Overview of CWA Section 316(a) Evaluations of Power Plants with Thermal Discharges in Maryland
description
Transcript of Overview of CWA Section 316(a) Evaluations of Power Plants with Thermal Discharges in Maryland
VersarINC
Overview of CWA Section 316(a) Evaluations of Power
Plants with Thermal Discharges in MarylandPresented at
EPRI Workshop on 316(a) Issues: Technical and Regulatory Considerations
October 16 – 17, 2003 AEP Headquarters
Columbus, Ohio
Steve SchreinerWilliam Richkus
Versar, Inc.
Rich McLeanMDNR Power Plant Research Program
2
VersarINC
What is the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP)?
• Created by state legislation in 1971
• Funded by an environmental surcharge on electricity use
• Small technical/administrative staff supported by integrator contractors
3
VersarINC
What does PPRP do?• Provides technical support to Maryland
Public Service Commission with regard to licensing of new projects, including NPDES permitting and 316 compliance
• Provides technical support to Department of the Environment, Maryland’s permitting agency, for renewal of power plant NPDES permits and demonstrations and 316 compliance
• Conducts research relating to major impact issues of proposed and existing power plants
4
VersarINC
How does PPRP perform its functions? • As a result of review of applications, may
recommend 316 studies by applicant
• Conducts technical reviews of applicants= study plans and study results
• Develops cooperative 316 studies with applicants
• May conduct independent 316 studies
• Since inception of the program, have carried out such activities at all power plants in Maryland with regard to thermal and cooling water intake impacts
5
VersarINC
Maryland Thermal Regulations
• Describe factors, criteria, and standards for thermal effluent limitations, including mixing zones
• Dischargers unable to meet mixing zone criteria can request alternative effluent limitations which “assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made.”
6
VersarINC
Maryland Thermal Regulations, cont.
• Alternate Effluent Limitations need to consider:
– Cumulative impacts from other sources
– Potential increase in nuisance species
– Change in biological productivity
– Impairment of economic or recreational resources
– Reduction in Representative Important Species
Code of Maryland Regulations 26.08.03 Discharge Limitations
Water Quality Impact Assessment for Thermal Discharges (26.08.03.03)
Temp. outside mixing zone adheres to
Designated Uses (32ºC max)
50 ft mixing zone
Alternate Effluent
Limitations
Case-by-case mixing zone
Thermal mixing zone criteria
If any failTidal Nontidal
< 5% of bottom beneath tidal
excursion (limits exposure to
benthos)
< 50% cross-section (indicates
potential thermal barrier)
< ½ tidal excursion (indicates degree of
dispersion by currents)
< distance traveled by
stream flow in 6 hrs
(indicates degree of dispersion by
currents)
< 5% of bottom passed
by 6 hrs of stream flow
(limits exposure to benthos)
< 50% cross-section (indicates
potential thermal barrier)
Thermal mixing zone criteria (2ºC
isotherm)
Tidal Nontidal
Alternate Effluent Limitations Alternate Effluent Limitations
If any fail If any fail
9
VersarINC
Locations of power plants in Maryland
10
VersarINC
Thermal Discharge Status of Maryland Plants
• 7 facilities passed thermal mixing zone criteria
• 4 facilities failed criteria under at least some conditions
• 1 facility (Wagner) requested case-by-case mixing zone due to unusual flow regime in receiving water
11
VersarINC
Maryland Case Studies
• Calvert Cliffs: passes mixing zone criteria; large estuary facility
• Chalk Point: fails mixing zone criteria; small estuary facility
• Dickerson: fails some mixing zone criteria; riverine facility
12
VersarINC
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
• Owned by Constellation Nuclear, a member of Constellation Power Source, Inc., (formerly BGE)
• Located on Chesapeake Bay main stem in Calvert County
• 1,675 MW
• Once-through cooling, 3600 mgd
• Discharge orifice 4 m high, 3 m deep, 268 m offshore, high velocity
13
VersarINC
14
VersarINC
15
VersarINC
Chesapeake Bay near Calvert Cliffs
0
10
20
30
40
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Width, m
Dep
th, m
Cross-Section
Allowable
Est. Max.
16
VersarINC
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Mixing Zone Dimensions and Compliance with Maryland Regulations
Mixing Zone Specification
Allowed Dimension
s
Estimate of Actual
Dimensions
Ratio of Actual to Allowed
Dimension
Maximum radial extent of 2C-above ambient isotherm, 24-hour average (km)
5.3 1.8 34 %
2C-above ambient isotherm thermal barrier, 24-hr average (% of cross-section) (km)
9.1 - 14.3 3.5 25 - 38 %
Area of bottom touched by waters heated 2C or more above ambient (km2)
3.1 0.34 11 %
17
VersarINC
Conclusions – Calvert Cliffs
• Thermal mixing zone limits passed
• No further 316a studies required
18
VersarINC
Chalk Point Power Plant
• Owned by Mirant Energy (formerly PEPCO)
• Located on the estuarine portion of the Patuxent River in Prince George's County
• 2,415 MW (total generation)
• Units 1 & 2, once-thru system, 360 mgd per unit; units 3 & 4, closed cycle cooling tower, 374 mgd per unit
• 2 km long discharge canal, 2.3 m deep, 28 m wide at mouth, shoreline discharge to Patuxent River
19
VersarINC
20
VersarINC
21
VersarINC
Patuxent River near Chalk Point
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 400 800 1200 1600
Width, m
Dep
th, m
Cross-section
Allowable
Est. Min
Est. Max
22
VersarINC
Chalk Point Steam Electric Station Mixing Zone Dimensions and Compliance with Maryland Regulations
Mixing Zone Specification
Allowed Dimension
s
Estimate of Actual
Dimensions
Ratio of Actual to Allowed
Dimension
Maximum radial extent of 2C-above ambient isotherm, 24-hour average (m)
2,500 - 2,650
2,500 - 4,600
94 - 184%
2C-above ambient isotherm thermal barrier, 24-hr average (% of cross-section) (m)
50 55 - 100 110 - 200%
Area of bottom touched by waters heated 2C or more above ambient (ha)
33 - 49 62 - 96 127 - 291%
23
VersarINC
24
VersarINC
Chalk Point Tempering Pumps
• Included in original plant design to manage delta T in discharge canal
• High mortality of entrained fish and crabs (including early life stages, juveniles and adults) from mechanical injury
• Permit was modified to eliminate the requirement for augmenting discharge flow
25
VersarINC
Conclusions• Thermal mixing zone criteria not
passed
• Further studies required on thermal impacts
• Studies showed no significant ecosystem changes attributable to the thermal discharge
• Alternate Effluent Limitations granted
26
VersarINC
Dickerson Generating Station
• Mirant Energy (formerly PEPCO)
• Located on the Potomac River in Montgomery County
• 556 MW
• Once-through cooling, 400 mgd
• 532 m discharge canal, 18 m wide at mouth
27
VersarINC
28
VersarINC
29
VersarINC
30
VersarINC
Potomac River near Dickerson
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Width, m
Dept
h, m
Cross-section
Allowable
Estimated
31
VersarINC
Dickerson Steam Electric Station Mixing Zone Dimensions and Compliance with Maryland Regulations (low to high
summer flows)
Mixing Zone Specification
Allowed Dimension
s
Estimate of Actual
Dimensions
Ratio of Actual to Allowed
Dimension
Maximum downstream extent of 2C-above ambient isotherm, 6-hour travel time (km)
7.3 - 19.6 2.5 - 14 34 - 192 %
2C-above ambient isotherm thermal barrier, average low-flow (% of cross-section) (m)
140 - 155 192 (maximum
extent)
123 - 137 %
Area of bottom touched by waters heated 2C or more above ambient, 6-hour travel time (103 m2)
110 - 295 45 - 1400 41 - 1,273 %
32
VersarINC
Conclusions – Dickerson
• Thermal mixing zone criteria failed under some conditions
• Further studies required
33
VersarINC
Dickerson Conclusions, Cont.
• Heated discharges have only a minor seasonal effect on fish distributions, and no adverse long-term impacts have occurred
• Smallmouth bass near the discharge were found to have significantly larger mean length across age groups than bass collected upstream
• Alternate Effluent Limitations granted
34
VersarINC
Conclusions based on 30 years of PPRP Experience
• All studies confirmed that thermal mixing zone criteria are protective
• Thermal criteria also valuable in identifying facilities with a potential for impacts
• Detailed assessments served as a basis for technically-based regulatory decisions