Docket OW-2002-0049 DCN#: 6-5046~ TahE,T Cook, J Black, and N Olken,Alden Laboratoiy FshProtechon Technologies for Exishng Cooling ter Intake Structures and their Costs 

# 1 FISH PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES 

### FOR EXISTING COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTUIPESAND THEIR 

### COSTS E. P. Taft, Thomas 

### C. Cook, Jonathan 

### L. Black, and Nathaniel Olken Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. Holden, MA 

### Abstract There are several technology options available for the protection of aquatic organisms at CoolingWater Intake Structures (CWISs). .Thesetechnologies,used alone or in some combination,have the potential to meet EPA’s proposed national performance standards. The ability of a technology to meet the standard at any given site is dictatedby species and site-specific factors. The costs ofthese technologies also vary widely between sites, 

### Introduction The United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s @PA)proposed Phase I1 Existing Facilities Rule (the Rule) (EPA 

### 2002) requires a thorough understanding of fishprotection technologiesthat can be considered forpotential use at CWISsto address concerns over fish entrainment and impingement. For over thirty years, industry groups and government agencieshavebeen working to developboth biologically and cost-effectivetechnologies. These efforts have led to the developmentof a suite of technologiesthat address a wide array ofbiological, environmental,and engineering characteristics associated with different target species, water body types (e.g., rivers, lakes, estuaries), and physical locations (e.g., offshore, onshore, in-river). Research continues on new technologies, as well as 

### on modifications to, and enhancements of, existing technologies. Costs associated with intake technologies vary not onlyby flow rate, but by other site-specific factors. Emphasis in this discussion is on those technologies for which EPA developed costs in eitherthe proposed Rule or the Notice 

### ofData Availability (NODA) (EPA 2003). 

### For each technology, the following information 

### is presented: (1) a general description ofthe technology; (2) the current status of availabletechnologies and results ofresearch to date; (3) the potential for available technologiesto meet the proposed national performance standards (reduction in impingementmortality of 

### 80 to 

### 95% and a reduction in entrainment 

### of 60 to 

### 90%); and (4) the costs associatedwith retrofitting the technology to an existing intake. The costs include a comparisonbetween the site-specific,costsgenerated from historical data and those presented by EPA in the Rule and the 

### NODA. The site- and species-specific factors that impact a technology’s abilityto meet the performance standards axe highlighted. 

### Overview ofIntake Technologies Depending on their mode of action, available fish protection systems fall into one of four categories: physical barriers, which physicallyblock fishpassage; collection systems, which actively collect fish for theirreturn to 

### a safe release location; diversion systems, which divert fish to bypasses 

### for return to a.safe release location; and behavioral barriers, which alter or take advantage ofnatural behavior patterns to attract

1or repel fish (Table 1). 

### A review of the biological effectiveness, engineeringpracticability, and costs of these systems and devices is presented in detail in three Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)reports prepared in 1986,1994, and 1999 

### (EPRI 1986,1994,1999). Extensiveresearch has been conducted since the early 1970s in an attempt to develop technologiesthat will minimize entrainment and impingement at 

### CWISs. An additional 25 years ofresearch has been conducted at other water withdrawals (e.g., hydroelectric dams). 

### As a result, a suite oftechnologies is available that can be considered for application at CWISs. The ability of a given technology to meet the national performance standards is influencedby a wide variety ofbiological, environmental,and engineeringfactors that must be evaluated on a site-specificbasis.
Table 1 Fish Protection Technologies by Category and Their Mode of Action

rechnology Category 'hysical Barriers

:ollection Systems



### 1iversion Systems

3ehavioral Deterrent rechnologies Mode of Action Physically block fish passage (usually in combination with low water velocity)

Actively or passively collect fish for transport through a return system Divert fish to a return system or safe area

Alter or take advantage of natural behavior patterns to repel or attract fish System/Technology Traveling screens Stationary screens Drum screens Cylindrical wedge wire screens Barrier nets Aquatic filter barrier Porous dikes Radial wells Artificial filter beds Rotarv disk screens Modified traveling screens Fish pumps Angled screens Modular Inclined Screen Eicher Screen Angled rotary drum screens Louve rs/ang Ied bar racks Inclined plane screens VerticaI/horizontal trave Iing screens Strobe light Mercury light Other light sources Acoustic systems lnfrasound Air bubble curtains Hybrid systems Other behavioral technologies

2

### PHYSICAL BARYUERS Traveling Screens (Through flow, Dual flow, Center flow, Drum, etc). The traveling water screen is a standard feature at most CWISs. The ability oftraveling screensto act as a barrier to fish while, not resulting in impingement, is dependent on many site-specific factors such as size of the fish, flow velocity, location of screens, and presence of escaperoutes. 

### As barrier devices, traveling screens cannot be considered for protection of early life stages or aquatic organisms that have little or 

### no motility. Since EPA defines the baseline 

### as the impingement mortality and entrainmentthat would occur with a shorelineintake and 

### no fish protection, a traditional traveling screen can not meet the impingement mortality standard. However, dependingupon the speciespresent in the vicinity of a 

### CWIS, a traditional traveling screen coupled with a fish return trough can result in high extended survival (e.g., Oyster Creek and Rosetonbefore the installation ofRistroph screens [Thomas and Miller 

### 1976;

### LMS 19911). 

### Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screens Wedge wire screenshave the potential to reduce both entrainment and impingement at water intakes. 

### In order to effectively reduce impingement and entrainment,the following conditions must exist:

0 sufficiently small screen slot size to physicallyblock passage ofthe smallest life stage to be protected (typically 

### 0.5 to 1

### .O 

### mm for egg and larval life stages);
0 low through-slot velocity (on the order of 0.5 to 1

### .O ft/s); and 

### an ambient current cross-flowto carry organisms and debris around and away from the screen); To date, large-scale CWIS applications ofwedge wire screens have been limited to two plants 

### (J.H. Campbell,Unit 3 and Eddystone Station)where relatively large slot openingshavebeen used (i.e., they have not been targeted specificallyto prevent entrainment of early life stages). These screens have been biologically effective in preventing impingementof larger fish and have not caused unusual maintenance problems. Under a grant from the U. 

### S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA), EPRI sponsored laboratory evaluations of wedge wire screens with eggs and/or larvae 

### ofnine fish species commonly entrained at CWISs (EPRI 2003). General entrainment and impingement trends observed in the data collectedincluded: 1) impingement decreased with increases in slot size; 2) entrainmentincreased with increases in slot size; 3) entrainment and impingementincreased with increases in through-slot velocities; 4) entrainment and impingementdecreased with increases in channel velocity, and 

### 5)within a species, larval fish length did not appear to be a factor, althoughthe lengths of most species evaluatedwere within a narrow sizerange. Wedgewire screens can be generally considered for application at CWIS. Sincethe only 

### two large CWISs to employ wedge wire screens to date use 6.4 and 10.0mm slot openings, the potential for clogging and foulingwith slot sizes as small as 

### 0.5 to 

### 1.0 

### mm (as would be required for protection ofmany entrainable life stages) is 

### unknown. 

### A follow-upEPRI studyplanned for 

### 2004 will test a prototype wedge wire screen under several operating conditions and in severalwater body types with local fishpopulations. 

### In general, consideration ofwedge wire screenswith small slot dimensions for CWIS application should include in situ prototype scale studies to determinepotential biological effectiveness and identifythe ability to control clogging and fouling in a way that does not impact station operation. 

### As the information database on biological and engineering effectivenessin different water bodies grows, the futureneed for such prototype studieswill diminish.


### 3

### Aquatic Filter Barrier 

### (AFB) The aquatic filterbarrier (AFB) is a relatively recent technology designed to protect all life stages of fish at water intakes. As a result, there are limited data available on its deployment for this purpose. The AFB consists ofpolyester fiber strands that are pressed into a water-permeable fabric mat. Beginning in 1995, Mirant, New York, LLC has sponsored an evaluation of the AFB to determineits ability to minimize ichthyoplankton enb-ainmentat the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River (ASA 1999,2001). Despite difficulties in keeping the boom deployed and providing adequate cleaningin the 1995-1997 studies, results of studies in 1998 showed a large reduction in entrainment. It appears that most ofthe AFB deployment and cleaningproblems may have been resolved for this site. Results analyzingthe rate of ichthyoplankton entrainmentbetween two side-by-sidewater intakes (one protected by an AFB and the other unprotected)have shown the potential biological effectivenessof this technology (ASA 1999,2001). Laboratory studies on retention and survival ofthe early lifestages of five species of fish exposed to aquatic filter barrier fabric were conducted in 2002 (Black et al., in press). Results oftesting with threeperforation sizes (0.5, 1

### .O, and 

### 1.5mm) and 

### two flow rates (10 gpdft2and 20 gpdft2)indicate that, in general, survival of organismswas not significantlycorrelatedto either flow rate or perforation size. Retention (the inverse of entrainment)of organisms,however, appearedto decrease significantlywith increasing flow rate for one species of fish (rainbow smelt). 

### In addition, increasingperforation sizes decreasedretention ofthree species of fish tested (common carp, rainbow smelt, and stripedbass), which potentially limits the effectiveness of largerperforation sizes in protecting the earliest lifestages ofthese species. At this time, we consider the AFB system to be experimentaldespite its high potential for effectively reducing entrainment and impingement. However, continued improvements in anchoring and cleaning systemsmake the AFB a technology to be consideredwhen evaluating fish protection alternatives. 

### Barrier Nets Under the proper hydraulic conditions (primarilylow velocity) and without heavy debris loading, barrier nets have been effective inblocking fish passage into water intakes. There have been severalrecent applications ofbarrier nets in the Midwest (Michaud and Taft 1999). At the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant on Lake Michigan, a 2.5-mile long barrier net, set in open water around the intakejetties, has been successhl in reducing entrainment of all fish species occurring in the vicinity ofthe intake (Reider et al. 1997). The net was first deployed in 1989 and modifications to the design in subsequentyears have led to a net effectiveness for target species (five salmonid species, yellow perch, rainbow smelt, alewife, and chub) of over 

### 80% since 1991,with an overall effectiveness of 96% in 1995 and 1996. 

### In 1993 and 1994, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. sponsored a study of a 3.0-mm, finemesh net at its Bowline Point Generating Station on the Hudson River (LMS 1996). In 

### 1993,clogging with fine suspended silt caused the net to clog and sink. 

### In 1994, sprayingwas not effectivein cleaningthe net when it became fouled by the algae Ectocarpus. Excessive fouling caused two ofthe support piles to snap, ending the evaluation (LMS 1996). 

### In both years, abundance ofthe target ichthyoplankton species,bay anchovy, was too low to determine the biological effectiveness ofthe net. On thebasis of studies to date, the researchers concludedthat a fine mesh net may be a potentially effective method for preventing entrainment at Bowline Point 

### (LMS 1996). However, pending further evaluation, this concept is consideredto be experimental.

4

### In conclusion,barrier nets can be considered a viable option for protecting fish provided that relatively low velocities (generally 4 

### -0ft/sec) can be achieved and debris loading is light. A thorough evaluation 

### of sitespecific environmental and operational conditions is generallyrecommended. At this time, barrier nets can onlybe considered for reducing impingementof larger fish at 

### CWISs. 

### FISH COLLECTIONSYSTEMS Modified TravelingWater Screens Conventionaltraveling water screenshave been altered 

### to incorporatemodifications that improve survival of impinged fish. Such state-of-the-artmodificationsminimize fish mortality associated with screen impingement and spraywashremoval. Screensmodified in this manner are commonly called “Ristroph screens.” Each screenbasket is equippedwith a water filled liftingbucket that safely contains collected organisms as they are carried upward with the rotation of the screen. The screens typically operate continuouslyto minimize impingementtime. As each bucket passes over the top ofthe screen, fish are rinsed into a collectiontrough by a low pressure spraywash system. Once collected, the fish are transported back to a safe release location. Such featureshave been incorporated into through flow, dual 

### flow, and center flow screens. Ristroph screenshave been shown to improve fish survival and have been installed and evaluated at a number 

### ofpower plants. Improvementsto the Ristroph screen design, made in the late-1980s and early1990s,have resulted in increased fish survival. The most important advancement in state-of-the-art Ristroph screen design was developed through extensive laboratory and field experimentation. 

### A series of studies conductedby Fletcher (1990) indicatedthat substantial injury associated with these traveling screens was due to repeated buffeting of fish inside the lifting buckets as a result of undesirable hydraulic , conditions. To eliminatethese conditions, a number of alternativebucket configurationswere developed to create a sheltered area in which fish could safely reside during screenrotation. After several attempts, a bucket configurationwas developedthat achieved the desired conditions (Envirex 1996). 

### In 1995,Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) performed a biological evaluationofthe improved screening system installed at the Salem Generating Station in the Delaware River (Heimbuch 1999;Ronafalvy 1999). The reported survival rates for this installation are among the hghest for any traveling screen system (Heimbuch 1999). Modified traveling water screens continue to be an availabletechnologythat can reduce fish losses due to impingement. Unless modified to incorporate fme mesh, as discussedbelow, these screensdo not reduce entrainment losses. 

### Fine Mesh Traveling Screens 

### In addition to the fish handling provisions noted above, traveling water screenshave been further modified to incorporate screen mesh with openings as small as 

### 0.5 

### mm to collect fish eggs and larvae and return them to the source water body. For many species and early life stages, mesh sizes of 

### 0.5 to 1

### .O 

### mm are required for effective screening. Various types of traveling screens, such as through flow, dual flow, and center flow screens, can be fitted with fine mesh screen material. Because collection systems, such as finemesh screens,physically handle organisms, some mortality of organisms is inevitable. The likelihood of an organism survivingimpingementon screens Isspecies- and

5life stage-specific,with heartier organisms experiencinghigher survival. 

### As currentlywritten, the proposed Rule does not addressthe fate of organismsprevented from being entrained. However, the final Rule may require a reduction in entrainment

### mortality rather than a simplereduction in entrainment. Such a requirement would have a very different implicationin terms ofthe ability of fine-mesh screens to meet the performance standard. 

### A number of finemesh screen installationshave been evaluated forbiological effectiveness. Results of these studies indicate that survival is highly species- and life stage-specific. Species such as bay anchovy and

### Alosa spp. have shown low survivalwhile other species, such as stripedbass, whteperch, yellow perch, and invertebrateshave shown moderate to high survival. If entrainment survival is a consideration, evaluating fine mesh screens for potential application at CWISs requires carefulreview 

### of all available data on the survivalpotential ofthe species and life stages to be protected, as well as non-target species. 

### In addition to these field applications, survival data on a variety of species and life stages following impingementon fine-mesh screensis availablefrom extensive laboratory studies. 

### In these studies, larval life stages of stripedbass, winter flounder, alewife, yellow perch, walleye, channel catfish, and bluegill were impinged on a 

### 0.5 

### mm screenmesh at velocities ranging from 

### 0.5 to 

### 3.0 Wsec and for durations of 

### 2, 4,8 or 16minutes. 

### As in the field evaluations, survival was variable between species, larval stages, and impingementduration and velocity (ESSERCO 1981). Theprimary concern with finemesh screens is that they functionby impinging early organism life stages that are entrained through coarsemesh screens. Depending on species and life stage,mortality from impingementcan exceed entrainment mortality. In order for fine mesh screensto provide a meaningful benefit in protecting fish, impingement survival of target species and life stages must be substantially greater than survival through the circulatingwater system.


### FISHDIVERSION SYSTEMS Angled 

### Screens 

### A variety of specieshave been shown to be effectively guided on screens given suitable hydraulic conditions. Angled screensrequire uniform flow conditions, a fairly constant approachvelocity, and a low through-screenvelocityto be biologically effective. Angled screen systemshave been installed and biologically evaluated at a number of CWISs on a prototype and full-scalebasis. Angled screen diversion efficiency vanes by species, but is generallyrelatively high for most species evaluated. Survival following diversion and pumping (as required to return fish to their natural environment)has been more variable. Overall survival rates ofrelatively fragile species followingdiversion can be low. Heartier species exhibit higher survival rates resultingin overall system efficiencyvalues (diversion and survival)ranging from 50 to nearly 100%. 

### In addition to the CWIS applications, angled fish diversion screens leading to bypass and returnpipelines are being used extensively for guiding salmonids 

### in the Pacific Northwest. These screens aremostly ofthe rotary 

### drum or vertical, flat panel (non-moving) types and have provided effective downstreamprotection forjuvenile salmonids at several diversion projects in the Pacific Northwest (Neitzel et al. 1991;EPRI 1998). Like other angled screens, suitable hydraulic conditions at the screen face and a safebypass system

6are required for the screens to effectivelyprotect fish from entrainmentand impingement and to divert them to a bypass for return to the source water body (Pearce and Lee 1992). Angled screens can be considered a viable option for protectingjuvenile and adult life stagesprovided that proper hydraulic conditions can be maintained and that debris can be effectivelyremoved. 

### To date, all angled screen applications at cooling water intakeshave involved the use of conventionaltraveling water screensmodified to provide a flush surface 

### on which fish can guide to a bypass. Fish eggs, larvae, and small invertebrateswould not be protected by angled screensunless fine mesh screeningwas used. 

### Modular Inclined Screens The Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) has recentlybeen developed and tested by the Electric Power Research Institute 

### (EPRI 1994;

### EPRI 1996;Taft et al. 1997). The MIS is intended to protectjuvenile and adult life stages of fish at all types ofwater intakes. 

### An MIS module consists of an'entrancewith trash racks, dewatering stop logs 

### in slots, 

### an inclined screen set at a shallow angleto the flow (10 to 20 degrees), and a bypass for directing diverted fish to a transport pipe. The module is completely enclosed and is designed to operate at relatively high water velocities ranging 

### from 

### 2 to 10ft/sec, depending 

### on the species and life stages to be protected. The MIS was evaluated in laboratory studies to determine the design configurationwhich yielded the best hydraulic conditions for safe fish passage, and the biological effectiveness ofthe optimal design in diverting selected fish species to a bypass 

### (EPRI 1994). Biological tests were conducted in a large flume with juvenile walleye,bluegill, channel catfish, American shad, blueback herring, golden shiner, rainbow trout 

### (two size classes),brown trout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, and Atlantic salmon. Screen effectiveness (diversion efficiency and latent mortality) was evaluated at water velocities ranging fi-om2 ftlsecto 

### 10 ft/sec. Diversionrates approached 100% for all species except American shad and blueback herring at water velocities up to at least 

### 6 fthec. Generally, latent mortality of test fish that was adjusted for control mortalitywas low (0 to 5%). Based 

### on the laboratoryresults, a pilot scale evaluation of the MIS was conducted at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Green Island Hydroelectric Project on the Hudson River near Albany, 

### NY (EPRI 1996). The results obtained in this field evaluation with rainbow trout, largemouth and smallmouthbass, yellow perch, bluegill, and golden shiners were similar to those obtained in laboratory studies (Taft et al. 1997). The combined results of laboratory and field evaluations of the MIS have demonstratedthat this screen is an effective fish diversion device that has the potential for protecting fish at water intakes. Studiesto date have only evaluatedpossible application at hydroelectricprojects. Further, 

### no full-scaleMIS facilityhas been constructed and evaluated. As a result, the potential for effectiveuse at CWISs is unknown. Any consideration of the MIS for GWIS application shouldbe based 

### on future large-scale,prototype evaluations. 

### Louvers A louver system consists of an array of evenly spaced, vertical slats aligned across a channel at a specified angle and leading to a bypass. Bar racks can also be angled to act as louvers. Results of louver studies to date have varied by species and site. Most of the louver installations in the 

### U.S. are in the Pacific Northwest at water supply intakes. Louvers generally are not considered acceptableby the fisheryresource

7agencies in that region since they do not meet the current 100% effectiveness criterion. However, numerous studies have demonstratedthat louvers can be 

### on the order of 

### 70 to 95% effective in diverting 

### a wide variety of species over a wide range of conditions (EPRI 1986; Stira and Robinson 1997). Until recently, the effectiveness of diversion devices for non-anadromous fish has been largely unknown. Recent studiesby the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) evaluated the potential for 15 and 45 degree louvers for guidingriver species (smallmouthbass, largemouthbass, walleye, channel catfish, and golden shiner) and others (lake stmgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and American eel) 

### (EPRI 2001, Amaral et al., 2002). Results indicatethat 15degree structureshave considerablepotential for guiding fish to a bypass. Most of the louver applications to datehave been with migratory species in river environments. The ability of louvers 

### to protect species commonlyimpinged at 

### CWISs is largely

### unknown because there have been so few louvers installed at 

### CWISs. 

### A system of guiding vanes and louvers has been installed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) to direct fish away fiom the traveling screensinto a collection area. Biological effectiveness of these louvers is

### unknown. Due to the large spacing ofthe louver slats, louver systems do not protect early life stages of fish. Future considerationof louver systems for protecting fish at coolingwater intakes 

### is warrantedbut will require large-scale evaluations. 

### BEHA

### KlORAL BARRlERS Strobe Lights The use of strobe lights to elicit a behavioral response is supportedby the results of laboratory and cage test studies that have demonstrated strong avoidanceby several fish species to strobe light. Strobehas been evaluated for repelling or guiding fish away from water intakes and, in many cases, towards bypasses for transport to a safe release location (EPRI 1994, 1999). Early studies with light examined the response of salmonidsto both flashing and continuous sources (Brett and MacKinnon 1953; Craddock 1956). The results from these studies indicated that flashing light produced stronger avoidancereactions than continuouslight and that responses appeared to be affectedby species tested, developmental stage &e., age or size of fish), and adaptation light level (Feist and Anderson 1991). More recent studies with salmonids have corroborated these findings (Puckett and Anderson 1987;EPRI 1990;Nemeth and Anderson 1992). Research examiningthe potential for strobe light to be used as a fish deterrent expanded considerablyin the 198Os, including laboratory studies with anadromous salmonids and

### Aha species, severalriverine and estuarine species, and the catadromous American eel. These studies involved

### boih controlled experiments (laboratory and cage tests) and field studies. Extensive rebearch with strobe lights has continuedin the 1990s, including laboratory and/or cage test evaluations with Pacific salmon, American eel, and several freshwater species, open water tests with kokanee salmon, and field tests with freshwater species 

### and Atlantic salmon. Although many studies have evaluated strobe lights as a primarybarrier system, strobes are often evaluated as part of an integrated fish protection and passage systemthat includes other devices such as screens, narrow-spaced bar racks, bypasses, and/or other behavioral systems (EPFU 1994, 1999). As a secondary system, strobe lightshave the potential to incrementally increase fish protection effectiveness.

### Air 

### Bubble Curtains These curtains generally have been ineffective in blocking or diverting fish in a variety of field applications, Air bubble curtains have been evaluated at number of sites on the Great Lakes with a variety of species. All airbubble curtains at these sites have been removed from service. Recently, however, their use in combination with sound has shown promise in diverting salmon smolts to a bypass at a European power facility (Welton et al. 2003). Sound The focus of recent fish protection studies involvingunderwater sound technologies has been on the use of new types of low and high frequency acoustic systemsthat have not previouslybeen available for commercial use. High frequency (120 kHz) soundhas been shown to effectively and repeatedlyrepel members of the Genus Alosa (American shad, alewife and blueback herring) at sites throughout the 

### U. S. (Ploskey et al. 1995;Dunning 1995;ConsolidatedEdison 1994). Other studieshave not shown soundto be consistently effective in repelling species such as largemouthbass, smallmouthbass, yellow perch, walleye, rainbow trout (EPRI 1998),gizzard shad, Atlantic herring, and bay anchovy (Consolidated Edison 1994). Given the species-specificresponses to different frequencies that have been evaluated and the variable results that often have been produced, additionalresearch is warranted at any sites where there is little or no data to indicatethat the species of concernmay respond to sound. 

### costs There is 

### a variety factors that influence the cost ofretrofitting a given technology to an existing intake. Broadly speaking, those factors can be divided into six categories: Biology Hydraulic/ Hydrodynamic Fouling Geotechnical Navigation and Space Requirements Climate 

### In general, the costs associatedwith fish protection technologies, as presented in the NODA (EPA 2003), are more accurate than those presentedpreviously in the proposed Rule (EPA 2002). 

### In addition, the revised NODA costsreflect EPA’s increased appreciationfor the cost variation associated with site-specific conditions. EPA costs are, however, still driven largelyby 

### flow rate. Therefore, for 

### any given technology,the lowest flow facilitywill always have the lowest EPA cost. Likewise, for any given technology, the highest flow facility will always have the highest cost. Since EPA costs are algorithmic, a hypothetic cost can be generated for any flow rate. Historic costs (fi-om site-specificdata developedby Alden), by contrast, are influencedby flow but are also driven by site-specific factors that are not flow related (e.g., available space, species to be protected, degree of fouling, etc.) Therefore, the historic low and high costs may or may not be associatedwith the lowest and highest flow rates. Sincehistoric data is derived fi-omexisting designs and installations, costs can not be generated for any flow rate. 9To make a meaningful comparisonbetween the ranges of EPA costs and ranges ofhistoric costs for each technology, we determinedthe flow rates for the lowest and highest cost installations in the historic database. We then used those flow rates to compute an equivalent EPA cost using the algorithms provided in the NODA or the proposed Rule (Table 2). The comparison ofEPA and historic costs illustrates that while the ranges often overlap, site-specificcosts generallyhave a substantiallyhigher upper limit (Table 2)- Table 2 Comparison of Site-SpecificCosts from Historical Datavs EPA Costs (NODA)

Velocity Module 

### Site-specificCost Range EPA 

### Cost Range' Wedge wire near shore $7.0 M
- 99.0 M $19.8 M
- 143.7 M Wedge wire offshore $2.8 M
- 33.7 M Replacewith new screens $0.27 M
- 2.9 M $0.35 M
- 53.8 M New Larger Intake $7.0 M

- 8.7 M

AFB 

# I $9.2M-74M 

# I $4.9M-49.7M
Barrier Net 

# I $0.14M-5.8M 

# I $0.14M-0.64M cap 

# 1 $14.5 M -372 M 

# 1 $1.3M-3.8M



# ' The range of site-specificcosts are not necessarily for the lowest and highest flow rates. Therefore, to allow a comparison betweenthe two methods, EPA costs were calculated for flow rates that correspond to the flows associated with the lowest and highest site-specific cost.



### In our experience,while flow is an important component of cost, it is not the sole hver. For example, Table 3 shows a comparison ofretrofit costs associatedwith two hypothetical facilities in which the only substantial difference is the water body type. Facility A is on an estuary and isrequired to meet the entrainmentreduction standard. 

### In addition, existing entrainment data indicate that the numerically dominant species at this site is bay anchovy, which has relatively small eggs (0.7

- 1.2

### mm) and nmowbodied larvae. To ensure that the eggs 

### and larvae ofthis species are protected, the wedge wire screen installation will require 0.5 

### mm slots designed with a slot velocity of 0.5 ft/s. By contrast, Facility B is located 

### on a fresh water river and withdraws less than 

### 5% of the mean annual flow and therefore is not required 

### to meet the entrainmentreductioh standard. Because Facility B does not need to meet the entrainment standard, wedge wire with 

### 9.5 

### rnm (3/8 in.) slots can be used.

10Table 3 A Comparison of Hypothetical CWlSs on Different Water Bodies

') EPA costs based on 1.75mm mesh



### Conclusions There are many intake technologies currently available that, when used alone or in some combination,hold potential to meet the proposed national performance standards. The biological effectiveness and engineeringpracticability of these technologies is largely dependentupon site- and species-specific factors. For any given facility, therefore, the number of options availablemaybe many or few. 

### In some cases, there will be no technology that can be installed to meet the performance standards. The costs associated with the installation 

### of technologies at a given location are also greatly influenceby site-specific factors. 

### References Amaral, 

### S. V., 

### J. L. Black, B. 

### J. McMahon, and D. A. Dixon. 2002. Evaluation ofAngled Bar Racks and Louvers for Guiding Lake and Shortnose Sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28: 197-210 Applied ScienceAssociates (ASA). 1999. IchthyoplanktonMonitoring Study: Development of a Gunderboom System at Lovett Generating StationUnit 3 1998Final Report. ASA 2001. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring Study: Development of the Gunderboom MLESTM at Lovett Generating Station Unit 

### 3 2000 Final Report Black, J.L., T. 

### W. Hogan, 

### G. S. Allen, 

### E. 

### S.Perry, and 

### K. D. Zmmit. 

### In press. LaboratoryEvaluation of an Aquatic Filter Barrier (AFB) for Protecting Early Life Stages ofFish. American Fisheries Society Bioengineering Symposium4. Bethesda, MD. Brett, J. R. and D. McKinnon. 1953. Preliminary ExperimentsUsing Lights and Bubbles to Deflect MigratingYoung Spring Salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada lO(8): 548-556.

11Beak Consultants, Inc. 1988. Dunkirk Steam Station Biological Studies

- SPDESPermit No. NY0002321; Final Report January-December 1987. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Consolidated Edison Company 

### ofNew York, Inc. 1994. Evaluation 

### ofUnderwater Sound to Reduce Impingement at the Arthur Kill Station. Craddock, D. R. 1956. A review of Studies in Guiding DownstreamMigrating Salmonwith Light. In: Progress Report on Fisheries EngineeringResearch Program. 

### U. S.Army, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers,Portland, Oregon, pg. 1-1

### 3. Dunning, D. 1995. Ultrasound Deterrence: Alewife at a Nuclear Generating Station in New York. In T. 

### J. Carlson and A. N. Popper (eds.):Using Sound to Modify Fish Behavior at Power-Production and WaterControlFacilities: A Workshop. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-626 

### 1 1

### - 1 1. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1986. Assessment ofDownstreamMigrant Fish Protection Technologiesfor Hydroelectric Application, 2694- 1. EPRI. 1994. Biological Evaluation of a Modular Inclined Screen for ProtectingFish at Water Intakes. TR104121. EPRI. 1994. Research Update on Fish Protection Technologiesfor Water Intakes. TR-104122. EPRI. 1996. Evaluation ofathe Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) at the Green Island HydroelectricProject: 1995Test Results. TR-106498. EPRI. 1999. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes. TR-114013 EPRI. 

### 200 1. Evaluation ofAngled Racks and Louvers for Guiding Fish at Water Intakes. 1005 193 EPRI. 2003. Laboratory Evaluation ofWedge Wire Screens for Protecting Early Life Stages ofFish at CoolingWater Intakes. 1005339 Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). 1981 LaboratoryEvaluation ofFinemesh Screening for the Protection ofFish Larvae at Intakes. Empire State Electric Energy Research CorporationResearch Report EP 8-6, Final Report. Envirex, Inc. 1996. Fish Survival Enhancement with Envirex Non-MetallicFish Baskets and Improved Fish Spray Wash Design. Envirex, Inc., Waukesha, WP, Feist, B. 

### A., and J. 

### J. Anderson. 1991. Review ofFish Behavior Relevant to Fish Guidance Systems. Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-9 102. University ofWashington, Seattle 

### WA. Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119:393-415.

12Heimbuch, 

### D. E. 1999.

### Biological EfJicacy of 

### Intake Structure Modzfications.PSE&G Renewal Application Salem Generating Station.Permit 

### No. NJ0005622. Lawler, Matusky & SkellyEngineers (LMS). 1996. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake ofthe Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. LMS. 1991. Intake Debris ScreenPost-ImpingementSurvival Evaluation Study, Roseton Generating Station, 1990. Michaud, 

### D. T. and E. P. Taft. 1999. Recent Evaluation ofPhysical and Behavioral Barriers for reducing Fish Entrainment at HydroelectricProjects in the Upper Midwest,” Proceedings ofthe EPRIRDOE Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference,Atlanta, GA (April 1999). Neitzel, D. 

### A., C. 

### S.Abernethy, and 

### E. W. Lusty. 1991. EvaluatingofRotating Drum Screen Facilities 

### in the Yakima River Basin, South-CentralWashington State.” 

### In: Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 325-334. Nemeth, R. 

### S. and 

### J. J. Anderson. 1992.Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 12: 684-692. Pearce, R. 

### 0. and R. 

### T. Lee. 1991. Some Design Considerations for Approach Velocities at Juvenile Salmonid ScreeningFacilities. In: Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. American Fisheries Society 101237-248. Ploskey, G. R., 

### J. 

### M.Nestler, G. N. Weeks, and C. Schilt. 1995. Evaluation of an Integrated FishProtection System. Waterpower 95, Proceedings of the InternationalConferenceon Waterpower. American Societyof Civil Engineers,New York, 

### NY. Puckett, K.J., and J.J. Anderson. 1987. Behavioral Responses ofJuvenile Salmonidsto Strobe and Mercury Lights. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. FRI-UW-8717. Reider, R. 

### H., D. D. Johnson, P. Brad Latvaitis, 

### J. A. Gulvas, E. R. Guilfoos. 1997. Operation and Maintenance of the LudingtonPumped StorageProject Barrier Net.” Proceedings ofFish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 64,1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory,Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, ElectricPower Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Ronafalvy, 

### J. P. 1999. CirculatingWater Traveling Screen Modificationsto Improve Impinged Fish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem Generating Station. Proceedings of the EPRL’DOE Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference,Atlanta, GA. Ronafalvy, J. P., R. Roy Cheesman,

### W. M. Matejek, 1997. CirculatingWater Traveling Screen Modifications to ImproveFish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem Generating Station”. Proceedings of Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsoredby Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

13Stira, R. J. and D. A. Robinson. 1997. Effectiveness of a Louver Bypass System for Downstream Passage ofAtlantic Salmon smolts and Juvenile Clupeids

### in the Holyoke Canal, Connecticut River, Holyoke, Massachusetts. 

### In: Proceedings of Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 

### 6-8, 1997. Sponsoredby Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (1997). Taft, 

### E. P., A. W. Plizga, E. 

### M. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1997. ProtectingFish with the New Modular Inclined Screen. The EnvironmentalProfessional 19(1):185-191. Thomas, 

### D. L. and G. 

### J. Miller. 1976. Impingement Studies at the Oyster Creek Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey, 

### &om Septemberto December 1975. 

### In: Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Section 3 16(b)

- Research and Compliance. 

### L. D. Jensen (Ed.). United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). 2002. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

- Proposed Regulations to EstablishRequirementsfor Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase 

### I1 Existing Facilities. Federal Register 67(68): 17122-17225. United StatesEnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). 2003. National Pollutant DischargeElimination System

- Proposed Regulations to EstablishRequirementsfor Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase 

### I1 Existing Facilities; Notice of Data Availability. Federal Register 68 No. 53: 13522-13587. Welton, 

### J. S.,W. R. C. Beaumont, and R. 

### T. Clarke. 2002. The Efficacy of Air, Sound and Acoustic Bubble Screensin Deflecting Atlantic Salmon,

### Salmo salar L., Smoltsin the River Frome, 

### UK

14