Docket OW-2002-0049 DCN#: 6-5046~ 

Tah E, T Cook, J Black, and N Olken, Alden 

Laboratoiy 

Fsh Protechon 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 Cooling Water 

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 dictated by species and site-specific factors. The costs of these technologies also vary 

widely between sites, 

Introduction 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s @PA) proposed Phase I1 Existing Facilities Rule 

(the Rule) (EPA 2002) requires a thorough understanding of fish protection technologies that can be 

considered for potential use at CWISs to address concerns over fish entrainment and impingement. For 

over thirty years, industry groups and government agencies have been working to develop both biologically 

and cost-effectivetechnologies. These efforts have led to the development of a suite of technologies that 

address a wide array of biological, 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 only by flow 

rate, but by other site-specific factors. 

Emphasis in this discussion is on those technologies for which EPA developed costs in either the proposed 

Rule or the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (EPA 2003). For each technology, the following 

information is presented: 

(1) a general description of the technology; 

(2) the current status of available technologies and results of research to date; 

(3) the potential for available technologies to meet the proposed national performance standards 

(reduction in impingement mortality of 80 to 95% and a reduction in entrainment of 60 to 90%); and 

(4) the costs associated with retrofitting the technology to an existing intake. 

The costs include a comparison between 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 ability to meet the performance standards axe highlighted. 

Overview of Intake Technologies 

Depending on their mode of action, available fish protection systems fall into one of four categories: 

physical barriers, which physically block fish passage; collection systems, which actively collect fish for 

their return 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 of natural behavior patterns to attract 

1 
or repel fish (Table 1). A review of the biological effectiveness, engineering practicability, 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). 

Extensive research has been conducted since the early 1970s in an attempt to develop technologies that will 

minimize entrainment and impingement at CWISs. An additional 25 years of research has been conducted 

at other water withdrawals (e.g., hydroelectric dams). As a result, a suite of technologies is available that 

can be considered for application at CWISs. The ability of a given technology to meet the national 

performance standards is influenced by a wide variety of biological, environmental, and engineering factors 

that must be evaluated on a site-specificbasis. 

Table 1 Fish ProtectionTechnologies 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 

Louvers/angIed bar racks 

Inclined plane screens 

VerticaI/horizontal traveIing 

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 of traveling screens to 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 escape routes. 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 entrainment that would occur 

with a shoreline intake and no fish protection, a traditional traveling screen can not meet the impingement 

mortality standard. However, depending upon the species present 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 Roseton before the installation of Ristroph screens [Thomas and Miller 1976; LMS 19911). 

Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screens 

Wedge wire screens have 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 physically block passage of the 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-flow to carry organisms and debris around and away from the screen); 

To date, large-scale CWIS applications of wedge wire screens have been limited to two plants (J.H. 

Campbell, Unit 3 and Eddystone Station) where relatively large slot openings have been used (i.e., they 

have not been targeted specifically to prevent entrainment of early life stages). These screens have been 

biologically effective in preventing impingement of larger fish and have not caused unusual maintenance 

problems. 

Under a grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPRI sponsored laboratory 

evaluations of wedge wire screens with eggs and/or larvae of nine fish species commonly entrained at 

CWISs (EPRI 2003). General entrainment and impingement trends observed in the data collected included: 

1) impingement decreased with increases in slot size; 2) entrainment increased with increases in slot size; 3) 

entrainment and impingement increased with increases in through-slot velocities; 4) entrainment and 

impingement decreased with increases in channel velocity, and 5) within a species, larval fish length did not 

appear to be a factor, although the lengths of most species evaluated were within a narrow size range. 

Wedge wire screens can be generally considered for application at CWIS. Since the only two large CWISs 

to employ wedge wire screens to date use 6.4 and 10.0 mm slot openings, the potential for clogging and 

fouling with slot sizes as small as 0.5 to 1.0 mm (as would be required for protection of many entrainable 

life stages) is unknown. A follow-up EPRI study planned for 2004 will test a prototype wedge wire screen 

under several operating conditions and in several water body types with local fish populations. In general, 

consideration of wedge wire screens with small slot dimensions for CWIS application should include in situ 

prototype scale studies to determine potential biological effectiveness and identify the ability to control 

clogging and fouling in a way that does not impact station operation. As the information database on 

biological and engineering effectiveness in different water bodies grows, the future need for such prototype 

studies will diminish. 

3 
Aquatic Filter Barrier (AFB) 

The aquatic filter barrier (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 of polyester 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 determine its 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 cleaning in the 1995-1997 

studies, results of studies in 1998 showed a large reduction in entrainment. It appears that most of the AFB 

deployment and cleaning problems may have been resolved for this site. Results analyzing the rate of 

ichthyoplankton entrainment between two side-by-side water intakes (one protected by an AFB and the 

other unprotected) have shown the potential biological effectiveness of this technology (ASA 1999,2001). 

Laboratory studies on retention and survival of the early lifestages of five species of fish exposed to aquatic 

filter barrier fabric were conducted in 2002 (Black et al., in press). Results of testing with three perforation 

sizes (0.5, 1.O, and 1.5 mm) and two flow rates (10 gpdft2and 20 gpdft2) indicate that, in general, 

survival of organisms was not significantly correlated to either flow rate or perforation size. Retention (the 

inverse of entrainment) of organisms, however, appeared to decrease significantlywith increasing flow rate 

for one species of fish (rainbow smelt). In addition, increasing perforation sizes decreased retention of three 

species of fish tested (common carp, rainbow smelt, and striped bass), which potentially limits the 

effectiveness of larger perforation sizes in protecting the earliest lifestages of these species. 

At this time, we consider the AFB system to be experimental despite its high potential for effectively 

reducing entrainment and impingement. However, continued improvements in anchoring and cleaning 

systems make the AFB a technology to be considered when evaluating fish protection alternatives. 

Barrier Nets 

Under the proper hydraulic conditions (primarily low velocity) and without heavy debris loading, barrier 

nets have been effective in blocking fish passage into water intakes. There have been several recent 

applications of barrier 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 intake jetties, has been 

successhl in reducing entrainment of all fish species occurring in the vicinity of the intake (Reider et al. 

1997). The net was first deployed in 1989 and modifications to the design in subsequent years 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, fine mesh 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, spraying was not effective in cleaning the net when it became 

fouled by the algae Ectocarpus. Excessive fouling caused two of the support piles to snap, ending the 

evaluation (LMS 1996). In both years, abundance of the target ichthyoplankton species, bay anchovy, was 

too low to determine the biological effectiveness of the net. On the basis of studies to date, the researchers 

concluded that 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 considered to be experimental. 

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

velocities (generally 4-0 ft/sec) can be achieved and debris loading is light. A thorough evaluation of sitespecific environmental and operational conditions is generally recommended. At this time, barrier nets can 

only be considered for reducing impingement of larger fish at CWISs. 

FISH COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

Modified Traveling Water Screens 

Conventional traveling water screens have been altered to incorporate modifications that improve survival 

of impinged fish. Such state-of-the-artmodifications minimize fish mortality associated with screen 

impingement and spraywash removal. Screens modified in this manner are commonly called “Ristroph 

screens.” Each screen basket is equipped with a water filled lifting bucket that safely contains collected 

organisms as they are carried upward with the rotation of the screen. The screens typically operate 

continuously to minimize impingement time. As each bucket passes over the top of the screen, fish are 

rinsed into a collection trough by a low pressure spraywash system. Once collected, the fish are transported 

back to a safe release location. Such features have been incorporated into through flow, dual flow, and 

center flow screens. 

Ristroph screens have been shown to improve fish survival and have been installed and evaluated at a 

number of power plants. Improvements to 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 conducted by Fletcher (1990) indicated that 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 eliminate these conditions, a number of alternativebucket configurations were developed to 

create a sheltered area in which fish could safely reside during screen rotation. After several attempts, a 

bucket configuration was developed that achieved the desired conditions (Envirex 1996). In 1995, Public 

Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) performed a biological evaluation of the 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 available technology that can reduce fish losses due to 

impingement. Unless modified to incorporate fme mesh, as discussed below, these screens do not reduce 

entrainment losses. 

Fine Mesh Traveling Screens 

In addition to the fish handling provisions noted above, traveling water screens have 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 fine mesh screens, physically handle organisms, some mortality of 

organisms is inevitable. The likelihood of an organism surviving impingement on screens Is species- and 

5 
life stage-specific, with heartier organisms experiencinghigher survival. As currently written, the proposed 

Rule does not address the fate of organisms prevented from being entrained. However, the final Rule may 

require a reduction in entrainment mortality rather than a simple reduction in entrainment. Such a 

requirement would have a very different implication in terms of the ability of fine-mesh screens to meet the 

performance standard. 

A number of fine mesh screen installations have been evaluated for biological 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 survival while other species, such as striped bass, whte perch, yellow 

perch, and invertebrates have shown moderate to high survival. If entrainment survival is a consideration, 

evaluating fine mesh screens for potential application at CWISs requires careful review of all available data 

on the survival potential of the 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 

impingement on fine-mesh screens is available from extensive laboratory studies. In these studies, larval 

life stages of striped bass, winter flounder, alewife, yellow perch, walleye, channel catfish, and bluegill 

were impinged on a 0.5 mm screen mesh at velocities ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 Wsec and for durations of 2, 

4,8 or 16 minutes. As in the field evaluations, survival was variable between species, larval stages, and 

impingement duration and velocity (ESSERCO 1981). 

The primary concern with fine mesh screens is that they functionby impinging early organism life stages 

that are entrained through coarse mesh screens. Depending on species and life stage, mortality from 

impingement can exceed entrainment mortality. In order for fine mesh screens to provide a meaningful 

benefit in protecting fish, impingement survival of target species and life stages must be substantially 

greater than survival through the circulating water system. 

FISH DIVERSION SYSTEMS 

Angled Screens 

A variety of species have been shown to be effectively guided on screens given suitable hydraulic 

conditions. Angled screens require uniform flow conditions, a fairly constant approach velocity, and a low 

through-screen velocity to be biologically effective. Angled screen systems have been installed and 

biologically evaluated at a number of CWISs on a prototype and full-scale basis. Angled screen diversion 

efficiency vanes by species, but is generally relatively 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 of relatively fragile species following diversion can be low. Heartier species exhibit 

higher survival rates resulting in overall system efficiency values (diversion and survival) ranging from 50 

to nearly 100%. 

In addition to the CWIS applications, angled fish diversion screens leading to bypass and return pipelines 

are being used extensively for guiding salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. These screens aremostly of the 

rotary drum or vertical, flat panel (non-moving) types and have provided effective downstream protection 

for juvenile 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 safe bypass system 

6 
are required for the screens to effectively protect fish from entrainment and 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 protecting juvenile and adult life stages provided that 

proper hydraulic conditions can be maintained and that debris can be effectively removed. To date, all 

angled screen applications at cooling water intakes have involved the use of conventional traveling water 

screens modified to provide a flush surface on which fish can guide to a bypass. Fish eggs, larvae, and 

small invertebrates would not be protected by angled screens unless fine mesh screening was used. 

Modular Inclined Screens 

The Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) has recently been developed and tested by the Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI 1994; EPRI 1996; Taft et al. 1997). The MIS is intended to protect juvenile and adult life 

stages of fish at all types of water intakes. An MIS module consists of an'entrancewith trash racks, 

dewatering stop logs in slots, an inclined screen set at a shallow angle to 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 10 ft/sec, depending on the species and life 

stages to be protected. 

The MIS was evaluated in laboratory studies to determine the design configuration which yielded the best 

hydraulic conditions for safe fish passage, and the biological effectiveness of the 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-om 2 ftlsec to 10 

ft/sec. Diversion rates 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 

mortality was low (0 to 5%). 

Based on the laboratory results, 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 smallmouth bass, 

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 demonstrated that this screen is an 

effective fish diversion device that has the potential for protecting fish at water intakes. Studies to date have 

only evaluated possible application at hydroelectric projects. Further, no full-scaleMIS facility has been 

constructed and evaluated. As a result, the potential for effective use at CWISs is unknown. Any 

consideration of the MIS for GWIS application should be 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 acceptable by the fishery resource 

7 
agencies in that region since they do not meet the current 100% effectiveness criterion. However, numerous 

studies have demonstrated that 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 studies by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) evaluated the potential for 15 and 45 degree 

louvers for guiding river species (smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, channel catfish, and golden 

shiner) and others (lake stmgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and American eel) (EPRI 2001, Amaral et al., 2002). 

Results indicate that 15 degree structures have considerablepotential for guiding fish to a bypass. 

Most of the louver applications to date have been with migratory species in river environments. The ability 

of louvers to protect species commonly impinged 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 screens into a collection area. 

Biological effectiveness of these louvers is unknown. 

Due to the large spacing of the louver slats, louver systems do not protect early life stages of fish. Future 

consideration of louver systems for protecting fish at cooling water intakes is warranted but will require 

large-scale evaluations. 

BEHA KlORAL BARRlERS 

Strobe Lights 

The use of strobe lights to elicit a behavioral response is supported by the results of laboratory and cage test 

studies that have demonstrated strong avoidance by several fish species to strobe light. Strobe has 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 

salmonids to both flashing and continuous sources (Brett and MacKinnon 1953; Craddock 1956). The 

results from these studies indicated that flashing light produced stronger avoidance reactions than 

continuous light and that responses appeared to be affected by 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 examining the potential for strobe light to be used as a fish deterrent expanded considerably in the 

198Os, including laboratory studies with anadromous salmonids and Aha species, several riverine 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 continued in 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 primary barrier system, strobes are often evaluated 

as part of an integrated fish protection and passage system that includes other devices such as screens, 

narrow-spaced bar racks, bypasses, and/or other behavioral systems (EPFU 1994, 1999). As a secondary 

system, strobe lights have 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 

air bubble 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 involving underwater sound technologies has been on the use of 

new types of low and high frequency acoustic systems that have not previously been available for 

commercial use. High frequency (120 kHz) sound has been shown to effectively and repeatedly repel 

members of the Genus Alosa (American shad, alewife and blueback herring) at sites throughout the U. S. 

(Ploskey et al. 1995; Dunning 1995; Consolidated Edison 1994). Other studies have not shown sound to be 

consistently effective in repelling species such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, 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, additional research is warranted at any sites where there is little or no 

data to indicate that the species of concern may respond to sound. 

costs 

There is a variety factors that influence the cost of retrofitting 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 associated with fish protection technologies, as presented in the NODA (EPA 2003), 

are more accurate than those presented previously in the proposed Rule (EPA 2002). In addition, the 

revised NODA costs reflect EPA’s increased appreciation for 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 facility will 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 developed by Alden), by contrast, are 

influenced by 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 associated with the lowest and highest flow rates. Since historic data is derived fi-om existing designs 

and installations, costs can not be generated for any flow rate. 

9 
To make a meaningful comparison between the ranges of EPA costs and ranges of historic costs for each 

technology, we determined the 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 of EPA and historic costs illustrates that 

while the ranges often overlap, site-specific costs generally have a substantially higher upper limit (Table 

2)-

Table 2 Comparison of Site-SpecificCosts from Historical Data vs 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 

Replace with 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 between the 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 of retrofit costs associated with two hypothetical facilities in which the only 

substantial difference is the water body type. Facility A is on an estuary and is required to meet the 

entrainment reduction 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 -1.2mm) and nmowbodied larvae. To ensure that the eggs and larvae of this 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 entrainment reductioh 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. 

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

') EPA costs based on 1.75 mm 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 

engineering practicability of these technologies is largely dependent upon site- and species-specific factors. 

For any given facility, therefore, the number of options available may be 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 influence by site-specific factors. 

References 

Amaral, S. V., J. L. Black, B. J. McMahon, and D. A. Dixon. 2002. Evaluation of Angled Bar Racks and 

Louvers for Guiding Lake and Shortnose Sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28: 197-210 

Applied Science Associates (ASA). 1999. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring Study: Development of a 

Gunderboom System at Lovett Generating Station Unit 3 1998Final Report. 

ASA 2001. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring Study: Development of the Gunderboom MLESTMat 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. Laboratory Evaluation of 

an Aquatic Filter Barrier (AFB) for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish. American Fisheries Society 

Bioengineering Symposium 4. Bethesda, MD. 

Brett, J. R. and D. McKinnon. 1953. Preliminary Experiments Using Lights and Bubbles to Deflect 

Migrating Young Spring Salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada lO(8): 548-556. 

11 
Beak Consultants, Inc. 1988. Dunkirk Steam Station Biological Studies -SPDES Permit No. NY0002321; 

Final Report January-December 1987. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. 

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1994. Evaluation of Underwater Sound to Reduce 

Impingement at the Arthur Kill Station. 

Craddock, D. R. 1956. A review of Studies in Guiding Downstream Migrating Salmon with Light. In: 

Progress Report on Fisheries Engineering Research Program. U. S. Army, North Pacific Division, Corps of 

Engineers, Portland, Oregon, pg. 1-13. 

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 WaterControl Facilities: A Workshop. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power 

Administration, DOE/BP-62611-11. 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1986. Assessment of Downstream Migrant Fish Protection 

Technologies for Hydroelectric Application, 2694-1. 

EPRI. 1994. Biological Evaluation of a Modular Inclined Screen for Protecting Fish at Water Intakes. TR104121. 

EPRI. 1994. Research Update on Fish Protection Technologies for Water Intakes. TR-104122. 

EPRI. 1996. Evaluation ofatheModular Inclined Screen (MIS) at the Green Island Hydroelectric Project: 

1995 Test Results. TR-106498. 

EPRI. 1999. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes. TR-114013 

EPRI. 2001. Evaluation of Angled Racks and Louvers for Guiding Fish at Water Intakes. 1005193 

EPRI. 2003. Laboratory Evaluation of Wedge Wire Screens for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at 

Cooling Water Intakes. 1005339 

Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). 1981 Laboratory Evaluation of Finemesh Screening for the Protection of Fish Larvae at Intakes. Empire State Electric Energy Research 

CorporationResearch Report EP 8-6, Final Report. 

Envirex, Inc. 1996. Fish Survival Enhancement with Envirex Non-Metallic Fish Baskets and Improved 

Fish Spray Wash Design. Envirex, Inc., Waukesha, WP, 

Feist, B. A., and J. J. Anderson. 1991. Review of Fish Behavior Relevant to Fish Guidance Systems. 

Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-9102. University of Washington, Seattle WA. 

Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. 119:393-415. 

12 
Heimbuch, D. E. 1999. Biological EfJicacy of Intake Structure Modzfications. PSE&G Renewal Application 

Salem Generating Station. Permit No. NJ0005622. 

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1996. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh Barrier Net 

Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and 

Rockland Utilities, Inc. 

LMS. 1991. Intake Debris Screen Post-Impingement Survival Evaluation Study, Roseton Generating 

Station, 1990. 

Michaud, D. T. and E. P. Taft. 1999. Recent Evaluation of Physical and Behavioral Barriers for reducing 

Fish Entrainment at Hydroelectric Projects in the Upper Midwest,” Proceedings of the EPRIRDOE Power 

Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference, Atlanta, GA (April 1999). 

Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. 1991. Evaluating of Rotating 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 Screening Facilities. 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 International Conference on Waterpower. 

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 

Puckett, K.J., and J.J. Anderson. 1987. Behavioral Responses of Juvenile Salmonids to 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 Ludington Pumped StorageProject Barrier Net.” Proceedings of Fish Passage 

Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 64,1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte 

Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company. 

Ronafalvy, J. P. 1999. Circulating Water Traveling Screen Modifications to 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. Circulating Water Traveling Screen 

Modifications to Improve Fish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem Generating Station”. Proceedings of 

Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research 

Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company. 

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

of Atlantic 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. Protecting Fish with the New Modular 

Inclined Screen. The Environmental Professional 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 September to December 1975. In: Third National Workshop on 

Entrainment and Impingement: Section 316(b)-Research and Compliance. L. D. Jensen (Ed.). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System -Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase I1 

Existing Facilities. Federal Register 67(68): 17122-17225. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System -Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for 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 Screens in Deflecting Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., Smolts in the River Frome, UK 

14