Tetra Tech, Inc.

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 phone 703 - 385 - 6000 fax 703 - 385 - 6007
DATE: December 5, 2008 TO : Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA FROM : John Sunda, SAIC and Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech SUBJECT: Estimation of 316(b) Phase II Facility Intake Screen Type Usage This memorandum summarizes the distribution of Phase II facilities by cooling water intake technology

type and waterbody type. of Phase II faciliti es with Ristroph and Ristroph as well as a summary

of the ty pe of screen used by facilities located on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and associated tributaries. technical survey

and the detailed technical survey
. Table 1 presents the distribution by waterbody type. The number the short technical survey and detailed technical survey which are then extrapolated to a total of 536 Phase II facilities using facilit y

1 In the industry survey, some facilities responded that they employ Ristroph screens. Other facilities mo dified screens that incorporate several of the elements of a Ristroph screen (as determined by their response to Question 20 in the industry surve assigning technology costs. These screens are assumed to be roughly equivalent to Ristroph screens. 

### MEMORANDUM
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

December 5, 2008 Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA John Sunda, SAIC and Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech Estimation of 316(b) Phase II Facility Intake Screen Type Usage This memorandum summarizes the distribution of Phase II facilities by cooling water intake technology

type and waterbody type. Italso provides a breakdown of the number es with Ristroph and Ristroph
- ty pe 1 traveling screens b y EPA as well as a summary

of the ty pe of screen used by facilities located on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and associated tributaries. This data is derived from both the short survey and the detailed technical survey
. distribution of Phase II facilities using specific intake technologies by waterbody type. The number of facilities are estimated based on data provided in both the short technical survey and detailed technical survey which are then extrapolated to a total of 536 Phase II facilities using facilit y - spe cific sample
- weighting factors.

In the industry survey, some facilities responded that they employ Ristroph screens. Other facilities mo dified screens that incorporate several of the elements of a Ristroph screen (as determined by their response to Question 20 in the industry survey) were categorized as “Ristroph
- ty pe” for the purposes of assigning technology costs. These screens are assumed to be roughly equivalent to Ristroph screens. 1

Estimation of 316(b) Phase II Facility Intake Screen Type Usage This memorandum summarizes the distribution of Phase II facilities by cooling water Italso provides a breakdown of the number traveling screens b y EPA R egion as well as a summary

of the ty pe of screen used by facilities located on the Mississippi

This data is derived from both the short of Phase II facilities using specific intake technologies based on data provided in both the short technical survey and detailed technical survey which are then extrapolated to a weighting factors.

In the industry survey, some facilities responded that they employ Ristroph screens. Other facilities with mo dified screens that incorporate several of the elements of a Ristroph screen (as determined by their ty pe” for the purposes of assigning technology costs. These screens are assumed to be roughly equivalent to Ristroph screens.2

Table 1 . Distribution of Phase II Facilities by Intake Technology and Waterbody T ype

Source: EPA 2000.

Number of Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Number of

Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Number of

Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Number of

Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Number of

Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Number of

Facilities Percent of

Water Body Total Bar Rack/trash Rack* - - - - - - - - - - - 95% Screening Technology 247 97% 108 96% 40 92% 100 96% 19 90% 515 96% Passive Intake Systems 42 17% 23 20% 10 23% 14 13% 2 10% 91 17% Fish Diversion or Avoidance System 5 2% 8 7% 9 20% 7 7% 9 42% 38 7% Fish Handling or Return 60 24% 10 9% 12 27% 48 46% 4 21% 134 25% Submerged Offshore Intake 25 10% 17 15% 17 39% 5 5% 9 42% 73 14% Total Waterbody Facilities 254 100% 113 100% 44 100% 104 100% 21 100% 536 100% Major Technology Category All Facilities

Facilities Withdrawing From Freshwater Rivers/Stream s Facilities Withdrawing From Lakes/Reservoirs Facilities Withdrawing

From Great Lakes Facilities Withdrawing

From Estuaries/Tidal Rivers Facilities Withdrawing

From Oceans Total3

D ata regarding the use of specific ty pe s of screen ing technology is onl y available for the 227 facilities that completed the detailed technical survey . Since the survey was conducted, 7 of these facilities have ceased operation and therefore are not included in these data summaries. Of the 220 currently operating Phase II fac ilities that completed the detail ed questionnaire :

 7 facilities reported using w edgewire screens  6 facilities specifically reported “Ristroph” traveling screens ; 7 additional facilities may

qualify as having “Ristroph
- ty

pe” traveling screens  22 facilities reported having “ Fish Buckets, Baskets, or Tray s ”  22 facilities hav e a through
- screen screen velocity of ≤ 0.5 fps The above facility

counts include facilities with at least one intake that met the criteria described. Data may

not apply to all intakes at a facility
. Table 2 presents a geographical distribution by state and EPA Region of the 13 facilities with Ristroph and Ristrop h
- ty pe screens. Table 2 . Geographical Distribution of Facilities with Ristroph - Ty pe Traveling Screens

EPA Region Screen Type State 1 Ristroph CT

Ristroph
- ty

pe CT Ristroph
- ty

pe MA Ristroph
- ty

pe MA Ristroph RI 2 Ristroph NJ

Ristroph
- ty

pe NY 3 Ristroph VA 6 Ristroph
- ty pe LA Ristroph NM Ristroph
- ty

pe TX 7 Ristroph
- ty pe IA 9 Ristroph HI

Source: EPA 2000 Table 3 presents a summary of the type of screen technology used b y facilities that withdraw water from the Mississippi River, Missouri River, and major tributaries that completed the detailed technical survey . The list does not include intakes that use rec irculating cooling s ys tems.4

Table 3 . Summary of Screen Type Used by Facilities on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and Major Tributaries River Screen Technology Type

Horizontal Traveling Vertical Traveling Dual Flow Intakes Facilities Intakes Facilities Intakes Facilities Mississippi 15 6 8 6 0 0 Missouri 1 1 8 5 1 1 Ohio 0 0 16 9 0 0 Wabash 0 0 2 2 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 1 1 0 0 Illinois 0 0 1 1 0 0 Total 16 7 36 24 1 1 Source: EPA 2000

References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Section 316(b) Industry Survey
. Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling W ater Intake Structures and Industry Short Technical Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling W ater Intake Structures, January , 2000 (OMB Control Number 2040
- 0213). Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling W

ater Intake Structures , January, 1999 (OMB Control Number 2040
- 0203).