eco dive club 2012-02-07

Corporate EH&S SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

SM

Slide 1

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Marine Mitigation Program

Eco Dive CenterFebruary 7, 2012

Kim AnthonySenior Marine Biologist

Corporate Environment Health & SafetySouthern California Edison Company


SM

About Southern California Edison (SCE)• SCE is one of the nation’s

largest electric utilities, serving nearly 14 million people in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California

• SCE’s transmission infrastructure is one of the largest in the U.S.– 12,500 miles of

transmission and sub-transmission circuits

– 104,000 miles of distribution circuits

– 900 substations


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 3

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)


SM

Slide 4

• 1174 MW each unit– Base Load generation for about 2 million customers– Grid stabilization in south O.C. and north S.D.

• Pressurized Water Reactors• Once-through seawater cooling (OTC)

– 1,219 MGD intake flow through velocity caps, 32 ft deep, 3,000 ft offshore

– Discharge through 2,500 ft-long diffusers with upward- and offshore-oriented velocity ports

– T = 20oF (permit allows 25oF)– Fish Return System

SONGS Units 2 and 3


SM

Basis for SONGS Mitigation Program


SM


SM

SONGS Marine Mitigation – Early History• 1968: Units 2 & 3 design and NRC licensing underway

• 1972: Federal and state Clean Water Acts (§316a/b) drive design changes– Velocity cap, FRS and diffuser– Acquired 316a variances from state in 1982, 1996 (heat treatments and

25oF ΔT)

• 1973: Opponents of Units 2 & 3 predict ecological disaster from cooling system– Call for closed cycle cooling (cooling towers)– Cooling towers would add $400 Million

• 1974: New California Coastal Commission holds hearings– Denies permit to construct SONGS Units 2 & 3; SCE sues– Commission reconsiders; issues permit with conditions

o SCE fund independent Marine Review Committee (MRC)o SCE accepted MRC recommendations for mitigating impacts, if any

Slide 7


SM

Marine Review Committee History• Studied over 40 possible areas of impact• Studies during construction (1974-81), startup (1982-83)

and post-operational (1983-89)• Total spend:

Slide 8

$50 Million


SM

$50 Million = How many reports???Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission A. Sand CrabsFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission B. Anomalous

SedimentsFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission C. Fish EntrapmentFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission D. Adult Equivalent

LossFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission E. Metals and

RadiationFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission F. Kelp Forest

InvertebratesFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission G. Mysids

Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission H. MitigationFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission I. Soft Bottom Benthos

Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission J. Kelp Bed FishFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission K. Giant Kelp

Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission L. OceanographyFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission M. Fish Compensation

Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission N. OceanographyFinal Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission O. Water Quality

Interim Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission 4 Plankton1983 mec sand crabs project final report volume 1

1983 mec sand crabs project final report volume 2 appendices1986 an evaluation of alternative technique for mitigating impacts of the san onofre nuclear generating station

1986 songs as a source of metals and concentrations of metals in sand crabs1987 comparison of communities on artificial and natural reefs in southern california with emphasis on fish

assemblages final1987 mec biological project san onofre nuclear generating station monitoring studies on ichthyoplankton and

zooplankton final1987 mec san onofre generating station monitoring studies on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton final report

appendices volume 11987 mec san onofre generating station monitoring studies on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton final report

appendices volume 2 revisions and addenda1987 mec san onofre nuclear generating station monitoring studies on mysids and soft bottom benthos final report

appendices1987 mec san onofre nuclear generating station monitoring studies on mysids and soft bottom benthos final report

1987 the effects of discharges from the songs on the giant kelp background information and the biology of kelp final report

1987 the effects of operations of the san onofre nuclear generating station on fish final report vol 1 of 21987 the effects of operations of the san onofre nuclear generating station on fish final report vol 2 of 2

1987 the effects of the operation of the songs on experimental populations of kelp1987 the effects of the operation of the songs on giant kelp macrocystis pyrifera bankground information and the

biology of kelp1987 volume i summary and conclusion draft final report 1987 physical and chemical oceanography program at

songs1987 volume ii-1 the natural environment near san onofre draft final report 1987 physical and chemical

oceanography program at songs1987 volume ii-2 addendum to synoptic studies of the plume of songs units 2 and 31987 volume ii-2 estimated long-term mean concentration of effluent from songs

1987 volume iii statistical analyses estimated physical changes due to songs1987 volume iv 4 instrumentation draft final report

1988 studies of benthic and epiphytic invertebrates in kelp forests near the songs 1980-1986 final report


SM

Greatest Concern: SONGS Thermal Plume

Slide 10


SM

Marine Review Committee History• 1989 MRC findings of SONGS studies (3 main impacts)

1. Adult fish impingement = 25 tons/yr2. Egg/larvae adult equivalent impact = 600 tons/yr3. Relocated turbid water impacts San Onofre Kelp

Slide 11

“Are you sure this is the maximum radiation dose we can have?”


SM

Satellite View –SONGS Discharge Plume

San Onofre Kelp Forest

Discharge Plume Cloudy plume blocks sunlight

from SOK; suppressing growth and recruitment

Reef Project mitigates the impact to SOK

Diffuser


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 13

Helicopter View: SONGS Discharge Plume and SOK

SOKDischarge Plume

Cloudy plume blocks sunlight from SOK; retarding growth and recruitment

WNR mitigates the impact to SOK


SM

Slide 14

SONGS Seawater Cooling System – Entrainment Impacts

Fish eggs/larvae drawn into plant (100% mortality assumed); live young and adult fish also enter the plant from here

Wetlands Project mitigates fish egg/larvae adult equivalent losses


SM

Slide 15

SONGS Fish Return System(FRS)• Light and sound devices

studied; no significant benefit

• Fish Chase procedure during heat treatments was found beneficial and implemented


SM

Fish Return System


SM

SONGS Seawater Cooling System – Entrainment Impacts


SM

In-Plant Monitoring


SM

Marine Mammal Protection


SM

Coastal Commission Mitigation Requirements• 1997

– Create 150 acres kelp reef habitat and 150 acres tidal wetland– Perform Fish Return System improvement studies– Fund CCC staff oversight and independent compliance monitoring

• $15 Million since 1991– Fund Hubbs-SeaWorld white sea bass hatchery in Carlsbad - $4.8

Million– CCC cost estimate for reef and wetlands - $114 Million

• 2011– 2011 SCE projected total nominal cost: $172 Million

• $60-87 million NPV based on 2011 projected spend schedule; 2013-15 completion

– 2009 cooling tower feasibility study: $1.7 Billion construction plus $1.3 Billion lost generation

•

2015 and Beyond – significant O&M costs for monitoring ($1.98 Million/yr)


SM

22

9

11

108 5

4

63

12

15

1213

14

16

17

7a7

Phase 1 reef• 22.4 acres constructed• 56 modules, 40m x 40m• Half rock, half concrete rubble• Three different densities• Rock and concrete performed

equally well at all densities

Phase 2 reef

• Nom 127.6 additional acres• Eleven new areas (polygons) plus

contingencies• Avoid existing kelp persistence• Avoid Phase 1 modules• Avoid existing hard bottom• Use only quarry rock

174 total acres constructed


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 23

Phase 1 and 2 Construction – Derrick barge and construction


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 24

Phase 1 Reef Canopy from Satellite

Wheeler North Reef Phase 1

San Mateo Reef


SM

25

Phase 1 Reef Canopy


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 26


SM

05/03/2023 Slide 27

Polygon No. 4


SM

28

Total substrate deposition: 174 acres

(250 football fields)


SM

29


SM


SM

Wheeler North Reef - Next Steps• Coastal Commission independent semi-annual

monitoring– Giant Kelp density– Understory algae abundance, diversity– Fish abundance, diversity, production– Invertebrate abundance, diversity

• Year 2 (2010) reef met 10 of 14 performance standards• Also monitor 2 reference reefs for comparison (Barn,

San Mateo)• If WNR performs as required after 5 years, reduce

monitoring frequency• Compliance period = SONGS operating life

– $51.4 Million total projected cost


SM

Reef Performance Standards – Status as of 20111. Hard rock substrate2. Resident fish (density)3. Resident fish (no. species)4. Young-of-Year fish (density)5. Young-of-Year fish (no. species)6. Fish Reproduction7. Fish Production8. Benthic food chain support for fish9. Reef function (invasive species)10. Giant kelp11. Benthic community (% cover)12. Benthic community (density)13. Benthic community (no. species)14. Fish standing stock

Slide 32


SM

UCSB SONGS Mitigation Monitoring Websitehttp://marinemitigation.msi.ucsb.edu/


SM

White Seabass Hatchery -16.2 Source: DFG 2001-2010 California Commercial LandingsSONGS Adult Fish Loss 202.7 Source: DFG 2001-2010 California Commercial LandingsSONGS Adult Equiv. Fish Loss 600 Source: MRC Final Monitoring Reports, 1983-95Sea World Fish Food 661.8 Source: HSWRI 2011Live Bait (Santa Barbara- San Diego) 34744.62 Source: NPDES Monitoring Reports, 2001-2010Santa Barbara- San Diego Commercial Catch 71505.64 Source: Karen Terra, Hubbs SeaWorld, 2011

2011


SM

Slide 35

San Dieguito Wetlands Restoration Project

Goals and Objectives Summary

• Mitigate loss of adult fish, fish eggs and larvae caused by SONGS– 150 acres new wetland; enhance existing wetland

• Wetlands to be largely self-maintaining, in-perpetuity• Project will maximize overall ecosystem benefits, local

ecosystem diversity• Project plan must reflect regional wetland restoration goals


SM

Slide 36

San Dieguito Wetlands Project Area


SM

Slide 37

Early Conceptual Design


SM

Slide 38


SM

Slide 39

San Dieguito Wetlands Restoration

• Mitigate for adult and adult-equivalent fish loss from SONGS egg/larval mortality

• 160 acres tidal wetlands, trails• Endowment to maintain in perpetuity


SM

Slide 40

SCE Restoration Project – Year 1 (2007)

Inlet


SM

Slide 41

SCE Restoration Project – Year 4 (2010)


SM

Slide 42


SM

43


SM

Slide 44


SM

Slide 45

Completed tidal basin W1 - 2011


SM

Slide 46

Eelgrass in airfield (W1) basin (972 sq. meters)

Gobies in airfield (W1) basin


SM

Slide 47


SM

Slide 48

Basins east of I-5 before (2006)


SM

Slide 49


SM

Slide 50

Basins east of I-5 after (2009)


SM

Slide 51



SM

Slide 52



SM

Slide 53


SM

Slide 54


SM

Slide 55


SM

Slide 56


SM

Slide 57


SM

Slide 5811-07-2011


SM

Slide 591-09-2012

eco dive club 2012-02-07

Documents