Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 316(b)

Appalachian 

### Power Company and Ohio Power Company of The American Electric Power System

Environmental Engineering Division American ElectricPower Service Corporation P. 0. 

### Box 

### 487 Canton, 

### OH 44701 March 

### 7, 1980 Compiled by: J. H. Balletto

## - NY H. W. Brown 

# - OHTable 

### of Contents Page
Volume I 1

# . Executive Summary

# .................. 2

# . Introduction

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

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

# .............. 3

# . SiteEnvirons

# .................... 3.1’ The Plant Locale

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

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

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

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

# .................. 3.4.2 Food Web 

# ................ 4

# . Philip Sporn Plant Description 

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

# .................. 4.2 Circulating Water System

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

# ............ 4.2.2 Circulating Water Tunnels and Condensers 

### 4.2.3 De-Icing 

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

# ....... 4.2.5 Residence Time 

### of Cooling Water

# ..... 4.3 Plant Operating Data

# .............. 1 4 

### 4 6 

### 7 7 9 

### 13 16 

### 16 

### 20 23 23 25 28 31 32 34 34 

### 38Table 

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

### I1 Appendix B 

# - Philip Sporn Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. 

# ........... Introduction 

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

. 

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

# ............ ' 

# ....... 2 Entrainment 

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

. 

# ........ 7 Results

. 

# ...................... 10 Impingement 

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

. 

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

. 

# ........... 18 DielOccurrence

. 

# ............. 21 Annual Loss Estimates

. 

# .......... 22 Relation 

### of Fish Impingement 

### toPrevailing Conditions 

# ............... 24 Entrainment 

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

. 

# ............ 24 Estimates 

### of Ichthyoplankton Entrained 

# . . 30
References

# ...................... 33 Appendix A 

# - Philip Sporn Plant Appendix B 

## - Philip Sporn Plant Field Data Appendix C 

# - Philip Sporn Plant

., Appendix D 

## - Philip Sporn Plant Velocity Studies Impingement Data Operating and
Entrainment Data Intake Water

### 1. Executive Summary In response torequirements contained in Part I11 

### of NPDES Permit No. W 0001058 for the Philip Sporn Plant, a field study was performed 

### tomonitor the numbers of fish impinged and 

### of larval fish entrained. This report summarizes these results and presents methods that may be employed toreduce the impingement and entrainment 

### rates. A technical and legal 

### review 

### of the negotiations and prior studies 

### is presented along with a description 

### of the environs 

### of the plant and a description of the plant itself. The Philip Sporn Plant, 

### a 1050 megawatt (MWe) coal-fired 

### electric generatingplant, 

### is located on the Ohio River (River Mile.242') near New Haven, WestVirginia and across the 

### river fromRacine, Ohio. This facility is owned by Appalachian Power Company and Ohio 

### Power Company (the "Company") and 

### is operatedby the Central Operating Company. The plant utilizes once-through 

### coolis and has a 

### vertical

--_1__-__ 

# . A-.---. traveling screen intake structure.
\ 

### -'*,,,,,.-..-.--

- The Ohio River contains 

### a 

### series 

### of locks and dams which cause the 

### river 

### to form 

### a 

### series of pools. Flows have been changed drastically from when the 

### river was 

### free flowing. Highest 

### flows qccur 

### from December through May, and the 

### lowest flows occur in September and October. The annual mean flow 

### of 48,000 cubic 

### feet per second 

### (cfs) is exceeded approximately 35%

### of the 

### timewhile the 

### river flow is below the critical low flowof 7,700 cfs (minimum 7-day once in 10-year 

### flow) 9.2 percent of the 

### time. A monthly 

### flowdistribution table, and 

### a flowduration curve are provided.

-1-I Fisheries studies in the Ohio River from.1957 

### to 1978 show the aquatic community 

### tobe typical 

### of 

### a turbid slow-moving 

### stream. Abundant fish 

### are gizzard.shad, skipjack herring, carp, carpsucker, channel catfish and emerald shiner. Sauger, white bass and channel catfish appear tobe the

### more important game fish. The impingement study resulted in 4,288 fish being collected. The 

### most abundant

### were gizzard shad, freshwater drum, channel catfish, emerald shiner, white crappie and bluegill. Estimates, based on the collections, indicate-amean of 52,136 fishwere impinged between May '1978 and Nay 1979. A 

### total 

### of 2,289 

### larval fish

### were collected during the entrainment study encompassing March through August, 1978. The number of ichthyoplankton per 100

### m3 ranged 

### from 0 

### to314.7. Suckers, walleye/ sauger, unidentifiable 

### larvae and eggs predominated inMay. Carp, cyprinids, freshwater drum, unidentifiable 

### larval suckers, white sucker, and eggs 

### were abundant inJune. Cyprinids, freshwater drum, unidentifiable 

### larvae and eggs 

### were predominant in July. Freshwater drum was predwainant inAugust. 

### Estimates, based on fish densities and cooling

### water usage, indicate 113.9 million fish eggs and 

### larvae
were entrained 

### from March 1978 

### toFebruary 1979. During the period when ichthyoplankton ispresent in the river, April through August, the plant circulates as a monthly average between 2.0 and 11.7 percent of the 

### river flow.

Otherpossible alternatives 

### to the existing facility and/or its operation 

### are discussed. De-icing has been mentioned 

### as affecting impingement rates. De-icing operations 

### are currently held to

### a

-2-minimum and only performed when the 

### river temperature drops 

### to38F and ceases when the river temperature 

### rises above this temperature. The reduction of cooling

### water flows has 

### also been suggested 

### as being 

### a method 

### of reducingboth impingement and entrainment 

### rates. At the Clifty Creek Station 

### a plant similar, but 

### larger, than Philip Sporn Plant, it has been shown 

### tobe an undesirable 

### alternative because of economics, 

### lost generation and increased heating of the cooling

### water. The other alternative discussed here axe structural alterations that would 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, cyclindricalwedgewire screens, Ristroph screens, fish 

### collectors, and closed-cycle cooling. This report concludes that the existing intake 

### at the Philip Sporn Plant represents thebest technology available commercially 

### at
an economically practicable 

### cost forminimizing adverse environmental impact.



## -3-1 2.0 'Introduction 

### 2.1 Legal and Permit History 

# 1 In 1972 Congress passed Public Law 92-500, the FederalWater Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972 ("FWPCA")

## ,which substantially altered the prior federal statutory approach 

### tocontrolling

### water pollution. Section 316(b) of the FWPCA, regarding cooling

### water intakes, states: Any standard established pursuant 

### toSection 301 

### or Section 306 of this Act and applicable 

### to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures 

### reflect thebest technology available forminimizing adverse environmental impact. The FWPCA was substantially amended in 1977, nmgenerally known 

### as 

# a the Clean Water Act ("CWA") ;however, Section 316(b) 

### was not changed. In 1976 the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") promulgated regulations, 40 CFR gj$ 402.10-402.12, 

### to implement Section 316(b). These regulations

### were appealed by the Company and others 

### to 

# 1' federal court. The U.S. Court of'Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in 

# 1 Appalachian 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 

### toimpose obligations upon, 

# I 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)

# . The January 16, 1975, permit for the Philip Sporn Plant (NPDES Permit No. WV 001058) contained Special Condition No. 1which stated: Six months after effective date, the permittee shall submit 

### to the Regional Administrator a specific study program 

### f.or monitoring impingement and entrainment effects 

### at the plant intakes. The study should include provisions for estimating the 

### total number, weight, an?



### -4-I length frequency distribution of different fish species impinged, 

### as wellas estimatingthe number 

### of eggs, 

### larvae and plankton entrained. Operating data such 

### as intake velocity, 

### flow, temperature, tidal conditions, 

### etc., at the 

### time of sampling should also be reported. Reports 

### willbe submitted on 

### a quarterly basis. A study plan was submitted to

### U.S. EPA Region I11 on August 7, 1975, though following discussions with that office, 

### a revised study plan

was submitted on March 3, 1977, and approved on March 29, 

### 1977. The study plan 

### as revised and the U.S. EPA approval 

### are included here 

### as Appendix A. In accordance with that approved study plan, the Company hereby submits this 316(b) demonstration.

-5-2.2 Technical Background The purpose'of the present study was tomake 

### estimates of the annual impingement of fish and estimates of the annual entrainment of fish larvae at the Philip Sporn Plant. After 

### reviewing the available 

### studies in 1975 and considering the statis

### tical and economic factors, a study plan was developed that 

### was felt

### toprovide the data necessary tofulfill the purpose 

### of the study in an economically practical manner. Negotiations with U.S. EPA Region I11 resulted in the approval of this study'plan. The present study performed from May, 1978 

### toMay, 1979, provides estimates 

### of impinged fish and entrained 

### larvae based 

### on one full year 

### of field data collection. The study plan alsoprovides for the collection 

### of data that could possibly influence impingement and 

### entrainment rates. The Study Plan alsoprovides 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 attached 

### as Appendix B. Some background data 

### were extracted from 

### a Westinghouse Environmental Services Division (WESD, 1975) report which was successfully submitted to U.S. EPA Region I11 as a Philip Sporn Plant 316(a) Demonstration.

-6-3. SiteEnvirons 3.1 The Plant Locale Appalachian Power Compqny and Ohio Power Company own, and the Central Operating Company operates, the Philip Sporn Plant, situated inwestern WestVirginia near New Haven, and 

### across the Ohio River from Racine, Ohio 

### at River Mile 242. The communities within 

### a radius of 15

### miles have populations of 10,000 

### or less. The power plant is 25 

### miles southwest of Parkersburg, WestVirginia (Figure 

### 3-1). Although the heaviest rain inthe region occurs inJune, July and August, an occasional dry spell does occur inJuly 

### or August. Normally, the lightest rain is inSeptember, October and November. Prolonged hot weather is infrequent. The topography of the region near Racine is hilly. On either side of the Ohio River the hills 

### rise up 

### toelevations of 

### over 800 

### feet above the river. The Ohio River at Racine has 

### a pool elevation 

### of 538 

### feet: Philip Sporn Plant is 30 feet 

### above the 

### river. Philip Sporn Plant 

### is located 4.5 milesbelow the Racine Locks and Dam. West Creek 

### flows into the Ohio River 0.7 

### mile above the generating facility,and LittleBroad Run 

### flows into the Ohio River 0.2 miledownriver 

### fromthe ash ponds. The 

### Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and Highway 33 

### form the landward boundary 

### of the power plant 

### site. Although there is some industry in the region (includingthe Foote Mineral Company), the concentration of industry is light compared 

### to the highly industrialized regions upriver in the Ohio Valley. Kyqer. Creek Station is located about 18miles downstream atRiver

., 

### Mile 260.



### -7-Figure 3-1. Upper Ohio 

### River Drainage Basin (FromWESD, 1975)


### .

-8-3.2 Hydrography

, Atthe Philip Sporn Plant, the Ohio River drains an area of 40,000 square 

### miles located in the 

### states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Ohio. The principal tributaries 

### are the Monongahela, Allegheny, Beaver, Muskingum, LittleKanawha and Hocking Rivers. Because Philip Sporn Plant 

### is located on the Ohio River main 

### stem, river flow passing the plant 

### is 

### a function 

### of weather conditions

over the entire drainage basin of the upper Ohio River, and local precipitation and evaporation have little effect. An important aspect 

### of the hydrograph atPhilip Sporn Plant is that it reflects the flow conditions of the Ohio River including 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, e.g., there are.16reservoirs in the Muskingum River basin; 

### (U.S. Geological Survey, 1971a). It 

### is a primary objective 

### of 

### river management 

### toshift some 

### of the river 

### flow that occurs during the peak months 

### of February, March and April to the 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 during low-flow conditions. Damage caused by flooding also 

### isminimized as peak flows 

### are reduced. In conjunction with the man-made controls of river flow, there 

### also is a natural buffer system (theability of the soil toretain moisture). The soil can retain moisture like a reservoir, releasing water 

### torunoff over a long period 

### of time. It has been shown by

-9-studies on moderate tolarge watersheds that only 50 percent Of available surplus water 

### willrun off in a given month, the 

### rest being retained for later runoff. Table 3-1 lists the flow distribution by month for the Ohio River atNew Haven, 

### West Virginia (RiverMile 241.6) 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 May. Occasionally (e10percent of the 

### time), 

### river flow nearly equals or exceeds 100,000 cfs for all'months of the year. The months with the lower recorded flows are September and October. Figure 3-2 is a flow duration curve 

### of the Ohio River based on the



### same data used 

### to compute Table 3-1. For 9.18 percent of the 

### time, river flow was below the critical low flow of 7700 cfs 

### (minimum 7-day 

### flow once in 10years). The Philip Sporn Plant is situated on the Gallipolis Pool Reach. There are no major tributaries that flowinto the Ohio River between the Racine Dam and the Philip Sporn Plant. However, the Kanawha River flows 

### into the 

### lower portion of the Gallipolis Pool near Point Pleasant, WestVirginia (River Mile265). The Kanawha River drains

over 12,000 square 

### miles and has a substantial discharge, often 

### more than 30,000 cfs (USGS, 1971b ). This large flow intothe lower Galiipolis Pool causes discrepancies inpool elevation and river flow between one end of thepool and the other. If the 

### pool elevation at Point Pleasant is the same as the pool elevation at the other end 

### of .the 

### pool.near.the Racine locks, then the flow at Point Pleasant may

-19-

# 8 

# I

0,



# I > 4 

# B 0 0 F 

# 1
0 ul 

# I

0 a3

0 h

0 Io

0 Ln

0 d 

### a ro
0 m
c,

.. S H 3 - W &a, u 0 L N WDHC, nrd 0 7

0

I 

### + c

. c 

### r moooommmwmwm



# ............ mmhc-ONOa3Oh? m*hheN-F FPm FoONoboNmNFN



# ............



# ............ cumNOmLna3hIoU3l-O CUNUJrnNl- l-N



# ............ hooOm~dwmN*m FFCw

-11-6

4

2

I

CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

Figure 3-2. .Ohio River 

### Duration Curve at

### New Haven, WestVirginia

. (January 1952 

### toJuly 1974) (From WESD, 1975;after ORSANCO, 1974) 

### -12-be as much as 70,000 

### cfs greater for pool elevations over 544 

### feet. 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 inthe center of the river

### willbe higher and near boundaries the velocities 

### willbe 

### 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.)

- .­ 3.3 Bathymetry In the immediate vicinity of the power plant (Figure 3-4) the bottom profile is characterized by a rapid increase in depth (20 feet deep 100 feet 

### from shore) away from the banks 

### of the 

### river. This minimizes the shallow areas that can be utilizedby aquatic plants. The 

### bottom flattens toward the center 

### of the river with typical depths between 25 and 30 feet. The power plant thermal'plume empties along the river bank where depths 

### are between 10 and 20 feet. Approximately 6000 feet downriver from the power plant, Wolf Run empties into the Ohio River and 2000 

### feet beyond this isBowman Run. There 

### is a noticeable increase 

### in the area that is 

### less than 15 

### feet deep because of the sediment influx 

### of both these creeks. There is also some infilling of the deeper portions of the river. Maximum depth of this portion of the river is 22 feet.

-13-AVERAGE RIVERVELOUTY (FT/SEC) 0.93 1.66 3.98 4.98 5.36

400,000 300,000 c/+- R) CURVE 0 /

I 200,000


## / 

## /’ 

# ­ /

CI100,000 

## / I 100,000 90,000 0 80,000 

## / cn 

# - a 70,OOC 

## 1 

# J/ / 80,OOC 

### t~0,ooc 

# / / 50,OOO 

### 40,ooc 

### so,ooc 

# -1 I 

# I 20,ooc 

## -II 

## t 

# I I 10,ooc LEGEND: ---O RIVER FLOW 

# I-

-A I RIVER CROSSSECTIONAL AREA

10,Ooo



### Figure 3-3. Relationships 

### of Ohio RiverFlow 

### (Q),Elevation,, Cross-Sectional Area (A) and Average 

### Velocity at

4 

### Philip Sporn 

### Site (FromWESD, 1975).

-14-0

Iw w LL
0 w J a V 

# !

0 0



### -15-There 

### is a bend in the Ohio River in the 

### area where Wolf Run and Bowman Run 

### flow into the Ohio River.. Normally, the 

### river channel 

### is located where .maximum 

### flow and maximum current 

### are confined. 

### As 

### a result of inertial motion, the stronger current is near the bank farthest 

### from the center 

### of the curve. This phenomenon

causes scouring on the side with maximum 

### flow and deposition 

### of sediments 

### on the 

### low-flow side of the 

### river. However, inthis location, the sediment influx is 

### too great and 

### overcomes the scouring process, resulting inthe infilling of the channel. The deepest part of the river, between 18 and 20 feet, thus is located near the center 

### of the 

### river and toward the convex bank (opposite

### of a 

### normal situation). 3.4 Aquatic Environment 3.4.1. Fish Since 

### settlers first colonized 

### its banks, 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, resulting in 

### a decline in 

### some species such 

### as shortnose sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, yellow bullhead, blue catfish, 

### walleye and 

### silver lamprey, and an increase in the abundance 

### of species tolerant 

### of the changed 

### water quality and preferring slow-moving, 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,

-16-1962; WAPORA, 1971-1979). The only known study which has 

### made long- 7 

### term spatial and 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 ismade 

### to 

### similar studies conducted in 1957, 1958, and 1959 (ORSANCO, 19621, and upper Ohio River lock studies in 1977 (Preston and White, 1978). Selectively inthe effectiveness 

### of rotenone as a collection technique, the restriction of 

### its use 

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

### to once per year collectively preclude this study 

### from arriving at

### a complete picture of the present-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 fish

### biomass have occurred during the study period, generally without changes in either species composition 

### or relative proportions among species 

### categories (e.g., 

### cmercial, sport, forage, 

### etc.). Preston and White (1978) pointed out, however, that commercially valuable fishes increased significantly 

### at the Gallipolis Lock 

### relative 

### to upper 

### river lock collections. 

### WAPORA (1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979) has collected about 60 fish 

### taxa in the Ohio River and tributaries near Kyger Creek Station (Table 

### 3-2), located about 18

### miles downstream 

### of Philip Sporn Plant. 

### Data 

### from studies 

### at Kyger Creek Station represent thebest 

### available information forjudging the fish likely 

### to

### be in the Philip Sporn Plant vicinity. The 

### most commonly occurring species collected during one 

### ormore years include 

### emerald shiner, golden shiner, channel 

### catfish, carp, gizzard shad, and freshwater drum. Ichthyoplankton (fisheggs and 

### larvae) in the Ohio River have been studied 

### for several years by separate investigators (Evans and 

### -17-Table 3-2
Adult and Juvenile Fish Taxa Cgllected By 

### All Mepgds rjaar the Kyger Creek Station During 1970-1978 An Asterisk Indicates Fish Collected in 1978



# I ScientificName Lepisosteidae

*Lepisosteus osseus Clupeidae

*Alosa chrysochloris *Dorosoma cepedianum Hi odontidae *Hiodon 

### alosoides *Hiodon Eergisus Cyprinidae Carassius auratus *Cyrinus carpio

Hybopsis aestivalis *Hybopsis storeiana

Notemigonus chrysoleucas *Notropis atherinoides *No*.ropi

### s Flennius

Nqtropi

### s cornutus *Notropis spilopterus *Notropis stramineus *Notropis whipplei

Notropis volucellus *Notropis spp. *Subgenus Notropis *Pimephales notatus

Pimephal-es vigilax *Pimephales spp. *Semotilus atromaculatus Catostomidae

*Carpiodes carpio "Carpiodes cyprinus

Carpiodes velifer *Carpiodes spp. 

### or Ictiobus

Catostomus commersoni *Hypentelium nigricans *Ictiobusbubalus

Miny

### trema

### me1 

### anops *kmoxostoma erythrurum *Moxostoma macrolepidotum *Moxostoma spp. Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus 

### Katalis "Ictalurus nebulosus *Ictalurus punctatus Common Name Gars Longnose gar Herrings Skipjack herring Gizzard shad Mooneyes Goldeye Mooneye Minnows Goldfish Carp Speckled chub Silver chub Golden shiner Emerald shiner River shiner Common shiner Spotfin shiner Sand shiner Steelcolor shiner Mimic shiner
Bluntnose minnow Bullhead minnow Creek chub Suckers River carpsucker Quillbackcarpsucker Highfin carpsucker SPP Carpsucker 

### or Buffalo White sucker Northern hog sucker Smallmouth buffalo Spotted sucker Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorse Redhorses Freshwater catfish Blue catfish Yellowbullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish 

### -18-*Lepomis ScientificName Ictaluridae {continued)



### *Pvlodictis olivaris * Cyprinodontidae

.Fundulus diaDhanus Percichthyidae

*Morone Chrysops Centrarchidae LeDomis cvanellus

L*Lepomis gibbosus

Lepomis sulosus *Leiomis Gumilis macrochirus *LeDomis mesalotis 

# - Micropterug dolomieui *Micropterus punctulatus *Micropterus salmoides *Pomoxi

### s annu

### laris *Pornoxis nigrornaculatus Percidae Ammocrypta pellucida Etkeostoma nigrum Perca flavescens *Percina caprodes *Sti zostedion canadense *Stizostedion SDD. &L Sciaenidae

*ADlodinotus srunniens Common 

### Name Freshwater Catfish (continued) Flathead catfish

. Killifishes Banded Killifish Temperate basses White bass Sunfish Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Warmouth Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Perches Eastern sand darter Johnny darter Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Sauger

# - Walleye Drum Freshwater drum

aKyger Creek Station is located about 18 

### miles downstream 

### of

Philip Sporn Plant bWAPORA, 1 970

## -19

### 79 CIncludes electrofishing, trawling, gillnetting, hoop netting,

and seining inboth tributaries and the Ohio River

-19-

# I I I I I 

# 1 

# I 

# I

I I I I 

# I i 

# 1 1 

# I Tartar, 1977; FJAPORA, 1977, 1978, and 1979). Larval densities


### were determined by both groups but 

### at different locations. Very little direct evidence 

### of spawning inthe mainstream of the Ohio River has been found. Ichthyoplankton data 

### are discussed inmore detail in Section 6.3 and Section 7. 3.4.2 Food Web U.S. EPA (1971) studiedmacroinvertebrates in thevicinity 

### of the Philip Sporn Plant in September and 

### November of 1965 

### and 1966, and inAugust and October of 1967. A 

### series of studies by 

### WAPORA (1971, 1973, 1974) detailed the interrel-ationshipsbetween phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthicmacroinvertehrates, and fish around Kyger Creek Station, locatedwithin the Gallipolis 

### pool about 18 

### miles downstream 

### of Philip Sporn Plant. A 

### U.S. EPA (1974) report 

### summarizes many 

### of these studies, as does SJESD (1975). 

### '.
: The feeding relationships among the 

### major groups 

### of organisms

near Philip Sporn Plant 

### are summarized in the food web presented in Figure 3-5. Benthos includes organisms living on thebottom. 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 

### tofishes, particularly gizzard shad and minnows. Benthic species are important food items for

### most fish except the gizzard shad. Many fishes 

### are predators on other fishes, the 

### most common prey species being gizzard shad, minnows and bullheads. Food habits of fishes listed in Table 3-2 include consumption



# .of a wide range 

### of organisms. For young fishes, plankters 

### are important, includingdiatoms, copepods and cladocerans. Most species
-20-h 

# I m I) cn rl



# . n 

# I 

# I 1 

# I c k Q 

### a 

# t VI 

# 1 0 a I a 

### s N LL N b­ 

## - 4 (3 L, 

# I 

# I -4 3 a, .c .iJ 

# 8



# I 

# I' W a (3 

# 1 2 A 

# 1

0 Q c - w Y az %I 0 .Q 

# I 3" 

# I I 

# t t

m I

# .
m 

# I 

# I 1 -21-of adult fishes feed primarily 

### on benthos. Especially important 

### are insects includingmidges (Chironornidae)

## ,mayflies (Emphemeroptera)

## , water boatman (Coxidae)

## , and dragonflies (Odonata)

# . Crayfish (Crustacea) are an important food source 

### for smallmouth bass, while 

### clams and snails (Mollusca) 

### are an important food source 

### for suckers. An adult fishwhich 

### does not feed on benthos is the gizzard shad. It feeds on zooplankton and phytoplankton, particularly the diatoms. Several simple food chains can be extracted 

### from the food web. Examples include the following: 

### (1)phytoplankton 

### to gizzard shad 

### to sauger (Stizostedion

## ­ canadense)i (2) detritus 

### tobenthos 

### to sauger; and (3) phytoplankton 

### to zooplankton 

### tominnows 

### to sauger. The presence 

### of these interlocking food chains is important 

### inmaintaining


### a stableecosystem. If any pathway isblocked, alternative sources 

### of food energy 

### are available 

### tothe fishes.

-22-

# I I 

# I I 

# 1 I I I 

# I I 1 

# I I I I 

# I. I 

# I I 4. Philip Sporn Plant Description 

### 4.1 Power Plant Philip Sporn Plant (Figure 

### 4-1) consists 

### of five fossil-fueled electric generating units with a total design rated power output of 1050 megawatts (We). Specific characteristics of each unit


### are listed inTable 

### 4-1. Approximately 2.55 

### x 10” kilowatt-hours 

### of electricalpower have been produced by the facility since 1950 (throughJanuary 1980).
Table 4-1 NOMINAL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIP SPORN PLANT
Condenser Design Condenser Pump Temp.oRise Unit Startup Date 

## - Rating(MWe) Flow Rate (gpm) 

### (F 

### 1 1 Jan. 

### 1, 1950 150.0 

### 100,000 12.6 2 July 

### 1, 1950

. 150.0 109,000 12.6 3 Aug. 1, 1951 150.0 100,000 12.6 

### 4 Feb. 1, 1952 150.0 100,000 12.6 5 Dec. 

### 31, 1960 450.0 321,000 12.2 

### (fromWESD, 1975)
Production 

### of 

### electrical energy by the Rankine cycle requires that


### excess heat be rejected 

### to complete the thermodynamic cycle. This is accomplished at Philip Sporn Plant utilizing a heat rejection system and once-through cooling. Cooling 

### water is pumped from the Ohio River and is returned afterflowing through the circulating 

### water system. At a nominal rating 

### of 1050 megawatts, approximately

-2 3-0 400 800

c SCALE OF FEET

Figure 4-1. Layout of Philip Sporn Plant 

### Site 

### (FromWESD, 1975)

-24-

# I I 

# I I 

# 1 I I 

# I 

# B

I

I I I 

# I I 4.96 

### x 109 Btu/hr 

### are discharged as reject heat 

### to the Ohio River. Twelve circulating water pumps transport 

### a combined 

### total of 1,038million gallons/day 

### (mgd) ( 1608 cfs) 

### of Ohio River

### water through Philip Sporn Plant at design conditions. 4.2 Circulating Water System The Philip Sporn Plant circulating

### water system utilizes six heat condensers 

### to transfer heat from turbine exhaust 

### steam to 

### circulating cooling

### water. Units 1through 4 each contain one turbine condenser while Unit 5 utilizes two turbine condensers 

### totransfer 

### reject heat 

### tothe water in the circulating systemwhich 

### is pumped 

### fran the Ohio 

### River through three intake screen houses 

### in front 

### of the power plant (Figure 4-2). Two 

### of the screen houses are physically divided inhalf. Intake tunnels for Units 3 and 4 

### are housed inthe upstream screen house. The middle screen house contains the intake tunnels 

### for Units 1and 2,and the downstream screen house contains the intake tunnels for Unit 5 (Figure 4-3). The section 

### of the screenhouse for each unit contains three intake gates, three trash racks, three traveling screens except Unit 5 which has six intake gates, sixtrash racks and sixtraveling

screens.

4

-25-

# I 0 

# I I " E: 

# I cd rl c4 

### s: kQ, 

# I 

# I I I I I 

# I I cu I 3 

# I I 

# I I

# 1 1 1 

# I I I I 

# I I I 

# I I I I I I 

# I 4.2.1 Intake Structure 

### The intake structure for Philip Sporn 

### Plant consists of three separate screen houses. Units 1

### and 2 

### share 

### a divided
screenhouse as do 

### Units 

## 3 and 

### 4. Unit 

## 5 has 

### an individual screen house (Figure

### 4-2). The screen houses are situated directly on the river's edge. The intakes 

### forUnits 1

### through 

### 4 are identical and,

### only
one unit 

### isdiscussed. The Unit 

## 5 intake willbe discussed later. From the river, the water moves into the screenhouse through one of the three intake gates. The intake gates can be closed 

### fordewatering 

### of the intake structure. In the screen house, the water 

### flows through a 

### trash rack composed of 

## 3 inch by 

## 3/4 inch vertical steelbars 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 from 

### the screen house operating floor. After passing through the trash 

### racks, the water is 

### screened by traveling water screens, three per unit (see Figure 4--3),. A 

### traveling screen is

### an endless belt of 

### screen baskets 

### or frames sixfeet wide and approximately 

### two and 

### a half 

### feethigh 

### of #1$ W&M 

### copper 

### wire with 

### 3/8 inch openings (Figure 4- 4). Units 

### 1-4 intake water velocity as'-measured between the trash rakes and the traveling screens averages less than 0.5 fps 

### (seeAppendix B). The' motorized screens 

### travel 

### in a

-28-

# I 

# I 

# E

i

# I 

# 4 i I -27-

## ---- STCRTER EQUIPMENT

- HOISTING DRUMS TAKE-UP CAPSTAN RAKE LOWERlNG DRUM SFEE0'REDUCTION OPERATING LEVERS CLUTCH LEVER HAND TRAVERSING MECHSM. CENTERING PIN

SCREENS

: SCREEK

GUIDE 0 SEAL '. -.-- BOOT BAFFLE

._. _..- INTAKE FLOW

.- . ?ttANNEi- FOR TRASH GRiLL

./ ,/ FIGURE 4-4

-29-

### veTtical direction. Leaves, trash, twigs and any other objects small enough to pass 

### through the trash racks and be 

### collected by ‘thescreenare removed from the baskets 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 supplied by the screenwash pumps, The trash flume passes in front of all of the traveling screens, collectilzg screentrash from each. The trash flume exits the north side of theUnit 

## 3 and 

## 4 screenhouse,passes through the Unit 

### 1and 2 

### screenhouse, collecting the screenwash from those units and thenpasses through the Unit 

## 5 screenhouse. Unit 

## 5 does not wash into this
common trash trough but has its own trash trough. The trash trough forUnits 1 

### through

## 4 sluices the screenwash into the circulatingwater discharge. The intake forUnit 

## 5 is similar 

### to the intakes for Uxits 

### 1 through

### 4. The screenhouse for Unit 

## 5 is divided in half with each half serving one 

### of the 

### main condensers, The water for either half of the screenhouse enters through one of three. intake gates. This water flows 

### through one of 

### three trash racks of similar construction to 

### those described for Units 

### 1through

## 4, After passing through tne trash racks, the water is screened by traveling water screens, three in each half 

### of the UEit 

## 5 screenhouse. The baskets in these screens are eight feet wide and approximately two and a half feethigh of 

## #14W&I4 

### copper wire 

### with 

### 3/8 inch openicgs. Unit 5 intake water velocity, 

### as measured between the trash racks and the travelinq screens, averages 

### less than 1.0 fps 

### (seeAppendix B)

# . -30-

### The Unit 

## 5 trash trough passes infront of 

### all six
screens collecting the screen wash from each, exits the north side of 

### the building and sluices 

### its screen wash into the circulating water discharge separate 

### from the common trash trough of 

### Units 

# 1, 1through 

### 4. 4 2 2 Circulating

### Water Tunnels and 

### Condensers 

# I.

From the screens the water flows through individual intake tunnels, one 

### for each of 

### Units 1

### through 

### 4 and 

### two for 

### Unit 

## 5 to the circulating water pumps. 

### Pump ratings for each unit are listed 

### inTable 

### 4-2. Nominal cooling volume is 

### calculated at 160'8

### cubic feet/second (cfs) 

### at the pump 

### ratings listed.
Table 4-2 CIRCULATING V~ATER PUMP RATINGS FOR PHILIP SPORN PLANT (From

### WESD, 1975) 

### Design F~DS UEi 

### t Ratinn (FbIel 

### Rating (ED 

### m) Numbe

### r 1 150.0 50,000 

### 2 

### 2 

### 150.0 50,000 

### 2 

## 3 150.0 

### 50, 

## ooo 2 

### 4 150.0 50,000 2 

## 5 450.0 80,250 

### 4
The circulating vater pumps 

### discharge intomairi 

### intake tunnels vhich 

### run to each corideixer. Tvo 

### branches, one at

### the north 

### and one 

### at the south eiid of 

### each condenser lead from t'ne

, 

### main i.1-take 

### turirLelto the 

### condenser inlet 

### vater boxes. 

### There are
-31- 

# 1

# f 

# 1 i 

# B I 1 two water 

### box chambers on each end 

### of each condenser,one for each half 

### of the cocdenser. From each 

### of the two discharge water boxes,water flow 

### into the main discharge tunnel. Units 

### 1and 

### 2

### have 

## a common ciischarge tu-rmel. Units 

## 3 and 4 

### have a commondischarge tunnel andUnit 

## 5has a separatedischarge tunr,el. Thewater box at each end of 

### each condenser isdivided into twc independent,vertical sections, thereby providing two parallel circuits through the cooling tubes. 

## Innormal operation, water flows 

### through the tubes of 

### each section of 

### the condenser in opposite directions. The cooling water leaves the condenser through the water box 

### at the opposite end fromwhich it entered. The circulatingwater system has been designed for a normalpool level at elevation 538 

### ft. MSL. 

### Cooling water is 

### discharged from Philip Sporn Flant through one of three 11x 12 feet concrete tunnels 

### located infront 

### of Unit 

# 5. These tunnels release the heated circulating water approximately 

## 13 feet below normal pool level 

### into a discharge canalwhich directs the flow 

### ina downstream direction into the Ohio Eiiver. Figure 

## 4-5 describes the total circulatingwater system. from the condensers to

### the discharge. 4.2.3 

### De-Icing 

## If ice accumulates in front of the trash racks 

### during cold 

### weather some of 

### the warm dischargevater from the condensers
cax 

### be used 

### to 

### melt it. Tnis water is forced to 

### the intake

' 

### through a 

### recirculating tunzel from 

### a coi~crete 

### chamber at the

-32-

# I 1 11 

# 1 Il I 

# I I


# R Cooling 

### water residence 

### time fran the intake and through the Philip Sporn Plant circulating 

### water system 

### to the point 

### of discharge is 4.8 minutes forUnit 4 and 1.8 minutes 

### for Unit 5 (Figure4-5). The portion 

### of the residence 

### time associatedwith

exposure 

### toelevated temperature within the plant ranges 

### from 3.5 minutes 

### for Unit 4 

### to 0.9 minute for Unit 5 (con

### + D, Table 4-3). Total residence 

### times of cooling

### water 

### for the 

### five Philip Sporn Plant generating units are illustrated inFigure 4-6. Utilizing the point of intake 

### as the. origin 

### of the curve illustrated for each unit, the 

### total residence 

### timethrough the cooling system and 

### travel 

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

### are plotted against excess temperature. Approximately 60 minutes 

### are required for the thermal

### plume temperature 

### to fall 

### to within 2F0 (l.lCo) 

### of ambient 

### river temperature 

### after the heated discharge re-enters the Ohio River.

-36-5. Impingement Study 5.1 Purpose The impingement study was performed 

### tomonitor the number and types of fish impinged on the traveling screens inthe cooling 

### water intake structure. Pursuant 

### tothe approved study plan, field work was conducted for one year by NUS 

### fromMay 11, 1978, 

### toMay 18, 1979. From these data 

### estimates of annual numbers of fish impinged


### were extrapolated.

5.2 Methods The methods used in the impingement field survey 

### are contained in the section entitled, Methods, 

### of the NUS report, Appendix B of this Demonstration Document. That section discussesmode of sampling, frequency 

### of sampling, sampling intervals, subsampling and voucher collections. 

### 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 4,288 fish

### were collected 

### at the Philip Sporn Plant. Of these gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) composed 38.7 percent; freshwaterdrum (Aplodinotus grunniens), 26.8 percent: channel cat-

_. fish (Ictalurus


## - punctatus), 10.8 percent: emerald shiner (Notropus atherinoides)

## , 5.4 percent; white crappie (Pornoxis annularis)

## , 5.2 percent; bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)

## , 3.5 percent. The 

### total weight of the fishcollected was 95 kilograms (209 pounds). Of this total, 36.3 percent 

### were gizzard shad, 26.2 percent were

4

-39-freshwater drum, 21.6 percent 

### were sauger, 3.0 percent 

### were bluegill, and 2.8 percent 

### were channel catfish. Seasonal 

### as 

### well as diel (temporal) patterns 

### were analyzed. During parts of late November through February and August through September, numbers of total fish impinged 

### were relatively high (700 to slightly

### more than 1,000 fish per 28 hours). During the remaining periods relatively low numbers 

### were collected. Significantdifferences occurred between day and night impingement rates. The four-hour 

### time blocks were compared using the large sample approximation, adjustedfor 

### ti-es of Friedman’s twoway analysis of variance by rank (Hollanderand Wolfe, 1973). The null hypothesis 

### was rejected at P < 0.001. A distribution-free multiple comparison 

### test based on Friedmanfsrank h7as used to determine where the differences occurred. Figure 5-1 shows the ranking of the 

### timeperiods; the lixes show periods which 

### were not significantly different. Significantly higher impingement occurred during the day period of 0900-1700 than occurred inthe late night period of 2100-0500. There was no difference between overlapping four-hour periods (0900-13’00) sampled on successive days. 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 annual mean 

### of 52,136 fish, with upper and lower limits of 78,843 and 25,429, respectively, 

### were impinged.

-49-

# I 

# E

I 

# I V 0 m 0 I 0 0 rl 0

0 0 rl 0 I 0 0 rl cv

0 0 m 0 I 0 0 m 0

0 0 rl cv I 0 0Irl
m0

0 m rl I 0 0 Q1 0

0 0Irl I 0 0 m rl 

## %

0 m rl I 0 0 cn 0 Lo c 0 Lo -d k 

# x E u rl m a 77

H

H

-41-6. Entrainment Study 6.1 Purpose The entrainment study was also undertaken pursuant 

### to the study plan 

### tomonitor the number and types of fish 

### larvae that pass through the circulating 

### water system 

### of the Philip Sporn Plant. 'The field work 

### was performed by NUS, concurrentlywith the impingement field work, and 

### is reported inAppendix I1 

### of this Demonstration. From these data, 

### estimates of annual numbers 

### of fish 

### larvae entrained


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

### are contained in the section entitled, Methods, 

### of the NUS report. That section discusses the sampling methodology, frequency 

### of sampling, sampling intervals and sampling locations. 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 2,289 fish 

### larvae were collected 

### fram the 25 sampling periods. Of these 

### larvae, 24.3 percent 

### were carp, 14.9 percent catostomids, 13.9 percent minnows, 6.7 percent freshwater drum, 31.0 percent undistinguishable. Catostomids, walleye/sauger, unidentifiable larvae and eggs predminated in May. Carp, cyprinids, freshwater drum, unidentifiable larval catostomids, white sucker, and eggs were abundant inJune. Cyprinids, freshwater drum, unidentifiable larvae 

# 1 

# t

I 

# r l
* 4. "
.Egg numbers were not reported by NUS, though egg densities were. 

# I -42-and eggs 

### were predominant inJuly. Freshwater drum 

### was predominant inAugust. Egg density 

### was generally lowexcept for a minor increase to an 

# 8 average 

### of 4.3/100 

### m3 on May 4-5, and 

### a somewhat higher increase 

### to an average of 9.4/100 

### m3 on June 22-23. A peak average 

### larval density of 280.2/100 

### m3 occurred on June 8-9. Carp and unidentifiables constituted the greatest percentage 

### of this peak. 6.4 Annual Estimates Based on egg and 

### larval densities and 

### volume of 

### waterwithdrawn from the Ohio Riverduring sampling periods, 

### total annual entrainment was extrapolated to an estimated 113.9 million fish eggs and 

### larvae.

-43-

# R 1 

# I 

# 1 1 

# I I 4



# 8 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 

### flowpath 

### for environmental impact 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 SocialDamage. The 

### last three levels, determining the probability 

### of population damage, probability of community and ecosystem damage, and probability of social impact, 

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

### 235), and, in the present 

### case,are impossible. Population data do not exist 

### to allow

an estimate of damage 

### at organizational 

### level 4, which 

### is necessary in order tocalculate damage at 

### levels 5 and 6.

An alternative approach is reccmmended by U.S. 

### EPA (1977) which makes use of 

### a matrix as the basis for predicting the potential 

### impact 

### of cooling 

### water intake structures. The matrix components include the ratio of cooling water flow to source waterbody 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 to any 

### lifehistory stage. For existing intakes, determination 

### of entrainment and impingement 

### rates is Considered sufficient 

### to initially evaluate impact. If these rates
are found tobe excessive, more extensive source waterbody sampling 

### is considered appropriate which 

### would help put the losses in context I

# '1 -44-

### I COOLIKC WATER 

### FLOW 

### 1 I I (Relative to Source 

### Water Body 

### Segment) 

### I 

## I I BIOLOGICAL 

### I 

## 1 I I VA1.U

### E 

### I 

## I HIGH 

## I I LOW 

## I I I 

## I I
- I 

## I 1 

### I High 

### I I NO 

### 1 

### I Questionable 

### I 

### 1 

## I 1 - Low 

## * I I Questionable 

## I 

## I Yes 

### 1 

## I I I 

## I I

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 of’River Flow Circulated Through Philip Sporn Plant* 

### atTwo Ohio River Flow Levels**

Month Low Flow Average Flow April 4.1% 2.0% May 

### 7.7% 3.2% June 14.1% 7.0% July 22.9% 

### 11.3% August 26.8% 11.7%



## *at fullpumping capacity 

### of 1038mgd (1608 

### cfs) 

## ** Flow data from Table 3-1 LOW flow: flow-equalledor exceeded 90%of 

### time

. Average 

### flow: flow equalled 

### or exceeded 50%

### of time

-45-(U.S. 

### EPA, 1977: 39). The study plan implemented here was designed to accomplish the 

### first goal, though 

### it is alsopossible tobenefit 

### from other data sources toput losses in context. A matrix analysis 

### is presented below despite misgivings 

### as to 

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

### as atPhilip Sporn. In such an analysis, 

### a low biological 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 to 

### conclude that the potential for harm is great. In either 

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

### at Sporn this Catch-22 situation is not as likely as it could be elsewhere because of availability of other long-term background data. The Philip Sporn Plant circulates 1038 million gallons per day (1608 

### cfs) 

### of river water to

### meet its condenser cooling demand at 

### its nominal full load of 1050 

### We. The 

### river flows atthe plant during the ichthyoplankton period are presented on a monthly basis in Table 7-1. This 

### table also shows the percentage of the river circulated by the plant based on full cooling water 

### flow (1608 

### cfs). A worst case concurrence is given of maximum cooling water flow with low fiver flow (flowequaled 

### or exceeded 90%of 

### time),,as well as with average flow (flowequaled or exceeded 50%of 

### time). Three years 

### of river ichthyoplankton collections 12.5 

### miles down

### stream of Philip Sporn Plant by WAPORA (1977-1979) have shown peak densities ranged fromabout 110/100 

### m3 in lateApril of 1977 to 440JlOO 

### m3 in late June 

### of 1976 (the 

### latter sampling only larvae].

.I The 1978 peak was intermediate inboth 

### time and density.

-46-Evans and Tarter (1977) collected fewer 

### larvae than did WAPORA (1978) during peak density (average 

### 18/100 

### m3) about 20 

### miles farther down

### stream in the Gallipolis pool (RM 275-279) in 1977, and the peak occurred in 

### late May. During the irregularly timed peak density period (Aprilthrough June), the long-term average flow through the plant is between 2.0% and 7.0%

### of the river flow 

### for that period (Table 7-1). At

### lower flows (exceeded during 90%of the 

### time) inthisperiod, the percentage of flowcirculated 

### rises tobetween 4.1% and 14.1%. It can 

### also be

seen 

### from the above 

### data that during the entire April thru August periodwhen ichthyoplankton 

### are present, the plant circulates 

### a 

### low percentage of the 

### river 

### flow. The plant circulates 20.9% 

### of the 

### river flow during the seven-day, once inten year 

### low 

### flowof 7,700 cfs. InFigure 7-2, entrainment density&ita are compared with'

### WAPORA's (1979)

mean ichthyoplankton density data 

### collected in 

### a 

### cross-river transect
on 

### similar dates about 12.5 

### milesdownstream. The density data generally compare well, supporting 

### a June peak abundance period, the 

### overall ichthyoplankton occurrence and abundance, 

### and the observation that the plant 

### is not circulating a disproportionate density of ichthyoplankton. Regulatory agencies usually 

### assume 100%mortality 

### (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1977: 34), 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. When entrainment studies with faulty design 

### or incamplete or unsubstantiated data 

### were excluded

-47-

# m
d 0' 0' Ln 0 m N N

-48- 

# 5

# I 

# a 1

I from consideration, survival 

### estimates improved markedly (Table 7-2, from 

### EA, 1979). This strongly suggests thattheassumption 

### of 100% mortality 

### atPhilip Sporn Plant 

### is unrealistic. Studies by WAPORA (1971-1979) have 

### not been designed to specifically answer the matrix question of the biological value of the Callipolis.

### pool. However, it 

### is possible tomake general statements about its value. The river has long 

### since ceased tobe a migratory route 

### for any species because 

### of construction of dams completed in 1929. Habitat does not 

### seemtovary significantly within the pool, except


### as it 

### is affected by location in eithermore free-flowing upper pool reaches 

### ormore impounded 

### lower pool reaches. 

### As such, no particular


### area can be considered a principal nursery 

### or feed area, nor otherwise critical to any life history stage. 

### As 

### for population 

### levels, they
cannot be established inGallipolis pool 

### from WAPORA (1970-1979) data. However, the EPA lock studies show that population levels in locks at the Gallipolis and other dams 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 fish populations 

### reflects the overall improvements in the Gallipolis 

### pool, though this 

### seems likely. While species sampled in locks may bias those which prefer the lock environment over that inthepool, 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 asahsolute indications of the species composition 

### or

-49-a h m 2 m m l- U co h h t I t I I d

I h I 4 I rl I rl I I I I m i N N Ln m m m

0 0 r3 l- h In m 

### * Q 0 N h h in *o In 0 U N N N m r- 9 In N N h\D m' rl U

rl 4 N rl U 4 rl 4 N rl d rld rl

'rJ

0 

# 5 a Q) 

# j al a Q a Q d 

# 3. U a cn 1.1 0 U m w 0.

k v) a, w -0 1.1 

## 3 Q 

# e

-50-E W W n a, > m t

v1 W

U

aw
-51-density in the 

### pool environment. Whether these likeiy increases in population 

### above are enough to offset the other suggestions 

### of ].OW biological value, 

### i.e., the 

### area being neither 

### a miqratosy pathway,

nor 

### a principle spawning ground 

### or nursery 

### area, is speculative.
If theGallipolis 

### pool 

### were considered of high biological value, the

### matrix conclusion would be that the intake structures 

### are questionably

### best technology available. Even with this

### worst case conclusion, the previously discussedmitigating factors reduce potential impact. In summary, these 

### factors include, in addition 

### to the indication of increasing health 

### of the 

### river during the period 

### of plant operation and the absence 

### of unique ecological features in the 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 

### low numbers 

### of fish impinged,
Milburn and Ginsberg (1978) have stated: 

### "We 

### 'are not even 

### close to a judicial pronouncement 

### on. 

# . .the definition 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 

### will be addressed that might conceivably minimize the effect of the existing intake structure, keeping inmind the definition 

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

-52-

### 8. Possible Alternatives 

### to the Existing Facility and Operation The circulating

### water system of the Philip Sporn Plant 

### was discussed in Section 4; and the numbers and mnual 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 circulatingwater system, either the operation of the facility 

### or the facility itself would have 

### to be altered. This section discusses the alterations that appear tobe available. 8.1 Operational Alternatives

. 8.1.1 De-Icing Operation De-icing may contribute 

### to impingement by concentrating .fishin the

### warmwater used for de-icing in front 

### of the intake structure; however, current de-icing practices atthe Philip Sporn Plant use minimum de-icing. De-icing practices have been outlined in Section 

### 4.2.3. De-icing 

### is the only practical means 

### toensure uninterrupted cooling 

### water flow when 

### ice can begin 

### toform in front of the intake 

### or on the intake equipment.

8.1.2 The reduction of circulating flows has been generally Reduced Pumping of Circulating Water 

# - accepted 

### as a means 

### of reducing impingement and entrainment 

### rates (U.S. EPA, 1976; Schubel and Marcy, 

### 1978). The reduction of 

### flow at


### a once-through power plant 

### can be acconplished 

### in one of two ways; firstby reducing the amount of 

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

### of the cooling 

### water, 

### or by using 

### a reci'rculating cooling system and only removing make-up 

### water from the river. Closed-cycle cooling, the 

### second option, will
-53-

# I 1 I 

# e

I be discussed in a later section of this report. When evaluating the employment of technologies 

### to reduce impingement and entrainment losses, the feasibility of reducing riverwater withdrawal 

### rates and intake velocities necessitates consideration. One possible means of reducing the cooling 

### water flow through the plant 

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

### water pump per unit instead of two pumps per unit, which is the normal 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 6-unit, 1284

### MW Clifty Creek Station (R.M. 560) by engineers of the Indiana-Kentucky ElectricCorporation to determine the magnitude and resulting costs of these penalties. Clifty Creek Station Cost Study The 

### tests 

### were performed 

### at increments 

### of 10Fo ininletwater temperature and compared actual operating conditions (generation, condenser back pressure, cooling water flow, and temperature 

### rise)

a 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 the more significant 

### losses occurring 

### at the higher inletwater temperatures (Table 8-1). In a monetary sense and on a plant basis, for Clifty Creek Station, these cambined losses would amount 

### to approximately $36,000 per day at 80°F inletwater temperature with the srrkllest 

### loss of approximately $4,500 per day occurring at 45OF

-54-d

N h h 

# 2 m 

# 6 m 

### n \ \ \ 

### cu- w m 0 N m F

c c3
5 W

# . 0 W m 

### a n t)


## * * in.

h cd % h cd crl h ia n 

### n 

### n n \ m VI 

### 3;. \ W 03 m \ 0- m r-



# . m

# . ll 4 VI .r m N 

## * rl uz in. uz 

## a; u 

### c I crl
A 

# E al 0 k w I k 111 c) rn 

### n al k 

### a 

### a c m 24 

### u 

### m m c, A m 

### a k al tn m m



# . r- 

# . N d Q\ 

# . m

# . c c 4 a ri rl rl rl 4 5 

## + + 4- 

## + + 

# + m c k 0 al 

### a 0. +, 

### c c m 0 d .d 

### a 4 

### m 

### a k 

### c a, 

### la 

### c rn a m m 4J tau k 

### a rl rl 0 5 [o E 

### u w Fr c, 

### w 

# $1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Q, m Ccl a E E-4 Ip 0 O k k k a G-i k 3 

# .. a c, 0 

### z -55-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, 

### will adversely affect a 

### steam turbine’s capacity to do 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 

### flowrates during these 

### tests atClifty 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%. 

### Also, the cooling water temperature differential across the condenser increased


### an average of approximately 9F0 when operating with one circulating 

### waterpump.

It is realized that the Philip Sporn units 

### are different 

### in 

### size, and that they might experience different losses inefficiency, 

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

### costs which might be 

### incurred for similar restrictions 

### atPhilip Sporn Plant. Aside from 

### costs, the increase in temperature resulting from reduced pumping might conflict with the NPDES permit temperature restrictions and lead tohigher mortality 

### of entrained organisms.exposed 

### tohigher temperatures. 

### Also, while decreasing the flow would reduce the intake velocity, it already

-56-

## -- averages 

### less than the 

### 1fps reconmended by U.S. EPA (1976) guide

### lines, so that littlemight be gained from a further velocity reduction.

8.2 Design Alternatives There are many papers written on the 

### state of the 

### art of intake design (Marcy and Dahlberg, 1978; USEPA, 1976; Hanson, 

### et al., 1977; Richards, 1978; Sharma, 1978). Table 8-2 provides 

### a listing 

### of 

### all intake.types that are discussed in the Scientific literature, both practical and experimental. The applicabilityof these designs tothe Philip Sporn Plant has been considered by the Company. Discussed below are the various alternatives easily rejected during the screening study. 8.2.1 Stationary Screens The stationary type screen would be impractical due 

### to debris removal problems. This type 

### screen is used 

### in areas where debris is not a problem, and therefore is not feasible 

### atthe Philip Sporn Plant. 8.2.2 Perforated Pipes Perforated pipe intakes have not been fabricatedwith fine mesh perforations. The availabilityof 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 inmore detail 

### below.

-57--4 

# - r VI W E 01 E I W c U


# - 3 

### +



### +

i



### +

3w 

### + ul=i 

### + a L, w ill -lJ 

### c 

# E c -A am +++ 

### + +11+++1111+ I 1 IIIIII

+ + +++ + 1 1 + + + + + + 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 + + + II



### + + 11l1+11l+1 

### ++ ++I+++.+II+ 

### + II



### + 

### + ++++ 

### + +1++++++1+ II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ++++ ++



### ++++++++ 

### + +++ 

### ++++ 

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

### ++ +++++I ++++ 

### ++ C 0 -d u 41 V -4 

### 2 m Q) E U rl w CE 4 k Qal U L, QQ m-4 LIU m y uo m. . al mm

w

I 03 a, rl' 

# 3 :

# I+

i-+ E I

-58- 08.2.3 Drum Screens, Rotating Disc Screens, 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 large quantities of 

### water. None of these designs has been used with fine mesh for large capacity systems. 8.2.4 Filtration Type Intakes Filtration intakes include rapid filterbeds, radial

### well intakes, and porous dike intakes. According toMarcy and Dahlberg (1978), application of these technologies to a power plant circulating 

### a large volume 

### of cooling water 

### is limited by economic 

### infeasibility (radial

### well, rapid filterbeds)

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

### filter bed). Thus, these technologies are considered inviable options at Philip Sporn Plant. 

# I 8.2.5 Trash Racks Trash racks would not protect aquatic life because of the

coarse mesh and heavy construction. 

# I 8.2.6 Behavioral Barriers As shown in Table 8-2, behavioral barriers would not pro

### tect ichthyoplankton and would not provide any advantage tothe existing intake. These barriers were therefore not considered a viable alternative 

### to the existing intake. 

# 1 1

-59-8.2.7 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 that purpose 

### at theBig Sandy Plant (18.6 mgd) since 1963. Similarperforated pipe intakes have been used at the Mitchell Plant (25mgd) and atthe John E. Amos Plant, Units 1and 2 (43.3 mgd)

# . AEP currently is installing Johnson wedgewire screens in the river 

### water makeup structure atMountaineer Plant (21.7 mgd), and plans 

### to install these screens at the plant 

### tobe constructed in Rockpoy’ Indiana (42.5 mgd)

# . There thus can be no doubt 

### as 

### toAEP’s COI. .ment

### towedgewire screen technology where its use is both appro&

and feasible. 

### However, screens of 

### a 

### sizetopreclude 

### larvae (0.5 would’be in serious jeopardy where debris loads are high, as on the Ohio River. Furthermore, the 

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

### river watermakeup pumps, 

### motors, other 

### materials, and labor for pipes) was about $750,000, 

### to supply 

### a coolingwater volume about 1/50 of that of the once-through coolingunits atPhilip Sporn. While 

### costs would not be directly proprotional 

### tosize, an order of increase in

### cost is certainly not unreasonable. 8.2.8 RistroPh Screens White and Brehmer (1977) have reported that Ristroph screens provide an average viability 

### rate 

### of 93.3% 

### at the Surry Power Station. The feasibility and 

### costs associated with installing a Ristroph Screen System 

### was investigated for the four units making up the 1040 MWe Tanners Creek Plant, located downstream of Philip Sporn 

### atR.M. 494.

-60-Tanners Creek Plant Cost Study

In order 

### to perform an engineering cost study 

### of the 12 traveling 

### water screens designed for fish protection 

### at Tanners Creek, it 

### was necessary 

### to establish 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 

### to pass through the 2-inch openings inthe trash racks. 2) Velocity--In the conduit necessary 

### to return impinged fish safely 

### to the 

### river,

an average velocity 

### of 9 feet/second 

### or less, and 

### a conduit 

### water depth of 2.8 inches (the depth of the Ristroph screen basket) 

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

### tothe 

### river should not be placed into the

### 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 forimpinged fishreturn 

### tothe river 

### was necessary. These considerations ' led 

### to a design return 

### at the 

### 7F0 isotherm.

-61-

# I I I I I I 

# I

I I 

# I I I I I 1 1. I 

# I I The preliminary design at the Tanners Creek Plant resulted in a plan which would require purchasing 12 

### new traveling
screens equipped with fish protection hardware. The condition of the existing screens would not allow the screens to be retrofitted with the Ristroph arrangement and operated on a continuous basis. It is anticipated that continuous screen operation to protect fish would probably be required during at least two months of the year. A 

### fish handling system to return impinged fish safely to the 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 

### to the approximate river level. After the elevation drop, a trough to return fish to the river at a point approximately 500 

### ft. downstream of Unit 4's 

### circulating water discharge would also be required. The engineering cost estimates for the above fish protection system include material and labor costs for removal of 

### 12 

### existing traveling screens, installation of 12 new fish protection screens, necessary screenhousemodifications, and fish return troughs. The cost estimates do not include costs of increased maintenance to be expected due to continuous screen operation during certain times of the year. The total material and labor cost estimate for the previously described variation of a Tanners Creek fish protection system is $2,275,000. An 

### indeterminant amount of generation would be lost during the modification. -62-

# I This feasibility study gives an order 

### of magnitude 

### estimate of the expense thatmight be incurred should 

### a 

### similarmodification be proposed for Philip Sporn Plant. The exact cost of modifications would be dependent on site-specific characteristics, but considering the larger number of screens 

### atTanners (18 

### vs 12 

### atPhilip Sporn)

## , it 

### seems reasonable 

### to consider the above 

### cost conservative. 8.2.9 Fish Collector The use of various other fish collection/fish handling 

### devices have been tried by various utilities. These have mostly been inconjunction with louvered screens (U.S. EPA, 1976; Mussalli 

### et al., 1978; Richards, 1978) and previously discussed Ristroph screens. Since there is not enough 

### room inthe present screenhouse 

### for any 

### of the collection devices forthe screens in the Philip Sporn Plant, the screenhousewould have 

### tobe 

### almost completely replaced 

### to incorporate such 

### a system. 8.2.10 Closed Cycle Cooling Another means 

### of reducing pumping 

### tominimize entrainment would be 

### tobackfit a closed cycle cooling system with cooling 

### towers. The 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. Muskingum River Plant Engineering/Cost Study 

# I 

# I I 1 

# I

I 

# I I I I I 

# I I 

# I Detailed engineering

### estimates have been prepared 

### of the 

### costs of backfitting f.our units 

### of an 876 MW Ohio Power Company

. plant. These 

### costs may be used 

### as a rough basis for backfitting 

# I 

# I
-63-

### costs atPhilip Sporn Plant. The capital costs of 

### a backfitted natural-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 naturaldraft 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.

-64-9. Summary and Conclusions

, This report has presented many facts that arepertinent tothe demonstration that the existing intake 

### structure represents the best technology available commercially atan economically practicable cost forminimizing adverse environmental impact. The description of the plant and the Ohio River 

### inthe vicinity of the Philip Sporn Plant provides a background with which toplace intoperspective the numbers of 

### fish impinged and ichthyoplankton entrained. Of the 4,228 fish impinged, 38.7%

### were gizzard shad, 26.8%

### were freshwater drum, 10.8%

### were channel catfish, 5.4%

### were emerald shiner 5.2%

### were whi.te crappie, and 3.5%

### were bluegill. The annual 

### estimat based on these collections indicated a mean of 52,136 fish impinge? (95%confidence limitsof 25,429 to78,843). Entrainment collect.' contained 2,289 larval fish. Of these, 24.3% 

### were carp, 14.9% w catostomids, 13.9%

### wereminnows, 6.7% 

### were freshwater drum, ani undistinguishable. The annual 

### estimatesbased on these 

### colle indicate A13.9 

### x lo6 fish eggs and larvae are entrained.
Because the r>&antuses 

### only a 

### smallpercentage of the river 

### during periods 

### of peak 

### larval densities, and 

### because the 

### river only moderate 

### inbiological 

### value, there 

### is

### not 

### a potential for a 

### large biological impact. Sufficientpopulation 

### data do not 

### exist 

### for quantitative comparison 

### to impingement and entrainment 

### estimates
so that the 

### significance of environmental impact 

### can 

### not be 

### quantitatively 

### answered in

### terms 

### of population 

### dynamics. Nevertheiess, the continuing improvement in the 

### Ohio River fish fauna, including the Galli.po1i.s 

### pool reach (Preston and White, 1978) supports theposition that the Philip Sporn Plant intake structure 

### is not causing an adverse environmental impact. -65-

# I

The alternatives tothe existing structure and operation that would minimize any impact 

### have been reviewed in this 

### report and

none have been found tobe economically feasible considering the engineering difficulties and marginal environmental gain that might be achieved. The intake structures 

### sit on the 

### river's edge and 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. The possible operational changes thatmight minimize 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. The reduction of cooling

### waterwithdrawal 

### rates was shown 

### tobe costly because 

### of reductions inplant efficiency. Among the design modifications consideredwere 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 

### a 

### major and very costly redesign and reconstruction of the intake structure itself, even if feasible, which some are not. These costs appear far in

excess 

### of any benefit that couxd be obtainedby such 

### a modification. Closed cycle cooling, the 

### mostexpensive alternative, would 

### reduce the impact 

### of both entrainment and impingement but its 

### cost also appears tobe far inexcess of any benefit incurred.

-66-

### Based upon the above considerations,any likely and demonstrated scheme 

### of alteration 

### to either the existing intake structure or the present operation would incur costs that are disproportionate to the reduction in impact. It is the conclusion of 

### the Company, based upon the considerations presented 

### in this report, that the existing Philip Sporn Plant cooling water 

### intake structure represents the

### best technology available for 

### minimizing adverse environmental impact.

-67-

### 10. References Cited 

### Coutant, C. C. 1974. Opening Remarks 

### atEntrainment and Intake ScreeningWorkshop: 

### Evaluation of 

### Entrainment Effect, p. 1-11, 

### in: L. D. Jensen 

## (ea),Second Workshop 

### on Entrainment and Intake Screening. The Johns Hopkins 

### Univ., Dept. Geoqr. and Env. Eng. Rept. No. 15, 347 pp. EcologicalAnalysts, 

### Inc. 1978. Muskingum River Plant Section

. 316(a) 

### Demonstration Report (Units 

### 1-4). Vol. I. Prepared for Ohio Power Company. Ecological Analysts, 

### Inc. 1979. An Assessment 

### of the Potential 

### for Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Survival 

### at the Muskingum River Plant. Prepared for AEPSC by EcologicalAnalysts, 

### Inc. 

## ,Middletown, NY 

### Evans, D., and D. Tartar. 1977. Water Quality, Creel Survey, Ichthyoplankton, and Terrestrial Vegetation for Gallipolis Project 

### on the Ohio River, Mile 279. Prepared for Ohio Power Company, Canton, Ohio. Marshall 

### Univ., Huntington, W. Va., 133pp

## + Fig. 

### 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 PP= Marcy, B. C., 

### Jr., A. D. Beck, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1978. Effects and Impacts 

### of Physical Stress 

### on Entrained Organisms, p. 135-188, 

### in: J. R. Schubel and B. C. Marcy, Jr. (ed

### 1, Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, Academic Press, NY. 271 pp. Milburn, G. S., and G. C. Ginsberg. 1978. Regulatory Developments 

### in Section 316(b), p. 11

# - 20, in: L. D. Jensen (ed), 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 Screening Concepts, p. 367-376, in: L. 

### D. 

### Jensen (ed), Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 424 pp. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)

# . 1962.

'Aquatic Life Resource's of the Ohio River. Cincinnati, Ohio.

218 pp. ORSANCO. 1974. Daily Flows of the Ohio River, 1952-1974. Cincinnati, Ohio -6 8-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 Entrainment: A Biological Assessment. Academic Press, Inc., NY. 271pp. Sharma, 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 (ed), Larval Exclusion Systems 

### for Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes. ANL/ES-66, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, FL. 237 pp. Trautman, M. B. 1957. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio St. Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD 683 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971, Macroinvertebrate Collections and Water QualityMonitoring in the Ohio River Basin. 1963-1967. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Ohio River Cooling Water Study. EPA-905/9-74-004. 

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

### for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity 

### of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. EPA 44071-76/015-a. 263 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Guidance for Evaluating theAdverse Impact 

### of Cooling Water Intake Structures 

### on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500. Washington, D. C. 59 pp. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1971a. Water Resources Data 

### for Ohio. Part 1. SurfaceWater Records. Columbus, OH. U.S.G.S. 1971b. Water Resources Data 

### forWestVirginia. Part 

### 1. Surface Water Records. Part 2. Water QualityRecords. Charleston, W. Va. 201 pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1971. The Effect 

### of Temperature on Aquatic Life in the Ohio River: Final Report, July 1970

## - September 1972. 151pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1973. Continued Surveillance of Thermal Effects of Power Plants Along the Ohio River, 1972. 68 pp. WAPORA, Inc. 19.74. Continuing Ecological Studies 

### of the Ohio River, 1973 (Draft).

-69-WAPORA, Inc. 1977. Continuing Ecological Research on the Ohio River, 1976: Population and Spawning Studies. Cincinnati, Ohio. 271 pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1978. 1977 Ohio River Ecological Research Program: Temporal and Spatial Distribution Patterns 

### of Adult and Larval Fish. Cincinnati, Ohio. 149pp. WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Ohio River Ecological Research Program: 1978. Cincinnati, Ohio. 246 pp. Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department. 1975. Philip Sporn 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 (ed), Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 425 pp.

-70-Appendix 

### A Proposed 

### 316(b) Study 

### Plan and U.S. 

### EPA Region I11 

### Approval6THAND WALNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA.PENNSYLVANIA 19106 Wheeling Field Office 

### 303 Methodist 

### Building, llth & Chapline Streets Wheeling, West Virginia 26003



### Mr- Richard E. Northup Environmental Affairs Director Appalachian Power Company Post Office Box 2021 

### Roanoke, Virginia 24022 

### Dear

### Mr. Northup: Wehave reviewed the proposed 316(b) studyplan 

### for thePhilip Sporn Plant 

### of the Centra Operating Company dated February 25, 

### 19nand submitted with your letter

### of March 

### 3, 

### 1977. We find theproposals sdequate 

### as 

### tofrequency and scope 

### and therefore give 

### our approval toyour plan.

Aquatic Biologist Wheeling Field Office 

### 4/4/77 

## ::JJ:::' 

# - J.

. 

## B lletto R.'W. 

### hrmon 

## T - L. 

### Garrett

## -- Proposed 

### 316 (b) 

### Study 

### Plan For Philip Sporn 

### of Central Operating Company

Prepared 

### by: John 

### H. Balletto 

### . ­ krc

### e rica

### n ~1ec

### tPI c 

### rc:;.e

## r Service 

### Corporz2icn Februayy 

### 25. 

## 1$77

### PHILIP SPORN 

### PI,AF!'T 

### 316 (b) STUXPLAN 

### 1,

2.



# ~I 

# I' I 

# 'I Introduction This proposal 

### oui;lfr?es a 

### stu5y prograz to

### monitor inpingexcent and entrainnent effects on fish

### and fishlarvae of the oncethrough cooling 

### water s7sterr.s atthe 

### Fhilip Sporn Flznt of 

### the Central Operating Company 

### on the Ohio River, inaccordance with Special Conditions: EnYironrental Studies, 

### KO. 1

### on Page 

### 24 of 

### 26 of NPDES 

### Permit Ilmber 

## WV OOOlC58. Sampling Freauency 2.1 

### Impingement Samples.shal1be collected from all screenhouses for a 

### 28-hour period once every two weeks during the periods 

### of November 1

### toKarch 

## 15. Samples shall be collected for a 

### 28-hour period once everywek during the

### periods 

### of Karch 

### 16thru October 

## 31. Each 28-hour period of sampling 

### willbe divided into.seven successive four-hour periods todetermine diel rhythms, Atthe startof 

### each sampling period alltrzveling screens 

### willbe rotated and cleaned; and, under normal river conditions, they will

### be rotated again about 

### 4 hours later 

### to collect the accumulated sanple. Sanples will

### be collected from a shorter period of 

### accmulation when the debris load increases; however, when river conditions necessitate running the traveling screens continuously,
or nearly continuously, no sar?.pleswillbe 

### collected but samples bjill

### be 

### collected as soon as 

### possible after the 

### debris load is 

### reauced significantly, 

### KO sanples for either iFpingexcnt or entrainzent 

### will be 

### collected during

### i periods 

### of 

### dangerously high 

### xatcr levels. 2.2 

### EntTalnT:ent 

### Sampling for

### larvae

### will be

### .conducted oncc every we& 

### begirining Narch 

### 16 and 

### will be 

### continued until Lug~s'i

### 31. Samples 

### will be collecteci smi-xonthly 

### in 

### Septcmt:er and Octobey and monthly fro!n 

### Novex3er 

### through February. Samples collectsd fmfi

### Septezker toFebruary

### will be 

### preserved and stored bvlt 

### not snalysed. 

### Samples willbe collected for 

### twenty-fox hours continuously

### except 

### when impractical 

### (.i.e.7 

### net blockage, debris, etc.). This 

### time schedule 

### has been selected tobracket the 

### spawning "cirnes of 

### fishreported inthe 

### Ohio River, and the 

### spawning times reported inthe attached report. The saKples 

### ccllected TroK 

### Septmber to

### February 1~111 

### document. the absence 

### of larvae durir,g those

### months. See 

### attached table 

### for 

### one year's sampling schedule. 

## 3

# . Saxplinc 

### ikthods 

### 3.1 Impingezent At the 

### start of 

### the 28-hour 

### sannpling period, 

### alltraveling


### screens will

### be rotated and cleaned 

### by washing with 

### no collection macle 

### of accuzulated dejris. 

### After about 

### b hours,
or sooner if 

### debris accumlatioc

### requires, nets 

### or screens will be 

### placed in the sluiceway 

### receiving the 

### traveling
screen wash 

### water and the 

### traveling 

### screem 

### will be 

### rotated 

### and washed. This will be 

### done 

### to collect the fish 

### and 

### refuse that had 

### been irr.?inged 

### end 

### accunulatcd 

### on the 

### traveling 

### screens and recoved bj: 

### the screent:ashing 

### 'opera

### tion, -2-

### The number 

### of panels 

### rotated xi11 depcnd 

### upon the depth 

### of water passing through 

### the traveling screen

### well. The 

### mesh size of the screen 

### or net used irL 

### the sluiceway collection device xiL1

### be 

### 3/8” Gi’ 

### less. Cnce the traveling
screens are washed, the collection device will

### be lifted from the sluiceway and emptied, the 

### debris and fish separated, the fish 

### keyed to species, counted, measured, and weighed. However, when large numbers 

### of a species are collected, 

### a representative subsample will

### be .taken to determine length frequency distributions and mean weights for each length group. 

### All fishwill

### be bulk 

### weighed when numbers 

### are large enough 

### for subsampling. 

### 3.2 Entrainxent Entrainment sarnpl.ss 

### wi.11 

### be 

### collected hy 

### either nets QT 

### pumps. Nets or pumps 

### will be decided 

### on 

### siteto ascertain which method 

### is the most practicable. Samples willbe 

### collected 

### in the screen house or inthe circulating water system. If 

### the samples are collected inthe screenhouse, the samples willbe 

### collected 

### insuch 

### an arrangement 

### so as to deternine the absence or existence of 

### vertical.or horizontal stratification. If 

### no stratification 

### is evident, only one station and depth 

### will be sampled. 

### If samples are collected 

### from the piping of the 

### circulating water systerr complete mixing will

### be assumed. Sampling 

### from the piping would have tobe correlated with some other sampling method at

### the beginning of 

### the stuciy to prove that pipe sa!xples are 

### mt being drawn 

### froa a dead 

### space. 

## -3-

### The punping 

### method, if 

### used, \;ill

### consist of 

### the use 

### cf diaphragm pwps 

### tomixir.izc mechanical damge 

### to ti,? 

### larvae. The 

### pumped watcr 

### vould be 

### psssed through 5 

### :let of 500 

### micron 

### cesh -rlhi.ch 

### would be 

### suSpen3ed 

### in 2 

### 1ZrgG prct~ct 

### the water filled 

### container. This 

### container ~0~1ci 

### larvae from further danzge 

### that Right 

### be caused 

### by the 

### net. The 

### net method, if 

### used, would 

### consist 

### of placing
a metered net of 5CO 

### nicronmesh 

### into the influent water. The final method willbe 

### chosen by 

### the peclple 

### perforring the 

### studyon site. 

## 4. Sampling ilata Required 

## 4.1 Plant operating data (tobe 

### collected 

### on sampling days) 

### 4.1.1 Circulating water volume cal.culated fron the 

### number a;..,$

### rated ~~nz~jf~r -,.;zf--y --r YJ 

### sf r-i~c-~lating 

### pumps inoperation during the 

### inpingesent and entraiment sarzpling period. 

### 4.1.2 Temperatures 

### of intake and 

### discharge 'ciater. 

## 4.1.3 Time started, duration and. amount of 

### xarE water recirculated for intake de-icing, if 

### such an 

### operation is

### underway. If 

### de-icing 

### is inoperation, samples 

### willbe collected concurrently with the 

### de-icing. 

### 4.1.4 Chlorination feed schedules, feed rates, and 

### residuals. 

## 4.1.5 Current velocities willbe 

### messured conthly 

### zt various locatiom, atand infront of 

### the 

### trzveling
screens

# . -4-

### 4.1.6 tleteorological dsta 

### compri.scd 

### of air 

### txi;Psr3turej esthate

### of wind Srjecd 

### and direction, ~10x5 

### co-rer and barcneiric 

### pressure as estimted average for the 

### sampling day. 4.2 

### Biolocical Data 

### 4.2.1 Determine the nmber 

### of fish

### larvae ani identify 

### to family or 

### genus if 

### possible. 4.2.2 Determinc the water voluqes filtered for

### larvae samples. 

## 4.2.3 Quantify the nurrber 

### of larvae as nunber per 

### cubic meter 

### in the 

### intake water. 

### 4.2.4 Count, measure total length (standardlength where necessary), and weigh 

### by species the 

### juvenile and ad-,,it 

### zisk, 

### collectez

### fr.~~~ bU*L--LO .d=--J-e­ 

### szr.~.-~=-- 

# -*. iur;

# . 4.2.5 Note 

### and separately report fish 

### obviously dead prior to impingezent, and exclude these 

### fron calculation of 

### estimates 

### of 

### yearly losses due to plant intakes. 

## 5. Dzte Presentation Present results and 

### interpretation 

### ina 

### concise nsrrative surnnary; and include a detailed drawing 

### of the intake and adjacent shoreline areas. Present 

### estiwites or measurerents of intake.velocities through 

### the traveling screens an5 

### at criticalpoints 

### upstream. Present time and temperature estimates for entrainrzent exposures as

### well as pmping flows

.I :

### and intake velocities of 5ar.pling. Includi 

### a 

### tabular surxary 

### of dsta 

### by species 

### on a 

### ncnthly basis 

### for the 

### entire year. 

### an estinate of the 

### amxual 

## -5-

# c'

loss by 

### species 

### interms of 

### numbers aid wights 

### and 

### celculate the 

### confLdcnce interval 

### for ths 

### anncal estimte.



### -6- 

# I

### x 

# $1 x 

# I I sc X 

# I 

# I q X C2 

# I I B a c m 

# 1 ' Q 

### x +3 

# 34 

# $1 x 

# B

i k 0 61 in 

# I 0, 

# I 

# I I 1 3, 

# 1
CD 

# 1 r: .Pi 

### a E H 

# I