Off-shore, Mid Depth VelocityCapsasBest Technology Available forImpingement ControlDecember 2011December2011V l it C D fi itiAgenda•VelocityCapDefinition•U.S. Facilities with Velocity Caps•Summary of VelocityCap EffectivenessSummaryofVelocityapEffectiveness•NextEra Energy Seabrook Nuclear•Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Plant•Conclusions2Velocity Caps Represent BTA for Impingement ReductionIntake Velocity Cap DefinitionA velocity cap is a device that is placed over vertical inlets atoffshore intakes. This cover converts vertical flow into horizontalflow at the entrance into the intake. The device works on thepremise that fish will avoid rapid changes in horizontal flowpremisethatfishwillavoidrapidchangesinhorizontalflow.Source: Section 316 (b) EPA TDD for New facilities, Chapter 51. Velocity cap(s) must be designed to ensure that fish aresubjected to horizontal rather then vertical flow from the intakesubjectedtohorizontalratherthenverticalflowfromtheintakestructure.2. Velocity cap intake flow should be at least 0.5 fps or greater toensure that fish detect the horizontal flow in time to escape.3. The velocity cap must be placed in an optimum locationoffshore and in the middle of the water column to reduceimpingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms.4D t i ti f ti l ti d fl h t i ti.Determination ofoptimumlocation andflow characteristicsshould be determined by the permitting director.Velocity caps have been deemed BTA by EPA, court proceedings, and3VelocitycapshavebeendeemedBTAbyEPA,courtproceedings,andstate regulators throughout the U.S.Velocity Cap DiagramVelocity cap(s) are designed to ensure that fish are subjected tohorizontal rather than vertical flow4Source:Chapter6:TechnologiesandControlMeasures§ 316(b)ExistingFacilitiesProposedRule‐TDDVelocity Caps Installation at Seabrook GeneratingStation(Seabrook,NH),)Off-shore mid-depth velocity caps have been successfully used as BTAthroughout the U S5throughouttheU.S.Source:EPAProposedRule,TDDChapter6:TechnologiesandControlMeasures§ 316(b)ExistingFacilitiesU.S. Power Plants with Velocity CapsDistanceWaterPlant State WaterBodyFromShore(ft)WaterDepth(ft)TopofCapDepth(ft) Owner Fuel DateBuilt MWSanOnofreUnits2&3 CA Pacific 3,183 32 SCE Nuclear 1983‐842,254ElSegundo3‐4CASantaMonicaBay2,611 29 11 NRG Gas 1964‐65 1,000gHuntingtonBeach1‐4CA PacificOcean 1,500 17 AES Gas 1958‐2003 900RedondoBeach5‐8 CA PacificOcean 3,000 AES Gas 1,300Scattergood1‐3 CASantaMonicaBay 1,600 29 11 LADWP Gas1958‐modifiedin1974800OrmondBeach CA PacificOcean 1,950 35 ReliantGas 1959 430St.Lucie1&2FL AtlanticOcean 1,200 23 12 NEE Nuclear 1976/1983 1,680Seabrook NH AtlanticOcean 7,000 60 NEE Nuclear 1976(1990) 1,296PresqueIsle MI LakeSuperior 90020 WeEnergies Coal 1974‐79 431OswegoSteam5&6NY LakeOntario NRG Oil 1976‐1980 1,700NineMilePoint1 NY LakeOntario 850Constellation Nuclear 1974620NineMilePoint2* NY LakeOntario 1,000 Constellation Nuclear 19871,138Kintigh(Somerset) NY LakeOntario AES Coal 1984655Ginna NY LakeOntario 3,100 Constellation Nuclear 1970496Edgewater‐Unit5 WI LakeMichigan Alliant Coal 1985 380* 2velocitycaps.Flow0.5fpsplushasangledscreenstoguidefishtobypassthesystem9 f th f iliti ith V l it C i C lif i d N Y k69ofthefacilities withVelocityCaps areinCalifornia andNewYorkRange of VelocityCapCharacteristicsU.S. Facilities with Velocity Capsg yp•Velocity Caps are located 900 to 7000 feet from the actualplant intakes•All of the existing velocity caps are located in oceans,bays adjacent to oceans, or Great Lakes–6 in the Pacific Ocean– 2 in the Atlantic Ocean– 3 in Lake Ontario–2 in Lake Michigan2inLakeMichigan•Various fuel types are represented– 3 Nuclear Plants–5 Gas-fired Plants– 2 Coal-fired Plants–1 Oil-fired Plants7Summary of Velocity Cap Effectiveness•Velocity cap studies at the Huntington Beach and El SegundoVelocitycapstudiesattheHuntingtonBeachandElSegundoGenerating Stations in California showed overall reductions inentrapment (equated to impingement mortality losses) of 80 to90 percent• Two studies at the Scattergood Generating Station includedmeasurements conducted pre‐and post-installation of velocitycaps as well as more recent flow reversal studies (EPA 2011;LADWP 2007) R lt f th S tt d t d h dLADWP2007).ResultsfromtheScattergoodstudy showedan overall reduction of 83 percent.• Studies at Ormond Generating Station conductedconcurrently with the Huntington Beach studies demonstratedconcurrentlywiththeHuntingtonBeachstudiesdemonstratedoverall reductions in entrapment of 61 percent during the nightand 87 percent during the day.In several cases, the reductions in impingement mortality associatedwith velocity caps were substantial and met or exceeded theimpingement mortality performance standard in the proposed 316 (b)rule.8Studies Show Impingement Reduction of 68 – 99%Summary of Velocity Cap EffectivenessPlantYear(s)ofStudyPercentReduction‐Impingement Sourceofdata CommentsSeabrook 1990‐98 68%EPA(2002)‐TechnicalDevelopmentDocumentComparedoff‐shorevelocitycapintakeatSeabrookwithshorelineintakeatPilgrimPlantSeabrook 2002‐2006 83%NextEraEnergy(2008)‐ResponsetoEPARegion1308LetterComparedoff‐shorevelocitycapintakeatSeabrookwithshorelineintakeatPilgrimPlant.83%reductionunderaverageflowconditions.ElSegundo3‐4 1956‐58 94.5%LADWP‐ScattergoodVelocityCapEffectivenessStudy;Page7‐1Comparedpre‐velocitycaptopost‐velocitycapdataHuntingtonBeach1‐4 1979‐801979Day‐90%1979Night‐53%1979Aver.‐72%1980Day‐99%1980Night‐87%1980‐Ave.‐93%Overall‐82%LADWP‐ScattergoodVelocityCapEffectivenessStudy;Page7‐2,3,4ComprehensivestudybyU.ofWashington.Resultsareconservative(effectiveness greater)assilversides,whichwereonlypresentduringreverseoperations,werenotincludedinimpingementreductioncalculations.Otherwiseeffectivenesswouldhavebeenevengreater.Scattergood1‐3 1970‐74 83%LADWP‐ScattergoodVelocityCapEffectivenessStudy;Page7‐1.Effectivenessbasedonbiomass‐standardizedtocoolingwaterflowbetweenheattreatmentprocedures.Scattergood1‐32006‐0797.6%inabundance9 3%ibiLADWP‐ScattergoodVelocityCapff iS diSAbundancereductionwassignificant;Biomassreductionwasnotduetoimpingementoflhi hbiiifidiScattergood1320060795.3%inbiomass EffectivenessStudy‐ExecutiveSmarmy severalhigh‐biomassorganisms;Pacificsardinesaccountedfor94.2%ofabundanceOrmondBeach 1979‐8087%Daytime61%NighttimeLADWP‐ScattergoodVelocityCapEffectivenessStudyConductedconcurrentlywithHuntingtonBeachStudy‐alsobyU.ofWashington.Resultsconservative(effectivenessgreater)asmackerelschoolswereremovedfromdata‐similarto9schoolswereremovedfromdatasimilartosilversidesatHuntingtonBeachSummary of Velocity Cap Effectiveness•Seabrook velocity caps approved as BTA following FirstNextEra Energy Seabrook Station: Seabrook, New HampshireSeabrookvelocitycapsapprovedasBTAfollowingFirstCircuit Court of Appeals Ruling and Regional AdministratorApproval.• Intake located 7,000 feet offshore in 60 feet of water.• Costs to construct today is likely exceed $250 million (2011dollars)–includes velocity caps and intake tunnel which wasbored in bedrock 240’ below the ocean floor.• Seabrook velocity cap intake averages 0.8 fps approach flowrate, allowing fish to detect and avoid the higher horizontalflow.• According to the Section 316 (b) Case Studies, Part G,comparing the offshore velocity caps of Seabrook to the nearshore intake for the Pilgrim Plant, Seabrook significantlyreduced number of entrained and impinged organisms10reducednumberofentrainedandimpingedorganisms.Estimated Annual Entrainment and Impingement of EquivalentAdult Commercial and Recreational SpeciesSeabrook Station, 2002-2006Species EggEntrainment LarvalEntrainmentJuvenileandAdultImpingement TotalType (CommercialorRecreational)Americanlobster 0 0 6 6 CAmericanplaice 243 233 <1 476 CHakespp. 122 10 4 136 CSilverhake 637 32 60 729 CWindowpane 25 8 1,013 1,046 CWitchflounder 16 32 0 48 CYellowtailflounder <1 <1 2 2 CRainbowsmelt 0 7,647 1,122 8,769 RAtlanticcod 73 78 11 162 C/RAtlanticmackerel 408 61 2 471 C/RHaddock <1 <1 <1 1 C/RPollock 12 9 121 142 C/RWinterflounder <1 1,861 1,327 3,188 C/R11Summary of Velocity Cap EffectivenessPl t b ilt H t hi I l d b i i l dNextEra Energy St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: St. Lucie County, FL•PlantwasbuiltonHutchinsonIsland, abarrierisland.• Original intake design withdrew water from Big Mud Creek onthe Indian River Lagoon side of the island.• Further analysis identified optimum option as offshore intakewith velocity caps in Atlantic Ocean.• Final 1973 design included 2 velocitycaps with 12’ diameteryppipes (a third pipe, 16’ in diameter was added when Unit 2was built in 1983). Estimated total cost was $114 MM in 2011dollars.P i i l fi h S i h k l ki•Primary commercialfishes areSpanishmackerel,kingmackerel, and bluefish. In 1976-1980, only 5 Spanishmackerel, 10 king mackerel, and 24 bluefish were collected inthe intake canal by gillnetting.12theintakecanalbygillnetting.Summary of Velocity Cap Effectiveness•Sea turtles entrained in the intake canal are capturedNextEra Energy St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: St. Lucie County, FLSeaturtlesentrainedintheintakecanalarecaptured,rehabilitated, if necessary, and returned to the sea.• EPA deemed Velocity Caps as BTA--“Ecology Branch (EPA)staff has been assessingpowerplant impacts over thepastp p p pdecade. There is nothing in the monitoring informationreviewed that, in our opinion, warrants a detailed 316 (b)study nor the continued monitoring of the intake for fishes andinvertebrates The design capacity and location of the oceaninvertebrates.Thedesign,capacityandlocationoftheoceanintake structure of the St. Lucie Plant reflects, in our opinion,BTA for minimizing adverse impacts upon these organisms.”•The current PSL NPDES permit requires monitoring ofThecurrentPSLNPDESpermitrequiresmonitoringofentrapment in the St. Lucie intake canal. NextEra is requiredto capture and quickly return organisms without causing harm.13ConclusionsV l it h hi t i ll b d d BTA f•Velocity capshavehistoricallybeendeemedBTAforimpingement and entrainment under 316 (b).•Historical data indicates that velocity caps reduceimpingement by 68 to 99 percentimpingementby68to99percent.•EPA has typically agreed that properly placed velocitycaps result in reduced entrainment and impingement.•Velocity caps should be considered as a pre-approvedBest Technology Available for impingement mortalitycontrol under EPA’s final 316 (b) rule.14