### Kammer Plant Demonstration 

### Document for 

### P.L. 92-500 �j 

### 316(b)



### Ohio Power Company of The American Electric 

### Power Systen

Environmental Engineering 

### Division American Electric 

### Power Service Cor?oration P. 0. 

### Box 487 Canton, 

### CZ 44701 

### May 2r3, 1980 Compiled by: J. H. Balletto H. W. 

### BrownTable of Contents
Paue
Volurrie I 

### 1

# . Executive Summary

# ..................1 2

# . Introduction 

# .................... 4 2.1 Legal and Permit History

# ............4 2.2 Technical Background

# ..............5 3

# . SiteEnvirons

# .................... 7 3.1 The Plant Locale

# ................ 7 3.2 Hydrography 

# ..................7 3.3 Bathymetry

# ................... 14 3.4 Aquatic Environment 

# ..............14 3.4.1 Fish 

# ..................14' 3.4.2 Food 

### Web 

# ................ 17 4

# . Kammer Plant Description 

# .............. 23 4.1 Power Plant 

# .................. 23 4.2 Circulating 

### Water System

# ............ 25 4.2.1 Intake Structure

# ............25 4.2.2 CirculatingWater Tunnels and Condensers 27 4.2.3 De-Icing 

# ................ 29 4.2.4 Traveling Screen Operation 

# ....... 31 4.2.5 Eiesidence Time 

### of Cooling Water

# ..... 31 4.3 'Plant Operating Data

# .............. 35Table 

### of Contents (cont'd)
Paae


# __ 5

# .

6

# .

7

# . 8

# . Impingement Study

# .................... 5.1 Purpose 

# ...................... 5.2 Methods 

# ...................... 5.3 Results 

# ....................... 5.4 Annual 

### Estimates

# .................. Entrainment Study

# ........'.



# ........... 6.1 Purpose 

# ...................... 6.2 Methods 

# ...................... 6.3 Results 

# ...................... 6.4 

### Annual Estimates

# .................. Impact 

### of the Cooling Water Intake Structure on River Biota

# ..................... Possible Alternatives 

### to the Existing Facility 

### and Operation

# ...................... 8.1 

### 0perational.Alternatives

# .............. 8.1.1 De-Icing Operation 

# ............. 8.1.2 Reduced Pumping of Circulating 

### Water 

# .... 8.2 Design Alternatives 

# ................ 8.2.1 Stationary Screens 

# ............. 8.2.2 Perforated Pipes 

# .............. 5.2.3 Drum Screens. Rotating DiscScreens. HorizontalTraveling Screens and Inclined Plane Screens 

# ........... 8.2.4 Filtration Type Intakes

# ........... 8.2.5. Trash Racks

# ................. 8.2.6 Behavioral Barriers

# .............36 

### 36 36 

### 36 37 39 39 39 39 40


### 41
49 49 49 49 

### 54 54 54

56 56 56 56Table 

### af Contents 

### (cont'd)
Pase 

# . 8.2.7 Cylindrical

### Wedgewire Screens

# ........ 57 8.2.8 Ristroph 

### Screens 

# ..............57 8.2.9 Fish 

### Collector 

# ............... 60 8.2.10 Closed 

### Cycle Cooling

# ............ 60 9

# . Summary 

### and Conclusions

# ................. 62 

### 10

# . References Cited

# . . . ..

# ................ 65 Appendix 

### A 

## .Proposed 316(b) Study PlanTable 

### of Contents (cont'd) Page
Volume 

### I1 

### Kammer Plant Fish Impingement 

### and Entrainment Studies
Introduction 

# ..................... 1 Methods

# ........................ 2 Impingement 

# ................... 2 Entrainment 

# .................... 3 Plant Operating and Field Data

# .......... Results

# ........................ ImFingernent 

# ................... Catch Composition

# .............. Seasonal Occurrence

# ............. Diel Occurrence

# ............... Annual 

### Loss Estimates

# ............ Relation 

### of Fish Impingement 

### toPrevailing Conditions 

# ................ 7 9 9 9 13 13 16
16 Entrainment

# ........................17 Catch Composition 

# ................ 17 Estimates 

### of Ichthyoplankton Entrained

# ...... 17
References

# ....... . 

# ............. . - 

# . 22 Appendix A Appendix'B Appendix C



# . .'Appendix D 

## .Kammer Plant Impingement Data



## .Rammer Plant Operating and Field Data



## .Kammer.Plant Entrainment Data



# .Kamer Plant IntakeWater Velocity Studies--



## ------- 1. Executive Summary In response 

### to requirements contained in Part 

### IS1 of 

### NPDES Permit No. WOO05291 for the

### Kammer Plant, 

### a field study 

### was performed 

### to 

### monitor the 

### numbers 

### of fish impinged and of larval fish entrained. This report first sumarizes and then interprets these results and presents methods thatmight conceivably be employed 

### toreduce the impingement and entrainment 

### rates, A technical 

### and legal 

### review of the negotiations and prior studies 

### ispresented along with 

### a description 

### of the envircns 

### of the plant and a descriptim 

### of the plant 

### itself. The KmerPlant, 

### a 675 megawatt (MWe) coal-fired 

### electric generating plant, 

### is located on the Ohio River (River Mile 

### 111.1) near Moundsville, 

### West Virginia. This facility 

### is owned by the Ohio Power Company (the "Company")

# . The plant utilizes once-throuqh 

### .-.----.-­ cooling and 

### -_ has a 

### vertical traveling screen intake structure, _"_ ,,.CI-I---. 

# ­

lc__----- The Ohio River contains a 

### series of locks and dams which 

### cause the river 

### to 

### form a 

### series 

### of pools. Flows have changed dramatically 

### fromwhen the-river

### was 

### free flowing. Highest 

### flows occur from December through May, and the 

### lowest flows 

### occur in September and October. The annual 

### mean flow 

### of 40,700 cubic 

### feet per second (cfs) 

### is exceeded approximately 

### 35% 

### of the 

### timewhile the 

### river flow is be

### low the 

### critical 

### low flow of 6,690 

### cfs (minimum 7-day once in IO-year flow) 9.5 percent of the time. A monthly 

### flow distribution table, and a flow duration curve 

### are provided. Fisheries studies 

### in the Ohio River fro3 1957 

### to 1978 show the aquatic community tobe typical of a turbid slow-moving river. During this period there has been an increase in fish biomass, but

. . 

### without an increase 

### in the percentage of pollution tolerant species. Thus the fisheries 

### are responding toimproving water quality conditions.
-1-tween 1.6 and 

### 9.4 percent of the 

### river flow. Because ichthyoplankton density is generally homogeneous across the 

### river, this 

### estimate also 

# - 

# - 4 

### -. 1.6 Fifty-three species have 

### been collected in 

### locks immediately 

### up and downstream of 

### Kammer Plant. The impingement study,resulted in 

### 1,535 fish being collected. The 

### most abundant 

### were gizzard shad, emerald shiner, and channel catfish. Estimates, based on the collections, indicate 12,520 fish


### were impinged between May 1978 and May 

### 1979. A 

### total of 2,503 

### larval fish 

### were collected during the entrainment study encompassing March through August, 1978. The number 

### of ichthyoplankton (fisheggs and larvae) per 100

### m3 ranged 

### from 0 

### to 598.8. Eggs, larvae 

### of unidentifiables, and walleye/sauger predominated inMay. Larvae of minnows, carp, and-unidentifiables predominated inJune. Winnow and unidentifiable larvae and eggs 

### were predminant inJuly, and 

### larval herringsI minnows

## , and unidentifiables


### were predominant.inAugust. Estimates, based on fish densities between March and September, and cooling

### watsr usage indicate 182 million fish eggs and 

### larvae 

### were entrained 

### frcm March 1978 

### toFebruary 1979. During the period when ichthyoplankton 

### is present in the river, April through August, the plant 

### circulates as 

### a monthly average between and 

### 9.4 percent of the 

### river flow. Because ichthyoplankton
4 

### -. density is generally homogeneous across the 

### river, this 

### estimate also translates 

### intoan estimate of the proportion of river ichthyoplankton passing by the plant which 

### are entrained. Strong evidence exists 

### in the literature that an assumption of 100%entrainment mortality 

### is incorrect, thus further reducing 

### any estirr?ateof relative, as well

### as absolute 

### losses. Possible alternatives tothe existing facility 

### and/or its operation 

### are discussed. De-icing 

### has been mentioned as affecting

-2- Iimpingement rates. De-icing operations 

### are currently held 

### toa minimum and only initiatedwhen the river temperature drqs to about 36F and terminates when the river temperature 

### rises above 

### 40F. The reduction of cooling 

### water flows has alsobeen suggested 

### as


### a method of reducing 

### both impingement and entrainment 

### rates. At the Clifty Creek Station, a plant 

### on the Ohio 

### 3iver with units slightly larger than 

### Kammer Plant, thishas been shown 

### tobe an undesirable alternative because of economics, 

### lost generation and increased heating 

### of the cooling

### water. The other alternatives discussed here 

### are structural alterations thatwould be extremely expensive, even 

### if

### feasible. Alternate designs include stationary screens, perforated pipes, 

### drum screens, rotating disc screens, horizontal traveling screens, inclined plane

. screens, filtration type intakes, trash racks, behavioral 

### barriers, cyclindrical wedgewire screens, Ristroph screens, fish 

### collectors, and closed-cycle cooling. This 

### report cmcludes that the existing intake at the 

### Kammer Plant represents thebest technology commercially available 

### at an economically practicable 

### cost forminimizing adverse environmental impact because fish impingement and entrainment 

### rates at Kammer Plant have no apparent affect 

### on Ohio River fish poFulations.

-3-2.0 Introduction 2.1 Legal and Permit History In 1972 Congress passed Public Law 92-500, the Federal 

### Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 

### of 1972 ("FWPCA"), which 

### substantially altered theprior federal statutory approach 

### tocontrolling 

### water pollution. Section 316(b) 

### of the FWPCA, regarding cooling 

### water intakes, 

### states: Any standard established pursuant 

### to Section 301 

### or Section ,306 of this Act and-applicable

### toa point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling 

### water intake structures reflect the

### best technology 

### available forminimizing asverse environmental impact. The EWPCA was substantially amended in 1977, now generally known 

### as the Clean 

### Water Act ("CWA") 

### : however, Section 316(b) was not changed

# . In 1976 the United States EnvironRental Protection Agency ("USEPA") promulgated regulations, 40 CFR #4O2.l0-402.12, 

### to implement Section 316'(b)

# . These regulations 

### were appealed by the Company and others tofederal court. The U.S. Court 

### of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, inAppalachian 

### Power Company, 

### et al. v. Train, 566 F2d 451, 457 (19771, held that the Section 316(b) regulations had been improperly adopted and therefore 

### "are presently ineffective to impose obligations upon, or to adversely affect the petitioners." As a result, and for the purpose of this submission, there are no currently effective regulations implementing Section 316

### (b)

# .

-4-The June 13, 1976, permit for the 

### Kanuner Plant (NPDES Permit 

### No. WVOOOS291) contained Special Condition No. 

### 10 which stated: Six months after 

### effective date, thepermittee shall submit tothe Regional Administrator 

### a specific study program formonitoring impingement and entrainment effects 

### at theplant.intakes, the study should include provisions forestimating the totalnumber, weight and length frequency distribution of different fish species impinged, 

### as well 

### as estimating the number of eggs, larvae and plankton entrained. Operating data such 

### as intake velocity, 

### flow, temperature, tidal conditions, 

### etc. at the 

### timeof sampling should 

### alsobe reported. Reports 

### willbe submitted on a Quarterly

### basis. Special Condition No. 10

### became Condition No. 9 in Amendment 1

### of the NPDES Permit (effectiveAugust 12, 1977) and has been retained inAmendment 2 (effectiveMarch 20, 1978). 

### A Study Plan was submitted 

### toU.S. EPA Region 111 on Deceinber 9, 1976. In 

### a response 

### .to an EPA Region I11 request 

### of January 12, 1977, the Company clarified aspects of the plan by 

### letter of March 8, 1977. The Study Plan 

### is included here as Appendix A. 

### In accordance with that Study Plan, the Company hereby submits this 316 

### (b) demonstration.
2 .)2 TechnicalBackground The purpose 

### of the present study included making 

### estimates of the annual impingement of fish and 

### estimates of the annual entrain

### ment of fish 

### larvae 

### at theKammer Plant. After reviewing the 

### available studies 

### in 1975 and considering the statistical and economic factors, a study plan was developed that grovided the data necessary to fulfill the purpose 

### of the study in an economically practical manner. The field 

### work in the present study, performed fromMay, 1978 to 

### May, 3.979, 

### allowed estimates 

### to be made of impinged fish and entrained larave based 

### on 

### one fullyear 

### of field data ccllection. The Study

-5-

### also provides 

### for the collection 

### of data pertaining 

### toplant operation, meteorology and riverparameters, that'could possibly 

### influence impingement and entrainment. rates. The collection 

### of field data 

### as outlined above 

### was performed by NUS Corporation and their data 

### report 

### is included 

### as Volume 11. This data report provides the basis 

### for the inter2retive secticn given here. Some background data 

### were extracted from a U.S. EPA Region 

### IIIapproved 

### Kammer Plant 316(a)Demonstration by Westinghouse Environmental Services Disivion (WESD, 

### 1976).

-6-

### 3. SiteEnvirons 

### 3.1 The Plant Locale 

### Kammer Plant, owned and operated by the Ohio 

### Power Company, 

### is located in northwestern 

### West Virginia inMarshall County at RiverMile 111.1 and 

### is across the Ohio River 

### from Pawhatan Point, Ohio (Figure 3-1). The 

### site 

### is in the southern part 

### of 

### a heavily industrialized region that extends upriver for 130 

### milesbeyond Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Many of the 

### steel and glass industries 

### of the United 

### States 

### are concentrated inthis 

### area, Ohio 

### Power Con?any*s tower-cooled Mitchell Plant also 

### is in the vicinity 

### of Rammer Plant. 

### Kammer Plant 

### is on the Hannibal 

### pool of the Ohio River which has a normal elevation 

### of 623 

### feet above 

### mean sea level 

### (MSL). There 

### is a bend inthe Ohio River 

### atthis point and the power plant complex 

### is located on the convex shore (as viewed 

### from the centerline 

### of the river). It 

### is one 

### mile downriver 

### from the confluence 

### of Captina Creek. The population 

### of Powhatan Point, Ohio 

### is less than 

### 2500. The 

### closest large urban 

### area 

### is Moundsville, 

### Mast Virginia with 

### a population greater than 

### 10,000. It 

### is seven 

### miles upriver 

### from Kammer Plant. Wheeling, 

### WestVirginia, with

### a population of 48,000,is 

### 14 milesupriver. Wayne National Forest 

### lies 14

### miles southwest 

### of Powhatan Point.
3.2 Hydrography Atthe Kammer Plant, the Ohio River drains an area 

### of 25,000 square miles located in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Ohio. The principal tributaries 

### are the Monongahela, Allegheny and Beaver Rivers.Figure 3-1. Upper 

### Ohio River Drainage Basin 

### (FromFJESD, 1976)

-8-Because Kammer Plant is located 

### on the Ohio 

### River main 

### stem, river flow passing theplant 

### is a function of weather conditions 

### over the entire drainage basin of the upper Ohio River, and 

### local precipitation and evaporation have

### .littleeffect. An important aspect 

### of the hydrograph 

### at Kammer Plant 

### is that 

### it reflects the

### flow conditions 

### of the Ohio Riverwhich include factors introduced by 

### man. In 

### order tocontrol and make the waterways more usable, the Ohio River System has been separated into a system 

### of locks, pools and reservoirs. It has been 

### a primary objective 

### of 

### river's management 

### to shift

### some 

### of the 

### river flow that 

### occurs during the peak months of February, March and April 

### tothe 

### low-flow period during August, September and October. 

### Water 

### is stored in

### reservoirs tomaintain adequate supply throughout the year. River elevation 

### also 

### is controlled 

### tomaintain an adequate 

### water depth 

### toensure the navigability 

### of the river duirng 

### low-flow conditions. Damage caused by flooding 

### also isminimized 

### as peak 

### flows are reduced. In conjunction with theman-made controls of 

### river flow, there also 

### is 

### a natural buffer system (the ability 

### of the 

### soil

### to retain moisture). The 

### soil can 

### retain mcisture like a reservoir, releasing water to runoff over a long period of 

### time. It has been shown by studies on moderate to large watersheds that only 50 percent of available surplus water willrun off in 

### a given month, the 

### rest being retained for later discharge (Thornthwaite and Mather, 

### 1955). Table 3-1 lists,the flow distribution by month for the Ohio Rivernear Kammer Plant (St. Marys, WestVirginia, River Mile 155.0)

-9-

## * for data from January 

### 1952 

### to

### July 1974 (ORSANCO, 

### 1974) 

# . This 

### table is based on 

### over 8000 daily data points covering the 

### 22.5­ year 

### record. It 

### shows that the larger 

### flows occur during December through gay. Occasionally 

### (<1percent 

### of the 

### time), river flow nearly equals 

### or exceeds 87,000 

### cfs 

### for allmonths of the year. The months with the 

### lower recorded 

### flows are September and October. Figure 

### 3-2 

### is a flowduration 

### curve of the Ohio 

### River based
on the 

### same data used 

### to compute Table 

### 3-1. For 

### 9.5 percent 

### of the 

### time, 

### river flowwas below the 

### critical 

### low flow of 

### 6609 

### cfs (minimum 7-day 

### flowonce in 3.0 years) (. Figure 

### 3-3 shows 

### the relationships between 

### river flow, 

### elevation, 

### river cross-sectional area and 

### average velocity. For 

### a constant river elevation, average river velocity 

### is determined by entering the graph with pool elevation 

### or river 

### flow. It must be remembered that this average velocity 

### is calculated and that actual

### velocities in the center 

### of the 

### river 

### willbe higher and
near.boundaries the 

### velocities 

### will

### be lower. Because 

### of eddy 

### effects and wind 

### stress, current reversals can result near the 

### river boundaries and in the 

### river.surface layer. (A boundary 

### is the 

### area near the 

### river bank 

### or along an obstruction 

### where flow is 

### at a minimum.) 

## *Although the 

### flow data collection station at St. Marys 

### is 44



### milesbelow Xammer Plant, there 

### are 

### no tributaries entering the Ohio River between the 

### two points. River flow 

### is the same 

### for both points except for a minor difference caused by 

### local drainage.

-10- I t0 h 0 U

0 

# ­

0 Q,

0 CD

0 h

0 ua

0 v)

0 d

0 m

0 N H 0 ­ a4J Ern m H4 0 crrl c

0



# - rr2 ooooooooho~o


# ............ h F d c 2 0'0a h 1- 7 h -mbhmcnm-mcnl-m mcumN#--cu?N cur-lA hL

-11-Figure 3-2.. Ohio River 

### Flow Duration 

### Curve at 

### St. Marys, 'WestVirginia, January 1952 to July 

### 1974. 

### (From WESD, 1976; after ORSANCO, 

### 1974) -12-40 i ! ! 9 B 

## I
7 ­ 6. 3
4 ­

3 A /

I 

# I

1 

# i 1

c LL .ci .. I v) c. U 

# I

I I ! LEGEND: 

## 1 0,RIVER FLOW

Io4620 

# L

. 625 630 635 640 RIVER ELEVATION (FT)

8 Figure 3-3'. Relationships 

### of 

### Ohio River Flow 

### (Q) 

### Elevation, Cross-Sectional. Area (A) and Average Velocity at Kammer Plant Site 

### (FromWESD, 1976).

-13-3.3 

# - Bathymetry The 

### Kammer Plant 

### is located 

### on the inside 

### of a bend inthe Ohio River. A channel (over 30 

### feet deep) 

### forms inthe center of the 

### river just upstream 

### fromthe plant. The channel of the Ohio River tends 

### to stay near the concave bank. Here the bottom profile 

### is characterizedby 

### a sharp drop 

### on the concave bank side 

### of theriver. This type 

### of bottom profile 

### is typical 

### for 

### a 

### river bend 

### where the maximum flow and'current 

### are confined 

### (from inertialmotion) 

### tothe bank farthest away 

### from the center of the
curve. This results in scouring on the side with the maximum 

### flow and deposition of sediments on the 

### low-flow side 

### of the 

### river. In the 

### immediate vicinity 

### of the power plant (Figure 3-4) the 

### bottom profile is characterizedby 

### a rapid increase in depth 

### (>15 

### feet deep 50 

### feet from shore) away 

### from thebanks 

### of the 

### river. This minimizes the shallow 

### areas that can be utilized by aquatic plants. The 

### bottom flattens toward the center 

### of the 

### river with typical depths between 30 and 

### 35 

### feet. The power plant thermal plume empties along the river bank where depths 

### are between 20 and 25 

### feet.
3.4 Aquatic Environment 

### 3.4.1 

### Fish Since 

### settlers first colonized 

### itsbanks, the Ohio River has changed from a free-flowing 

### river to

### a series of impoundments in which water quality 

### has been influenced by industrial 

### wastes, domestic wastes, non-point 

### source discharges and commercial #barge traffic. These changes have had 

### an affect 

### on the fish of -the

### river,

-14-

# i Y 

# B

-15-resulting in 

### a decline in 

### some species such 

### asshortnosesturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, yellow bullhead, blue catfish, I walleye 

### and silver lamprey, and 

### an increase inthe abundance of species tolerant 

### of the changed 

### water quality and preferring 

### slowmoving, turbid

### water such 

### as black bullhead, channel catfish, goldeye, skipjack herring, and gizzard shad 

### (ORSANCO, 1962; Trautman, 1957). A number 

### of studies have been conducted inrecent years which address the fish fauna in limited 

### areas along the Ohio River (ORSANCO, 1962; WAPORA, 1971-1979). The only known study which has made long-term spatialand 

### temporal comparisons 

### of the fish fauna 

### is that

### reported by Preston and White (1978). 

### In that 

### report, comparisons 

### are made 

### of lock rotenone collections 

### over the length 

### of the 

### river in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1975, and 1976: 

### More limited comparison 

### is made 

### tosimilarstudies conducted in 1957, 1958, and 1959 (ORSANCO, 1962), and upper Ohio River lock studies 

### in 1977 (Preston and White, 1978). Selectivity inthe effectiveness 

### of rotenone 

### as a collection technique, therestriction 

### of its

### use tothe lock habitat, and the limitation of sampling 

### to once 

### per year collectivelypreclude this study 

### from arriving at 

### a complete picture 

### of thepresent-day 

### river fish fauna. Nevertheless, Preston and White (1978) report 82 species from the 1968

## - 1977 collections. It can be said that 

### for the length 

### of the 

### river, increases in fishbiomass have occurred during the study period, generally with-

. 

### . out changes in either species composition 

### or relative proportions among species categories (e.g. 

### , commercial, sport, forage, etc.).



### -16-

### .... -, . _. The upper Ohio River section 

### (RM0-100) 

### was 

### one of the areas with


### a more significant increase in fish abundance. (The Hannibal Lock 

### was not included in their comparison, perhaps because no comparative data

### were collected in the 1968-1970 period.) A 

### total of fifty-three species have been collected in the locks immediately surrounding 

### Kamer Plant, forty-four in the upstream.Pike Island Lock, and forty-three inthe downstream Hannibal Lock (Table 

### 3-2). Thirty-four species 

### were common 

### to both locks, while ten species 

### were confined 

### toPike Island Lock, and nine others 

### were confined 

### toHannibal Lock.


### 3.4.2 Food Web American Electric Power Service Corporation (1978) reported results 

### of ponar grab samples collected in 

### front of 

### Kammer Plant inMarch of 1977. Oligochaetes, chironomids (6 

### taxa)8 and may

### flies (2

### taxa) were the

### major 

### taxa collected. Other studies' carried out by 

### U.S. EPA (1971) 

### at RiverMiles 57.5 and 167.5 collected 

### several midges, a caddis fly, 

### and oligochaetes. WESD (19761,using data on benthic invertebrates collected by U.S. EPA,
as

### wellas other data on phytoplankton and zooplankton, summarized the feeding relationships among themajor groups 

### of organisms near Kammer Plant inthe generalized food web presented inFigure 3-5. Benthos include organisms living 

### on the bottom. Phytoplankton and zooplankton include plants and animals, respectively, floating in the water. Detritus (particulate organic matter) and phytoplankton form the,base of the food web and provide the major energy input 

### io fishes, particularly gizzard shad and minnows. Benthic species are important food items 

### for most fish except the
-17-

### x x xx 

### x xxxx 

### x xxx

c5 ru e, rl X 

### xxx 

### xxxxxxxxxxxxx XXX

Ll br E: krl rl aQ) a, 0: a, 

### w c a 0 m -4 

### m k C II) -4 k Lo k a, k k x a Q) 

# u a t7 X 2 

### cn 0 

### a 4 rd 4J m 13 v ml mI -4 I 

# 3 a, m 

# El

a, -d m 4 

### a -4 UY -4 0 

### c m -4 4J -4 k m 0 

### a c 

### a 4 Q) 4 V h M 4 V

### xxx 

### xxxxx X 

### xx xxxxxx

n a, X

C rn -4 u-r a a, I E: m 

### c 

### -co -04 rCI r: 

### Gc
c, m rn 

### u al k 

## % a, JJ id 3 k a, k I -lJ I 

### r: +I 0 x .rrj I k 

### u al 0 i3 =t k k

a, rd a, rd a 

### a -4 -4 k 3 4 rd ul 

### a 0 

### u cc 0 0 kk 00 k (d k 4J c, k EX c: 0 a, (u tnl 

### u H -1 9- cv

### xxxxx 

### xxxxxx X

h 

### a a, 5

h rnI

c 0

a, fd A 

### u k rd k -!J c a, 

### u X 

### xx X

k 

# 5 & a, & a,& 40 

### a kk 

### id & rd cusa a, 

### a au c, 01 tl) 

### c 

# ; a, m 

### s: u 

## 2 k 

# 5 t; a, k PI 

### a

ar rd 

### a -4 u k a, PIk

k al

v) 0 II

### z w
Q) 

# n

-21- 3gizzard shad. Many fishes 

### are predators 

### on other fishes, the 

### most common prey species being gizzard shad, minnws and bullheads. Food habits 

### of fishes listed in Table 

### 3-2 include consumptian of 

### a wide range 

### of organisms. 

### For young fishes, plankters 

### are 

### important, including diatoms, copepods and cladocerans. 

### Most species 

### of adult fishes feed primarily on benthos. Especially important


### are inseets includingmidges (Chironamidae)

## ,mayflies (Emphemer

### optera),

### waterboatman (Coxidae)

## , and dragonflies (Odonata)

# . Crayfish (Crustacea) 

### are an important food source for smallmouth bass, while 

### clams and snails (Mollusca) 

### are an important food fource for suckers. An adult fishwhich does not feed 

### on benthos 

### is the gizzard 

### shad. It feeds on zooplankton and phytoglankton, particularly the diatoms. Several sinple food chains 

### can be extracted 

### from the f&d 

### web. Examples include the following: 

### (1)phytoplankton togizzard shad. 

### to sauger; (2) detritus 

### tobenthos 

### to sauger; and (3) phytoplankton 

### tozooplankton 

### tominnows 

### to sauger. The presence 

### of these interlocking 

### food chains is important inmaintaining 

### a stable ecosystem. If any pathway 

### is blocked, alternative sources 

### of food energy 

### are available to the fishes.

-22-4. 

### Kammer Plant Description 4.1 Power Plant 

### Kammer Plant (Figure 

### 4-11 consists of three fossil-fueled 

### electric generating units with 

### a total design rated power output 

### of 675 megawatts (!We). Specific characteristics 

### of each unit 

### are listed inTable 4-1. 

### However, the present plant has been derated 

### tonet generating capability 

### of 600 NV7e in summer and 630 inwinter.

Table 

### 4-1 NOMINAL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF KAMMER PLANT (from WESD, 1976)
Design Condenser Pump Unit Startup Date Rating (14We) Flow Rate (gpm) 

### 1 July 1, 1958 225 160,000 2 

### Nov. 7, 1958 225 160,000 3 Mar. 30, 1959 

### 225 160,090 Condenser Temp. 

### Rise (FO) 12.2 12.2 12.2

Production of 

### electrical energy 

### by the Rankine cycle requires that
excess heat be 

### reject 

### tocanplete the thermodynamic cycle. This 

### is accomplished 

### at

### Kammer Plant utilizing a heat rejection system and once-through cooling. Cooling 

### water is pumped frmthe Ohio River and is returned after flowing through the circulating 

### water system. At a design rating of 675 megawatts, six circulating water pumps transport a combined total of 665 million gallons/day (mgd) (480,000 gpm, 1029 cfs) of Ohio River water through Kamer Plant at design conditions.

-2 3-Figure 

### 4-1. Layout 

### of Xamer Plant Site 

### (From WESD, 

### 1976)

-24-4.2 Circulating Water System The Kammer Plant circulating 

### water system utilizes three heat condensers totransfer heat from turbine'exhaust 

### steam 

### to circulating cooling

### water, one for each unit. Each condenser transfers heat from the turbine exhaust 

### steamto the once-through cooling

### water being circulated through the plant. This 

### water 

### is withdrawn from the Ohio River through a screen house (Figure 4-2). The screen house 

### is divided intothree sections, one 

### for each unit, with a dividing

### wallbetween each section. Within each section there 

### are three intake gates, three trash racks, three traveling
screens and 

### twocirculating 

### water pumps. 4.2.1 Intake Structure The intake structure for 

### Kammer Plant is 

### a reinforced concrete structure situated 

### at theback 

### of a one-hundred-fifty foot deep forebay (Figure 4-2). The forebay 

### isbounded by the screen house 

### tothe

### east, the discharge training 

### wallto the south, an earkhen embankment 

### tothe north, and the Ohio River tothe

### west. Since the intakes forUnits 1-3 are the 

### same, only one unit 

### is discussed. From the forebay, the 

### water moves intothe screen house through one c?f three intake gates. In the
screen house, the water flows through a trash rack composed of 3-inch by 3/4-inch vertical 

### steel bars spaced approximately 2-3/4 inches apart. There 

### are three racks per unit. The racks prevent coarse debris from reaching the traveling screens. Trash
on the racks 

### is removed by a mechanical rake controlled fram the
screen house operating floor.

-25-0 z c W U =I t­ o 3 K c n

a Y c 

### .5

K W z I a x W

IIlL 0'

n 2 4 c 2 W f, 0 2 c Ilf K a

-26-After passing through the trash racks, the

### water 

### is screened by traveling water 

### screens, three per unit (see Figure 

### 4-2). A traveling screen is an endless belt 

### of screen baskets 

### or frames eight feet wide and approximately 

### two and 

### a half feethigh of #14 W&M copper 

### wirewith 3/8 inch openings (Figure 

### 4-31, Units 1-3 intake 

### watervelocity as measured between the trash 

### rakes and the traveling screens averages 

### less than 1

### fps 

### (see Appendix 

### B). The motorized screens travel in 

### a vertical direction. Leaves, trash, twigs and any other objects 

### smallenough 

### topass through the trash racks and be collected by the screen 

### are removed 

### fran thebaskets by 

### streams of high pressure 

### water and sluiced into the trash flume. This wash 

### water issues from a 

### series of spray nozzles near the top of the 

### screen travel suppliedby the 

### screen wash pumps. The trash flume passes in front 

### of allof the traveling screens, collecting screen wash from each. The trash 

### flume exits from the south side 

### of the screen house, 

### and is discharged into the circulating water discharge.
4.2.2 Circulating 

### Water Tunnels and Condensers 

### From the screens thewater 

### flows tothe suction 

### of the 80,000 gpm centrifugal, circulatingwater pumps, two for each unit.

c The circulating 

### water pumps discharge intothe main intake tunnel which run 

### to the plant (Figure 4-2) 

## , and then along the north side 

### of the plant basement. Two branches, one atthe north and one at the south end of the condenser lead 

### from the main



### .intake tunnel to the condenser inletwater boxes. There 

### are two

-27-

# / FIGUP! 4-3 

# TRAVELING SCREENS 8 TRASH 

# RAKE

### water box chambers on each end of each condenser, one for each half of the condenser. From each of the 

### twodischarge 

### water boxes, water flows into

. the main discharge tunnel. 'Jnits 1and 2 have a 

### common discharge tunnel, while Unit 

### 3's is separate. The 

### water box ateach end 

### of each condenser 

### is divided into 

### two independent, 

### vertical sections, thereby providing two parallel circuits through the cooling tubes. In normal operation, 

### water flows through the

### tubes of each section of the condenser in opposite directions. The coolingwater leaves the condenser through the

### water box at the opposite end from which 

### it entered, The circulating 

### water system has been designed 

### for the former normal pool 

### level 

### elevation of 610 ft. MSL. The new, modified pool elevation, produced by construction 

### of the Hannibal Dam, 

### is 623 ft, While this does 

### not affect flow, 

### it does affect the depth of 

### water withdrawn. The 

### water fran 

### all three units, 

### afterpassing through the discharge gates, 

### is discharged through a 400 

### foot long canal which 

### releases the 

### total condenser cooling water 

### flowof approximately 

### 665 mgd into the Ohio River in a downstream direction. Figure 4-4 summarizes the total circulating 

### water system from the condensers 

### to the discharge.

4.2.3 De-Icing If ice accumulates in frmt of the trash racks during cold weather, some of the warm discharge water 

### from the condensers can be used to

### melt it. This water is forced tothe intake through a

-29-=3

-r 3



### 0 CONDENSER INLET 

## f: 8 CONDENSER OUTLET P ~1 -C S

cu
C, c

m C, *I-­ 

### 5 Flow Path Avg. 

### Lengtt (ft> Inlet 

### 256 Condenser 30 

### Outlet 543


### Inlet 302 

### Condenser 30 Outlet 

### 671
In1et 463 

### Condenser 30 Outlet 

### 991
Figure 4-4. Schematic 

### Flow Diagram of 

### Kammer Plant CirculatingWater System (FromWESD, 1976)

-30-recirculating tunnel from a concrete chamber atthe discharge sluice gates. To establish this recirculating flow, the discharge sluice gates 

### atthe 

### river are throttled 

### tobuild up sufficient resistance in the discharge tunnel 

### to force some 

### of the 

### water through thede-icing tunnel. Concurrently, a normally closed sluice gate in the de-icing tunnelsis opened. Throttling 

### of the discharge sluice gates 

### results in decreased circulating 

### water flow. However, this results in

### little'

### loss incondenser
vacuum since the de-icing system 

### is operated only when the 

### circulating 

### water temperatures 

### are 

### low. De-icing 

### is initiated when 

### river 

### water temperature drops 

### to about 

### 36F and stopped when the 

### river water temperature 

### rises to 

### 40F.
4.2.4 Traveling Screen Operation The screens on each unit are normally 

### rotated and washed once each eight hours. However, should the difference inthe

### water level between the plant side and the 

### river side of the trash grill 

### or traveling screens increase because of debris buildup, the screen wash system 

### is started automatically and runs until the

### water level differential drops 

### tonormal 

### or until the 

### screens 

### are manually stopped.
4.2.5 Residence Time of Cooling Water An important parameter in the evaluation 

### of the maqnitude of the effects on aquatic life 

### of entrainment through 

### a power plant is the residence 

### time of the water as 

### it passes through the 

### cooling,.systeF. Fact'ors controlling residence 

### time include the 

### size and:length of the cooling systempiping network, the distance of
-31-the condenser(s1 

### from theintake and discharge p0int.s and the circulating

### water flow 

### rate. For 

### Kammer Plant, variations in
one 

### or more 

### of these 

### parameters exist among the three generating

. units. Equations 

### for computing residence 

### timethrough each generating unit 

### are presented 

### below and 

### are based on data 

### from Figure 

### 4-4.

for Unit 

### 1: T = 

### 222002.57
+ 

### 10714.29

+ 

### 105841.19

+ 

### *1 Q1 

### Q1 + 

### Q2
7545.21 + 

### 65802.87 

### *1 Ql

+ 

### Q2
for Unit 

### 2: T = 

### 240001.40
+ 

### 10714.29
+ 

### 105841.19 .+ 

### 92 

### Q1 

### Q, + 

### Q2 I 

### 131605.75

+ 

### 149245.29 

### Q1 + 

### 2Q2 Q2
for Unit 3: T = 

### 260990.02
+ 

### 10714.29

+ 

### 468002.08 Q3 

### Q3 Q3 

### T is the

### total residence

### 'time and represents the summation of the 

### travel time through three 

### flowpaths: 1. Intake screens tocondenser 

### inlet (I) 2. Condenser tubes (C) 3. Condenser outlet todischarge point 

### (D) 

### ol, Q2 and Q3 

### are the design condenser 

### flow rates for the 3

' respective units (160,000 qpm for each unit). Computed resi'dence times are listed in Table 

### 4-2.

-32-Table 

### 4-2 KAVMER PLANT CIRCULATING WATER RESIDENCE TIME

’ (at.Design Condenser Flow and Normal 

### Pool Elevation) (from WES’D, 

### 1976)


### F1

### ow Path

## * I C D

- 

### Total rrlinutes

*Notes I = path 

### from intake Residence Time (Kinutes)/Unit 1 2 

### 3 

### 1.39 1.50 1-63 

### 0.07 0.07 0.07 

### 0.94 

# - ­ 1.54 2.93 2.40 

### 3.11 4.63

screens to condenser inlet 

### C = path through condenser tubes D = path from condenser outlet 

### to the discharge point

Residence 

### time frm intake and through the 

### Kammer Plant 

### circulating 

### water system 

### tothepoint 

### of discharge ranges 

### from 4.63 minutes 

### for Unit 

### 3 to 2.40 minutes 

### for Unit 1. The portion of the residence 

### time associatedwith exposure toelevated temperature is 

### 3.0 minutes forUnit 3 an6 1.01 minutes 

### for Unit 1 (C & D, Table 4-2). Residence tine for the three Kammer Plant generating units is illustrated inFigure 4-5. Utilizing the point of intake 

### as the origin 

### of the curve for each unit, 

### total residence times

-33--34-through the cooling system and 

### travel 

### time at elevated temperature along the centerline of the thermal plume 

### are plotted against excess temperature (data

### fromWESD, 1976). In addition, approximately 270 minutes 

### are required for the thermal .plume temperature 

### to fall

### towithin 

### 3F0 

### (1.7C0) of the ambient 

### river temperature 

### after the heated discharge returns 

### tothe Ohio River,


### 4.3 Plant Operating Data Plant operating parameters thatmight have had an effect on the impingement 

### or entrainment rate

### were recorded 

### on the sampling days. This included intake and discharge 

### water temperatures, station load, de-icing status, number of circulating

### water pumps in operation and traveling screens in operation. In addition, the following meteorological and 

### river data 

### were collected: 

### air temperature, estimated wind speed and direction, cloud 

### cover, barometric pressure and river stage. These data 

### are contained 

### in Appendix B in the NUS 

### report (Volume 

### I1 of this Demonstration).

-35-5. Impingement Study 5.1 Purpose The impingement study 

### was performed tomonitor the number and types 

### of fish impinged on the travelinq 

### screens in the cooling 

### water intake structure'. Pursuant to the study plan, fieldwork 

### was conducted for

### one year.by NUS from May 8, 1978, 

### toMay 1, 1979. From these datarzstimates of annual 

### numbers of fish impinged 

### were extrapolated.


### 5.2 Methods The methods used 

### in the impingement field survey 

### are 

### contained inthe 

### section entitled, METHODS, of the NUS report, Volume 11 of this Demonstration Document.. That section discusses mode 

### of sampling, frequency of sampling, sampling intervals, subsampling and voucher 

### col

### lections

# . 5.3 Results The results of the impingement field survey 

### are detailed in the section entitled, RESULTS, of the attached

### NUS report. These


### are summarized here. A 

### total 1,535 fish

### were collected at

### Kammer Plant. Of.these, gizzard shad 

### (Dorosoma cepedianum) composed 65 percent; emerald shiner (Notropus atherinoides), 14.3 percent; channel catfish ' (Ictalurus

### - punctatus), 5.3 percent. The 

### total weight of the fish collected was 30.8 kilogram (66 pounds). Of this 

### total, 26.1



## - percent by weight 

### were gizzard shad, 176. percent 

### were channel

. catfish, 11.4n.percent 

### were silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)

## ,

-36-

### - 8.8 percent 

### were golden redhorse 

### (M. erythrurum)

## , 8.3 percent


### were carp, 4.6 percent 

### were sauger (Stizostedioncanadense)

## , and 4.3 percent 

### were freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens). Seasonal as 

### well

### as diel (temporal) patterns 

### were analyzed. Impingement 

### rates were generally 

### low except forone minor peak in October, and 

### a higher, broader peak inNovember and 

### December. Both peaks 

### were due 

### almost entirely 

### togizzard shad (Figure 5-1). Significant differences occurred between day and night impingement rates. The four-hour 

### timeblocks 

### were compared using the large sample approximation, adjusted for 

### ties of Friedman's two-way analysis 

### of variance by rank (Hollander and Wolfe, 

### 1973). The null hypothesis 

### was rejected 

### at p = 0.06 indicating that there 

### isweak evidence for rejection.


### 5.4 Annual Estimates Based on the 24-hour period and the 

### 95 percent confidence 

### limits, an annual 

### estimate of fish impinged 

### was extrapolated. An estimated 12,520 fish, with upper and 

### lower confidence 

### limits of 21,290 and 3,750, respectively, 

### were impinged 

### over theyear.

-37-.-I

0 3 E -r 'N N6. Entrainment 

### 6.1 Purpose The entrainment study 

### was 

### also undertaken pursuant 

### tothe study plan 

### tomonitor the number and types 

### of fish larvae that pass through the circulatingwater system 

### of the 

### Kammer Plant. Th-e fieldwork 

### was performed by NUS, concurrentlywith the impingement fieldwork, and 

### is reported in Volume 

### I1 

### of this Demonstration. From these data, estimates 

### of annual numbers of fish 

### larvae entrained

### were extrapolated.
6.2 Methods The methods used inthe entrainment field survey 

### are contained 

### inthe section entitled, 

### METHODS., 

### of the NUS report. That section discusses the sampling methodology, frequency of sampling, sampling intervals and sampling locations. Samples 

### were collected between September 1978 and February 1979, but 

### were not sorted due tothe Frojected absence of entrainable larvae in thisperiod.
6.3 Results The results 

### of the entrainment field survey 

### are detailed in the section entitled, RESULTS, of the attached

### NUS report, and are summarized here. A total of 2,502 fish larvae* were collected 

### from the 24 sampling periods. Of these larvae, 61.1 percent 

### were minnms and 33.8 percent 

### were unidentifiable, while 2.6 percent 

### were carp and 1.2 percentcluFeids. Eggs, unidentifiable larvae and walleye/ 

## * numbers were not reported by NUS, though esg densities 

### were..

~qq

-39-sauger predcaninated inMay. Minnows, carp, and unidentifiable larvae abundant inJune. Minnows and unidentifiable larvae

’ 

### were predominant in

### July. Herrings minnows and unidentifiables


### were predainant inAugust. Fish 

### eggs 

### were collected on only 

### two occasions; on 8-9 May when themean egg density 

### was 9.0/100 

### m3 and on 5-6 June when the mean egg density 

### was 0.8/100 

### m3 A peak 

### larval density of 598.8/100 

### m3 inthe single-pump sample collected occurred on 3-4 

### July. Minnows constituted about 80 percent 

### of thispeak, while unidentifiables constituted 

### most of theremainder.


### 5

# .4 Annual 

### Estimates Based on egg and 

### larval densities and 

### volume of waterwithdrawn 

### from the Ohio River during sampling periods, 

### total annual entrainment 

### was extrapolated 

### toan 

### estimated 1nillion fish 

### eggs and 181million fish 

### larvae.

-40-7. Impact of the Cooling

### Water Intake Structure 

### on the Fish Populations 

### of the River Coutant (1974) has suggested the following optimistically 

### simplified six-step 

### flow path for environmental imFact analyses: 

### 1. Source 

### of Potential Biological Damage; 2. Probability 

### of Involvement; 3. Probability 

### of Direct Biological Damage; 4. Probability 

### of Population Damage; 5. Probability 

### of Community and Ecosystem Damage; 6. Probability 

### of Social Damage. The 

### last three steps, determining theprobability of population damage, probability of community and ecosystem damage, and probability 

### of

-

### social impact, 

### "are rarely possible" (Schubel and Marcy, 1978: 

### 2351, and, 

### in the present 

### case, 

### are impossible. Population d.ata do not 

### exist 

### to allow
an 

### estimate atStep 4 

### of the probability 

### of damage 

### tothe population which is necessary in order 

### to calculate damage 

### at Steps 5 and 6. An alternative approach has been recanmended by U.S. EPA (1977) which makes use of a matrix as thebasis for predicting the potential impact of cooling

### water intake structures. The matrix components include the ratio

### of cooling water flow 

### to sourcewater body flow, and the biological value of the adjacent source 

### water (Figure 

### 7-1). The 

### latter is a summary of whether the area is a principle spawning ground, migratory pathway, nursery 

### or feeding area, is highly populated, and/or 

### is otherwise critical toany lifehistory stage. For existing intakes, the determination of entrainment and impingement rates is considered sufficient 

### topermit initial evaluation of impact. If these rates 

### are found 

### tobe excessive, more extensive source waterb.ody sampling 

### is considered.



# . -41-

## I COOLIKC UATER FLOW 

## I I (Relative to SourceWater Body Segment) 

## I 1 

## I I BInLQCICXL 

## I 1 

## I 1 VALUE 

## I HIGH 

## I LOU 

### 1

- 

## I I High 

## I 

## I Yo 

## 1 1 QuestFonable 

### I 

## 1 1 *.

## I 

## I 1 

## 1 Low

. 

## I Questionable 

## I Yes 

### 1

Figure 

### 7-1. U.S. 

### EPA Biological Value-Potential 

### Decision Matrix 

### for Best Intake Technology Available



### (U.S. EPA, 

### 1977: 

### 11).

Table 

### 7-1. Percentage 0:. 

### fiiver Flow 

### Circulated Through 

### Rammer Plant* 

### at Two Ohio 

### River Flow 

### Levels**

Month 

### Low Flow April 

### 3.1% May 6.2% June 10.8% 

### July -17.2% August 20.2%



## * Average Flow 

### 1.6% 2.6% 

### 5.5% 9.4% 9.4%

at

### full pumping capacity of 

### -665mgd (1029 cfs)

. 

## ** Flow data fromTable 

### 3-1 LOW flow: flow equalled 

### or exceeded 90%of 

### time Average 

### flow: floQequalled 

### or exceeded 50%of 

### time



# .

. I

-42-appropriatewhich would help put the 

### losses in context (U.S. EPA, 1977: 39). The Study Plan implemented here 

### was designed. 

### to accomplish the 

### firstgoal, though 

### it 

### is also possible 

### tobenefit from other data sources 

### to put 

### losses in context. A matrix analysis is presented inthe following paragraphs despite misgivings as 

### toits appropriateness 

### inevaluating an intake which has been operational for a number of years, 

### as at Kammer Plant. 

### In such
an analysis, 

### a lowbiological value could indicate 

### a system highly stressed by 

### water pollutants which might 

### or might not be associated with power plant operation. A high biological value, however, could lead one 

### toconclude that the potential for harm 

### is great. 

### In either 

### case, power plant operation could be implicated. 

### However, atKammer this Catch-22 situation 

### is not 

### as likely as 

### it could be elsewhere because of availability of other long-term background data, 

### as discussed 

### later in this section. The Kammer Plant circulates 665 million gallons per day (1029 

### cfs) of 

### river water to

### meet 

### its condenser cooling demand 

### at its nameplate design full load of 675 MWe. The river flows 

### at the plant during the ichthyoplankton period 

### are presented on a monthly basis inTable 7-1. This table also shows thepercentage of the 

### river circulated by the plant based on full coolingwater flow (1029 cfs). A 

### worst-case
concurrence 

### is given of maximum coolingwater 

### flow with 

### low 

### river flow (flowequaled 

### or exceeded 90%

### of 

### time), as well as with average flow (flowequaled 

### or exceeded 50%of 

### time).

* The lateJune-early July peak entrainment abundance in 1978
, corresponds with'longer-term river ichthyop'lankton study data 67

-43-

### miles upstream around Samis Plant where peak abundance has been observed by WAPORA (1977-1979) inJune (1976, 

### 1977)

## , and July (1978). WAPORA 

### also reported that no 

### overall difference existed between 

### crossriver trans 

### ect 

### sta

### tions

# . During the pe.ak density period (June and July), the long-term average flow through theplant 

### is between 5.5% and 9.4% 

### of the river 

### flowforthat period (Table 7-1). At 

### lower flows occurring 

### less than 10percent 

### of the 

### time) in thisperiod, the percentage 

### of 

### flow circulated 

### rises 

### tobetween 10.8%and 17.2%. It can 

### also be seen from the above data that during the entireMay thru August period when ichthyoplankton 

### are present, the plant circulates 

### a 

### lowpercentage of the 

### river flow. The plant circulates only 16%

### of the 

### river flow during the seven-day, once in ten year 

### low flow of 6,600 cfs. Regulatory agencies usually assume 100%mortality (e.g. 

## , U.S. EPA, 1977: 341, based on reviews 

### of the literature. (The 

### most current widely available review being that by'Schubel and Marcy, 1978.) For purposes 

### of calculating 

### losses, this Demonstration 

### also 

### assumes 100% mortality. However, a recent 

### critical review by Ecological Analysts (1979) 

### allows a different conclusion. (This EA report 

### was submitted 

### to U.S. EPA Region I11 

### on 14 May 1980 as an Addendum 

### to: Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration 

### Document 

### for P.L. 92-500 

### Q 316(b).) When entrainment studies with faulty design or incomplete 

### or unsubstantiated data


### were excluded from consideration, survival 

### estimates improved markedly (Table 7-2, from EA, 1979). This strongly suggests that the assumption of 100%mortality atKammer Plant is unrealistic.

-44-

Im 'I I ut I I t II I I 1 I I 1 - N

00 In0 0 00 m -u 9 drl

U4d d " N

D tt ZJ

0 Q, 

# q

rn 'CJ 

## 8 a k U h) h) 0) 3 r: 'rs k b4 

# 3 u 

## 4 t, C W
. ­

fn m 

### g 

### 2 

## .; 0 0 k.4 H Csd aJ .u ro E

.aJ m > c) rg 4 0 m s c) d 3 P u 4 U w c 3 

# i

8



## d v) CI 

# i', 4. r aJ
PI

m S <
.­ m u 9-0 0

-46-Studies‘by WAPORA (1971-1979) cannot 

### answer the 

### matrix question of the biological value of the Hannibal pool. However, inview 

### of 

### more general considerations, 

### it is possible tomake broad statements about 

### its 

### value. The 

### river has long 

### since ceased 

### tobe 

### a migratory route for any speciesbecause of the construction of dams completed in 1929. Habitatdoes not 

### seem

### tovary significantlywithin the pool, except 

### as 

### it 

### is affected by location in eitherthe

### more free-flowing upper pool reaches 

### or the relatively more impounded 

### lmer pool reaches. 

### As such, no particular 

### area can 

### be considered 

### a principal nursery 

### or feed area, nor otherwise 

### critical 

### to any lifehistory 

### stage. 

### As 

### for population levels, they cannot be established in the Hannibal pool 

### fromWAPORA data. However, the EPA lock studies show thatpopulation 

### levels in locks 

### atupper Ohio River locks are increasing, and the 

### relative abundance of pollution tolerant species has not increased (Preston and White, 

### 1978). It 

### is unknown whether this increase in lock fishpopulations 

### reflects the overall improvements 

### in the Hannibal 

### pool, though this


### seems likely. While sampling in locks may bias 

### those species which prefer the lock environment 

### over that in the pool, the increase over the years 

### most likely 

### reflects enhanced water quality which has occurred 

### in the 

### pool environment 

### as

### well. Thus, the lock samples 

### are best considered as indicators of improving conditions, rather than as absolute indications of the species composition 

### or density inthe pool environment. Whether these likely increases inpopulation above are enough to offset the other suggestions of 

### lowbiological value, i.e., the area being neither a migratory pathway, nor a principle spawning ground ornursery area, is speculative.

-47-If the Hannibal pool 

### were considered 

### of high biological value, the matrix conclusion would be that the intake structures 

### are questionably the best technology available, but even with this worst
### case conclusion, the previously discussed mitigating factors reduce potential impact. In summary, these 

### factors include an indication of increasing health of theriver during the period 

### of plant operation and the absence 

### of unique 

### ecological features 

### inthe plant vicinity, the 

### lowpercentage of 

### water circulated through the plant, the relatively uniform distribution of ichthyoplankton in the river, the likelihood 

### of appreciable entrainment survival, and the 

### lownumbers 

### of fish impinged Milburn and Ginsberg 

### (1978) of U.S. EPA Region V have stated: "We 

### are not even 

### close to a judicial pronouncement on. 

# . .the defintion 

### of 'adverse environmental impact' 

### (or 'minimizing 

### it').

# . .." A "preponderance of the evidence" (Milburn and Ginsberg, 1978) 

### willnot be used here 

### totry 

### to answer the question of "significance" 

### of adverse environmental impact question. Instead, the alternatives 

### to the present technology 

### willbe addressed thatmight conceivably minimize the effect of the existing intake structure, keeping inmind the definition of 

### best available technology. This is done in the following section.

### 8. Possible Alternatives 

### tothe Existing Facility 

### and Operation The circulating

### water system 

### of the 

### Kammer Plant 

### was discussed in Section 4; and the numbers and annual 

### estimates of-fish impinged and entrained 

### are given in Section 

### 5 and Section 6. In 

### order to reduce the numbers 

### of organisms impacted by the circulating 

### water system, either the operation 

### of the.facility 

### or the facility 

### itself would have 

### tobe altered; This section discusses the alterations that appear 

### tobe 

### available.
8.1 Operational Alternatives 

### 8.1.1 De-Icing Operation De-icing may contribute 

### toimpingement by concentrating fish in the 

### warmwater used 

### for de-icing infront of the intake structure; however, current de-icing practices 

### at the Kamer Plant use minimum de-icing. De-icing practices have been outlinedin Section 4.2.3. De-icing 

### is theonly practical means 

### toensure uninterrupted cooling 

### water 

### flowwhen 

### ice can begin 

### toform in front of the intake 

### or on the intake equipment.
8.1.2 Reduced Pumping 

### of Circulating Water The reduction of circulating 

### flows has been generally accepted


### as 

### a means 

### of reducing impingement and entrainment 

### rates (U.S. EPA, 1976; Schubel and Marcy, 1978). The reduction 

### of 

### flow at 

### a oncethrough power plant can be accomplished inone 

### of two ways: 

### first by reducing the amount 

### of water flowing through the plant and thereby further increasing the temperature of the cooling 

### water,

. orby using a recirculating cooling system and only removing’make-



# .

. up water 

### fromthe 

### river. Closed-cycle cooling, the second option,

-49-

### willbe discussed in 

### a later section 

### of this report. When evaluating the employment 

### of technologies 

### toreduce impingement and entrainment losses, the feasibility 

### of reducing river water withdrawal rates and intake 

### velocities must be considered. One possible means of reducing the cooling

### water flow throuqh the plant 

### isby operating the plant's condenser,cooling water systems with'one circulating 

### water pump per unit instead of 

### twopumps per unit, which 

### is thenormal operating mode. 

### However, when operating with just one circulating 

### water pump, significant generation and performance penalties could occur. To evaluate these 

### losses, 

### a 

### series of 

### tests were performed 

### at the six-unit, 1284

### MW Clifty Creek Station 

### (R.M. 560) by engineers of the Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation 

### todetermine the magnitude and resulting 

### costs of these penalties. Characteristics 

### of Clifty Creek Station 

### are given 

### inTable 8-1.
Cliftv Creek Station Cost Studv The 

### tests were performed at increments 

### of 10Fo in.inlet

### water temperature and compared actual operating conditions (generation, condenser back pressure, cooling water 

### flow, and temperature 

### rise) for 

### test situations involving one-pump and two-pump operation. These 

### tests atClifty Creek Station disclosed that one-pump operation produced losses inboth generation and thermal performance with themore significant losses occurring at the higher inlet 

### water temperatures (Table 8-21.

. In a monetary sense and 

### on a plant basis for Clifty Creek Station, 

### these combined losses would

' 'amount 

### to approximately $6,000 per day/per unit at 80°F inlet

-50-000000 ocoooo 000000



# ...... NNNNCVN mmmmmlfi rlrlrldd4

m E: 0 m -rl k a 

### a 

# E U 4 

## 8 V 

### c -4 

### a a! v1 3

a rl PI

b a k a 

### c 

### u x a, a, rl k I m a, rl 000 coo0 0 000 000 0000 0 ooc 000 0000 0 OCO



# .-. 

# ..-. .... 000 mmNN 0 000 WWW mmmln O’O-rO rlrlrl .rll-lrlrl 44-3

0000



# ....Weerldrlrl

“CVN

k 

### $ x +, Q, E: Q) rd k rl V PI k



### -51-Y $1 h h rj a a 

# . \ \ \ m Q\ m VI IP m 5 m PI vt 

### a a n



# . 0 

## z n 

# 3 w 3r h 3.1 h rj k a- tu d a 0 

### n 

### a n 

### n 

# E \ \ \ \

r- p7 CI 03 VI 2 03 cv cv W 0 k 0 cn m ct CI c\ H 4 4 4 5 4 

# 2 E.l 

### c: rl r- in 

### a m 

### w a* UJ. 

## * E: 

# E w z 

### w 

### z

m Io d I4 i 4­

tn tn 6, m W 

### z W E: 

### c: E H H H -3 \9 

## +
z 0 l-i nl N Y v Y E-l U 

### w 3 

## r: 3 Er, trr l-i 0 TI 

### w m m N 4 I I I h h CI rn tu 

### x 

### u 

### a. A
d a m 

# . d 

## +++

E rd rl

F .m m 

## + + I

hhh "N YYV 333 

### zzz

Lkk 0 0 0 o m 0 L1 

### .== -3 P,

G E 

### Q o k



# .. h 0
h cv u -52-

### water temperature with the 

### smallest 

### loss of approximately $750 per day per unit occurring at 

### 45OF inlet

### water temperature. The operating parameter that influences these 

### losses 

### is, of course, condenser back pressure, which when increased, 

### as is the 

### case during one-pump operation, 

### willadversely 

### affect 

### a steam turbine's capacity 

### todo work and 

### also the turbine cycle thermal efficiency. Subsequent 

### tests performed when the inlet

### water temperature 

### was above 

### 80°F forced reductions in excess of 50 MW having in order 

### tostabilize the unit. Calculated condenser cooling 

### water 

### flow rates during these 

### tests at Clifty Creek Station revealed that the 

### flow

### was reduced by an 

### average 

### of 69,800 gpm per unit when each unit operated with
one circulating 

### water pump. As a result 

### of the reduced cooling 

### water flow, intake 

### velocities atthe trash grills, intake 

### gate openings, and traveling screens would be reduced approximately 42 percent. 

### Also, the cooling watertemperature differential


### across the condenser increased an average of approximately 9Fo when operating with one circulating

### water pump. It 

### is realized that the 

### Kamer Plant units 

### are slightly 

### smaller in size, and that they might experience different 

### losses inefficiency, and other 

### factors. Nevertheless, the Clifty Creek Station results can give an order of magnitude approximation of the 

### costs which might be incurred for similarrestrictions at Kammer Plant. Disregarding cost, theincrease intemperature resulting fromreduced pumping might conflict with theNPDES pernit temperature 

### restrictions and lead tohigher mortality of

-53-entrained organisms exposed tohigher temperatures. Also, while decreasing the flowwould reduce the intake velocity, 

### it already averages 

### less than the 1fps recommended by U.S. EPA (1976) 

### guidelines, 

### so that 

### littlemight be gained 

### from 

### a furthervelocity reduction.
8.2 Design Alternatives There 

### are many papers written on the 

### state 

### of the 

### art of intake design (Marcy and Dahlberg, 1978; U.S. EPA 1976; Hanson, 

### et al., 1977; Richards, 1978; Sharma, 1978). Table 

### 8-3 provides


### a listing 

### of allintake types that 

### are discussed inthe scientific literature, both practical and experimental. The applicability 

### of these designs 

### to the Kammer Plant has been considered by the Company. Discussed 

### below are the various alternativesconsidered during the screening study.
8.2.1 Stationary Screens The stationary type screen would be impractical because 

### of debris 

### removal problems. This type screen 

### is used in 

### areas where debris 

### is not a problem, and therefore, 

### is not feasible 

### at Kammer Plant where high debris loads 

### are 

### a common occurrence.
8.2.2 Perforated Pipes Perforated pipe intakes have not been fabricatedwith fine perforations. The availability of wedgewire screens makes the similar, perforated pipe intake undesirable. A perforated pipe intake would not afford any advantage over a wedgewire intake, which is discussed in

### more detailbelow.

-54-h 03tcn Fl v

PI a m c4a 1130 rlarl 

## "2: 010 -rl >5 a % E 

### aa uaa m EC H((I

m I *a, Q) rl Q m E-l 0 E

C 

# - 3 ++- + +I l+++l I I l i II 1111 +I11 

### + + i

. + + 

### +++ + +I l++t+i+I I I I 11I 1 I I I-++ I I



### + +. 

### + i I I I I l+lI1+1 

### ++ ++ I

### +++ +ll+



### + + + ii++ + I 

### + ++ I+++++++ 11 11l11? ++++ 

### ++ .

+ ++++A++++ 

### + +&A ++++ f + + 

### + +++++++++++ 

### ++ ++--+I tiit

m E m c) aJ 4 I 0 mn m m & 00 waU s C
-55-8.2.3 Drum Screens, Rotating DiscScreens, Horizontal Traveling Screens and Inclined Plane Screens These screens 

### are not considered 

### feasible because they 

### do not offer any advantage 

### over traveling screens and 

### are not suited ' for 

### areas with wide ranges of 

### water levels. Horizontal traveling
screens and inclined plane screens 

### are both in the experimental 

### stage. Drum screens and rotating disc screens have not been used 

### to filter comparably 

### large quantities 

### of water. None 

### of these designs have used finemesh 

### for such large capacity systems.
8.2.4 

## - Filtration Type Intakes 

## - Filtration intakes include rapid filterbeds, radial

### well intakes, and porous dike intakes. According 

### to Marcy and Dahlberg



### (1978), application 

### of these technologies 

### toa power plant circulating a large volume of cooling 

### water is limitedby economic infeasibility (radial

### well, rapid 

### filterbeds) unproven reliability (porous dike), and/or adverse ecological side 

### effects (rapid filterbed). Thus, these technologies 

### are considered inviable options atKammer Plant.
8.2.5 

### - Trash Racks Trash racks would not protect aquatic lifebecause 

### of the wide spacing and heavy construction.
8

# -2.6 Behavioral Barriers As shown in. Table 8-3, behavioral barriers would not protect ichthyoplankton and have not been demonstrated as effective in any configuration that is feasible for Kammer Plant. These '
4

, barriers are, therefore, not considered a justifiable alternative 

### to the existing intake. -56-8.2.7 

### - CylindricalWedgewire Screens The American Electric Power System has substantial experience in the use of wedgewire screens for 

### river water makeup systems 

### at
some of its 

### tower cooled units. Johnson wedgewire screens have been used for thatpurpose at the Big Sandy Plant (18.96 flop?) since 1963. Similar perforated pipe intakes have been used 

### at theNitchell Plant (25mgd) and atthe John E. Amos Plant, Units 

### 1 and 2 (43.3 mgd)

# . AEP currently 

### is installing Johnson wedgewire
screens inthe 

### river watermakeup structure 

### atMountaineer Plant (21.7 mgd)

## , and plans 

### to install these screens 

### at theplant 

### tobe constructed inRockport, Indiana (42.5 mgd). There thus can be no doubt 

### as 

### toAEP's commitment 

### towedgewire screen technology where its use is both appropriate and feasible. 

### However, screens of a size

### topreclude larvalentrainment 

### (0.5-1.0 

### mm) would be in serious jeopardy when debris loads 

### are high, 

### as on the Ohio River. Furthermore, the 

### cost of the Mountain5er intake system (including screens, 

### riverwater makeup pumps, 

### motors, other 

### materials, and labor 

### forpipes) 

### was about $750,000 

### to supply a cooling 

### water volume about 1/15 

### of that of that experienced with the once-through cooling units at Kammer Plant. While 

### costs would not be directly proportional 

### tosize, an order of magnitude increase in cost may not be unreasonable. 8.2.8 Ristroph Screens White and Brehmer 

### (1977)have reported that Ristroph screens .provide an average survival rate of 93.3%at the Surry Power Station. 

### The feasibility and 

### costs associated with installing a Ristroph

-57-Screen System was investigated for the four units making up the 

### 1040 MWe Tanners Creek Plant, located downstream of 

### Kammer Plant at R.M. 

### 494. Characteristics of Tanners Greek Plant 

### are given inTable 8-1.
Tanners Creek Plant Cost Study In order 

### toperform an engineering 

### cost study of the 12 traveling 

### water screens designed 

### for fishprotection

### ,atTanners Creek, 

### it 

### was necessary 

### toestablish certain important design parameters. These designs considerations 

### are: 

### 1) Fish size--The designed system 

### was not intended 

### toprotect any fish other than those already 

### impinged 

### on the existing screens. Those presently being impinged 

### are generally young of the year able topass through the 2-inch openings in the trash racks. 

### 2) Velocity--In the conduit necessary 

### toreturn impinged 

### fish safely tothe river, an average velocity 

### of 9 feet/second 

### or less, and a conduit water depth of 2.8 inches (thedepth 

### of the Ristroph screen basket) 

### ormore was considered acceptable. 3) Temperature increase--Impinged fish being returned 

### to the river should not be place6 intothe warmest portion of the cooling water discharge plume. A compromise between fish return conduit 

### costs (largely determined by required length of run) and an’acceptable location 

### for impinged fish return

-58-to the river was necessary. These concentrations led 

### toa design 

### return at the 

### 7F0 isotherm. The preliminary design at

### the Tanners Creek Plant resulted in a plan which would require purchasing 12new traveling 

### screens equipped with fish protection hardware. The condition of the existing screens would not allow the screens 

### tobe retrofitted with the Ristroph arrangement and operated cn a continuous basis, without significant mechanical problems. It is anticipated that continuous screen operation 

### toprotect fish would probably be required at- 

### least two months of the year. A fishhandling system 

### toreturn impinged fish safely 

### tothe river would 

### also be required. The preliminary design considered the use of two spiralled troughs 

### to 

### lower the fish from the machinery levels of the screen houses 

### tothe approximate river level. After the elevation drop, 

### a trough 

### toreturn fish 

### tothe river 

### at 

### a point approximately 500 ft. downstream 

### of Unit 4's circulating water discharge would alsobe required. The engineering cost estimates 

### for the above fishprotection system include 

### material and 

### labor costs 

### for removal 

### of 12 existing traveling screens, 

### installation 

### of 12 new fish protection screens, necessary screenhouse modifications, and fish return troughs. The 

### cost estimates do not include 

### casts of increased maintenance 

### to be expected due tocontinuous screen operation during 

### certain times 

### of the year. The totalmaterial and labor cost estimate for the previously described,variation of a Tanners Creek fish protection system 

### is $2,275,000. An indeterminant amount of qeneration would be lost durinu the modification. -59-This feasibility study gives an order 

### of magnitude 

### estimate 

### of theexpense thatmight be incurred should 

### a similarmodification be proposed for Kamer Plant. The 

### exact cost of modifications would be.dependent on site-specific characteristics, though considering the 

### larger number 

### of screens 

### at Tanners (12 

### ­
vs 9 

### atKarnmer), 

### costs for similar alteration could be 

### less.
8.2.9 Fish Collector The use of various other fish collection/fish handling de

### vices have been triedby various utilities. These mostly have 

### been used in conjunction with louvered screens 

### (U.S. 

### EPA, 1976; Mussalli 

### et al., 1978; Richards, 1978) and the previously discussed Ristroph screens. Since there 

### is not enough 

### room inthe present screenhouse 

### for any 

### of the collection 

### devices for the
screens inthe Kammer Plant, the screenhouse would have 

### tobe 

### almost completely replaced 

### toincorporate such a system.
8.2.10 Closed Cycie Cooling Another means of reducing pumping 

### to minimize entrainment would be 

### tobackfit 

### a closed cycle cooling system with cooling 

### towers. The Muskingum River Plant Section 316

### (a) demonstration report by Ecological Analysts, Inc., (1978) provides 

### a.detailed 

### cost analysis of backfitting onto 

### a power plant containing four 

### similarunits with mechanical draft cooling 

### towers, natural draft cooling 

### towers and.spray canal cooling. Characteristics of 

### Muskingum River Plant 

### are given 

### in Table 8-1.

-60-Muskingum 

### River Plant Engineering/Cost Study
Detailed engineering 

### estimates have been prepared 

### of the 

### costs of backfitting four units of this 876 MW Ohio Power Company plant. These 

### costs may be used 

### as 

### a rough 

### estimate of backfitting 

### costs atKammer Plant. The capital

### costs of 

### a backfittednatural-draft cooling 

### tower system 

### on these four Ohio Power units

### was estimated 

### at $35,190,000 in 1977 

### dollars. 

### Including the 

### cost of generating capacity 

### required 

### toreplace that capacity lost through operation of the cooling 

### towers, the 

### total capital 

### costs of natural-draft cooling 

### towers was estimated 

### at $55,830,000. Similarly, the

### total capital 

### costs associated with
a backfitted mechanical-draft cooling 

### tower system 

### was estimated at $58,892,000. The spray canal cooling system would 

### involve a 

### total capital 

### cost of $40,162,000.

-61-9. Summary and Conclusions
This report has.presented facts relevant todetermining whether the existing Kanuner Plant cooling water intake structure represents the best technology available commercially at 

### an economically practicable cost forminimizing adverse environmental impact. The

. description 

### of the plant and the Ohio River in the vicinity 

### of the 

### Kammer Plant provides a perspective 

### fran which 

### toevaluate the

### numbers of fish impinged and ichthyoplankton entrained, Of the 1,535 fish impinged, 65%

### were gizzard shad, 14.3%

### were emerald 

### shiner, and 5.3%

### were channel catfish. The annual 

### estimate based 

### on these collections indicated a total of 12,520 

### fish

### were 

### impinged (95%confidence 

### limits

### of 3,750 

### to 21,290). Entrainment 

### co1:lections contained 2,502 larval fish. Of these, 61.1%

### were minnows, 33.8%

### were unidentifiables, 2.6%

### were carp, and 1.2% 

### were herrings. The annual 

### estimates based on 

### these collections indicate 

### 1

### x 

## lo6 fish eggs and 181

### x 1 06 

### were entrained. Because theDlant uses 

### only a small percentage 

### of the river during periods of peak larval densities, and because the river 

### is only moderate 

### inbiological value, there 

### is

### not a potential for a large biological impact. Sufficient population.data donot 

### exist for quantitative comparison 

### to impingement and entrainment 

### estimates 

### so that theprecise significance 

### of environmental impact cannot be quantitatively answered 

### in terms of population dynamics. Nevertheless, the continuing improvement in the Ohio River fish fauna,.including the.Hannibalpool vicinity (Preston and White, 1978) supports the position that the Kammer Plant intake structure is not causing an adverse environmental impact.
-62-The alternatives 

### tothe existing structure and operation that would minimize any impact have been 

### reviewed inthis report; and
none 

### are economically feasible, considering the engineering difficulties and marginal environmental gain thatmight be achieved. The intake structures have intake 

### velocities which 

### average 

### less than 1fps. These 

### velocities fall within the guidelines provided by U.S. 

### EPA (1976) and 

### are unlikely 

### tobe responsible 

### for impingement; 

### therefore, further reduction 

### seems unwarranted. Other possible operational changes that have been cited

### as possibly minimizing impingement and entrainment 

### rates are reduction of de-icing and reduction of cooling 

### water withdrawal 

### rates. De-icing 

### is currently operating on an 

### as needed 

### basis and cannot be reduced further. And, the reduction 

### of cooling

### water withdrawal 

### rates has been shown 

### tobe costlybecause of reductions inplant efficiency. Reduced 

### flowwould 

### also elevate discharge temperatures. Among thedesign modifications 

### considered 

### were stationary screens, perforated pipes, 

### drum screens, rotating disc screens, horizontal traveling screens, inclined plane screens, filtration type intakes, trash racks, behavioral 

### barriers, cyclindrical wedgewire screens, Ristroph screens,. and fish 

### collectors. 

### All would require 

### major and very costly redesign and reconstruction of the intake structure,
even if feasible, which 

### some are not. These 

### costs are far in excess 

### of any benefit that could be obtained by such a modification. Closed cycle cooling, the

### most expensive alternative, would 

### reduce the impact of both entrainment and impingement but its excessive cost 

### also appears 

### to far outweigh any benefit incurred.

-.

-63-Based upon the above considerations, any 

### scheme 

### of alteration 

### to either theexisting intdke structure 

### or present operation would incur 

### costs that 

### are disproportionate 

### to the reduction inimpact and 

### are not environmentally warranted. It is the conclusion of the Company, based upon the facts, research, physical constraints, and economics presented inthis report, that the existing 

### Kammer Plant cooling

### water intake structure represents the best technology 

### available atthe 

### time thisplant 

### was designed, and 

### also 

### at the present 

### time, for minimizing 

### adverse environmental impact.

-64-

### 10. References Cited American 

### Electric Power Service Corporation. 1978. Final Environmental Assessment Report: Temporary Coal Dock at

### Kammer Plant and an Extension of theMitchell Plant 

### Coal Dock, Cresap, Marshall County, 

### West Virginia. 'AEPSC, 55 pp 

### + Fig

### + Tab.

. Coutant, C. C. 1974. Opening Remarks 

### at Entrainment and Intake Screening Workshop: Evaluation 

### of Entrainment Effect, p. 

### 1-11, 

### in: L. D. Jensen (ed), Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening. The Johns Hopkins Univ., Dept. Geogr. and Env. Eng. Rept. No. 

### 15, 347 pp. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978. Muskingun River Plant Section 

### 316(a) Demonstration 

### Report (Units 

### 1-4). Vol. I. Prepared 

### for Ohio Power Company. Ecological Analysts, 

### Inc. 1979. An 

### Assessment 

### af the Potential 

### for Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Survival 

### at theMuskingum 

### River Plant. Prepared 

### for AEPSC by 

### EcologicalAnalysts, Inc-

## ,Middletown, 

### NY Hanson, C. 

### H., J. 

### R. White, and H. 

### W. 

### Li. 1977. Entrapment 

### and Impingement 

### of Fishes by Power Plant Cooling 

### Water Intakes: An 

### Overview. Mar. Fish. 

### Rev. 39(10): 7-17. 

# - Hollander, M., and D. A. 

### Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical. Methods. John Wiley & Sons, 

### NY, 503 pp. Yarcy, 

### B. C., 

### Jr., and 

### M, D. Dahlberg. 1978. 

### Review of Best Technology Available 

### forCooling 

### Water Intakes. Prepared 

### for Dept. 

### Water and Power, City 

### of 

### Los Angeles. NUS Corp-, Pittsburgh, 

### PA. 90 

### PPMarcy, B. 

### C., Jr., A. D. Beck, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1978. Effects and Impacts of Physical Stress on Entrained Organisms, p. 135-3.88, in: J. R. Schubel and 

### B. C. Marcy, 

### Jr. (ed]

## , Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, Academic Press, 

### NY. 271 ppMilburn, G. 

### S., and 

### G. C. Ginsberg. 1973. Regulatory Developments in Section 316(b), p. 11

# - 20, in: L. D. Jensen 

## (ea),Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Melville, NY, 424 pp. Mussalli, Y. 

### G., E. P. Taft, and P. 

### Hoffman. 1978. Engineering Implications of New Fish Screeninq Concepts, p. 367-376, in: 

### I,. 

## n. Jensen (ed), Fourth National TilorkshoD on Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts, 

### Inc. 424 pp. QhioRiver Vallev Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)

# . 1962. Aquatic Life 

### Resources of the Ohio 

### River. Cincinnati, Ohio.

* 218 pp. ORSANCC). 1974. Daily 

### Flows of the Ohio 

### River, 1352-1974. Cincinnati, Ohio -65--- Preston, 

### H. R. and G. E. White. 1978. Summary 

### of Ohio River Fishery Surveys, 1968-1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 111. Phila., Pa. 35 pp. Richards, R. T. 1978. Present Engineering Limitations 

### to the Protection

### of Fish 

### atWater Intakes, p. 415-424, in: 

### L. D. Jensen 

## (ea), Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. 

### Ecological Analysts, 

### Melville, NY. 424 pp. Schubel, J. R., and 

### B, C. Marcy, 

### Jr., ed, 1978. Power Plant Entrain-

. ment: A 

### Biological Assessment. Academic Press, 

### Inc., NY. 271 ppSharma, R. 

### K, 1978. Larval Exclusion Systems 

### for Power Plant 

### Cooling Water Intakes: A Synthesis 

### of Views, 

### p- 

### 235-237, 

### in: R. 

### K. Sharma and 

### J. B. Palmer 

### (ea), Larval Exclusion Systems 

### for Power Plant 

### Cooling 

### Water Intakes. ANL/ES-66, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

### FL, 237 pp.

- Thornthwaite, C. W., and J. R. Mather. 1955. The 

### Water Balance. Climatology 

## - 8(1): 104. Trautman,.M. 

### B. 1957. The Fishes 

### of Ohio. 

### Baltimore, MD 683 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Collections and Water Quality Monitoring 1963-1967. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. 1974. Water Study. EPA-905/9-74-004. Ohio 

### St. Univ. 

### Press,
Macroinvertebrate in

### the 

### Ohio River Basin,
Ohio River

### Cooling
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Development Document 

### for BestTechnology Available 

### for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity 

### of Cooling 

### Water Intake Structures 

### for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. EPA 44071-76/015-a. 

### 263 pp. 

### U.S 

# .Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Guidance 

### for Evaluating theAdverse 

### Impact of Cooling 

### Water Intake Structures

### on theAquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500. Washington, D. C. 59 pp. U.S.G.S. 1971

# . Water Resources Data for West Virginia. Part 

### 1. Surface Water Records. Part 2. 

### Water QualityRecords. Charleston, 

### W. Va. 201ppWAPORA, Inc. 1971. The Effect of Temperature on Aquatic 

### Life in the Ohio River: Final Report, July 1970

## - September 1972. 151ppWAPORA, Inc, 1973. Continued Surveillance 

### of Thermal Effects of 

### Power Plants Along the Ohio River, 1972. 68 pp.

. 

### WAPORA, Inc.. 1974. 'Continuing Ecological Studies of the OhioRiver, 1973 (Draft)

## .'

-66-WAPORA, Inc. 1977. Continuing Ecological Research 

### on the Ohio River, 1936: Population and Spawning Studies. Cincinnati, Ohio. 271pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1978. 1977 Ohio 

### River Ecological Research Program: Temporal and Spatial DistributionPatterns of Adult and Larval Fish. Cincinnati, Ohio. 149 pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Ohio River 

### Ecological Research 

### Program: 1978, Cincinnati, Ohio. 246 pp. Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department. 1976

# . Kammer Power Plant Thermal Discharge Study, 3 volumes. Pittsburgh, PA

# . White, 

### J. C., 

### Jr., and M. 

### L. Brehmer. 1977. Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Traveling 

### Fish Screens, p. 367-380, 

### in: L, 

### D, Jensen (ea), ThirdNationalWorkshop on Entrainment and Impinge

### ment. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 425 pp.

-67-Appendix A Proposed 316(b) Study 

### Plan

### 1.

2.

,

### tiguously excq!t; vhen 

### inprectical (i,e. y 

### net blockage,
1 

### debris, etz.1.nethod 

### chosen viil be decided 3:~ tho

### peo?le perforzing tke



### SazipJlilnlg 

### period.

# c

x x x

x

x x

x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x

x x

>;: x