Docket OW-2002-0049 DCN#: 6-50461) 1 Stricklard, M.and J. Muace, PSEG 

/ I Selectionand Design of Wedge Wire Screens and a Fixed-Panel Aquatic Filter Barrier System to Reduce 

Impingementand Entrainment at a Cooling Water 

Intake Structure on the Hudson River 

Selection and Design of Wedge Wire Screens and a Fixed-Panel Aquatic 

Filter Barrier System to Reduce Impingement and Entrainment at a 

Cooling Water Intake Structure on the Hudson River 

Mark F. Strickland", James E. Mudgeb 

"PSEG Services Corporation, 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 cooling water system at the Albany Steam 

Generating Station (ASGS) site and replacement with the Bethlehem Energy Center 

(BEC) which includes a new cooling water intake structure. The BEG is a 750­

megawatt combined cycle power plant that is being built on the western shore of the 

Hudson River in Bethlehem, New York. PSEG Power New York, Inc. (PSEGNY) 

evaluated various cooling system alternatives (i.e., once-through, wet towers, hybrid 

towers, and dry towers) and optional measures (floating and fixed-panel aquatic filter 

barrier systems, and cooling water holding tank). The alternativecoohg systems study 

prepared by PSEGNY considered many factors such as the effects on aquatic organisms, 

system performance, noise, aesthetics, air emissions, and costs. 

Based on the results of past impingement and entrainment studies at ASGS and other 

Hudson river power plants, the effect of the various alternatives on four selected target 

species: river herring (alewife and blueback herring), American shad, white perch, and 

striped bass, were evaluated by various impact indicators (e.g., organism losses, 

equivalent adult numbers 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-deployed fixed-panel aquatic filter barrier 

system coupled with a hybrid cooling tower. This alternative is projected to virtually 

eliminate impingement and reduce entrainment by about 98 to 99% as compared to 

ASGS and as evaluated by the aforementioned aquatic impact indicators. 

This paper will overview the alternatives study process and results, describe the design of 

the fixed- panel aquatic filter intake barrier and why it was selected over the floating 

panel design for BEC, and present the operationalmonitoring program that will be used 

to determine the effectivenessof the system. 

1. Introduction 

This paper describes the selection and design of the 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 MW Albany Steam 

1 
Generating 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 system proposed by PSEGNY will withdraw 98-99% less water than 

ASGS, which will greatly reduce the entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. 

The BEC provides a unique opportunity to retire an existing generation plant and 

redevelop the site with a state of the 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 of nitrogen 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 of the proposed wet tower closed-loop cooling system to 

determine if any alternative provided additional protection of aquatic resources without 

creating significant undesirable effects or being wholly disproportionate in cost 

(PSEGNY, 2001). 

The study concluded that the proposed cooling water intake structure satisfiedbest 

technology available (BTA) as applied in New York by the New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York’s view of how BTA 

determinations are made was set forth in recent decisions. For purposes of discussion, 

the following represents our understanding of New York’s approach to these matters. 

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as implemented by New York State regulations, 

requires that the’location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake 

structures (CWIS) reflect BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact. New York 

regulators have noted that court decisions have established that the determination of what 

constitutesBTA is a site specific issue of fact which depends upon a variety of factors 

including the cost and age of the facility, impacts to aquatic populations, the additional 

energy, if any, needed to support improved technology, and other relevant concepts. 

Accordingly, New York regulators impose conditions on a “case by case basis”, 

consistent with the CWA. 

The conclusion that the proposed wet tower cooling system meets the BTA test is 

supported by the specific location, design, construction and capacity of the proposed 

cooling water intake structure. In addition, this study documents the significant 

environmental improvements, in relation to economic costs, that would accrue from the 

proposed wet tower cooling system. 

Concerning the location of cooling water intake structures, the 1976 EPA Development 

Document states that this factor can be the most important consideration. It recommends 

drawing water from main channels of large streams or fi-ombiologically deficient areas 

2 
and avoiding important spawning areas, fish migration paths, shellfish beds and other 

areas where aquatic life may be concentrated. The proposed cooling water intake 

structure would involve modifications to 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 existing permitted ASGS, coupled with the use of passive 

screens equipped with wedge wire mesh associated with the wet tower cooling system, 

would minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms in a cost effective 

manner. 

With respect to “construction” of cooling water intake structures, the following factors 

were considered consistent with the 1976 EPA Development Document, p.145: (1) loss 

of potential 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 dealing with an existing permitted site with existing intake structures and 

thus avoiding disruptions associated with new construction. Disruptions associated with 

modifications to the existing intake structure would be small and of short duration. 

BTA design features should reduce 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 determination is made taking the 

individual site and associated factors into consideration. As demonstrated by 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 antidegradation policy as set forth in NYSDEC organization and delegation 

memorandum Number 85-40, dated September 9, 1985 since no lowering of water 

quality will occur. 

Finally, it should be noted that this study analyzed the significant environmental 

considerations includingvisual and noise impacts associated with the various cooling 

system alternatives, and benefits that accrue fi-om reuse of an existing industrial site. 

The study utilized conservative methodologies and assumptions throughout the analysis. 

As a result, some of the impacts, such as aquatic losses, are likely to 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 overstating the 

economic burden. 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 

3 
P%EGNYacquired the existing station from Niagara Mohawk Power Cop (Niagara 

Mohawk) in May 2000 with the purpose of operating the existing Station while exploring 

the possibility of moving forward with redevelopment plans initiated by Niagara 

Mohawk in 1998. The redevelopment of the site with the BEC utilizing the proposed wet 

tower cooling system provides a viable alternative to maintaining operation of the 

existing Station. PSEGNY filed appropriate air and water permit applications for the 

new facility and a supplement to complete the 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 facility located along Route 144 on the western bank of 

the Hudson River (the River) approximately 1.5 miles south of the Albany City 

boundary. The City of Rensselaer is located on the eastern bank of the River directly 

opposite ASGS. Portions of the Town of East Greenbush lie directly opposite and across 

the River fi-om the 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 since been modified to 

burn residual oil (1970) and natural gas (1981). 

The ASGS uses a once-through cooling system to cool and condense steam that drives 

the electric generating turbines. When the ASGS is operating, water is withdrawn from 

the River and circulated through condensers -large heat 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 generating process. Steam does not come in 

contact with River water circulated through the condensers. 

Water is withdrawn from the River, circulated through the condensers, and discharged 

back into the River in a continual process. The water is discharged back into the River at 

slightly hgher temperatures and the resulting thermal plume is quickly dispersed by 

currents. Previous studies conducted at the facility demonstrated that the thermal plume 

does not adversely impact the River aquatic community. 

PSEGNY’s proposed BEC is a 750-MW, state-of-the-art combined 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 he1 and low-sulfur distillate oil will 

be used as a secondary fuel. This technology is the most efficient fossil-fueled electric 

generating technology 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-art water intake technology employing 

wedge wire mesh screens. As documented in the SPDES permit 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 study was conducted to respond to a request for additional information on cooling 

system options made by various interested parties, including the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State 

Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) and environmental organizations,when the 

BEC project was originallyproposed by Niagara Mohawk. The study examines the 

specific and relevant facts, impacts and benefits associated with BEC to facilitatethe 

necessary, case-by-case review and BTA determination performed by NYSDEC in 

issuing the SPDES permit. 

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 supports the conclusion that a wet tower cooling system 

is the best choice for BEC. 

3.1 Alternatives Evaluated 

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 considered many factors including potential 

effect on system performance, 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 of the quantifiable and 

non-quantifiable factors of the cooling system choices. 

The four basic 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 

slightly higher temperature. 

0 A closed loop system with wet cooling towers as proposed by PSEGNY. In 

this system, water circulating through condenser tubes 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 

condenser to 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 system reduces use of River water 

approximately 98-99% relative to the existing ASGS. 

0 A closed loop system with wet/dry cooling towers are mechanical draft 

cooling towers that incorporate features that, under specific ambient 

5 
temperature 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 stedair heat exchangers directly to cool and condense steam. 

This system eliminates any significant evaporativewater loss from the system 

and minimizes the Station’s withdrawal of River water. Dry cooling towers, 

however, require significant additional capital cost and the towers are 

considerably larger both in height and area than evaporative towers. 

At the suggestion of the staffs of NYSDEC and NYSDPS, the study also included 

consideration of two modifications applicable to 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 of very small aquatic organisms with the cooling water 

intake, and 2) a water holding tank to allow daily sequencedpumping of River water to 

potentially reduce the entrainment of aquatic organisms. This provided a total of seven 

(7) alternatives to the proposed wet tower cooling system. 

3.2 Overview of Findings 

After considering all practicable alternate cooling water intake technologies available to 

minimize potential adverse environmental impact, this study concluded that 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 conferred by such measures. The wet tower cooling system represents a 

98-99% reduction in losses of aquatic organisms as compared to the ASGS. 

Accordingly, any potential additional reductions in losses to aquatic organisms are very 

small in comparison and the effect of any such additional reductions 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, white perch, American shad and stiped bass) associated with wet tower 

cooling system range from a fi-actionof one percent to essentially zero. 

The once through alternative compares less favorably to 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 of the extensive underground piping required), make this alternative 

unattractive for this installation. 

The wet towers with the holding tank alternative compares less favorably to the wet 

tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that the marginal additional reduction in 

aquatic effects is wholly disproportionate to the additional costs of this alternative. 

Moreover, the wet tower with holding tank alternative results in more incremental costs 

than the Wet Tower with Seasonal AFB alternative, but generates smaller incremental 

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

clear. 

The wet/dry towers alternative compares less favorably to the wet tower cooling system 

from a BTA perspective in that marginal additional reduction in aquatic effects is 

likewise wholly disproportionate to the additional costs of this alternative. This 

alternative would require a slightly taller structure than the wet tower cooling system. 

The wet/dry towers with holding tank alternative compares less favorably to the wet 

tower cooling system from a BTA perspective in that the marginal additional reduction in 

aquatic effects is likewise wholly disproportionate to the additional costs of this 

alternative. The wet/dry towers with holding tank alternative results in more incremental 

costs than the wetldry tower with seasonal AFB alternative, but generates smaller 

incremental benefits. In addition, the holding tank creates an additional visual impact. 

Moreover and as previously mentioned, the actual effectiveness of the holding tank 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 likewise wholly disproportionateto the dramatic additional costs of this 

alternative. In addition, the shear size of the structure negatively affects the visual impact 

and aesthetics. The dry cooling tower is somewhat noisier than the wet tower cooling 

system. Moreover, this alternativeis significantly less 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 additional reduction in aquatic effects is 

wholly disproportionate to the additional costs of this alternative. Specifically, the 

incremental costs associated with this alternative as compared with the wet tower cooling 

system are I19 times the quantifiableincremental benefits associated with the reduced loss 

of fish. Moreover, the study’s conclusions in this regard are predicated upon 

compounded conservative assumptions that overestimate the potential loss of aquatic 

organisms. 

Likewise, the wet/dry towers with seasonal AFB alternative does not constitute BTA 

relative to the wet towers cooling system given that the marginal additional reduction in 

aquatic effects is wholly disproportionateto the additional costs of this alternative. 

Specifically, the incremental costs associated with this alternative as compared with the 

wet tower cooling system are 110 times the quantifiable incremental benefits associated 

with the reduced loss of fish. Moreover, the study’s conclusions in this regard are 

predicated upon compounded conservative assumptions that overestimate the potential 

loss of aquatic organisms. In particular, the methodologies employed in the assessment 
do not take into account density dependent mechanisms (compensation) exhibited by fish 

populations. 

On a qualitativebasis, the wet tower cooling system compares favorably as a whole with 

all other alternatives. Specifically, the wet tower cooling system would 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 cooling tower plume is expected to be slight when 

viewed within the context of the surroundingurban and industrial setting. Finally from an 

energy conservation standpoint the wet tower cooling system compares favorably with 

every other alternative, except once-through. 

3.3 Public Participation Process 

The State of New York requires power plant siting applicants to implement a meaningful 

public involvement program. An applicant is expected to 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. PSEGm established a 

website to provide up-to-date information on the project and notices of public meetings 

and other events. PSEGNY conducted public meetings in several locations in the vicinity 

of the 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 agencies were 

considered by NYSDEC and the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting 

and the Environment in 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 of the weddry tower is more conservative 

that the weddry tower evaluated in the study to address plume frequency concerns 

expressed bv stakeholders. 

Figure 1 - Final Design 

8 
4. Final Design of System 

4.1 Fixed-Panel Aquatic Filter Barrier Con9guration 

Gunderboom considered alternative AFB designs to minimize the structures exposure 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 of these 

considerations is a structural steel frame wall, located immediately off the existing CWIS 

face, which supports fixed AFB panels. A pre-fabricated (H-pile and sheet pile) frame 

wall, approximately 146 feet in length, will be placed parallel to the existing bulkhead 

and accept a series of 12 framed panels. Two different framed panel 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 extreme tides (usually due to storm 

surge) and waves. Because the Hudson River is influenced by tides near the BEC, the 

Fixed-Panel was designed to filter sufficient water to meet the NYSDEC required 5­

gpm/ft2regardless 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/ft2 at 6000 gpm) at high tide 

and about 1,900-ft2 (7 panels 9 ft x 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 Gunderboom personnel, 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 impingement impacts and 

account for uncertainties in river flows in the Hudson River so overtopping does not 

occur. 

The frames will be constructed with structural steel tubing that ensures structural 

integrity and rigidity while minimizing total 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 sides by steel channels, creating slots 

into which the aquatic filter panels slide. Each panel slot is slightlyover 10 feet wide, 

and extends from above the high water line to within a few feet of the 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 conventional pile-driving techniques. 

Shop fabrication will allow for very tight tolerances on panel and panel slot dimensions. 

Fit-up between panels and panel slots will be checked during fabrication to assure a good 

seal. Regular maintenance inspections will 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 compressor will act as the “lead” compressor and 

functionsto keep the tanks at design pressure and the other or “lag’ compressor will 

9 
function if additional pressure is required or if the “lead” compressor fails. Durhg the 

“break in” period the cleaning system will be set to cycle through the fixed panels on a 

fixed sequence to clean debris from the filter fabric. Cycle times will likely be adjusted 

for normal operation based on the information obtained during the break in period. Each 

panel is served by a pneumatic valve and air diffuser at the bottom of the filtration fabric 

in the panel. Controls will be mounted in the intake structure with system and warning 

readouts provided in the BEC control room. 

The panels will be prepared for deployment on shore and deployed by an integrated 

overhead handling 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 for the winter. Replacement panels will be kept at BEC for rapid 

deployment should active panels experience any anomalies. 

4.2 Monitoring 

BEC personnel on a frequent basis will visually monitor the AFB system during the 

deployment period. A video camera will allow for a monitoring of the AFB panels and a 

determination of whether anomalous conditions exist. In addition, diver inspections will 

be conducted upon initial deployment and then as needed based on trained station 

personnel reviewing the operation data. Future operation and monitoring will be adjusted 

based on observations during the first and subsequent years. 

An entrainment monitoring program was developed to coincide with the deployment of 

the AFB. The program will provide a measure of the potential effectiveness of the AFB 

to reduce the number of entrained fish at BEC. 

During entrainment monitoring, samples will be collected inside and outside of the AFB. 

Samplingwill be conducted over 24-hour (hr)periods at weekly intervals from April 

through July. A sample period from April through July encompasses the peak period for 

the presence of ichthyoplanktsn in the Hudson River adjacent to the proposed BEC. 

Four, composite samples will 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, and juveniles, as appropriate, will be reported. Average weekly 

estimates for ichthyoplankton density (No/lOOO m3)in front of and behind the AFB 

panels will be computed. The ratio of the ichthyoplankton density in front of (ie., 

unprotected by) the fixed panels to the density behind the fixed panels will provide an 

index of how effective the AFB is in minimizing entrainment of fish eggs and larvae in 

the cooling water system at BEC. 

The reports will present an evaluation of how effective the AFB was in minimizing 

entrainment and whether the effectiveness was maintained during the sampling period 

@,e.,April through July). h addition, physical indicator measurements (e.g., water level 

10 
differentials, visual screen inspections) will be correlated with the biological 

effectiveness measurements to determine if 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 Generating Facility. Case 97-F-2162 under Article X of the New York 

State Public Service Law. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Development Document 

for Best Technology Available for the location, Design, Construction and Capacity of 

Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. EPA 

440/1-76/015a. Washington, D.C. 

11