomac), a narrow tidal estuary (Patuxent), a wide tidal estuary
(Chesapeake Bay), and a wind-driven tidal estuary (Baltimore Harbor). Historical case studies were simulated, and results were
compared qualitatively and quantitatively with historical measurements. Qualitative results show that the model performed optimally
for simple discharges into large basins such as Chesapeake Bay. For complex discharges and complex ambient environments, the
model often mixed plumes too rapidly, resulting in smaller modeled plumes that were cooler than the measured plumes. The mixing
model also could not account for the re-entrainment of effluent from previous tidal cycles. Sensitivity results show that sensitivity
is often dependent on model run time and discontinuities in the cormix flow classification scheme. Users of the cormix model
need to be aware of these limitations in applying the model to complex situations. cormix results should be used with caution in
evaluating the effects of a discharge and only in conjunction with information from the field.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Mixing zones; Thermal plume; cormix; Power plants; River; Estuary; Sensitivity analysis; Hydrodynamic model

Software availability 1. Introduction

Name of software: cormix.
Developer and contact address: USEPA, Center for
Exposure Assessment Modeling, 960 College
Station Road, Athens, GA, 30605-2700. Fax:
706-355-8302; email: ceam@epamail.epa.gov.
Year first available: 1991.
Hardware required: Microcomputer (MS-DOS).
Software required: MS-DOS or equivalent.
Program language: FORTRAN and VP-Expert.
Program size: 1.63 MB (downloadable distribution
file).
Availability and cost: free at
http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/cormix.htm.
CORMIX-GI graphical interface available for
$350 at http://steens.ese.ogi.edu/.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-410-740-6089.
E-mail address: schreinerste@versar.com (S.P. Schreiner).
The Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (cormix) is
a software package with a series of modules for the
analysis, prediction, and design of aqueous toxic or con-
ventional pollutant discharges into diverse water bodies
(Doneker and Jirka, 1990; Akar and Jirka, 1991; Jirka
et al., 1996). It was developed under cooperative funding
agreements from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Power Plant Research Program (PPRP), and
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control. It is the recommended analysis
tool in key guidance documents on the permitting of
industrial discharges to receiving waters (USEPA,
1991a,b). The system’s major emphasis is on predicting
the geometry and dilution characteristics of the initial
mixing zone to evaluate compliance with acute and
chronic regulatory requirements. The purpose of this
study was to test the cormix model using historical

1364-8152/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 4 - 8 1 5 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 5 - 2
322 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331
measurement of thermal plumes at selected Maryland
power plants.
cormix was designed as a first-order, screening/design
model. It does not carry out detailed hydrodynamic cal-
culations using the exact geometry of the discharge
location, nor does it explicitly handle dynamic ambient
currents (i.e. tides), except as described below. It uses a
simplified representation of the physical conditions at the
discharge location to approximate the fundamental
behavior of the plume.
cormix classifies discharge parameters into discrete
categories which determine qualitative plume behavior.
To predict an effluent discharge’s dilution and plume tra-
jectory, cormix typically breaks the prediction problem
into several stages. A solution is calculated for the ste-
ady-state, simplified flow patterns that characterize each
stage. These solutions are combined to provide a com-
plete simulation from the outflow point to the distance
limit set by the user.
1.1. Adapting cormix to tidal situations
Two formal attempts have been made to adapt cormix
to tidal situations. The Delaware River Basin Com-
mission (DRBC) undertook an effort to automate Ver-
sion 2.10 of cormix for mixing zone evaluations in tidal
waters, specifically the Delaware River Estuary, and to
provide post-processing capabilities (DRBC, 1995). The
fundamental approach was simply to run multiple
cormix simulations at even time intervals throughout a
tidal cycle, while the preprocessing program adjusted
ambient water heights and velocity parameters automati-
cally. This method produces the normal cormix predic-
tion files; however, the user must interpret the data and
apply it case by case to understand the plume dynamics.
In some cases, the DRBC tidal version can be a useful
screening tool, but for shallow surface discharges it
forces assumptions about changes in water depth in the
discharge channel that may not be realistic. In addition,
the DRBC version tends to cause computer malfunctions
for some simulations.
In a separate effort, PPRP funded the cormix team at
Cornell to develop and incorporate a module to deal with
tidal situations, particularly with respect to heated dis-
charges of power plant cooling water (Nash and Jirka,
1995). This work, incorporated in cormix Version 3.20
used in the present study, developed a model of plume
behavior during tidal current reversal. On the basis of
laboratory experiments, a set of pseudo- steady-state
variables were defined to allow the standard cormix sol-
utions to be modified for some tidal effects. These modi-
fications can improve the plume boundary predictions in
the interval near slack tide but do not account for thermal
build-up and re-entrainment over multiple tidal cycles.
2. Study methods
To test the cormix model, four Maryland power
plants were chosen according to the following criteria:
(1) facilities in a variety of locations to test various mod-
ules of cormix; and (2) facilities with the most data
available. Based on these criteria, the following con-
ditions, locations, and facilities were chosen:
앫 A large freshwater river (PEPCO’s1 Dickerson Steam
Electric Station on the Potomac River).
앫 A large wide tidal estuary (BG&E’s2 Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant on the Chesapeake Bay).
앫 A narrow tidal estuary (PEPCO’s1 Chalk Point
Station on the Patuxent River).
앫 A complex nonuniform tidal environment (BG&E’s2
H.A. Wagner Generating Station on Baltimore’s
Outer Harbor of the Patapsco River, an embayment
of the Chesapeake Bay).
A review of existing discharge studies suggested that
these sites offered more historical data than others. Data
sources included original drawings of the discharge con-
figuration, personal correspondence from power plant
operators, weather and tide predictions for local areas,
and detailed historical field surveys of thermal plumes.
For each site, a base case was constructed using his-
toric parameters for the dates on which plumes were
mapped. This is a different approach from the ‘worst-
case’ and ‘average-case’ parameterization that is com-
monly used in mixing zone analysis. The goal of the
study was not to calibrate the model or analyze the mix-
ing zone, but to run the model using the assumptions of
a user without access to field measurement data. Once
the base case was established, the cormix predictions
were mapped and laid over the measured contours from
historic studies. It is important to note however, that
observational error needs to be considered in evaluating
model results, as there are limitations and uncertainty in
the available plume measurement data at each site.
Plume temperature measurements in the field can be
affected by sampling methods, sampling rates, intervals,
and wind conditions among many factors, which were
not evaluated as part of this study.
Sensitivity runs were conducted to quantify the mod-
el’s response to variations in parameters. Parameters
were varied one at a time within physical or model
bounds. Parameters were varied independently and sys-
tematically because: (1) cormix is not a dynamic model
and does not account for dynamic coupling between
physical processes; and (2) parameters may not vary
1
Potomac Electric Power Company; these facilities are now owned
by Mirant Corporation.
2
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; these facilities are now
owned by Constellation Energy Source.
 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331
continuously in the cormix flow classification scheme.
The plume temperature gradient was then used as a met-
ric in ranking sensitivities.
In the cormix flow classification scheme, model and
physical sensitivities are frequently coupled. Some para-
meters affect the model run time, which affects the sensi-
tivity of parameters that are important in far-field mix-
ing. Model and physical sensitivity types were ranked
against one another but listed separately whenever they
were distinguishable. An example of a pure model sensi-
tivity is parameter variation which in this model forces
a new flow classification and a corresponding disconti-
nuity in the qualitative behavior of a plume. Disconti-
nuities in plume behavior occur in nature as thresholds
between flow regimes, but these thresholds are not fixed.
Some parameter bounds were artificial, resulting from
the limits of validity of certain cormix assumptions or
the boundary of a flow classification within the para-
meter space. Some parameters were adjusted to comply
with cormix limitations, balancing realism in the magni-
tude and proportion of certain parameters. No attempts
were made to calibrate the model or improve the results
by changing any of the parameter values. Complete
details of the study results are documented in Schreiner
et al. (1999).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Dickerson Steam Electric Station
Dickerson Steam Electric Station is located on the
Potomac River, in northwestern Montgomery County,
Maryland, about 250 km above its confluence with the
Chesapeake Bay and 2.4 km below the confluence with
the Monacacy River. The discharge canal is 532 m long
and approximately 23.6 m wide at the point of discharge.
Thermal plume studies were conducted at Dickerson
in 1977 to determine the distribution of temperature near
the facility and to estimate the configuration and extent
of the thermal plume resulting from the cooling water
discharge. Details of these studies are provided in Acad-
emy of Natural Sciences (ANSP) (1979). cormix para-
meter values are listed in Table 1.
Results for a high (Fig. 1a) and a low (Fig. 1b) base-
flow case show that the cormix simulation allowed the
plume to become completely mixed horizontally across
the river channel. The measured data show an unmixed
plume extending several kilometers downstream. The
plume became fully horizontally mixed at 818 m down-
stream in the high baseflow case and at 493 m down-
stream in the low baseflow case. In contrast, the meas-
ured data indicate at least a 0.5°C difference from bank
to bank in the low baseflow case at a distance of
10,000 m downstream and almost a 3°C difference in
the high baseflow case (beyond what is shown on the
323
figures). cormix also predicted full vertical mixing at
4490 m in the high baseflow case. In the low baseflow
case, the plume did not become fully vertically mixed
by 10,000 m. Measured data indicated little vertical
stratification except along 1 transect for the low baseflow
case. These results show that cormix simulated mixing
of the thermal plume much more rapidly than is actually
the case. This may be due to higher velocity in the center
of the river than is simulated, which would cause the
actual plume to stay near the shoreline.
Sensitivity rankings are based on the change in
dilution ratio relative to the baseline (low flow) case.
Simulations that did not run to completion (⬍10,000 m)
were not included in the ranking because the model
stopped before completion without explanation. In gen-
eral, the model is relatively sensitive to the discharge
flow rate (ranked 1 out of 10, although this is a well-
known value) and Manning’s N, (ranked 2 and 4,
because this parameter is not well-known for this
situation). Due to the lengthy simulation time and shal-
low water, the model is sensitive to the heat-loss coef-
ficient and wind speed. The model is also sensitive to a
smaller channel width, a greater depth, a smaller ambient
flow rate, and the type of discharge configuration. The
model is relatively insensitive to a larger channel width,
the channel appearance, a larger ambient flow rate, a
smaller ambient temperature, a greater discharge width,
a greater effluent temperature, and the initial delta tem-
perature (delta-T).
3.2. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) is
located on the Chesapeake Bay, near Lusby, in Calvert
County, Maryland, about 15 km north of the confluence
of the Patuxent River with the bay. At full plant load,
cooling water is heated about 5.6°C (USAEC, 1973).
The heated effluent is discharged through four 3.8-m
concrete conduits that rest on the bay bottom (2 for each
of the 2 units) about 250 m from the shoreline. The tops
of the discharge conduits are about 1.8 m below the
water surface, and the velocity through each conduit is
about 2.7 m/s.
Thermal plume studies were conducted at CCNPP in
1978 to determine the temperature distribution near the
facility and to estimate the configuration and extent of
the thermal plume resulting from the cooling water dis-
charge; details of these studies are provided in BG&E
and ANSP (1979). cormix parameter values, listed in
Table 2, include those used for the baseline ebb and
flood tidal cases, as well as minimum and maximum
values for conducting a sensitivity analysis.
cormix assumes that the ambient current is parallel
to the shoreline, but the velocities measured during the
thermal studies showed that this was not the case.
Because the angle of discharge and current relative to
324 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331

Table 1
Model parameters for Dickerson Steam Electric Station cormix simulations. Minimum and maximum values were used for sensitivity analysis on
the low baseflow case

Parameter Baseline and sensitivity values

Bounded/unbounded Bounded
Channel width (m) 320±70
Channel appearance 2±1
Average water body depth and/or depth at discharge (low baseflow) (m) 1.6±0.4
Average water body depth and/or depth at discharge (high baseflow) (m) 2.0
Ambient flow rate (low baseflow) (m3/s) 48±10
Ambient flow rate (high baseflow) (m3/s) 114
Manning’s N 0.033±0.01
Wind speed (m/s) 4.63; 0; 10
Ambient temperature (°C) 28.5; 26; 30
Location of discharge Left
Co-flowing; flush at 20° with respect to shoreline; flush
Configuration
at 20° with z=1.2 m
Depth at discharge (m) 1.2±0.4
Width of discharge (m) 23.6±5.0
Depth of discharge (m) 1.2±0.4
Flow rate (m3/s) 18±5
Effluent temperature (°C) 37.7; 35; 39
Difference in temperature (°C) 9.2
Heat loss coefficient (W/m2) 60±30

Fig. 1. Surface map of the thermal plume from Dickerson Steam Electric Station in the Potomac River at: (a) high baseflow on 22 July 1977
and (b) low baseflow on 2 September 1977. Vertical lines show initial delta temperature (delta-T) isotherms, based on measurements made by
ANSP (1979). Horizontal dotted lines indicate the delta-T values predicted by cormix on the plume centerline. Shaded area indicates the extent
of the thermal plume predicted by cormix.
 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331 325

Table 2
Model parameters for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant cormix simulations. Minimum and maximum values were used for sensitivity analysis
on the ebb tide case

Parameter Baseline and sensitivity values

Bounded/unbounded Unbounded
Average water body depth and/or depth at discharge (m) 13.7±1
Tidal period (h) 12.6
Time after slack (h) 3.15±2
Tidal velocity at time of simulation (m/s) 0.305 ±20%
Maximum tidal velocity (m/s) 0.305 ±20%
Manning’s N 0.02±0.01
Wind speed (ebb tide) (m/s) 4.3±2
Wind speed (flood tide) (m/s) 8.5±2
Ambient density (ebb tide) (kg/m3) 1009.30±3 (13.9°C; 13‰)
Ambient density (flood tide) (kg/m3) 1009.04±3 (13.9°C; 13‰)
Location of discharge Right (ebb); left (flood)
Configuration Protruding
Distance from bank (m) 200 (max. allowed)
Horizontal angle (ebb tide) (°) 20 (min. allowed); 40 (max. allowed)
Horizontal angle (flood tide) (°) 61.7
Depth at discharge (m) 7.96±10
Width of discharge (m) 15.36±2
Depth of discharge 3.84 m±20%
Bottom slope (°) 0.5±0.1
Flow rate 155.5 m3/s±10%
Density of discharge (ebb tide) (kg/m3) 1008.65±3 (16.9°C; 12.9‰)
Density of discharge (flood tide) (kg/m3) 1008.51±3 (17.6°C; 12.9‰)
Difference in temperature (ebb tide) (°C) 3.2±1
Difference in temperature (flood tide) (°C) 3.7±1
Heat loss coefficient (ebb tide) (W/m2) 30±20
Heat loss coefficient (flood tide) (W/m2) 55

the shoreline are known, the angle of discharge relative
to the current can be calculated easily. The ebb tide cur-
rent was oriented at an angle of 85.1°, and the flood tide
current was at an angle of 151.7°; both were measured
counter-clockwise from the shoreline. The magnitude
and direction of the ambient velocity are very important
factors in predicting the plume orientation and shape;
therefore, the horizontal angle of discharge used in the
model was adjusted to be perpendicular to the trajectory
of the current, not the shoreline. When interpreting the
output for this case, the x-direction points in the direction
of the ambient current. This orientation was projected
onto a map to present the results with the correct map
orientation.
Fig. 2 shows the ebb and flood tide case results pro-
jected onto a map and compared with thermal plume
study results from BG&E and ANSP (1979). Results
show reasonable qualitative agreement with the plume
direction and centerline temperature values, for both
cases. For each case, a remnant of the thermal plume
appeared in the measured data from the preceding tidal
cycle. These appear as 1- and 2-degree plumes extending
downstream of the discharge and close to the shore on
the flood tide (Fig. 2a) and a 1-degree isobar perpendicu-
lar to the discharge and shoreline on the ebb tide (Fig.
2b).
Results of the sensitivity analyses were ranked based
on the average rate of temperature change relative to the
baseline case. Some rankings represent sensitivities of
the model caused by the cormix flow classification
scheme. Most rankings represent real physical sensi-
tivities caused by interactions between the physical pro-
cesses. In general, the model was relatively insensitive
to parameters that do not directly affect the momentum
or buoyancy of the plume relative to the ambient
environment. Because this was a tidal case, the model
was limited to a portion of the tidal cycle. It was greatly
affected by the time that it could run, determined by the
starting time within the tidal cycle. For this reason, the
model was most sensitive to the time started after slack
(rank 1 and 2 out of 16 for the 2 values selected). The
model was also sensitive to the ambient density, tidal
velocity, and discharge density, and less sensitive to the
discharge angle, depth and width of discharge, and dis-
charge flow rate. The model is insensitive to the average
ambient depth, Manning’s N, wind speed, depth at dis-
charge, bottom slope, and the heat loss coefficient.
3.3. Chalk Point Station
Chalk Point Station is located on the Patuxent River
estuary, near Aquasco, Prince George’s County, Mary-
326 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331

Fig. 2. Surface map of the thermal plume at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant during: (a) ebb and (b) flood tide on 12 May 1978. Shaded lines
show the 1°C isotherms with a 0.2° uncertainty band, based on measurements made by BG&E and ANSP (1979). Labeled diamonds indicate the
1°, 2°, and 3° delta-T values predicted by cormix on the plume centerline. Hatched area indicates the extent of the thermal plume predicted by
cormix. Solitary isotherms in the figures may be remnants of the thermal plume from the preceding tidal cycle (not predictable by cormix).

land, about 44 km north of the confluence of the Patux-
ent estuary with the Chesapeake Bay. The discharge
canal is 2378 m long and about 18 m wide at the dis-
charge point. Thermal plume studies were conducted at
Chalk Point in 1976, 1978, and 1979 to determine the
temperature distribution near the facility and estimate the
configuration and extent of the thermal plume resulting
from the cooling water discharge. Details of these stud-
ies are provided in ANSP (1983). The flood and ebb tide
results from 29 July 1976, were selected to compare with
cormix results for the same conditions. cormix para-
meters are listed in Table 3.
Results for the ebb tide case (Fig. 3a) showed reason-
able qualitative agreement with plume direction and
centerline temperature values in the near field until the
plume becomes shore-attached. The predictions become
less reliable after that point because the actual shoreline
is farther back than cormix can simulate. In addition,
the simulation terminated before reaching the extent of
the measured plume. Even though the lateral position of
the simulated plume was moved westward, the tempera-
ture value at the end of the simulation was reasonably
close to the measured value in the longitudinal axis along
the plume’s main direction. In the flood tide simulation
(Fig. 3b), the plume immediately became diluted. The
build-up of heated water over several tidal cycles
resulted in much higher measured values. cormix could
not capture this build-up because its simulation was lim-
ited to the initial tidal cycle. In both cases, the simula-
tions indicated an initial rapid dilution followed by an
increase in temperature farther from the point of dis-
charge. This is probably because cormix simulated re-
entrainment of heated water. Measured data does not
appear to indicate that this actually occurs, but there is
not sufficient detail to determine this conclusively from
the available data.
As in the Calvert Cliffs case, the Chalk Point simul-
ation was most sensitive to the starting time, even after
adjusting for the distance the plume traveled (rank 1 and
2 out of 24 for the 2 values selected). The model was
also sensitive to the depth at discharge, ambient density,
discharge density, high flow rate, tidal velocity, and
depth of the discharge. The model was less sensitive to
the width of discharge, maximum tidal velocity, mini-
mum flow rate, and delta-T. The model was insensitive
to the angle of discharge, channel width, channel appear-
ance, wind speed, distance from bank, and the heat
loss coefficient.
 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331 327

Table 3
Model parameters for Chalk Point Station cormix simulations. Minimum and maximum values were used for sensitivity analysis on the ebb tide case

Parameter Baseline and sensitivity values

Bounded/unbounded Bounded
Channel width (m) 500±100
Channel appearance 2±1
Average water body depth and/or depth at discharge (m) 2.7±0.5
Tidal period (h) 12.45
Time after slack (h) 3.11±2
Tidal velocity at time of simulation (m/s) 0.30±0.06
Maximum tidal velocity (m/s) 0.30±0.06
Manning’s N 0.03±0.01
Wind speed (m/s) 5.0±5.0
Ambient density (flood) (kg/m3) 999.355+3, ⫺0.36
Ambient density (ebb) (kg/m3) 999.617
Location of discharge Left (flood); right (ebb)
Configuration Protruding
Distance from bank (m) 100; 50
Horizontal angle (flood tide) (°) 75±20
Horizontal angle (ebb tide) (°) 105
Depth at discharge (m) 2.32±0.38
Width of discharge (m) 27.92±5.58
Depth of discharge (m) 2.32±0.38
Bottom slope (°) 11.5; 5; 15
Flow rate (m3/s) 46.7±9.3
Density of discharge (flood tide) (kg/m3) 998.635; 995.635; 998.995
Density of discharge (ebb tide) (kg/m3) 999.182
Difference in temperature (flood tide) (°) 4.2±1
Difference in temperature (ebb tide) (°C) 3.4
Heat loss coefficient (W/m2) 55±20

3.4. H.A. Wagner Generating Station
Wagner Station is located on the western shore of Bal-
timore Harbor, about 7.4 km from the harbor mouth, on
a section of the Patapsco River estuary known as the
Outer Harbor. The plant circulates water through a com-
mon intake and discharges it separately through two dis-
charge canals. Both canals discharge into only 0.3–1 m
of water and are treated as surface discharges.
Thermal plume studies were conducted at Wagner in
the winter, spring, and summer of 1979, to compare
Wagner’s discharge with Maryland water quality stan-
dards for various ambient conditions. Details of these
studies are provided in LMS (1979a,b, 1980). The sur-
vey of 12 and 13 September 1979, was selected as a
historical base case because it offered measured tidal
data that could be used to explain actual plume behavior.
The Outer Harbor is characterized by complex and
unsteady flow patterns that do not lend themselves to the
application of standard mixing zone criteria. The estuary
experiences weak tidal currents, low mean tidal ranges,
low longitudinal density gradients, and changes in sal-
inity with depth that are unique within Chesapeake Bay
(LMS, 1980). Tidal exchange between Baltimore Harbor
and the Chesapeake Bay occurs in a complex layered
pattern that can be completely turned over by wind.
Under normal circumstances, the upper 3.0–4.5 m of
water flows from the head of Baltimore Harbor towards
the mouth and is less dense than the saline lower layer
that intrudes from the bay. Tidal currents are generally
weak compared with the wind-driven currents common
in the upper 3.0–4.5 m of the bay. On 12 and 13 Sep-
tember 1979, varying winds, from the northeast to the
southeast, had turned over the local pattern of tidal
exchange, so that the upper layer was flowing towards
the head, and the lower layer towards the bay.
The Wagner case was chosen to represent a class of
plants on the Baltimore Harbor whose plumes are affec-
ted by weak, wind-driven currents; layered current
exchange and density stratification during the summer;
complex shorelines; and shallow discharge environ-
ments. Of the list above, cormix can account for only
shallowness, but not without forcing assumptions about
the discharge and basin shape that are often unrealistic.
The remaining factors are known to have affected the
Wagner plume on 12 September 1979: local swells were
observed during periods of high wind, salinity measure-
ments increased with depth, and measured tidal currents
varied greatly from tide table predictions. Tidal measure-
ments for 12 and 13 September show that the upper layer
(surface to 4.5 m deep) flow experienced moderate flood
for 8.5 h and very weak ebb for 4 h during a 12.5-h tidal
cycle. The historical plumes were never measured deep
enough to detect stronger ebb currents.
328 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331

Fig. 3. Surface map of the thermal plume at Chalk Point Station during: (a) ebb and (b) flood tide on 29 July 1976. Shaded lines show the 1°C
isotherms with an uncertainty band, based on measurements made by ANSP (1983). Labeled diamonds indicate delta-T values predicted by cormix
on the plume centerline. Hatched areas indicates the extent of the thermal plume predicted by cormix. Dotted line indicates the location of the
modeled shoreline relative to the actual shoreline. Measured temperature values circled; model values in rectangles.

The Wagner discharge configuration also presented
modeling challenges. During ebb tide, the two dis-
charges form distinct plumes that interact with one
another in the near field; during flood tide, the two
plumes also interact in the far field. cormix considers
only single discharges, so the two were modeled separ-
ately, and the results were overlain for comparison.
cormix cannot account for the wind direction and
assumes that tidal currents are parallel to the shore. Wind
measurements taken at Wagner on the 12 and 13 Sep-
tember 1979, show that the wind varied around an east-
erly direction, and the evidence of local swelling sug-
gests that the wind may have been driving local flow
obliquely towards the shore. cormix parameter values
are shown in Table 4.
The cormix results were overlain with thermal plume
study results from LMS (1980). For the ebb tide case
(Fig. 4a), both discharges corresponded well to historical
measurements in the near field, although the Unit 4 dis-
charge was too cold. For the flood case (Fig. 4b), there
is qualitative agreement with plume direction only in the
near field. In the far field, where historical measurements
suggest that the plume should be shore-attached, the
modeled plume is too far from the shore. cormix mixed
the plume too rapidly in the near field, passing less heat
to far field processes, where diffusion and loss of heat to
the atmosphere cooled the plume further. Both modeled
discharges agreed with historical plume direction in the
near field. The plume from Units 1 through 3 diverged
from historical measurements in the far field.
For both ebb and flood cases, the modeled plumes
were smaller than their historical counterparts. When
extreme cases with no wind were simulated to eliminate
evaporative cooling, the resulting predicted plumes
showed no increase in size or temperature. Wind-driven
pooling near shore and re-entrainment of heated water
during tidal reversal probably resulted in hotter and
larger actual plumes. The shallowness of the actual basin
increases the efficiency of both processes for storing heat
near the shore. The actual Unit 4 plume in particular was
warmer than the modeled plume, especially during ebb
tide. The Unit 4 canal is adjacent to several breakwaters
and the Orchard and Stony Point beachheads, which may
shelter the discharge from wave energy and inhibit mix-
ing. The discharge from Units 1 through 3 is affected by
a large beachhead located downstream of the discharge
 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331 329

Table 4
Model parameters for H.A. Wagner Generating Station cormix simulations. Minimum and maximum values were used for sensitivity analysis on
the flood case

Parameter Baseline and sensitivity values

Bounded/ unbounded Unbounded

Average near-field water-body depth (m) 2.29±0.3
Ambient water depth in the far-field (m) 3.2±0.6
Tidal period (h) 12.5
Time before slack (h) 3.12±1
Tidal velocity at time of simulation (m/s) 0.168 (flood) ±0.03; 0.111 (ebb)
Maximum tidal velocity (m/s) 0.168 (flood) ±0.03; 0.111 (ebb)
Manning’s N 0.03±0.01
Wind speed (m/s) 4.47 (flood); 2.24 (ebb)
Ambient density (kg/m3) 1002.41 (flood); 1002.63 (ebb)
Location of discharge Left (flood); right (ebb)
Protruding 55.5 m at a 46° angle (±20°) with the shoreline (units 1–3);
Configuration
protruding 75 m at a 98° angle (±20°) wih the shoreline (unit 4)
Depth of discharge (m) 0.7±0.3 for units 1–3; 0.94±0.3 for unit 4
Width of discharge (m) 14 for units 1–3; 18.5 for unit 4
Density of discharge (kg/m3) 998.1±2.0 for units 1–3; 999.7±2.0 for unit 4
Flow rate (m3/s) 24.1 for units 1–3; 22.7 for unit 4
Temperature rise (°C) 13.6±2.0 for units 1–3; 9.1±2.0 for unit 4
Heat loss coefficient (W/m2) 50±20
Bottom slope (°) 0.224±0.125

Fig. 4. Surface map of the thermal plume for H.A. Wagner Generating Station during: (a) ebb tide on 13 September 1979 and (b) flood tide on
12–13 September 1979. Shaded lines show delta-T isotherms based on measurements made by LMS (1979a,b). Shaded areas show the same
temperature rises predicted by cormix along the plume centerline. The wind rose in the upper right-hand corner depicts the source direction (e.g.
easterly) of local winds measured by LMS (1979a,b). The length of the wind vectors is weighted by the frequency of observation. Dotted line
indicates the location of the modeled shoreline relative to the actual shoreline.
330 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331
during flood. The cove created by the beachhead may
capture discharge from Units 1 through 3 and encourage
pooling of heat. Because cormix does not simulate this
feature, it presented a plume that is not shore-attached.
Results of the Wagner sensitivity analyses were
ranked based on the average rate of temperature change
compared with the baseline case. For some parameters,
the sensitivity varied between discharge from Units 1
through 3 and the discharge from Unit 4. In general, the
model for the multiple discharge was sensitive to start
time, tidal velocity, maximum tidal velocity, discharge
density, and discharge angle. It was insensitive to Man-
ning’s N, the coefficient of surface heat loss, bottom
slope, and near field depth.
4. Summary and conclusions
Results for Dickerson show that the cormix simul-
ation allowed the plume to become completely mixed
horizontally across the river much more rapidly than was
actually the case. The measured data indicate at least
0.5°C difference from bank to bank in a low baseflow
case at 10,000 m downstream and almost 3°C difference
in a high baseflow case. The differences in the results
may be because velocity in the center of the river was
higher than is simulated; the higher mid-river velocity
causes the actual plume to stay near the shoreline.
Results for Calvert Cliffs show reasonable qualitative
agreement with the plume direction and centerline tem-
perature values for both the ebb and flood tide cases.
For each case, the measured data suggest the persistence
remnants of the thermal plume from the preceding tidal
cycle; however, the overall model results agree very well
with the historical measurements.
Results for the ebb tide case at Chalk Point also show
reasonable qualitative agreement with plume direction
and centerline temperature values in the near field until
the modeled plume becomes shore-attached. The predic-
tions become less reliable after that point because the
actual shoreline is farther back than cormix can simu-
late. In addition, the simulation terminated before reach-
ing the extent of the measured plume. Even though the
lateral position was moved westward, the temperature
value at the end of the simulation was reasonably close
to the measured value in the longitudinal axis along the
plume’s main direction. In the flood tide case, the simu-
lated plume became diluted much more quickly than was
measured. The build-up of heated water over several
tidal cycles probably resulted in much higher meas-
ured values.
Results for the multiple discharge at Wagner during
flood tide show qualitative agreement with plume direc-
tion only in the near field. In the far field, where histori-
cal measurements suggest that the plume should be
shore-attached, the modeled plume is too far from the
shore. During ebb tide, both discharges correspond well
to historical measurements, although one discharge was
too cold. For both ebb and flood cases, as in the Dicker-
son case, cormix predicted unrealistically rapid dilution
in the near field. Both modeled plumes are smaller than
their historical counterparts. Wind-driven pooling near
shore and re-entrainment of heated water during tidal
reversal probably resulted in hotter and larger actual
plumes. Like the Calvert Cliffs data, the Wagner
measurements also showed pockets of pooled heated
water from previous tidal cycles.
In tidal situations, cormix only considers the plume
behavior within the immediate tidal cycle and has no
information about the thermal history from preceding
tidal cycles in the real environment. cormix cannot cap-
ture any build-up because its simulation is limited to the
initial tidal cycle. In the case of Calvert Cliffs, the
receiving water is so large that there is little build-up of
thermal effluent, and the model results are more realistic.
The Patuxent estuary in the vicinity of Chalk Point, how-
ever, is relatively narrow and shallow, preventing the
thermal plume from being displaced or dissipated
between tidal cycles. The Outer Harbor region of the
Patapsco River estuary, where Wagner is located, is also
shallow, with numerous sheltered coves that allow poo-
ling. Because cormix cannot account for this build-up,
simulation results are not as realistic.
cormix is also an idealized model in terms of the
physical configuration of the receiving water. In a large,
wide water body such as the Chesapeake Bay in the
vicinity of Calvert Cliffs, this simplification does not
hinder an adequate simulation of the thermal plume
behavior; however, the model may not adequately rep-
resent narrow or complex configurations. This appears
to be the case at Dickerson, where the model may not
represent complexities in the river channel near the point
of discharge, resulting in an unrealistically rapid simul-
ation of mixing. At Wagner, heat trapped by a cove
upstream (northwest) of the discharge results in shore-
attached behavior for the measured plume. cormix
solves for a straight shoreline and fails to predict
upstream pooling; consequently, cormix underestimated
the severity of thermal impacts at Wagner.
In conclusion, users of cormix need to be aware of
these limitations when applying the model in complex
situations, especially where measured data are not avail-
able to check model results. cormix results should be
used with caution in evaluating power plant or other dis-
charge effects and ideally in conjunction with other
information about thermal plume behavior.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources Power Plant Research Program
 S.P. Schreiner et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 17 (2002) 321–331
(PPRP), Annapolis, MD; Dr William K. Hodges, Project
Manager. The authors wish to thank David Fluke of the
Maryland Department of the Environment, Jules Loos of
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), James
Stine of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E),
and three anonymous reviewers for evaluating earlier
versions of this work and providing useful comments.
All comments were carefully considered in preparing
this final report, but responsibility for the content of the
report remains with the authors.
References
Akar, P.J., Jirka, G.H., 1991. cormix2: an expert system for hydrodyn-
amic mixing zone analysis of conventional and toxic multiport dif-
fuser discharges. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development, December.
Cooperative Agreement No. CX813093, EPA/600/3-91/073.
Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP), 1979. A 316 environmental
demonstration in support of the application for alternate effluent
limitations for the Potomac Electric Power Company Dickerson
Steam Electric Station, vol. 1, no. 79–22. Prepared for Potomac
Electric Power Company (PEPCO), September.
Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP), 1983. Chalk Point Station 316
demonstration — technical reports, vol. V. Prepared for PEPCO,
September.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) and ANSP, 1979. Non-
radiological environmental monitoring report. Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, January–December 1978.
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), 1995. Development of a
tidal version of the cormix models for application to discharges in
the Delaware River Estuary. Final report to the DRBC by Limno-
Tech, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 15 December.
Doneker, R.L., Jirka. G.H., 1990. Expert system for hydrodynamic
331
mixing zone analysis of conventional and toxic submerged single
port discharges (cormix1). Prepared for USEPA Office of Research
and Development, February. Cooperative Agreement No.
CX813093, EPA/600/3-90/012.
Jirka, G.H., Doneker, R.L., Hinton, S.W., 1996. User’s manual for
cormix: a hydrodynamic mixing zone model and decision support
system for pollutant discharges into surface waters. Prepared for
USEPA Office of Science and Technology, September. Cooperat-
ive Agreement No. CX824847-01-0. Available from:
http://steens.ese.ogi.edu/.
Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS), 1979a. Report on win-
ter thermal survey for Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station. Pre-
pared for BG&E.
Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS), 1979b. Report on sum-
mer thermal survey for Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station. Pre-
pared for BG&E.
Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS), 1980. Ecological stud-
ies at the H.A. Wagner Plant: 1979. Prepared for BG&E.
Nash, J.D., Jirka, G.H., 1995. Buoyant discharges in reversing ambient
currents: experimental investigating and prediction. Prepared for
Power Plant Research Program (PPRP), Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), Annapolis, MD. CBWP-MANTA-
TR-97-2.
Schreiner, S.P., Krebs, T.A., Strebel, D.E., Brindley, A., McCall, C.G.,
1999. Validation of the cormix model using thermal plume data
from four Maryland power plants. Technical report prepared for
the PPRP, MDNR. PPRP-14. (This report is available electronically
at www.esm.versar.com/pprp/features/cormix/report.htm.)
United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC), 1973. Final
environmental statement related to operation of Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2. BG&E. Dockets Nos. 50-317
and 50-318.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991a.
Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control.
Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/505/2-90-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991b.
Assessment and control of bioconcentratable contaminants in sur-
face waters. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-833-D94-001.