L-2011-109, Environmental Protection Plan Report 316(b) Related Documentation

From kanterella
(Redirected from L-2011-109)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Environmental Protection Plan Report 316(b) Related Documentation
ML110871256
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/18/2011
From: Katzman E
Florida Power & Light Co
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
EPP 3.2.2, L-2011-109
Download: ML110871256 (42)
v • d • e


Text

Florida Power & Light Company, 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 0FPL March 18, 2011 L-2011-109 10 CFR 50.4 EPP 3.2.2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re: St. Lucie Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 Environmental Protection Plan Report 316(b) Related Documentation Pursuant to section 3.2.2 of the St. Lucie Environmental Protection Plan, FPL is forwarding the attached copy of 316(b) related documentation. The matter pertains to the proposed St.

Lucie Ambient Monitoring Report Feasibility Study required by the revised St. Lucie Plant Industrial Wastewater Facility (IWWF) Permit No. FL0002208 and Condition 14 of the Administrative Order (AO) AO022TL.

Please contact Vince Munne at (772) 467-7453 if there are any questions on this matter.

Sincerely, Eric S. Katzman Licensing Manager St. Lucie Plant ESK/KWF Attachments

1. Transmittal Letter to FDEP
2. Ambient Monitoring Report Feasibility Study an FPL Group company

St. Lucie Units I and 2 L-2011-109 Attachment I Page I of 3 Transmittal Letter to FDEP

St. Lucie Units I and 2 L-2011-109 Attachment I Page 2 of 3 Florida Power &LightCompany, 6501S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL34957 WOO IFPL March 18, 2011 Marc Harris, P.E.

Supervisor, Power Plant NPDES Permitting Industrial Wastewater Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3545 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 RE: St. Lucie Plant - State lWWF Permit No. FL0002208 Response to Administrative Order AO22TL

Dear Mr. Harris:

Please find four (4) enclosed copies of FPL's Ambient Monitoring Report Feasibility Study (AMR) as required by the revised St. Lucie Plant Industrial Wastewater Facility (IWWF) Permit No. FL0002208 and Condition 14 of Administrative Order, AO022TL (AO).

FPL and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Industrial Waste Water Section (FDEP) met on January 26, and February 10, 2011 to discuss the basis for the FDEP requirement for FPL to undertake the AMR. Based upon the outcome of those meetings, along with the inherent challenges and costs that would be associated with installation and maintenance of permanent ambient temperature monitors and, subject to the FDEP's approval, FPL is proposing the following in lieu of establishing permanent fixed temperature monitors in the Atlantic Ocean:

I) FPL will incorporate into its Heated Water Plan of Study a further evaluation of ambient ocean temperatures in order to assess the compliance of the plant's heated water plume with state water quality standards for open ocean and coastal areas (if, in fact the heated water plume impacts these areas) as well as the extent of recirculation between the plant's discharge and intake that might occur.

2) As a result of the evaluation of available historical information for the plant and other relevant 0

locations, FPL agrees with the FDEP that it is appropriate to use an 87 F average ambient temperature for the modeling of mixing zones and thermal impacts associated with the St. Lucie Plant heated water discharge.

an FPLGroup company

St. Lucie Units I and 2 L-2011-109 Attachment I Page 3 of 3

3) As agreed to by the FDEP, the location for determining the delta-T across the plant is not part of this evaluation and shall remain at the current location (INT-1, plant intake structure within the intake canal).

Please contact Ron Hix at (561) 691-7641 if you need additional information on this matter.

Sincerely, Richard L. Anderson Site Vice President St. Lucie Plant LIC-PSL-2011-018 Enclosures cc: FDEP - SE District - Linda Brien, FDEP - PSL Office - Terry Davis FDEP - Tallahassee - Siting Office - Mike Halpin

St. Lucie Units I and 2 L-2011-109 Attachment 2 Florida Power & Light St. Lucie Plant Ambient Monitoring Report Feasibility Study

AMBIENT MONITORING REPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY Ambient Water Temperature Monitoring System Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Submitted To: Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.

6026 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 USA CSA International Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, FL 34997 USA Distribution: Florida Power & Light Company - 5 copies Golder Associates Inc. - 2 copies CSA International Inc. - 2 copies March 2011 103-87735 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks o' Golder Associates Corporation MRiAsociates

March 2011 i 103-87735 Table of Contents 1 .0 INT R O D UC T ION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Location Identification and Evaluation ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Thermometer Arrays ........................................................................................................... 5 3.0 ANALYSIS MATRIX DESCRIPTION AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................ 6 3.1 W eighted Trade Matrix Tool Functional Description .............................................................. 6 3.2 Terminology and Conventions ................................................................................................. 6 4.0 AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM CONCEPT ............................... 7 4.1 Buoy and Mooring System Design .......................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Site or Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Evaluation of Potential Buoy Types .................................................................................. 8 4.1.2.1 Catamaran Buoy .......................................................................................................... 8 4 .1 .2 .2 Dis k B u o y .......................................................................... ................................................... 9 4 .1 .2 .3 C a n B u o y ............................................................................................................................ 10 4 .1 .2 .4 S p a r B uo y ........................................................................................................................... 10 4 .1 .2 .5 T a u t B u o y ........................................................................................................................... 11 4 .1 .2 .6 G uye d T owe r ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2.7 Buoyant Tower ............................................................................................... ..... 13 4.1.3 Buoy Design Trade Matrix ................................................................................................. 14 4.1.4 Buoy/Mooring-Modeling Analysis ...................................................................................... 14 4.1.5 Buoy/Mooring Design Relative to Temperature Sensor Array Requirements .................. 14 4.1.6 Buoy and Mooring Design Results ................................................................................... 15 4.1.7 Mooring Design Trade Matrix ................................................................................................ 15 4.1.8 Survival Condition Approach Matrix ................................................................................. 15 4.1.9 Buoy/Mooring Evaluation Results ........................................ 16 4.2 Commercial Subsea Temperatures Sensor Selection .......................................................... 16 4.2.1 Subsea Temperatures Sensor Recommendation ........................................................... 17 4 .2 .2 D ata T ra nsm issio n ................................................................................................................. 17 4.3 GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE .......................................................................................... 18 5.0 OVERALL EVALUATION RESULTS ........................................................................................ 19 6.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................... 20 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 21 ISOsGolder y:Xprojects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study~final\st-luciejfeasibility-study.docx Aisociates

March 2011 103-87735 List of Tables Table 1 Buoy Design Trade Matrix Table 2 Mooring System Trade Matrix Table 3 Survival Condition Trade Matrix Table 4 Temperature Sensor Specifications Table 5 Commercial Subsea Temperature Sensor Trade Matrix Table 6 Data Transmission Trade Matrix List of Figur es Figure 1 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and Thermal Discharge Plume Figure 2 Proposed Ambient Monitoring Station Location Figure 3 Implementation Schedule Golder y:\projectsX2O1 ON103-87735 tpl st lucie thermaIlfeasibility studyAfinalkst-lucieifeasibility-study.docx ~Associates

March 2011 1 103-87735

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie Plant) [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL 0002208] is located on a 1,132-acre site on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The plant consists of two nuclear-fueled electric-generating units. Unit 1 received an operating license in March 1976 and Unit 2 during April 1983. The St. Lucie Plant is located .on the widest section of Hutchinson Island. The island is separated from the mainland on its western side by the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) and borders the Atlantic Ocean on the east (Figure 1).

The source of once-through cooling water for the St. Lucie Plant is the Atlantic Ocean. At the location of the St. Lucie Plant on Hutchinson Island, the edge of the continental shelf extends approximately 21 miles offshore. Hutchinson Island is a barrier island that extends 22.5 miles between inlets (Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets) and attains a maximum width of 1.2 miles at the St. Lucie Plant site. Near shore, in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant, mean water depths typically range from 23 to 32 feet (ft) [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart, 11472]. There is an offshore shoal, Pierce Shoal, approximately 2-3 miles offshore.

The St. Lucie Plant discharges its once-through cooling water back to the Atlantic Ocean via two discharge pipes. One discharge pipe is outfitted with a Y-port diffuser, and the second with a multi-port diffuser.

The St. Lucie Plant is undergoing an extended power uprate (EPU) to increase its power generation capacity from 2,700 megawatts (MW) to 3,020 MW. To accommodate this uprate, a request was submitted by FPL to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to change the St. Lucie Station's heated water discharge limitations via a request for modification of the industrial wastewater facility (IWWF)/NPDES permit. On December 23, 2010, this request was approved by the FDEP contingent upon the implementation of additional monitoring requirements. In conjunction with its approval of the facility's IWWF permit, the FDEP issued Administrative Order AO022TL. Conditions 14 and 15 of this Administrative Order set forth requirements for a feasibility study (Ambient Monitoring

.Report):

Condition 14. No later than 90 days after the effective date of this Order, the Permittee shall prepare and submit for the Department's review and approval a feasibility study report (Ambient Monitoring Report) for 1) the identification and evaluation of potential locations in the Atlantic Ocean that are near the Facility's ocean intake structure and meet the requirements of Rule 62-302.520(3)(a), F.A.C., for permanently siting remote thermometers; and 2) the evaluation of commercially available remote thermometers. Each option, which shall consist of a location and a thermometer, shall be ranked based on equal weighting of technical and economic feasibility.

The results of the ranking shall be presented in the Ambient Monitoring Report. In addition, the Ambient Monitoring Report shall include a plan and schedule for implementing the highest ranked option. The schedule shall include milestones and the completion date. The implementation shall take no longer than 18 months from the effective date of this Order.

yAprojects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx G A ssociates

March 2011 2 103-87735 Condition 15. No later than 30 days after installing the new thermometer(s), the Permittee shall provide a certification to the Department, signed and sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer, that the thermometer(s) have been properly installed and calibrated.

Ambient temperature is defined in Rule 62-302.520(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) as "the existing temperature of the receiving water at a location which is unaffected by manmade thermal discharges and a location which is also of a depth and exposure to the winds and currents which typify the most environmentally stable portions of the Receiving Body of Water (RBW)."

IM Golder yAprojects\201 O\103-87735 fplst lucie thermalkfeasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx ~Associates

March 2011 3 103-87735 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES This Feasibility Study Report (Ambient Monitoring Report) includes two evaluations:

" The identification and evaluation of potential locations in the Atlantic ocean that are near the St. Lucie Plant's ocean intakes structures, and meet the requirements of the Rule 62-302.520(3)(a), F.A.C., for permanently siting remote thermometers

  • The evaluation of commercially available remote thermometer arrays The following sections outline this evaluation process and ranking. While this evaluation focuses on the establishment of permanent ambient monitoring thermometers, as required by the Administrative Order (AO), it should be noted that other more cost-effective methods for determining ambient temperatures for the facility could be employed.

2.1 Location Identification and Evaluation The St. Lucie Plant IWWF permit restricts the discharge of heated water by both an absolute maximum temperature and a difference from the ambient temperature of the RBW (T). Historically the ambient temperature has been determined at the Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) for the St. Lucie Plant.

Establishing an ambient temperature monitoring station(s) for a high-energy, dynamic and heterogenous water body presents inherent and potentially costly challenges. The monitoring station(s) will be under a constant threat of damage due to high surf from storms, hurricanes or other adverse weather conditions.

Moreover, the environment is conducive to corrosion and the threat of vandalism is real.

Further, even an uninterrupted coastline would be expected to demonstrate some degree of spatial thermal variation. In the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant, this natural heterogeneity is exacerbated by two man-made inlets within 12 miles of the Plant. Approximately 22 miles apart, at each end of Hutchinson Island.are the Ft. Pierce, to the north, and St. Lucie, to the south, inlets. These inletsconnect the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian River Lagoon, a shallow estuarine system. Water that enters the estuary on incoming tides is subject to natural heating and cooling before flowing back to the Atlantic Ocean on the out-going tide. This process generally results in the water being heated, though under certain conditions cooling may occur. As a result, high volumes of generally warmer water flow into the Atlantic Ocean with each tidal cycle, contributing to the local thermal variability in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.

If the St. Lucie Plant's thermal discharge was unlikely to impact the temperature at the intakes (velocity caps), the most appropriate location for the ambient monitoring station(s) would be at the intake structure, however, one of the overall objectives of the new monitoring requirements is to evaluate whether and to what extent the heated water discharge raises the temperature of the cooling water entering the St. Lucie Golder yAprojects\201 O\103-87735 fplst ucie thermalfeasibility study\final~st-lucie-feasibility-study~docxs A sociates

March 2011 4 103-87735 Plant. This is being addressed in a separate report, the Heated Water Study. Therefore, an ambient monitoring station(s) would need to provide an independent measure of the ambient temperature near the intake, but not at the intake. The ambient monitoring station(s) should be outside the influence of both the intake and the St. Lucie Plant's thermal discharge.

Based on the thermal plume modeling conducted by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) for the permit application, the thermal plume can move north or south along the coast or offshore under different wind and current conditions. The influence of the thermal plume can extend out from the discharge up to about 5 miles. Therefore, there is no single location in the vicinity of the intakes that can be confidently considered outside the potential range of the discharge plume. The modeling, however, also shows that outside a small area around the discharges the thermal plume is generally confined to the upper 5 to 10 feet (ft) of the water column. The cooling water intake is near mid-depth at 12 to 18 ft below the surface. Therefore, the means of escaping the potential horizontal influence of the thermal plume, for a single monitoring station, is not to solely increase the distance from the discharges, but to take advantage of the buoyant properties of the plume and locate multiple thermal sensors in a vertical array. This station would be located at a distance and depth beyond the potential immediate influence of the plume, but close enough to the intakes to be representative of the RBW.

The establishment of a permanent Ambient Monitoring station and instruments (thermometers) should address the following considerations:

1. The monitoring station must be seaward of the most seaward 18-ft depth contour determined from Coast and Geodetic Survey in order to be in "open waters" as defined by 62-302.520(3)(f).
2. The intake structure is located in 24 ft of water. Therefore, the ambient monitoring station should be located in water at least 30-ft deep, so that the lowest thermometer can be mounted above the anchor structure at a depth about equal to the water depth at the intake (24 ft).
3. The monitoring station should be outside the influence of the intake structure. Based on the quantity of water withdrawn, Golder recommends at least 500 ft between the monitoring station and the nearest intake structure.
4. To minimize potential influence of the discharge plume and simultaneously minimize the distance from the intake structure, the ambient monitoring station should be located southeast of the intake structure
5. Six thermometers would be installed at the ambient monitoring station at the following depths:

0 2 ft below the surface (surface temperature) 0 7 ft below the surface (top of the intake structure) 0 12 ft below the surface (static depth equivalent to the top of the intake opening) y:\projects\201 O\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermalkfeasibility study\final\st lucie-feasibility-study.docx A ssociates

March 2011 5 103-87735 E 15 ft below the surface (static depth equivalent to the middle of the intake opening)

  • 18 ft below the surface (static depth equivalent to the bottom of the intake opening)
  • 24 ft below the surface (static depth equivalent to the approximate depth at the intake structures)

With this vertical array of instruments, if the thermal plume reaches the monitoring station, the vertical extent of the plume can be established and the appropriate ambient temperature can be determined. The proposed location for an ambient monitoring station is presented in Figure 2.

2.2 Thermometer Arrays The objective of this task is to study and present the technical and cost feasibility of designing, building, installing, and maintaining a system to provide real-time monitoring of ambient temperatures in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant in approximately 30 ft of water.

It is proposed that the monitoring station will consist of six temperature sensors mounted in the water column in a vertical array.

This feasibility study addresses aspects of the system design to determine the most cost-effective and reliable subsystems of the ambient temperature monitoring station. To determine which option is most suitable for this application, a "Weighted Trade Matrix Tool" was used; this is described in Section 3. The ambient temperature monitoring station consists of the following subsystems:

  • Buoy and mooring design system
  • Temperature sensors

" Temperature sensors logging and control computer

" Temperature sensors data transmission system/device (radio frequency [RF], satellite, etc.)

  • User Base Station Configuration and Graphical User Interface (GUI) options Each of these subsystems is described in Section 4 of this report.

To determine which option is most suitable for this application, a "Weighted Trade Matrix Tool" is used.

Golder y:\projects\201 O\103-87735 f p1st lucie thermalkfeasibility study\final\st-juciejfeasibility-study.docx . A s~ ae

March 2011 6 103-87735 3.0 ANALYSIS MATRIX DESCRIPTION AND TERMINOLOGY 3.1 Weighted Trade Matrix Tool Functional Description For each subsystem, a set of performance, reliability, and cost criteria was developed. The importance of these criteria is represented by a number that is a multiplier or the "weight" of importance of that criteria factor. Each of the options for the subsystem in the trade study is listed across the top of the Matrix.

Each option is given a rating based on how well it meets the corresponding criteria. The rating is multiplied by the weight, resulting in a "score" for that option relative to the criteria. All of the scores for that option are summed to derive a "total score." The scores for each option are compared, and the option with the highest score is the most cost-effective technical solution for that subsystem.

A Weighted Trade Matrix was conducted for the following subsystems:

  • Buoy design concept

" Mooring system design concept

" Commercial subsea temperature sensors selection

" Selection of the data transmission method, such as RF, cellular, satellite, or hardwire, including initial capital cost and long term operational cost

  • Survival condition design approach 3.2 Terminology and Conventions Throughout the following text, the terms buoy, mooring, and array will be used extensively. It is important to note that these terms are not interchangeable, but are the primary components of what is referred to as the Ambient Water Temperature Monitoring System. The term "buoy" refers to the structure that floats on the surface and houses the system computer, data logger, and telemetry system. The "mooring" is the combination of hardware (chain, shackles, and wire rope) and anchor(s) that keep the buoy in place, both vertically and horizontally. The term "array" refers to the collection of temperature sensors and data transmission cable(s) that connect to the buoy. In this basic configuration, the sensors send a signal through the array to the buoy. The signal is processed in the on-board computer located in the buoy and transmitted to the shore station via telemetry.

( Golder y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\stjucie-feasibility-study.docx Associates

March 2011 7 103-87735 4.0 AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM CONCEPT 4.1 Buoy and Mooring System Design The simple spherical float with a slack mooring connected to a single anchor is the best approximate to a universal buoy design. However, as this design is improved to better address needs or issues, such as wave heights, high current applications, or a stable mast for mounting meteorological instruments, this simple buoy mooring design evolves, ultimately improving the instrument's performance for specific applications.

A spherical float, for instance, has a relatively high drag when at or near the surface. A Catamaran buoy can provide more flotation at a lower drag and, thus, is better suited to high current applications. A counter weight can be added to the spherical buoy to make it more stable and better able to support a mast, but a Spar buoy can better stabilize the mast than a counterweighted spherical buoy. The mooring can be a single slack mooring, a three-point mooring, or a short scope taut mooring.

The buoy interaction with the mooring must be a consideration when choosing the design best suited for a specific application and/or project. The process of identifying the best buoy and mooring combination for the particular application requires defining the three primary elements: environment at the deployment site, buoy payload, and specific requirements of the intended use.

For this project the buoy must, maintain temperature sensors at specified depths, provide a solid platform for data telemetry, and have a sufficient surface expression to mount solar panels. Additionally, the project site is located along the Florida coastline in the shallow nearshore environment with the potential for hurricane conditions. Also, when choosing the best suited buoy/mooring configuration, consideration must be given to the extensive local recreational boating traffic.

Several design factors have been considered when selecting and designing the best buoy/mooring for this application. A major factor in the design for the site is the potential for extreme conditions due to the passage of a hurricane or Nor'easters. When designing the buoy system for a site with the potential for severe storms or hurricanes, there are three options:

" A buoy can be designed to survive a direct hurricane passage with little or no damage

" A buoy can be designed to be low cost, with the intent to replace the buoy in the event of a direct hurricane passage

  • A buoy can be designed to be easily removed prior to a hurricane passage and easily replaced following the event yAprojects\2010\103-87735 fpl st ucie thermal\easibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx @ A ssociates

March 2011 8 103-87735 The following is a review of the buoy design process. Throughout the process, the site environment is addressed, various buoy and mooring options are evaluated, a comparative mooring forces analysis is performed, and the trade-offs for survivability versus cost and maintenance are discussed.

4.1.1 Site or Environmental Conditions Site or Environmental Parameters Specifications Conditions General Shallow watersatwer Atlantic Ocean, exposed open coastline, tropical salt waters Water depth Operational 30 ft Wave conditions Operational Stafford Sea State -8 Current conditions Operational 2 knots Survival 3 knots Wind conditions Operational 50 knots Survival 140 knots Bottom type Medium to coarse sand Sand depth to hard bottom-assumed 10 ft Topography Slope-generally to the <10 degree (stable) east Boating Traffic High-Recreational Not in commercial shipping lanes Anchor and fishing line potential entanglement to Human interface Not organized mooring and array Other interface Tropical Subject to fish bite 4.1.2 Evaluation of PotentialBuoy Types Four generic buoy classes, a taut buoy option, guyed tower system, and buoyant tower are discussed below. Typical advantages and disadvantages of each buoy class are listed.

4.1.2.1 Catamaran Buoy Description A twin-hulled buoy usually with a structural upper section for day marks, RADAR reflectors, lights, and antennas. The Catamaran buoy typically presents a low drag form to current flow and follows the water surface closely.

Advantaqes

" Large displacement and resulting payload at very low drag

  • Excellent visibility with the ability to add a large upper structure, day mark, large reflector surface, large RADAR reflectors, and powerful flasher

" Large surface area available for supporting solar panels and large payloads

  • Good sensor depth stability due to surface following buoy V;2jGolder MAisociates yAprojects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermalfeasibility study\final\st lucie feasibility study~docx

March 2011 9 103-87735 Disadvantages

" High mooring loads in extreme weather conditions

" Stable upright or inverted

" Tendency to capsize in cresting waves perpendicular to the net current flow

" Requires buoyancy on the upper structure to be self-righting

  • Poor mast stability for meteorological sensor due to the surface following nature

" Must be allowed to swivel into the apparent currents to maintain low drag and stability

" The requirement for the buoy to rotate into the currents requires data transmission to the buoy from the instruments below to be either via acoustic modem, inductive modem, or electromechanical slip ring 4.1.2.2 Disk Buoy Description A large diameter, low height cylinder or disk usually with a structural upper section for day marks, RADAR reflectors, lights, and antennas.

The disk buoy typically displaces a large volume per unit vertical displacement and, unless loaded heavily, presents a low drag form to current flow. The disk buoy follows the water surface closely.

Advantages

" Large displacement and resulting payload at low drag

" Highly visible with the ability to add an upper structure with a day mark, reflective surfaces, RADAR reflectors, and flasher

" Large surface area available for supporting solar panels and payloads

" Good sensor depth stability due to surface following buoy

" Does not need to orient to apparent flow

" Outer edges of the buoy can be impact resistant from any approach Disadvantages

" High mooring loads in extreme weather conditions

" Stable upright or inverted if capsized by a cresting wave

" Requires buoyancy on the upper structure to be self-righting

" Tendency to capsize in cresting waves

" Reduced mast stability for meteorological sensor due to the surface following nature Awoecs\01\10-873 Ust lciefesiil uce hemakeaiblbstdv~naks sldvdox -

__Golder ssociates

March 2011 10 103-87735 4.1.2.3 Can Buoy Description A cylindrical-shaped buoy with a small diameter compared to its height.

The can buoy uses an upper pipe section for day marks, RADAR reflectors, lights, and antennas. Compared to the disk buoy, the can buoy typically displaces a small volume per unit vertical displacement and presents a larger drag form to current flow. The can buoy is a surface follower, but follows the surface loosely compared to the disk or Catamaran buoy.

Advantages

" Good mast stability for meteorological sensors

" Can be counter-weighted to remain vertical in currents

" Ability to wash under in extreme conditions without generating extreme mooring loads

" Reasonable impact resistance from any approach Disadvantages

  • Limited payload and solar panel capacity in comparison to Catamaran and disk buoys
  • Higher drag and, therefore, less compatible with higher current applications
  • Vertically more active than true surface following buoys 4.1.2.4 Spar Buoy Description A small diameter and long cylindrical buoy, usually with a small change in total displacement per unit vertical displacement. The spar buoy is designed to be decoupled from the water surface. Tuning of the resonant frequency and inclusion of a damper plate limits the vertical motion. A spar buoy can present the most stable version of a floating buoy until the maximum design wave conditions are exceeded. Spar buoys are generally large if designed for open ocean, long period waves and are poorly suited to shallow water applications where there is insufficient water depth for the length of the buoy.

Golder v:\Iroiects\2010\103-87735flstlucie thermal\feasibilitv studv\final\st lucie feasibility studv.docx j+*. wI............ ..... .* ............................. ] .... j .............. .... .j *--- * *

  • T T w A ssociates

March 2011 11 103-87735 Advantages

" Excellent stability for meteorological sensors

" Ability to be bridle moored to remain a vertical attitude in currents

" Ability to wash under in extreme conditions without generating extreme mooring loads Disadvantages

  • High drag to reserve buoyancy limits' permissible current speed without additional floats

" Limited payload and solar panel capacity in comparison to Catamaran and disk buoys

" Difficult to implement a fixed-depth sensor as this is not a surface following buoy

  • Poor impact resistance a Requires long period tuning and damping in open ocean deployment sites 4.1.2.5 Taut Buoy Description A taut buoy can be constructed for either very deep water or very shallow water. In the deep water application, even a small elasticity of the mooring line over a very long distance can provide the mooring elongation needed for the buoy to respond to waves and tides. In the very shallow application, the surface buoy can be cylindrical and of sufficient length that the water line movement up and down along the buoy length is small relative to the buoy length. A design challenge exists in the ability of the mooring to remain taut in extreme weather conditions. Most moorings need to either absorb energy related to the mooring motion so there are no snap loadings or be sufficiently elastic to survive snap loading and unloading of tension in extreme weather conditions. Both of these are difficult in a shallow water taut mooring, and this limits its ability to survive the worst of the weather conditions. The advantage of the taut mooring includes a relatively accurate method of positioning the lower sensors relative to the seafloor. The mooring can be low in construction cost.

Advantages

  • Good bottom-referenced sensor locations

" Low cost Disadvantages

" Poor survival in extreme wave conditions

  • Limited ability to maintain surface-referenced sensor locations
  • The requirement for elastic mooring line for reduced snap loading is contrary to the need to have metallic mooring lines to resist fish bite and tampering Golder y:'projects\201 O\103-87735 fplst Iuci6 thermal~feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx 'ALssociates

March 2011 12 103-87735 4.1.2.6 Guyed Tower Description For shallow water applications, a guyed tower can be erected using components similar to land-based antenna towers. These towers are typically installed with a hinged base plate that is buried in the sea floor and guyed with three guy wires to similarly buried block anchors. The tower is installed beginning with the installation of the base plate and three anchors. The anchors are spaced approximately one tower height out from the base plate and centered about the base plate 120 degrees from each other.

The tower is laid on the seafloor and attached to the base plate and erected by attaching the guy wires and winching the tower up.

The tower offers a small projected area to waves and currents, can be designed to' be extremely durable in extreme conditions, and is a stable platform (particularly for meteorological instrumentation or sensors needing to be referenced at fixed elevations above the seafloor). The disadvantages to a tower installation in this application include the difficulty in the installation of surface-referenced sensors and the potential for entanglement of small boats or their anchors on the guy wires. The tower also presents an alluring object on which to climb for the adventuresome recreational boater.

Advantaqes

" Excellent stability for seafloor-referenced sensors.

  • Low drag in high currents or extreme wave conditions

" , Ability to survive being washed under in extreme conditions

" Good payload for solar panels, stable platform for flasher and day mark

" Security against loss as the tower does not drift away if a mooring line is cut or fails (i.e.,

if a guy wire is damaged, the tower lays on the bottom and repair is simple and low cost)

Disadvantages

" Poor impact resistance

" No ability to "give" if involved in small boat collision as would a foam exterior moored buoy

" Difficult to implement a surface-referenced string of sensors

  • Attractive to recreational boaters 0Golder y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpI st lucie thermalkfeasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx i A s ca e

March 2011 13 103-87735 4.1.2.7 Buoyant Tower Description The Buoyant Tower is a significant improvement over a guyed tower as the need for guy wires is eliminated. This configuration is a single, continuous, smooth, cylindrical assembly going from the surface through the water column to an embedded anchor plate on the seafloor. The Buoyant Tower must have an articulating joint coupling to the anchor plate and be free to respond (in any direction) to waves and currents. With the Buoyant Tower, the impact-resistance problem, and the hazard to small boat entanglement are virtually eliminated. This design successfully addresses the bottom referenced sensor location issues.

Sensor installations at the surface referenced depths are also successfully addressed by incorporating internally mounted float sensor(s) capable of up and down movement with wave motion. Day mark capability is good. The accuracy of the elevation of seafloor-referenced sensors is somewhat diminished in comparison to a fixed tower, but more accurate in comparison to the other buoy/mooring configurations evaluated.

Advantages

" Very limited hazard (liability) to boating traffic

" Limited impact from small vessel anchors

" Limited impact from recreational fishing activities

" Ease of installation

" Excellent protection for sensor arrays

" Excellent resistance to tampering

" Low cost and easily replaced; and

" Ability to wash under in extreme conditions without generating extreme mooring loads Disadvantages

" Limited payload on the upper section of the tower

  • The flasher, RADAR reflectors, antennas, and solar panels need to be light weight

" Tilting, complicating flasher requirements

" Wear at the tower to bottom plate universal joint; and

" Complicated implementation of surface-referenced of sensors (7 Golder y:\projects\201 O\103-87735 fplst lucie thermaIkfeasib~iity study\final\st- ucie-feasib;iity-study.docx Associates

March2011 14 103-87735 4.1.3 Buoy Design Trade Matrix The Buoy Design Trade Matrix (Table 1) shows the buoyant tower as the preferred design, primarily due to the weight given to reliability, sensor elevation maintenance, shallow water capability, and survival sea state limit.

4.1.4 Buoy/Mooring-ModelingAnalysis As an initial method to compare the above buoy styles, peak mooring loads were computed for each buoy style based on a single-point mooring and a three-point mooring during- hurricane conditions. A brief analysis of each buoy type was performed using the finite element, 3D numerical modeling program "BUOY." The goal of this analysis was to define potential peak mooring loads on each of the major types of buoys discussed above using hurricane conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the size of each buoy was chosen as typical for this application if this buoy type were to be used. This effort was undertaken to provide a useful tool for evaluating potential designs for this environment. Wave velocities were computed using Airy and Cnoidal wave theory, with Airy wave theory used for wind waves and Cnoidal wave theory used for evaluating forces resulting from longer period waves.

4.1.5 Buoy/Mooring Design Relative to Temperature Sensor Array Requirements In weighing mooring performance, it is critical to understand the end goal of the buoy/mooring installation.

The end goal of this installation is to measure water temperatures at two depths below the surface and at four depths above the seafloor.

The cooling water discharged by the Plant is expected to rise in the water column due to the increased buoyancy of warmer water. If the thermal plume were to occur at the ambient monitoring site, it would be expected to be a warm-water surface layer. The depth of the upper two sensors should therefore be referenced to the surface. In other words, the heated plume will move up and down with wave and tidal motion, so the sensors need to move along with it.

The remaining sensors are positioned to be comparable to the temperatures at depths relative to the intake structures. Since the intake structures are fixed and do not move with wave and tidal motion, the sensors should be fixed as well. Therefore, for these measurements, the elevation above the seafloor is the critical reference as the top, middle, and bottom of the intake structure are at fixed elevations above the seafloor.

To achieve accurate comparative temperature measurements, the elevation of temperature sensors was considered when evaluating the buoy and mooring designs. The elevation of the top two temperature y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx A sso c iates

March 2011 15 103-87735 sensors at known depths relative to the water surface and of the three deeper remaining sensors above the seafloor needed to be maintained for accurate comparisons. As the location of the sensors is a critical parameter, a greater weight was given in the evaluation process for the ability of each design to maintain the proper depth and elevation of these sensors.

4.1.6 Buoy and Mooring Design Results Several buoy types were considered for this application. While the performance of the buoy and its mooring are related to each other, it was necessary to examine the advantages and disadvantages for each buoy (Table 1) and mooring type (Table 2) and then evaluate considerations based on the buoy and mooring combination. This effort addressed some of the mooring types and the subsequent considerations for the resulting buoy/mooring combination.

The mooring types considered include a single-point slack mooring, a three-point slack mooring, an articulated taut mooring, a hybrid three-point mooring with a separate taut wire sub-surface float, and an articulating single-point anchor plate. In the hybrid three-point mooring, the surface buoy provides the surface referenced sensor locations and the taut sub-surface mooring is intended to hold the near-bottom sensors at fixed elevations above the seafloor.

4.1.7 Mooring Design Trade Matrix The Mooring Design Trade Matrix (Table 2) shows the hybrid three-point mooring as the preferred mooring configuration but does not consider the buoyant tower configuration (Table 1).

4.1.8 Survival ConditionApproach Matrix Another design consideration is the mooring approach for survival conditions. While most design analysis is performed based on a sea state condition or a 10-year, 25-year, or 100-year statistical storm condition, the extreme weather of the Florida Atlantic coastline is more related to the passage of hurricanes. To address these design considerations and cost effectiveness relative to hurricane survivability, a Survival Condition Approach Trade Matrix (Table 3) that considered the following three approaches was employed:

1. Build a mooring with the intent to survive direct passage of a strong hurricane
2. Build a mooring capable of survival in all but hurricane conditions and plan to remove the mooring prior to and replace after passage of a hurricane
3. Build a low-cost system that can be replaced or repaired at reasonable cost should storm conditions remove it from service.

y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-luciejfeasibility-study.docx -A sso ciates

March 2011 16 103-87735 4.1.9 Buoy/Mooring Evaluation Results The unique operational constraints at the proposed site required a focus on maintaining sensor elevation relative to both seafloor and surface in a high-energy environment while addressing significant recreational vessel activity. Long-term maintenance cost was also considered. Based on these criteria as well as the previously discussed analysis and trade matrix evaluation, the Buoyant Tower buoy/mooring configuration was found to be the most advantageous. This configuration has consistently high scores on most relevant selection criteria. Survival is enhanced by using a low-profile cylindrical spar-type buoy as it generates minimal mooring load in response to extreme conditions. The Buoyant Tower configuration can be constructed to survive submergence beyond the maximum water depth.

Therefore, with the selection of this buoy/mooring combination, the intent is to have the system capable of surviving extreme conditions with minimal damage. Limited reserve buoyancy, waterproof connectors, and the security of the selected sensor installations allow this combination design to be capable of full submergence during extreme waves. Damage should be limited to solar panels, telemetry antennas, and the flasher - all of which are relatively low cost and simple to replace following an extreme event.

4.2 Commercial Subsea Temperatures Sensor Selection The following manufacturers of commercial subsea temperature sensors were evaluated for use on the Ambient Water Temperature Monitoring System:

  • Aaderaa Data Instruments
  • Chelsea Technical Group
  • NKE Instruments

" OSIL

  • RBR
  • Wet Labs
  • Hydro BIO
  • HOBO
  • Seabird
  • Valeport The suitable temperature sensors from the above manufacturers where entered into the Weighed Trade Matrix for analysis. Table 4 presents the general specifications for each of the temperature sensors. To determine the particular sensor score for each criterion, the specifications for each sensor were evaluated, The field reliability of each sensor, based on CSA operational experience, was also taken into account: Table 5 presents the Subsea Temperature Sensor Trade Matrix that shows the Seabird SBE 39 IM as the most suitable choice.

y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx Associates

March 2011 17 103-87735 4.2.1 Subsea TemperaturesSensor Recommendation One of the requirements for the temperature sensors is to have ability to provide real-time or near real-time data transmission. The HOBO sensor can only provide data during the download process, which requires recovery of the sensor. All of the remaining sensors can provide real-time data transmission, but must do so via a hardwire cable from the sensor to the buoy (or to the shore base station). However, select Seabird sensors, in addition to hardwire transmission capability, offer transmission of the data via inductive coupling, which allows the user to hang a vertical array of sensors from the buoy on a plastic-coated steel cable in the water column. The data from all five sensors travel along the steel cable and are picked up by the buoy "Surface Modem" inductive coupling transformer.

The inductive coupling feature of the Seabird units eliminates the need for subsea cables from the sensors to the buoy, greatly increasing reliability and reducing initial and long-term cost. The Seabird inductive sensors have a long, proven track record of reliability. The trade study includes a number of Seabird inductive units in order to determine which unit best suites this project's application. Based on the Weighed Trade Matrix analysis and CSA operational experience, CSA recommends the use of the Seabird SBE 39 IM unit.

4.2.2 Data Transmission The proposed Ambient Water Temperature Monitoring mooring will be in very close proximity to the shore (less than 0.5 mi). A submarine cable that would connect the mooring to an onshore site is a viable option as well as the other real-time telemetry methods presented in this section.

Submarine cables connecting the moored temperature sensors from surface to bottom to shore are fairly robust, offer reliable data transfer, and provide virtually unlimited power and bandwidth for data collection and transmission. There are, however, significant disadvantages, particularly for the proposed location.

Implementation and construction is expensive, and extensive environmental permitting would be required.

If used, the submarine cable would have to come ashore in a highly dynamic surf zone environment, which would significantly increase the possibility of cable failure.

The other data delivery options for transmitting real-time temperature data from the mooring to shore are satellite, RF, and cellular telemetry. These technologies all require a moored surface buoy and a method of transmitting temperature data from the sensors to the surface.

Satellite telemetry systems are robust and reliable. Although satellite telemetry typically has limited data exchange rates, it was not considered a factor as the proposed five temperature sensors generate minimal data streams. The satellite communication costs are significantly higher than for cellular or RF.

0Golder y:*rojects\O 10\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal~feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx"A s cae

March 2011 18 103-87735 It should also be noted that satellite transmission is more adversely affected by sea conditions than cellular or RF telemetry.

RF communication costs are free; the only costs are associated with hardware purchases and replacement. RF data transmission can support large amounts of data (115 kBps) and have low power requirements. This type of data transmission requires line-of-sight between the mooring and an onshore receiving station (approximately a 2 to 3 km distance between a small buoy and a receiving station at sea level). This method of transmission, while technically feasible, has significant security implications that would have to be resolved or authorized by the appropriate regulators. These security issues could be addressed using an encrypted RF signal.

Cellular telemetry is a viable option due to current cellular covertage in the study area. Costs associated with cellular data telemetry are dependent on the provider. Cell phone data plans generally require a long-term contract (1 to 2 years), with monthly service charges. Some service providers may charge per

/

kB or per minute of data transmission.

Table 6 presents the Data Transmission Trade Analysis Matrix that shows that either RF or cellular are the most suitable options.

4.3 GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE Since digital data entering the FPL power plant Control Room will be required to be in compliance with new NRC cyber data regulations and, since local meteorological data is already transmitted to the control Room via the "Met Tower" station, which is located on site, the consensus is that all buoy temperature data will be delivered to the Met Tower in a mutually agreed upon protocol (such as RS-232). After data delivery, FPL will be responsible for the transmission of the data to the control room, the display of the data for the operators, and the archive logging of the data.

Golder y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fplst lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st luciefeasibility-study.docx A ssociates

March 2011 19 103-87735 5.0 OVERALL EVALUATION RESULTS Final results based on previously discussed evaluations and analysis indicate that the highest ranked option for installation of an Ambient Water Temperature Monitoring System (AWTMS) at the St. Lucie Plant would consist of one station with the following subsystems:

" Buoy - Buoyant tower

" Mooring - Single-point articulating anchor plate

" Temperature Sensor - Seabird temperature sensors

" Telemetry - Cellular or RF telemetry

" Survivability/cost design - designed to be repaired or replaced post hurricane event.

It is not practical or cost-effective to design an AWMTS that will provide uninterrupted temperature data from an appropriate location(s) in the RBW given the inherent risk of data interruptions due to storm damage and/or vandalism. In the event of data interruption it is proposed that the ambient temperature of the RBW for regulatory purposes will be determined at the Plant intake structure within the intake canal (INT-1; IWWF permit FL0002208) until the ambient monitoring station can be repaired or replaced.

320Golder y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx "4'Associates

March 2011 20 103-87735 6.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The following permits will be required for the installation of the thermal array system:

" FDEP Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) with Submerged Lands Lease

" USACE Nationwide Permit 5 y:\projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermal\feasibility study\final\st-lucie-feasibility-study.docx

ýAssociates

March 2011 21 103-87735 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE A detailed schedule for implementing the Ambient Monitoring Plan is presented in Figure 3. Following approval of the technical approach presented in this report, FPL will solicit bids and select a vendor to implement the plan. The vendor will purchase, prepare, permit, install and test the system such that it will be fully functional at least 60 days prior to the St. Lucie Plant's Unit 2 becoming operational.

y:'projects\2010\103-87735 fpl st lucie thermalfeasibility study\finalst-lucie-feasibility-study.docx 1"-Golder

'~Associates

TABLES m m m - - - m m = m m m = m March 2011 103-87735 Table 1: Buoy Design Trade Matrix Spar Buoy F Anodized I wu Buoyant Tower Criteria Weigh Aluminum T T T l Rat Score Ratng Score 10 9 90 10 100 Reliability 5 50 10 100 Resistance to Impact 10 10 9 90 9 90 Operational Sea State Limit 10 7 70 10 100 Survival Sea State Limit 10 8 8s 9 90 Cresting Wave Resistance 10 5 50 6 60 8 80 High Current Capability 10 5 510 10 100 10 100 Shallow Water Capability 1 6 60 8 so 9 90 Resistance to Wind Loading 10 10 100 t0 to0 8 80 Stability < SS6 10 8 80 8 80 8 80 Stability > SS6 10 9o 9 90 10 100 Mooring / Anchor Load 10 7 70 7 70 8 80 Visibility 10 6 60 6 80 10 100 Hazard to small boat impact Surface following Sensor Location 10 6 60 t0 100 8 80 Accuracy 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 Metrological sensors Stability 10 9 90 7 70 9 90 9__9 Maintenance requirements 10 7 70 9 90 9 90 Power requirements 7 70 10110 10 ;9 9 10 100 Size 10 8 80 Weight Cost Construction, Installation, Maintenance (higher rating = less 10 8 80 9 0 10 100 cost) 1,390 1,750 Total Score I I I I Table 1.docx *A-2sGolder ociates

- m - - - - m-m--m- m-m - m-m - -m March 2011 103-87735 Table 2: Mooring System Trade Matrix Articulated Taut I dT Shallow Water Criteria Weight Moor Depth Tower (Guys) lie senso arra Rating Score Score Rating Score Reliability 10 6 60 990 8 . 80 Maintain Sensor Surface Reference Maintain Sensor Bottom 10 100 100 10 100 Reference Impact Resistant 4 40 Tamper Resistant 6 60 Survival Sea State 10 3 30 10 10 6 60 High Current Capability 5 5 25 8 4 6 30 Shallow Water Capability 5 35 735 35 Anchor Load 5 535 Hazard to small boat 148807 7 4 40 40 impact requirements~aneac 51 3 Size 5 .7 9 73545 35 Weight 5 9 45 7 35- 35 Cost Construction, .....

Installation, Maintenance 10 9 90 *88 8 80 80 (higher rating = less cost)

Total Score 2700 760 925 FmAssociates

March 2011 1 103-87735 Table 3: Survival Condition Trade Matrix Replaced or Repaired Post Criteria Weight Hurricane Rating Score Cost (Higher rating = Less cost) 10 10 100 Total Score 100

-ig mo Golder table 3.docx Associates

M mMI M - - - - - M March 2011 1 103-87735 Table 4: Temperature Sensor Specifications Specifications' Seabird Seabrd HOOU2 alpr aepo r ýýSEtALcATý a Seabird MicroCAT Midus CTD N Tp Recorder SBE 391IM MicrC SBE,37 Pro v2 Mini CT 16plu-IMY2SBE 37,1IM M Real-time data tr mi capa NO YES YES YES YES YES YES Yes transmission capability Requires hardwire link for real-time data N/A YES YES YES NO NO NO NO transmission Inductive modem NO NO NO NO Yes Yes YES Yes YES YES YES Yes Yes Yes (10.6 Yes (10.6 Self powered Yes amp hour) amp hour)

Back-up memory Yes YES YES YES Yes Yes Yes Yes 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> on hours on 250battry, battry,4.790,000 Number of sampling battery, battery, (memory, per deployment based 42,000 on pwerlimtatonssample sample on 2smpl0on sample on 4,680 290,000 400,000 300,000 85,000 on power limitations external external battery power power power)

Tempmeasurement -40 to 70 -5 to 35 -5to 35 -2 to 35 - 5 to 35 5 to 35 - 5 to 35 -5to 35 range (°C)

Integral sample pump NO NO NO NO Optional NO Optional Yes Output mode Sample selectability (polled, NO NO YES NO interval YES YES YES autonomous, combo + selection only averaging)

Accuracy - Temp (*C) 0.01 to 0.01 0.01 0.5 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.07 Resolution - Temp (°C) 0.2 0.001 0.005 .05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Table 4.docx (AIGolder Associates

m m M - - - -- - - - - - - m March 2011 2 103-87735 Table 4: Temperature Sensor Specifications

-* 2 Sens'or Model Specifications Seab....

SdaibireSeabird

' HOBO'U22 ,",AC M crTA

  • ... HOO 22 Vleor ,NKE aleport NETP 1H SAA Seabird.

39...M irCT MibroCATf' Mic~roCAT' Pro v2 MiniCT Midus CTD CT Recorder- SBE9-37 16 plus-IM V,2. ____

Imp.

Clock accuracy 60 5 5 5 (sec/month)

Quiescent power 0.25 0.6 0.072 0.432 0.432 usage (watts)

Depth rating (m) 122 500 6,000 6,000 594 250 250 28 mm Dimensions (mm) 114 x 30 x 40 mm 88 mm diameter 616x103x 547x62x 526x67x 618x62x Dimension W114x30x (xam) diameter x diameter x x 174 108 140 156 (H x W x D) 6 285 mm long 665 mm long 183 mm 174 108 140 156 long Weight in water (Ibs) 0.04 18.7 9 1.0 2.9 3.5 buoyant Weight in air (Ibs) 0.09 oz. 1.3 25.4 20 2.4 6.4 8.2

,,p Acetal Housing material Polypropyl Acetal Titanium Titanium Coptoymer -Plastic Plastic Plastic ene (plastic)

Note: 'C = degrees Celsius.

lbs = pounds.

M = meter.

mm= millimeter.

MW = megawatts.

Table 4.docx 90Golder

-Associates

m M M M M M M M M mmM M M - M = M M March 2011 1 103-87735 Table 6: Data Transmission Trade Matrix Cellular Direct Wire Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Data Rate 5 7 35 30 Power requirements 5 5 25 3 15 Maintenance 5 5 25 S 25 requirements Survivability 10 8 80 2 20 Coverage Area 5 8 40 15 Size 5 5 25 5 25 Weight 5 5 25 5 25 Hardware Costs 8 80 10 100 (higher rating = less cost)

Peripheral Costs (antennas etc.) 10 7 70 8 80 (higher rating = less cost)

Service fees/ Subscription 10 7 70 10 100 (higher rating = less cost)

Total Score 475 42S I I Table 6.docx (VGold4er

  • Associates

FIGURES

March 2011 103-87735 I Finish 0311 11 01 '12 0212 j 312 ID Task Name Duration Start I Finish 103 '1Q 'I 1Q1 2 4

Jun.... Aug. ý Se OcNDcJa eb- MarAp Dilun- -Am ug 1 Anticipated approval of AMR by FDEP I/23/11 6/23M11 2 ])

FPL Contracting and Procurement, Selection of Vendor 50 days 6/24/11 9/111 4

5 3.lled Engineering 50 days 9/2)11 1110/111 6 10/20/111 Buoy Design 7 wks 9/2/11 7 Moonng Design 3 wks 9/16/11 101811 8 Met Tower Interface Design 3 wks 10/21/11 11/10/111 Solar Power System Design 3 wks 9123/11 10113111 10 ii Iendor Procurement of Equipment 51 days 9/2M11 1111111 12 Place Order for Tamp Sensors 2 days 912/11 Tr 13 Place Order for Control Computers 2 days 9/2 1 10/21/111 Procure Buoy Components I day 10/21/11 Procure Met Tower Interface Components 1 day 11/11111 11111/11 Procure Solar Power Components 1 day 10/14/11 1202111 216 Fabrication 35 days 10711m71 12/2M 1i Buoy Hul Fabrication 6 wks 10/24/11 Water Proof Pressure Vessel Fabrication 4 wks 10/21/11 Solar Power System Fabrication 2 wks 10/17/11 22 Met Tower Interface Fabrication 3 wks 11/14/11 12/2311 25 9ystem Integration 2 wks 12112/11 10/20112 26 320 3ystem Testing rechnical Training Subrnit Necessary Permit Applications 15 days 4 days 30 days 1/2/12 212/12 10/31111 2/7/1211 12(2311 12r2112! 0 28 29 3O knticipated Approval of Permits nstalletlon of Ambient Monitoring Station 3perational Testing of Ambient Monitoring Station Iday 22 days 21 days 2/29/12 3/1/12 4/2(12 2/29/12 3/30112 4/30112

-Am kmblent Monitoring Station is Fully Operational 1 day 5/22/12 5/22/121 32 :rovide FPL with PE Signed/SemIed Certification that I day 6/12112 6/12/12! V.

rhermometers are Installed and Calibrated Correctly 33 Drovide FDEP with PE SigneddSealed Certification that rhermometers are Installed and Calibrated Correctly I day 6/22/12 6/22/12 34 3t. Lucie Unit 2 Becomes Operational 1 day 7/23/12 7/23112 # 7/23 Task Milestone External Tasks Project: FPI. POW rev 2_15_11 JWN Split Summary External IMilestone 0 Date: 3/9/11 Progress Project Summary . Deadline I _ _ _ _ _ -_ -__

Figure 3.

Implementation Schedule Source: Golder, 2011. Goler Assciaes

Austalasa 61 8W2' 30 Euroe + 54 4I 6t Not AmrcI00253ý Soot Amrc 4 1V SO Auinsp Ir I

I I

Golder Associates IMa I

6026 NW 1st Placb Gainesville, FL 32607 USA I Tel: (362) 336-5606 Fax: (352) 336-6603 I I

I I

I I

I Golder (DAssociates Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation I

I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=L-2011-109,_Environmental_Protection_Plan_Report_316(b)_Related_Documentation&oldid=2551471"