Docket OW-2002-0049 DCN#: 6-50461) 

## 1 Stricklard,M. andJ. Muace, PSEG 

### / I Selectionand Design of Wedge Wire Screens and a Fixed-PanelAquatic Filter Barrier System to Reduce Impingementand Entrainmentat a CoolingWater Intake Structureon the Hudson River 

### Selection and Design 

### ofWedge Wire Screens and 

### a Fixed-Panel Aquatic FilterBarrier Systemto Reduce Impingement and Entrainment at a Cooling 

### Water Intake Structure 

### on the Hudson 

### River

Mark 

### F. Strickland", James E. Mudgeb

"PSEG ServicesCorporation, 

### 80 Park Plaza, 17E,Newark, NJ 07102 bCivil& Environmental Consultants,Inc. 

### 333 Baldwin Rd, Pittsburgh,

### PA 15205

Abstract



### In 2001 the New York Department of Environmental Conservation approved the retirement of the existing once-through coolingwater system at the Albany Steam Generating Station (ASGS) site and replacement with the Bethlehem Energy Center 

### (BEC) which includes a new coolingwater intake structure. The BEG 

### is a 750­ megawatt combined cycle power plant that 

### is beingbuilt on the western shore of the Hudson River in Bethlehem, New York. 

### PSEG Power New York, Inc. 

### (PSEGNY) evaluatedvarious cooling system alternatives (i.e., once-through,wet towers, hybrid towers, and dry towers) and optionalmeasures (floatingand fixed-panelaquatic filter barrier systems, and cooling water holding tank). The alternativecoohg systems study prepared by PSEGNY consideredmany factors such as the effects

### on aquaticorganisms, system performance, noise, aesthetics, air emissions, and costs.

Based on the results 

### ofpast impingement and entrainment studies at ASGS and other Hudson river power plants, the effect ofthe various alternatives on 

### four selected target species:river herring (alewife andblueback herring), American shad, whiteperch, and striped bass, were evaluatedby various impact indicators (e.g., organism losses, equivalent adultnumbers and biomass, conditional mortality rates).

The alternative selected as the best technology available 

### @TA) for 

### BEC consists 

### of 

### 2­
mm wedge wire screens and a seasonally-deployedfixed-panel aquatic filter barrier system coupled with a hybrid cooling tower. This alternativeis projected to virtually eliminate impingement and reduce entrainmentby about 

### 98 to 

### 99% 

### as compared to 

### ASGS and as evaluated 

### by the aforementionedaquaticimpact indicators.

Thispaper will overview the alternatives study process and results, describethe design of the fixed- panel aquatic filterintake barrier and why it was selected over the floating panel design for BEC, 

### and present the operationalmonitoringprogram that will be used to determinethe effectiveness

### of the system.


### 1. Introduction

This paper describesthe selection and design ofthe cooling system for the Bethlehem Energy Center 

### (BEC), a 750-megawatt 

### (MW), combined cycle power plant 

### PSEG Power New 

### York Inc. 

### (PSEGNY) is building at the site of the existing400

### MWAlbany Steam

1Generating Station (ASGS or the Station) located on the western shore of the Hudson River in Bethlehem, NY. The retirement of the existing Station and replacement with BEC will result in significant air and water environmentalimprovements. The wet tower closed-loop cooling systemproposed by PSEGNY will withdraw 98-99% less water than ASGS, which will greatlyreduce the entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. The BEC provides a unique opportunityto retire 

### an existing generation plant and redevelop the site with a state ofthe art facility that is needed to provide clean, efficient, reliable new generation for New York while significantlyreducing environmental impacts. The BEC will:

e Provide 

### 350 MW more electrical capacity while using less fbel. Provide significant environmental benefits that include a 97


### - 98% reduction in emission rates ofnitrogen oxides 

### (NOx) and sulfur &oxide 

### (SO2). Dramatically reduce use of Hudson River water (by 98-99%) for cooling 

### with consequent environmental improvements 

### in terms of reduced effects on aquatic organisms.



### An Alternative Cooling Systems Study (study) was performed to assess the quantitative and qualitative attributes ofthe proposed wet tower closed-loop cooling system to determine if any alternativeprovided additionalprotection of aquatic resources without creating significantundesirable effects or being wholly disproportionatein cost (PSEGNY, 2001).

The study concludedthat the proposed cooling water intake structure satisfiedbest technology available (BTA) as applied in New York by the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York’s view ofhow BTA determinations are made was set forth in recent decisions. For purposes of discussion, the followingrepresents our understanding ofNew York’s approachto these matters. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as implemented by New York State regulations, requiresthat the’location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect BTA for minimizing adverse environmentalimpact. New York regulators have noted that court decisionshave establishedthat the determination ofwhat constitutesBTA is a site specific issue of fact which depends upon a variety of factors includingthe cost and age of the facility, impacts to aquaticpopulations, the additional energy, if any, needed to support improved technology, and other relevant concepts. Accordingly,New York regulatorsimpose conditions on a “case by case basis”, consistent with the CWA.

The conclusionthat the proposed wet tower cooling system meets the BTA test is supported by the specific location, design, constructionand capacity ofthe proposed coolingwater intake structure. 

### In addition, this study documentsthe significant environmentalimprovements, in relation to economic costs, that would accrue from the proposed wet tower cooling system. Concerning the location of coolingwater intake structures,the 1976EPA Development Document statesthat this factor can be the most important consideration. It recommends drawingwater from main channels of large streams or fi-ombiologically deficient areas

2and avoiding important spawning areas, fish migration paths, shellfishbeds and other
areas where aquatic life may be concentrated. The proposed cooling water intake structure would involve modificationsto 

### an existing intake structure which is located outside the boundaries of areas designated as “Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas” by the New York State Department of State.

With regard to the BTA “design” requirement, the significantlyreduced water withdrawal, relative to the existingpermitted ASGS, coupled with the use ofpassive
screens equippedwith wedge wire mesh associatedwith the wet tower cooling system, would minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms in a cost effective
manner.
With respect to “construction” of coolingwater intake structures, the following factors
were considered consistent with the 1976EPA DevelopmentDocument,p.145: (1) loss ofpotential habitat associated with the space occupied by the cooling water intake structure, (2) increased turbidity levels due to erosion of unprotected slopes around the excavations, 

### (3) increased levels of turbidity from inadequately stabilized spoiled areas, and (4) filled aquatic areas associated with construction operations. Again, in the case at hand we are dealingwith an existing permitted sitewith existing intake structures and thus avoiding disruptions associatedwith new construction. Disruptions associatedwith modifications to the existing intake structure would be small and of short duration. BTA design features shouldreduce fish losses due to entrainment and impingement. There is no generally accepted intake design, which can be said to fulfill the requirements of Section 316(b) for all facilities. This case-by-case determinationis made taking the individual site and associated factors into consideration. As demonstratedby the study, the proposed wet tower cooling system is BTA for this location. Moreover, the design is predicated upon the retirement of the existing facility with its once through cooling system.

The proposed cooling water system is also consistent with the State’s federally-approved water quality antidegradationpolicy as set forth in NYSDEC organization and delegation memorandum Number 85-40, dated September 

### 9, 1985 sinceno lowering 

### of water qualitywill occur. Finally, it should be noted that this study analyzedthe significant environmental considerations includingvisual 

### and noise impacts associatedwith the various cooling system alternatives, and benefits that accrue fi-omreuse of an existing industrial site. The studyutilized conservativemethodologies and assumptionsthroughout the analysis. As a result, some of the impacts, such as aquatic losses, are likelyto be over-estimated. Likewise, estimates of the costs of cooling system alternatives were made using the most cost-effective,practical design 

### PSEGNY could envision to avoid overstatingthe economicburden. This approach helped to ensure that decisions made using this information will protect the environment and the proposed wet tower cooling system represents BTA for this case.


### 2. 

### Project Background

3P%EGNY acquired the existing station from Niagara Mohawk Power Cop(Niagara Mohawk) in May 

### 2000 with the purpose of operatingthe existing Station while exploring the possibilityofmoving forward with redevelopment plans initiated by Niagara Mohawk in 1998. The redevelopment of the site with the BEC utilizing the proposed wet tower cooling systemprovides a viable alternativeto maintaining operation ofthe existing Station. PSEGNY filed appropriate air and water permit applications for the
new facilityand a supplement to completethe Article 

### X application for BEC submitted by Niagara Mohawk in 1998.Upon the construction and commercial operation of the proposed BEC, PSEGNY commits to retire the 50-year-old ASGS.

The existing ASGS is a 400 MW facilitylocated along Route 144on the western bank of the Hudson River (the River) approximately 1.5 miles south ofthe Albany City boundary. The City ofRensselaer is located on the easternbank ofthe River directly opposite ASGS. Portions of the Town ofEast Greenbush lie directly opposite and across the River fi-omthe plant site.

The ASGS includes four identical steam units. Plant construction started in 1950. Two units went into operation in 1952 and other 

### two units went into operation in 1953 and 1954. The ASGS was originally designed to burn coal and has sincebeen modified to burn residual oil (1970) and natural gas (198 1).

The ASGS uses a once-through cooling system to cool and condense steam that drives the electric generatingturbines. When the ASGS is operating,water is withdrawn from the River and circulated through condensers

- largeheat exchangers. Steam is exhausted into the condensers,is cooled and condensed back to water, which is then pumped back into the boilers to repeat the steadelectric generatingprocess. Steam does not come in contact with River water circulatedthrough the condensers.

Water is withdrawn from the River, circulated through the condensers, and discharged back into the River in a continualprocess. The water is dischargedback into the River at slightlyhgher temperatures and the resulting thermal plume is quickly dispersedby currents. Previous studies conducted at the facility demonstratedthat the thermal plume does not adversely impact the River aquatic community.

PSEGNY’s proposed BEC is a 750-MW, state-of-the-artcombined cycle power plant that will use combustion turbines in conjunction with heat recovery steam generators and
a new steam turbine. Natural gas will be the primary he1and low-sulfur distillateoil will be used as a secondary fuel. This technology is the most efficient fossil-fueled electric generatingtechnology currently available.

PSEGNY’s proposed design for BEC includes the use 

### of a closed loop cooling system with wet cooling towers. This system will reduce River water withdrawals by 98-99% and will be used in conjunction with state-of-the-artwater intake technology employing wedge wire mesh screens. As documentedin the SPDESpermit application, this system will produce dramatic reductions in use of River water for cooling and dramatically reduce the number of organisms entrained or impinged by the ASGS.

4

### 3. Alternative Cooling Systems Study

This studywas conductedto respond to a request for additional informationon cooling system options made by various interestedparties, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) and environmentalorganizations,when the BEC project was originallyproposed by Niagara Mohawk. The study examinesthe specific and relevant facts, impacts and benefits associatedwith BEC to facilitatethe necessary, case-by-case review and 

### BTA determinationperformed by NYSDEC in issuing the SPDESpermit.

PSEGNY made the study available and discussed its contents with regulators and interested individuals and organizations. This follows through on the commitment made to these stakeholders. The study supportsthe conclusion that a wet tower cooling system is the best choice for BEC.


### 3.1AlternativesEvaluated

The study evaluated the proposed wet tower cooling system and the various cooling system alternatives @e.,once-through, wet/@ tower, and dry tower), and optional measures (ie., the Gunderboom and holding tank). The study consideredmany factors includingpotential effect on systemperformance, air emissions,noise impacts, aesthetic impacts, aquatic impacts, and costs. 

### In addition, quantifiable costs and benefits were compared in a costhenefit analysis. Lastly, a holistic evaluation was completed ofthe quantifiableand non-quantifiable factors ofthe cooling system choices.

The fourbasic cooling system configurations evaluated consist 

### of:

0 A 

### once-through cooling system similar to the one now in use at ASGS. 

### In a once-through system, water is withdrawn directly fkom a source, such as the River, and pumped into heat exchangers

- called condensers, which condense steam exhausted fkom turbines back into water. The River water is pumped into tubes in the condenser, absorbs heat from steam that flows over the condenser tubes, and then is discharged back into the River. The water is discharged at a slightlyhigher temperature.

0 A 

### closed loop 

### system with wet cooling towers as proposed by PSEGNY. 

### In this system, water circulating through condensertubes absorbs heat fkom steam and is then circulated to mechanical draft cooling towers where the water is cooled through contact with ambient air. The water is then sent back to the condenserto repeat the process. With mechanical draft cooling towers, visible water vapor plumes are sometimes formed above the towers. These plumes dissipate as they mix with ambient air. This systemreduces use of River water approximately 98-99% relative to the existingASGS.

0 A 

### closed loop 

### system with wet/dry cooling towers are mechanical draft cooling towers that incorporate features that, under specific ambient

5temperature and humidity conditions, can reduce the formation of water vapor plumes. A 

### closed loop system with dry 

### cooling towers (air-cooled condenser)uses finned-tubed stedairheat exchangers directly to cool and condense steam. 

### This system eliminates any significant evaporativewater loss from the system and minimizes the Station’swithdrawal of River water. Dry coolingtowers, however, require significant additional capital cost and the towers are considerablylarger both in height and area than evaporativetowers.

At the suggestion ofthe staffs ofNYSDEC and NYSDPS, the study also included consideration of

### two modifications applicableto wet and wet/dry cooling tower systems. They are: 1) an aquatic filter barrier (AFB) system, which consists of a fine mesh screen designed to reduce the interaction ofvery small aquatic organismswith the coolingwater intake, and 2)a water holding tank to allow daily sequencedpumping ofRiver water to potentiallyreduce the entrainmentof aquatic organisms. This provided a total of seven (7) alternativesto the proposed wet tower cooling system.


### 3.2 Overview of 

### Findings

After considering all practicable alternate cooling water intake technologies availableto minimizepotential adverse environmentalimpact, this study concludedthat the wet tower cooling system constituted BTA given that the incremental costs of other practicable alternatives were wholly disproportionate to any environmentalbenefits which might be conferredby suchmeasures. The wet tower cooling systemrepresents a 

### 98-99% reduction in losses of aquatic organisms as compared to the ASGS. Accordingly, any potential additionalreductions in losses to aquatic organisms 

### are very small in comparison and the effect of any such additionalreductions would be virtually impossible to detect at a population level. Based 

### on compounded conservative assumptions, the estimated Conditional Mortality Rates for the target fish species (i.e., river herring, whiteperch, American shad and stipedbass) associatedwith wet tower cooling systemrange from a fi-actionof one percent to essentially zero.
The once through alternative compares less favorablyto the wet tower cooling system from a BTA perspective since it provides considerably less environmentalbenefits at a higher capital construction cost. The once through cooling system alternative has a significantlyhigher flow and is not equipped with wedge wire screens. Accordingly, impingement and entrainment estimates are significantlyhigher. The higher aquatic losses coupled with construction costs higher thaq that for the wet tower cooling system (because ofthe extensive undergroundpipingrequired), make this alternative unattractive for this installation.

The wet towers with the holding tank alternative compares less favorablyto the wet tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that the marginal additional reduction in aquatic effects is wholly disproportionateto the additional costs of this alternative. Moreover, the wet tower with holding tank alternativeresults in more incremental costs 

### than the Wet Tower with SeasonalAFB alternative,but generates smaller incremental

6benefits. The actual effectiveness of the holding tank as a mitigation measure is not clear.

The wet/dry towers alternative compares less favorablyto the wet tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that marginal additionalreduction in aquatic effects is likewise wholly disproportionateto the additional costs of this alternative. This alternativewould require a slightlytaller structurethan the wet tower cooling system. The wet/dry towers with holding tank alternative compares less favorablyto the wet tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that the marginal additionalreduction in aquatic effects is likewise wholly disproportionate to the additional costs ofthis alternative. The wet/dry towers with holding tank alternative results in more incremental costs than the wetldrytower with seasonalAFB alternative,but generates smaller incrementalbenefits. 

### In addition, the holding tank creates an additional visual impact. Moreover and as previously mentioned, the actual effectiveness of the holdingtank as a mitigation measure is not clear.

The dry cooling towers alternative compares less favorablyto the wet tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that the marginal additional reduction in aquatic effects is likewisewholly disproportionateto the dramatic additional costs 

### ofthis alternative. 

### In addition, the shear size ofthe structure negatively affects the visual impact and aesthetics. The dry cooling tower is somewhatnoisier than the wet tower cooling system. Moreover, this alternativeis significantlyless energy efficient, uses more hel, and generates greater air emissions.

The wet towers with seasonal AFB and wet/dry towers with seasonal

### AFB alternatives
are superior to the once through, wet towers with holding tank, wet/* towers, wet/dry towers with holding tank, and 

### dry cooling tower alternatives,but compare less favorably to the wet tower cooling system.

The wet towers with seasonal 

### AFB alternative does not constitute BTA relative to the wet tower cooling system given that 

### the marginal additionalreduction in aquatic effects 

### is wholly disproportionate to the additional costs 

### of this alternative. Specifically,the incremental costs associatedwith 

### this alternative as compared with the wet tower cooling system are 

### I19 times the quantifiableincrementalbenefits associatedwith the reduced loss 

### of fish. Moreover, the study’s conclusionsin this regard arepredicated upon compounded conservativeassumptionsthat overestimate the potential loss of aquatic organisms.
Likewise, the wet/dry towers with seasonalAFB alternative does not constitute BTA relative to the wet towers cooling system given that the marginal additionalreduction in aquatic effects

### is wholly disproportionateto the additional costs ofthis alternative. Specifically, the incremental costs associated with this alternative as compared with the wet tower cooling system are 

### 110times the quantifiable incrementalbenefits associated with the reduced loss of fish. Moreover, the study’s conclusions in this regard are predicated upon compoundedconservative assumptions that overestimatethe potential loss of aquatic organisms. In particular, the methodologies employed in the assessmentdo not take into account density dependent mechanisms (compensation)exhibitedby fish populations.



### On a qualitativebasis, the wet tower cooling system compares favorably as a whole with all other alternatives. Specifically,the wet tower cooling systemwould provide less noise than every other alternative except once-through. With regard to aesthetics, the wet tower cooling system would create less visual impact than the existing structures or those associated with wet towers with holding tank or dry cooling towers. Any visual impact to nearby properties resulting from a coolingtower plume is expectedto be slightwhen viewed within the context ofthe surroundingurban and industrial setting. Finally from 

### an energy conservation standpointthe wet tower cooling system compares favorablywith every other alternative, except once-through.


### 3.3 Public Participation Process

The State ofNew York requires power plant siting applicantsto implement a meaningful public involvementprogram. An applicant is expectedto hold public meetings, offer presentations to individual groups and organizations, and establish a communitypresence to ensure that the concerns of all affected stakeholders are heard. PSEGmestablished a website to provide up-to-date information on the project and notices ofpublic meetings and other events. PSEGNY conductedpublic meetings 

### in several locations in the vicinity 

### ofthe plant and met numerous times with a number 

### of individual groups and organizations.

The concerns identified in this process as well as those of the regulatory agencieswere consideredby NYSDEC and the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environmentin reaching their final decision on the cooling water system at BEC. The design required by NYSDEC and the Siting Board consists 

### of wet/dry tower with seasonally-deployed AFB. The design point ofthe weddry tower is more conservative that the weddry tower evaluated in the study to addressplume frequency concerns expressedbv stakeholders.

Figure 1

- Final Design 8

### 4. 

### Final Design of 

### System

4.1 

### Fixed-PanelAquatic Filter Barrier 

### Con9guration

Gunderboom considered alternative

### AFB designsto minimize the structuresexposure at BEC to strong currents and floating and submerged debris (i.e., trees and tree branches), and to provide greater convenience for operation and maintenance. The result ofthese considerationsis a structural steel frame wall, located immediately offthe existing 

### CWIS face, which supports fixed 

### AFB panels. 

### A pre-fabricated (H-pile and sheet pile) frame wall, approximately 146feet in length, will be placed parallel to the existingbulkhead and accept a series of 12 framed panels. Two different framedpanel sizes (7 “long panels” 

### 9 

### ft x 

### 40 

### ft and 

### 5 “short panels” 

### 9 

### ft x 30 

### ft) will be installed in the Fixed-Panel design. The panels are longer than needed to exceed the high water elevation (86 

### ft) providing additional freeboard to allow for rare extremetides (usuallydue to storm surge) and waves. Becausethe Hudson River is influencedby tides near the BEC, the Fixed-Panel was designed to filter sufficientwater to meet the 

### NYSDEC required 5­ gpm/ft2 regardless of tidal stage. The fixed frame will have about 2,800-ft2

### (7 panels 

### 9 ft
x 30 ft and 5 panel 

### 9 

### ft x 20 

### ft) total filtering area (2.1 

### gpm/ft2at 6000 gpm) at high tide and about 

### 1,900- 

### ft2

### (7 panels 

### 9 

### ftx 22 

### ft and 

### 5 panel 

### 9 ft x12 

### ft) total filtering area (3.1 gpm/ft2at 6000 gpm) at low tide.

Based on discussions 

### with Gunderboompersonnel, PSEGNY believed 

### it was reasonable to oversize the filtering area in order to reduce the through-screen flow rates and associated velocities which will fin-ther minimize entrainment and impingementimpacts and account for uncertainties in river flows in the Hudson River 

### so overtoppingdoes not
occur.
The frames will be constructed with structural steel tubing that ensures structural integrity and rigidity while minimizingtotal weight. The fabric panels will be attached to the frames to ensure a positive seal around their perimeter. The overall structure would extend a minimum of 

### 15 feet into the riverbed, and is seal-welded at each end to the existing intake structurewall to create a sealed enclosure. Openings in the wall (i.e., “panel slots”) are framed on the bottom and 

### two sidesby steel channels, creating slots into which the aquatic filterpanels slide. Each panel slot is slightlyover 10feet wide, and extends from abovethe high water line to within a few feet ofthe river bottom. When a panel is slipped into a slot, a thick rubber gasket on the bottom and sides of the panel creates a seal against the slot frame.

The steel pile wall segments will be installed using conventionalpile-drivingtechniques. Shop fabrication will allow for very tight tolerances on panel and panel slot dimensions. Fit-up between panels and panel slotswill be checked during fabricationto assure a good seal. Regular maintenance inspectionswill help ensure the integrity of the seals.

A compressed air cleaning system will be installed in each panel. The system will include two electric compressors: one compressorwill act as the “lead” compressor and functionsto keep the tanks at designpressure and the other or “lag’ compressorwill

9function if additionalpressure is required or ifthe “lead” compressor fails. Durhg the “break 

### in” period the cleaning systemwill be set to cycle through the fixed panels on a fixed sequenceto clean debris from the filter fabric. Cycle times will likelybe adjusted for normal operationbased on the information obtained during the break in period. Each panel is servedby a pneumatic valve and air diffuser at the bottom ofthe filtration fabric in the panel. Controls will be mounted in the intake structurewith system and warning readoutsprovided in the BEC control room.
The panels will be prepared for deploymenton shore and deployedby an integrated overheadhandling system or with a crane. Deployment will be scheduled at the end of March so all panels are installed by April 1. Panels 

### will be removed for repairs or planned replacementswhen needed. After July 

### 3 1

### ,panels will be removed, examined, repaired if needed and stored forthe winter. Replacementpanels will be kept at BEC for rapid deployment should active panels experience any anomalies.


### 4.2

### Monitoring

BEC personnel on a frequentbasis will visually monitor the AFB system duringthe deploymentperiod. A video camera will allow for a monitoring of the AFB panels and a determination ofwhether anomalous conditions exist. 

### In addition, diver inspections will be conducted upon initial deployment and then as needed based on trained station personnelreviewing the operation data. Future operation and monitoring will be adjusted based on observations during the first and subsequentyears.


### An entrainmentmonitoringprogram was developed 

### to coincide with the deployment of the AFB. The program will provide a measure of the potential effectiveness ofthe AFB to reduce the number of entrained fish at BEC. During entrainmentmonitoring, samples will be collected inside and outside ofthe AFB. Samplingwill be conducted over 24-hour (hr) periods at weekly intervals from April through July. A sampleperiod from April through July encompassesthe peak period for the presence of ichthyoplanktsnin the Hudson River adjacent to the proposed BEC. Four, composite sampleswill be collected during each 24-hr period both in front of (outside) and behind (inside) the AFB panels. Entrainment reports will be generated that summarize each annual sampling effort. Information on the species composition,relative abundance, and seasonal distribution of fish eggs, larvae, andjuveniles, as appropriate,will be reported. Average weekly estimates for ichthyoplankton density (No/lOOOm3)in front of and behind the AFB panels will be computed. The ratio of the ichthyoplankton densityin front of (ie., unprotected by) the fixed panels to the densitybehind the fixed panels will provide an index ofhow effective the AFB is in minimizing entrainmentof fish eggs and larvae in the cooling water system at BEC.

The reports will present an evaluation ofhow effective the 

### AFB was in minimizing entrainment and whether the effectiveness was maintained during the samplingperiod @,e., April through July). 

### h addition, physical indicator measurements (e.g., water level

10differentials,visual screen inspections)will be correlated with the biological effectivenessmeasurementsto determineif one or more could be used in place of biological monitoring for future 

### effectiveness/performanceevaluations.


### References

PSEG Power New York Inc. (PSEGNY). 2001. Appendix M.2-Alternate Cooling System Study. In: Bethlehem Energy Center Supplement to Application for Certification 

### of a Major Electric GeneratingFacility. Case 97-F-2 162under Article 

### X of the New York StatePublic Service Law.

United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). 1976.Development Document for Best TechnologyAvailable for the location, Design, Construction and Capacity of CoolingWater Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse EnvironmentalImpact. EPA 440/1-76/015a.Washington, D.C.

11