Oak Creek Power PlantExpansion ProjectOffshore Wedge-wire Screen IntakeAlden – Desalination Intake Solutions WorkshopHolden, MassachusettsOctober 17, 2008

# Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted

material is not available in Regulations.gov since

it may not be reproduced without consent of the

copyright holder.

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public

Reading Room to view this document.

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW

Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-566-1744

Fax: 202-566-9744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.govPresentation Outline1.Project Location & Overview2.Site Selection, Environmental andEngineering Studies3.Water Intake Design4.Overview of Environmental PermittingAdvantages of Expanding at ExistingOak Creek Power Plant Site1.Lake Michigan for Cooling Water2.Electrical Transmission3.Rail Infrastructure for Coal Delivery4.“Brownfield”DevelopmentProject Location: Oak Creek, WisconsinProject Overview -- Oak CreekExpansion (OCXP) – 2 x 615 MWOak Creek Expansion ProjectOak Creek Site – Looking NorthOak Creek Project – Looking SouthJune 2008Oak Creek Project – Looking SouthAugust 2008Oak Creek Site – Looking EastAugust 2008OCPP Intake Structure - BeforeExisting On-shoreIntake StructureExisting ShorelineDischarge StructuresExisting Intake Structure - BeforePumping StationPrimary Design ConsiderationsCost to build and operateAquatic Life ProtectionOffshore Location9.5 mm slot size WW ScreensNavigation ClearanceDebris and icing fouling protectionResistance to zebra musselsMinimize System Head LossesCooling System OverviewSource: BechtelJohnson Cylindrical Wedge-wireScreen Water IntakeCooling System OverviewCooling System OverviewCooling System OverviewFacts & FiguresIntake to Serve4 existing OCPP coal-fueled generating units –about 1140 MW2 expansion units (“ERGS”) – about 1230 MWCombined power plant open cycle coolingsystem flow rate of:1,560,000 gpm = 98.4 m3/s = 2.2 bgdFacts & Figures9000’ & 27’ diameter tunnel thru bedrockOCPP Intake Shaft – 26’ diameterOCPP Lift Station – addresses head lossesthrough screens and tunnelERGS Intake Shaft – 18’ diameter andconnects tunnel to the pump houseOffshore Shafts – 4 @ 12’ diameterFacts & Figures24 – 8’ Diameter x 35’ long Johnson WW Screensw/9.5 mm (3/8”) slot size and maximum throughscreen design intake velocity of 0.5 feet/second.4 sets of 6 screens w/9’ Diameter Manifold Pipingconnected to 4 - 12’ drop shafts leading to tunnelLocated in 43’ of water depth below LWDTop of screens 30’ from lake surface“Z-Alloy” Metallurgy (zebra mussel protection)Studies – Offshore LocationWater Intake TunnelSource: UWM-WATER InstituteStudies - Geologic Cross SectionTotal Tunnel Length = 9000 feetStudies – CFD Modeling - ComputationalMesh for Screen ModulesSource: AldenCFD Modeling – Lake Current Flowfrom North to SouthSource: AldenCFD Modeling – Lake Current Flowfrom North to SouthSource: AldenCFD Modeling – Current Flow fromNorth to South - Source: AldenSource: AldenCFD Modeling – Current Flow fromNorth to South - Source: AldenSource: AldenHydrodynamic Modeling – Zone ofWithdrawal & Area of InfluenceSource: HydroqualNorth to South LakeCurrent DirectionOak Creek Expansion – 2 x 615 MWLakeMichiganOutfall 013Discharge Structure –WPDES Permit Outfall 013Cooling Water Discharge – ThermalPlume ModelingSource: Baird & Assoc.Intake Tunnel ConstructionTunnel Boring MachineIntake Tunnel Construction - TBMIntake Tunnel Construction - TBMIntake Tunnel Construction - TBMIntake Tunnel LiningLined Section of Intake TunnelOffshore Down Shafts ConstructionOffshore Down Shafts ConstructionOffshore Down Shaft – 12’ PermanentSteel Pipe SectionOffshore Down Shafts ConstructionUpper Steel BulkheadRemoved to Flood TunnelLower Steel BulkheadRemoved to Flood TunnelWater Intake-Wedge Wire ScreensWater Intake-Wedge Wire ScreensWater Intake-Wedge Wire ScreensWater Intake-Wedge Wire ScreensIntake Forebay ConstructionIntake Forebay ConstructionIntake Forebay ConstructionIntake Forebay ConstructionERGS Pump HouseERGS Pump HouseERGS Pump HouseERGS Pump HouseEnvironmental Permitting1.WPDES Permit --CWA 316(a) Variance –development of alternative effluent limits forheat addition to Lake Michigan.2.WPDES Permit --CWA 316(b) BestTechnology Available (BTA) decision forCooling Water Intake Structure.3.Army Corps Section 10 of Rivers & HarborsAct of 1899 and Section 404 of the CWA.4.Wisconsin DNR Chapter 30 PermitCooling Water – 316(a)316(a) Evaluation:“...can demonstrate to the satisfaction of theAdministrator (or if appropriate, the State)that... control of the thermal component ofany discharge... will require effluentlimitations more stringent than necessary toassure the protection and propagation of abalanced indigenous population...”Cooling Water – 316(a)In conclusion, the scientific evidencepresented to the Department supports theconclusion that the thermal discharge fromthe OCPP, the proposed OCXP and thecombined discharges will “...assure theprotection and propagation of a balancedindigenous population of shellfish, fish andwildlife...” in and on Lake Michigan.(Source:Wisconsin DNR)Cooling Water – 316(b)“...we believe that... the OTCW systemwill maintain substantially similar levels offish and shellfish within the waterbody tothat achieved using a cooling tower. Ourjudgment is based upon a critical reviewof the submittal and our collectiveunderstanding of the Lake Michiganfishery. (Source:Wisconsin DNR)Cooling Water – 316(b)We also concur with Dr. Kitchell’sconclusion that “...the major regulators offish population dynamics in Lake Michiganare the direct and indirect ecologicalinteractions affected by both fisherymanagement practices and the invasionsof exotics.” (Source:Wisconsin DNR)Conclusions about Intake System:Offshore screens essentially will eliminateimpingement of fish.Entrainment reduction expected due tooffshore location and design.The open cycle system with wedge-wirescreens will maintain substantially similarlevels of fish and shellfish within thewaterbody to that achieved using coolingtowers and also provides:Conclusions about Intake System:The most thermally efficient process(roughly 2-4% loss w/cooling towers);Lower air emission rates, including CO2Lower capital and O&M costsAvoids visual impacts associated withcooling towers.Credits – Engineering & ConstructionEPC Contractor: Bechtel Power CorpIntake Subcontractor: Kenny/Shea JVEngineering: Bechtel, Johnson ScreensHydraulics: Hatch Mott MacDonaldOnshore Shafts: Ground EngineeringOffshore Shafts: Case Foundation Co.Dredging/Sheet Piles: Edward E. GillenGeophysical Studies: Ocean Surveys Inc.Credits – Environmental StudiesAlden Research LaboratoryAKRFBaird & AssociatesEA Engineering, Science & TechnologyHydroqual, Inc.University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee WATERInstituteUniversity of MinnesotaAdditional InformationFor more information about engineeringand construction of the intake tunnel:Isaacson, Jon, et al. 2007.Elm RoadGenerating Station Water Intake Tunnel.2007. Published in the proceedings of theRapid Excavation & TunnelingConference – 2007.QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?