Upload
alberta-morrison
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
12004 Hunton & Williams
EPA’s New Rule for Cooling Water Intake Structures at
“Existing” (Phase II) Facilities
Kristy A.N. BulleitHunton & Williams1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006202-955-1547 [email protected]
James N. Christman and Elizabeth E. Aldridge Hunton & Williams
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd StreetRichmond, VA 23219
804-788-8368 [email protected] [email protected]
22004 Hunton & Williams
Background
Phase II rule for existing facilities was signed February 16, 2004
To be published in the Federal Register in about mid-March 2004
Becomes final for judicial review purposes two weeks after publication in the Federal Register
32004 Hunton & Williams
Background
On February 3, 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that restoration cannot be used for new (Phase I) facilities
Nevertheless, EPA decided to allow restoration in the Phase II rule, but limited the circumstances under which it can be used.
42004 Hunton & Williams
Applies to a Facility If
Primary activity is to generate and transmit electric power or to generate electric power for sale to a different entity for transmission
Has a total design intake flow 50 MGDUses 25% of water withdrawn exclusively
for cooling purposesCommenced construction on or before January
17, 2002
52004 Hunton & Williams
Adding New Units
“Existing” facility includes any modification of or addition of a unit at an existing facility that is not a “new facility” (§ 125.83)
An existing facility that adds a new generating unit at the same site for repowering and concurrently increases the design capacity of its intake structure or adds a new intake structure where it did not previously have one (when converting a gas turbine to a combined cycle unit, for example) is an “existing” facility
62004 Hunton & Williams
New units added to a facility for purposes of the same general industrial operation
EPA does not want to discourage upgrades, modifications, or repowering that would increase energy efficiency or supply
“Existing” Facility Includes
72004 Hunton & Williams
The Rule in a Nutshell:Two Performance Standards
Calculate “baseline” Reduce impingement mortality 80-90% from
baseline Also reduce entrainment 60-90% if
• Capacity utilization 15% (not a peaking unit) and either:
• Withdrawn water from tidal river, estuary, ocean, or Great Lakes or
• Design intake flow withdraws > 5% of mean annual flow of freshwater river or stream
82004 Hunton & Williams
Capacity Utilization Rate
Ratio of average annual net generation (in MWh) and total net capability to generate power (in MW) multiplied by number of hours during year.
If facility has multiple CWIS and each structure serves a separate unit or group of units, CWIS capacity utilization rate may be calculated separately.
92004 Hunton & Williams
Capacity Utilization Rate (cont’d)
Measured over representative 5 year period, unless plant commits to remain below 15%
Only applies to steam units
102004 Hunton & Williams
Five Ways to Comply
1. Cooling water flow “commensurate with a closed-cycle recirculating system”
-- Maximum through-screen design intake velocity of 0.5 ft/s meets impingement mortality standard only
2. Demonstrate that existing intake reduces impingement mortality 80-95% from a “calculation baseline” and, for some plants, reduces entrainment 60-90%
112004 Hunton & Williams
3. Reduce impingement mortality 80-95% and, for some plants, reduce entrainment by 60-90% using
- Design and construction technologies- Operational measures- Restoration, in some cases
4. In freshwater rivers and streams, use cylindrical wedge-wire screens meeting conditions in § 125.99(a)(1)
- Or a technology-approved by the state that can “consistently meet” the performance standards in the state
Five Ways to Comply (cont’d)
122004 Hunton & Williams
Conditions for Wedge-wire Screens
• Freshwater river or stream• Sufficient ambient counter currents to promote
cleaning of screen face• Maximum through-screen design intake velocity
0.5 ft/s• Slot size appropriate for eggs, larvae, and
juveniles at site• Entire main condenser cooling water flow
directed through the screens (except small flows < 2 MGD for auxiliary plant cooling)
132004 Hunton & Williams
5. Site-specific requirements under the cost-cost or cost-benefit test
Five Ways to Comply (cont’d)
142004 Hunton & Williams
Applying the Performance Standards
“Calculation baseline”: Estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment that would occur assuming• Cooling water system designed as once-through• Opening located at the shoreline near the water
surface• 3/8-inch mesh traveling screen parallel to the
shoreline• No controls implemented in whole or in part for the
purpose of reducing impingement mortality and entrainment.
152004 Hunton & Williams
Applying the Performance Standards
EPA intends to allow credit for• Angled screen face to guide organisms away from
intake structure
• Opening place in water column instead of at surface
• Any structural or operational controls used in whole or part to reduce impingement mortality or entrainment
“As built” baseline assessment also allowed.
162004 Hunton & Williams
Special Provisions forLakes and Reservoirs
If you withdraw cooling water from a lake
(other than the Great Lakes) or reservoir,
and you propose to increase the design intake flow,
then, increased flow must not disrupt the “natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern”
unless the disruption does not “adversely affect management of fisheries”
172004 Hunton & Williams
Interpreting thePerformance Standards
Permit writer has significant discretion as to how the performance standards are applied in the permit
• Permit writer may determine that all species must be considered or only representative species
• Permit writer averaging period apparently can be up to a full five-year permit term (see preamble p. 163)
182004 Hunton & Williams
Exceptions for Excessive Costs
Rule offers “cost-cost” test and “cost-benefit” test
If your costs are “significantly greater,” you can get site-specific requirements
192004 Hunton & Williams
Cost-Cost Test
Six-step process prescribed
Determine what technology EPA used for your facility
Use EPA’s costing equation to calculate annualized capital and net operation and maintenance costs for a facility with your design intake flow using the technology chosen by EPA
202004 Hunton & Williams
Cost-Cost Test (cont’d)
Calculate your own costs and show that they are “significantly” greater than the costs estimated by EPA’s method
“Significantly” is not defined
212004 Hunton & Williams
Cost-Benefit Test
Cost of compliance must be “significantly greater than the benefits of complying”
While entrainment survival is not part of performance standard, it may be considered through application of cost-benefit test.
222004 Hunton & Williams
Costs and Benefits
EPA has retreated from some of its worst cost-benefit methods• 50% rule for non-use benefits• Habitat replacement cost analysis of benefits• Societal revealed preference analysis for
threatened and endangered species
232004 Hunton & Williams
Benefits Valuation Study Requirments
Describe methodologyDevelop valuation estimatesDocument assumptionsAnalyze sources of uncertaintyArrange for peer review (consulting
resource agencies about peer reviewers)Describe non-monetized benefits
242004 Hunton & Williams
What Site-Specific Requirements?
The site-specific alternative technology must achieve an efficacy that is• As close as “practicable” to the applicable
performance standards• Without resulting in costs that are
significantly greater than the [EPA costs or the calculated benefits] at your facility
252004 Hunton & Williams
Operational Measures
You may meet the performance standards by “operational measures”• Reductions in cooling water intake flow • Variable speed pumps• Seasonal flow reductions or shutdowns• More frequent rotation of traveling screens
262004 Hunton & Williams
RestorationRestoration can be used only if permittee first shows
that design and construction technologies/operational measures are less feasible, less cost-effective, or less environmentally desirable.
Restoration results must be substantially similar to performance standards or site-specific alternative.
Restoration Plan may focus on species of concern to resources agencies.
272004 Hunton & Williams
Application Requirements
All plants must submit source waterbody physical data, CWIS data, and cooling system data
Plants that neither have nor propose to install closed-cycle cooling will have to perform and submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) (unless plant has design velocity < 0.5 ft./s and is subject only to impingement requirements, in which case no CDS required).
282004 Hunton & Williams
Application Requirements (cont’d)
CDS components depend on specific compliance option chosen. Unless facility plans to show it already meets
performance standards, all CDS start with submission of Proposal for Information Collection to permit writer
292004 Hunton & Williams
Application Requirements (cont’)
Other CDS components may include:• Source waterbody flow information• Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment
Characterization Study• Technology and Compliance Assessment
Information, which may includeo Design and Construction Technology Plan
o Technology Installation and Operation Plan
302004 Hunton & Williams
TIOPThe Technology Installation and Operation Plan
describes how you will install, operate, monitor, and maintain the intake technology and “adaptive management steps” to take if the technology does not perform as expected.
TIOP is crucial, because permittee may request that TIOP compliance = compliance with rule.
If permittee fails to comply with performance standard but meets TIOP, it may request site-specific alternative requirements.
312004 Hunton & Williams
Application Requirements (cont’d)
Restoration Plan (if appropriate) Information to Support Site-specific
Determination of BTA, including• Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study
• Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing (IM&E) (cost-benefit test only)
• Site-specific Technology Plan
Verification Monitoring Plan (including proposal for identifying moribund fish)
322004 Hunton & Williams
When Must You Comply?
Submit the information with the next permit application
If your permit expires < 4 years after publication, you may ask to submit the information up to 3 ½ years after publication of the rule in the Federal Register
332004 Hunton & Williams
Permit Renewals After the First
In permit terms after the first, you may ask that compliance and restoration be based on compliance with the Technology Installation and Operation Plan and Restoration Plan
One year before permit expiration, if you are in compliance with your TIOP and/or performance standards, you may request reduced data requirements for permit renewal.
Permit writer may change requirements at each permit renewal
342004 Hunton & Williams
Cooling Ponds
EPA does not intend to change the regulatory status of cooling ponds
Cooling ponds are “waters of the U.S.” if they meet the definition
352004 Hunton & Williams
State-Approved Alternatives and Reserve State Authority
State may have “functionally equivalent” program• Must produce results “comparable” to EPA’s
performance standards
Permit writer may establish more stringent requirements if EPA’s rule would not meet the requirements of state law or other federal law
362004 Hunton & Williams
Trading
State may adopt trading programs
Must be within the same watershed
May trade fish for fish but not pollutants for fish
372004 Hunton & Williams
Nuclear Safety
If the EPA rule would conflict with an NRC safety requirement, you can have site-specific requirements