 |
Alcoa Power Generating Appeal Summary
Key Points
Summary of the Emails Highlighted in the DWQ’s Revocation Letter
Collective Knowledge
Key Points
- Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) has appealed the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s (DWQ) revocation of APGI’s water quality certification (401). We have documentation showing that DWQ was well informed about the equipment in question and its functionality in increasing levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water and that APGI did not withhold important information.
- In the letter revoking the 401, DWQ selectively quotes parts of emails (not the entire messages), taking the quotations out of context. These emails were initially used in the 401 appeal by an attorney whose client is opposing APGI’s effort to relicense the Yadkin Project (Project).
- The questions raised in these emails were not shared with the DWQ at the time they were sent because, at the time, they were irrelevant to DWQ’s decision. In addition, these emails reflect methodical steps toward an overall goal of meeting water quality standards. They were often conversational and represented efforts to respond to internal questions about technical issues, and therefore reflected confusion or misunderstandings on the part of the email’s author regarding processes, terminology, and status. For example, there was confusion on how frequently the draft tube system needs to operate. In another instance, the author was talking about the Falls dam and not the Narrows dam. In each of the emails, the individuals who wrote these messages were confused at the time, and the points of confusion were cleared up in subsequent emails and apologies were provided (“This is news to me,” “Sorry for the confusion,” and “I must confess I got confused.”). APGI is prepared to review the email record in context and in detail during the appeal.
- The topics covered in these emails were all covered in public discussions and documentation. The record shows that the DWQ was aware that operating conditions and generating levels could affect dissolved oxygen enhancement, participated in multiple discussions over a period of years on the same subject, and was in possession of detailed reports on the effects various operating scenarios had on dissolved oxygen levels.
- As APGI will document as part of its appeal of the revocation, company officials and others discussed the effect of operating conditions and generating levels on dissolved oxygen enhancement with the state during at least three Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meetings attended by DWQ representatives on October 7, 2003, May 4, 2004 and April 6, 2005. This group, which met regularly, was made up of technical and non-technical stakeholders with an interest in topics ultimately addressed in the Relicensing Settlement Agreement. The information was also included in APGI’s 2006 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower Licenses issued by FERC in 2008, and in multiple Yadkin Water Quality reports.
- In addition to the ongoing discussions, by the time the 401 certification was issued in 2009, there was ample evidence – based on monitoring data reflecting the success of the DO enhancement technologies that had been installed and was being operated for certain Narrows turbine units – that the technologies would work as planned to achieve compliance with Clean Water Act Water Quality standards. The monitoring data supported APGI’s description of DO enhancement technology and was consistent with DWQ’s understanding of that technology, based not just on what APGI had told DWQ, but also on what DWQ personnel knew and understood from public discussions and information and other similar sites where the technology is used.
- The equipment APGI has installed to date shows great promise. Narrows tailwaters met the state instantaneous dissolved oxygen standard 93.4% of the time in 2010—a 34% increase over 2007 levels. Falls tailwaters met a state standard for dissolved oxygen levels 99.9% of the time in 2010.
Summary of the Emails Highlighted in the DWQ’s Revocation Letter
First email – Gene Ellis to Dave Parenti, June 2, 2006 re: Narrows Draft Tube Valves – DO EnhancementGene Ellis was the non-engineer relicensing manager; Dave Parenti oversaw installation and initial operation of DO enhancement equipment.
Portion Quoted by Revocation Letter
|
Misunderstanding/Context
|
“The draft tube does not work when the unit is operated less than 20MW and the unit operates below that regularly. The state does not know that, but in the future compliance world (and possibly our present world), the expectation will be (is) that if the unit operates, DO enhancement is occurring.”
|
- Ellis did not fully understand how the two DO enhancement systems worked at various power generating levels.
- DO enhancement systems operate and aerate when the unit is running as explained in the 2005 Normandeau Water Quality Report and discussed with the DWQ at the Issue Advisory Group meeting in April 2005. (Normandeau Associates is a highly regarded independent environmental consulting firm with particular water and fisheries expertise.)
- The DO enhancement systems, including both draft tube and vacuum breaker aeration, operate and aerate when Unit 4 is running. The vacuum breaker aerates at lower flows, and when the level and flow increases, aeration transitions from the vacuum breaker to the draft tube.
|
Second email – Gene Ellis to Paul Shiers, November 15, 2006 re: RSA – WQ Section
Paul Shiers was an outside engineering consultant to the relicensing process who periodically reviewed technical issues, but was not part of the “front line” in the relicensing process, either in terms of negotiating with DWQ or other stakeholders, or in terms of planning or performing technical work on DO enhancement (which work was done by Voith Siemens).
Portion Quoted by Revocation Letter
|
Misunderstanding/Context
|
“If we even begin to suggest to DWQ that the enhancements proposed by APGI for Narrows and High Rock may not allow those tailwaters to meet state standards, DWQ cannot issue us a 401. APGI must stand by its conviction that what it has planned at HR and Narrows will allow those tailwaters to meet standards. If it turns out that those tailwaters do not meet state standards, then it might be time to talk to DWQ about next steps at that time, and if necessary to seek an amendment to the 401 conditions or schedule.”
|
- This is Ellis’ response to Shiers’ questions regarding the status of the DO discussions.
- This and later follow-up emails contained Ellis’ corrections to Shiers, who was raising questions without knowing the current status of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement negotiations.
- Shiers was concerned about Tuckertown and Falls, not Narrows. In response, Ellis brought Shiers up to speed about the Tuckertown deadline: “[c]ompleting DO enhancements at Tuckertown by 2016, if needed, was key to getting agreement from DWQ on the extended schedule.” Ellis closed out the issue with further explanation “Parenti said he can work with this [2016 deadline]. The risk associated with this commitment is understood, but without this commitment DWQ will not issue a 401.” Ellis was telling Shiers that APGI had understood the chance of not being able to meet schedules, but had accepted the risk, given its importance to DWQ.
- Ellis also brought Shiers up to speed as to the status of the negotiations and the RSA DO agreement: “This is the same Narrows/Falls schedule approved internally and that we have been discussing with DWQ for quite some time… As noted earlier, the commitment to complete TT DO enhancements by 2016 was required in order to get DWQ sign-off on the schedule. 2016 was DWQ’s bottom line for Tuckertown.”
- Not quoted in the revocation was Shiers’ apology for his confusion later in the email string: “This is news to me. Sorry for the confusion.”
- This email chain led to a meeting with Voith, the contractor responsible for the design and installation of the DO technology. Following the meeting, additional investigation and monitoring were conducted, which demonstrated that the internal program tracking DO enhancement was working as it should have.
|
Portion Quoted by Revocation Letter
|
Misunderstanding/Context
|
“It is possible, even after all of the aeration technology has been installed per the RSA that DO concentrations in the tailwaters may fall below NC DO standards during periods of non-operation. In this case, it is possible that NCDWQ may eventually require APGI to take steps to ensure that DO standards are met at all times.”
|
- The quoted language was from a draft report which was being forwarded for team discussion. The draft report was prepared by an outside consultant working with Voith Hydro, and was based on Voith Hydro data. Voith Hydro was the lead outside consultant on DO enhancement technology, and is one of the world’s leading experts in this area.
- This draft report repeated what DWQ and others understood: DO enhancement occurred only when water was flowing through the units. Maintaining DO levels during periods of non-operation was not assumed to be a requirement of the 401. It was well understood by DWQ and others that DO enhancement occurs only when water flows through the turbines and they are generating power, so that the enhancement technology can work.
- Elsewhere in this draft report, Voith confirmed that the Narrows Unit 4 draft tube system worked well in the intended operating range.
- In addition, Normandeau determined that the vacuum breaker system provides aeration in much of the range below 20 MW.
|
Portion Quoted by Revocation Letter
|
Misunderstanding/Context
|
“A good estimate would be about 35-40% of the time one unit is at 40% gate or less.”
|
- The revocation labels the email as coming from Wendy Bley, but it’s actually from APGI employee, Alan Jones.
- The quoted sentence does not make clear what the issue is, but gives the mistaken impression that the DO enhancement technology was operating such that there was inadequate DO enhancement 35-40% of the time. That impression is simply untrue. The DO enhancement at Narrows Unit 4 was and is working whenever the unit is operating.
- The quoted response was in answer to a broad question. Three days after the quoted exchange on this question – and within the same chain – Ellis follows up with Jones, and asks the appropriate, clarifying question: “During the 35-40% of the time we are at 40% gate or less, is the load typically at that 1-2 MW level? Jones responded “Yes, very close.” The significance of that, of course, is that Ellis was made aware through that answer that significant DO enhancement was actually occurring most of the time at those lower power levels, contrary to the implication created by the Revocation’s omission of the later clarification.
|
Portion Quoted by Revocation Letter
|
Misunderstanding/Context
|
“I just pulled out and studied the RSA language again. Technically, the RSA doesn’t actually say that the aeration must be “on” whenever the unit is operating. And since Unit 4 was completed before the RSA, technically it doesn’t say anything specific about the operation of Unit 4. Soooooo, technically, I think operating Unit 4 below 40% gate without aeration on is OK from a strict compliance perspective. However, I’m certain that NCDWQ would have a problem if they knew. And despite the final wording on the RSA, we know that the intent was that aeration would be “on” whenever the units were operating. Will DWQ ever notice? Possibly. It may be that the result of not having aeration on during these low gate periods will show up in the DO monitoring data (ie, the DOs may drop when flows through project are very low). On the other hand, as I recall, Shirley/PB investigated this low flow business before, and determined that there is a lot of “natural” aspiration through Unit 4 when it is run at a very low gate setting, which resulted in some increase in DO. Will it be enough to “hide” the fact that aeration valves are not on? Who knows.”
|
- In some instances, Bley was confused about the aeration systems. For example, in a later email, she expressed confusion about the terminology being used to describe the aeration systems. “As I was looking over the materials again, I must confess I got confused.”
- In focusing on this quotation, DWQ misinterpreted Bley's use of the word "hide." Bley was pondering whether the "natural aspiration," (i.e. DO enhancement other than via the added draft tube technology) which could have been the result of the vacuum breaker aeration or some other process, would add DO and "offset" (not hide) the lack of draft tube operation at low flows. Her use of quotation marks was a shorthand indication to make it clear that she did not use the word "hide" to mean "deliberately conceal," but was instead at a loss for the appropriate word.
- The subjects of this email regarding the operation levels of Unit 4 – and specifically the benefits of vacuum breaker aeration at lower levels – are covered in the 2005 Normandeau Water Quality Report. This report was discussed during the April 2005 Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting that the DWQ attended.
- The operation of the units was also discussed at the October 2003 and May 2004 issue group meetings attended by representatives of the DWQ.
- Data collected in the Narrows tailrace in 2008 and 2009 confirmed that the DO enhancement technology installed at Narrows Units 1, 2 and 4 was working effectively to increase DO in the tailrace at both low and high operating levels.
|
Collective Knowledge
DWQ and other stakeholders were repeatedly informed that retrofitting the existing equipment meant that there would be challenges and ongoing changes made in order to meet DO standards. All parties were informed about the process and how it functioned. Some examples include:
Representatives of the DWQ participated in the meetings of Water Quality Issue Advisory Group. This was a formal group of technical and non-technical stakeholders with an interest in topics ultimately addressed in the Relicensing Settlement Agreement. The group met regularly, and meeting summaries were prepared and circulated to participants in draft for comment and correction before being finalized and re-circulated to participants in final form. Representatives of DWQ participated in the following meetings of the Water Quality Issue Advisory Group, among others:
- October 7, 2003 Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting
- Representatives of DWQ participated in a Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting on October 7, 2003. In this meeting, the discussion involved testing and data collection by Normandeau, which had collected continuous DO and temperature data and Narrows and Falls tailraces from 2000-2003. The notes of the meeting include a summary of discussions about the connection between the operation of the units and DO enhancement, which meant that DWQ was (or at least should have been) well aware of that data and the general issue of the connection between operating levels and DO enhancement.
- May 4, 2004 Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting
- Representatives of DWQ participated in a Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting on May 4, 2004, where there was discussion of the anticipated structure of the dissolved oxygen enhancement and compliance provisions to be included in the 401 certification. At this meeting, typical operating scenarios at the Narrows development were discussed, as well as the process of how dissolved oxygen increases as the units are operated. The notes from the meeting show that DWQ representatives were actively involved in this discussion.
- April 6, 2005 Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting
- Representatives of DWQ participated in a Water Quality Issue Advisory Group meeting on April 6, 2005, where they discussed the effect of Project operation on DO enhancement. At this meeting, Normandeau made a presentation highlighting the effects of Project operations and generating levels on tailwater quality, including levels of DO, as well as data on operations at 4, 5, and 8 MWs of power generation, in addition to 20+ MW. The results of this study are found in the Normandeau Water Quality Report 2005. Other conclusions and observations from that report were also discussed at this meeting.
The DWQ also was aware of these challenges and the need to make ongoing changes and adjustments to the DO enhancement system in order to meet water quality standards, based on the following documentation:
- Normandeau Report 2001
- This report was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and reviewed by Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Wildlife Resources Commission personnel. A key aspect of the report directly addressed the question of whether, and how, operational conditions affected DO enhancement. Gate opening conditions – one of the central and recurring points of the emails cited in the Revocation Letter – was an important component considered in this report. Tests showed that DO was not being enhanced when Unit 4 was not running, but that there was substantial DO improvements when Unit 4’s draft tube valves were opened and operational.
- Normandeau Report 2005
- The 2005 Yadkin Water Quality Final Study prepared by Normandeau Associates discussed the effect of the operational conditions. DWQ received and commented on the draft water quality report – even making observations about the operating test conditions and what the results might mean in terms of the necessity for additional testing. This report covers many of the points discussed in the emails cited in the Revocation Letter , including the various levels of operations (e.g., benefits for vacuum breaker aeration at lower levels of generation/flow) and that the units do not and are not designed to operate in the transitional range in which the least DO enhancement relative to flow occurs.
- April 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Yadkin Project
- The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Yadkin Project issued in April 2008 by FERC reviews how operating conditions and generating levels effect dissolved oxygen enhancement. In it, FERC’s hydropower experts review the results of the enhancement test and drew significant conclusions, such as “tests indicate that this aeration system [at Unit 4] increases DO concentrations by differing magnitudes, depending on the generation flows of each of the Narrows units and whether the two valves are open.” Those FERC experts found that the DO enhancement technology to be used at the Project will “meet the DO criteria in a reasonable period and avoid ineffective and/or unnecessary enhancements.”
- April 2006 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License Application
- In this application, APGI’s disclosures about operating conditions and generating levels as a determinant of DO enhancement were explicit: “As part of the Water Quality Monitoring Study, APGI conducted a more detailed examination of dissolved oxygen conditions in the Project tailwaters… The primary focus of this investigation was the potential for the Narrows Unit 4 draft tube values (2) to increase dissolved oxygen in the flow passing through the unit during generation.”
“The 2004 test of the effect of the two draft tubes valves on Unit 4 generally confirmed earlier results in 2001 that with both valves operating and just Unit 4 operating, about 2 mg/l of dissolved oxygen was added to the tailwaters. The test also led to the conclusion that operation of Unit 4 and a combination of Units 1, 2, and 3 operating at either best efficiency or at 30 percent gate will not maintain the Narrows tailwater at or above the state water quality standards; however, similar air valves on all four Narrows units would likely maintain tailwater dissolved oxygen at or above 5 mg/l when the units are running.”
- APGI 401 Application Comment Letter to DWQ February 2009
- One of the final pre-401 submissions to DWQ was a letter to the DWQ from APGI a few months before the 401 Certification was issued. This letter contained significant information confirming the efficacy of the DO enhancement technology installed at Narrows, Units 2 and 4. The data in this letter showed that for the operation of Unit 4 during May – November 2007, the DO instantaneous standard was met or exceeded 88.2% of the time (using 15 minute data). It also showed that for the operation of Units 2 and 4 during May – November 2008, that the DO instantaneous standard was met or exceeded 95% of the time (using 15 minute data).
- 401 conditions
- Perhaps the most compelling evidence that DWQ shared in the collective knowledge base regarding the challenges and the need to make ongoing changes and adjustments to the DO enhancement system in order to meet water quality standards, is the actual 401 certification and its DO compliance schedule and conditions. These Conditions were carefully crafted by DWQ to ensure that the DO levels would be met or exceeded, without having to rely solely on any specific installation or technology, which further confirms DWQ’s awareness of limitations to definitively predict precisely how effective any one installation would be under all conditions. Instead, the 401 Certification was written with multiple levels of protections involving years of testing and additional rounds of potential further requirements that DWQ could impose under the 401 Certification as written.
There was actual experience to show how the technologies worked:
- By the time the 401 certification was issued in 2009 (May), there was ample evidence – based on the installation and operation of the DO enhancement technologies in certain Narrows turbine units – that the technologies would work as planned to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act Water Quality standards.
DWQ employees also had additional knowledge of the technologies and their limitations beyond the scope of these discussions and the APGI application process.
|
|
|
