/SENT BY:

7~70

6-28-99 ; 13:36 ;

RP-- 

APPENDIX G

EXHIBIT GEEP-t

. BIOLOGICAL EFFICACY

OF INTAKE STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS

; # 2/29

frJV LI g 1V1f!!

(~f7

SPONSORED BY: DOUGLAS G. HEIMS CH, PH.

PSE&G RENEW At AP LICA TION

SALEM GENERA TIN ST AnON

PERMIT N NJOOO5622"
$00 BY: 6-28~99; 13:36 tJ:j""""t ;# 3/29 

 .  .

co .. .1..

., . . ,; :.

,. I._

:.

~ \1.11, " I.~I'

E\hlh" (j.

TABLE OF CONTEf'oiTS I

1. .(:-';TRODUCTION ..,.......,.......", ...... ........,.' "'00'" ."....... ............... ,'.. .."" ,.. .., .

j...,.. ..,... ,..

U. .I\SSESS MENT APPROACH ............

....,.. .................... .......... ..... ...,...... ... j...... .........

IH. METHODS FOR ESTIMA TINa EFFECTIVENESS ................................

..............

IV. DESCRIPTION OF IMPINGEMENT SUR VIV AL STUDIES """"""""" """"""'" 7

IV.A. 1995 Direct Comparison Study..................--

........... ................................ ...............

IV .A. (. Methods ......... ,... ..... ....................." ,...h..... ..........

................. ........ 

r.............n 7

I V . 2. Results...... .............. .............. ........... ..................... ..............

....... .....

~.... 00..,......

IV. B. 1997 and 1998 Impingement Survival Studies-Modified Screens........L.............

IV. B . 1. Methods .............. ....... .......,... 00"

 ............. ...................... ..........

~....,.. "'" 00.

1 V ~~:~ 9;8~~;~il;;;;~i'

s~;;i~~i' s~~di~~=o;i~i~~i' s~;~~~~~:::::::::::::::,

:::::: :::::::::

IV. l. Methods .............. ............. ..... "00"""""'" ........n..

 ............. ........... ......,.........

IV. 2. Results ......~....... ""'0000--"

 ............. ........ ... ;........... ...................,. 

i"-

""""'" 1 

V. RESULTS OF EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT ................................... ..............

V .A. ESlimates of Effectiveness.. .............. ......n

 ............... ..................... .....,..... ...

1 0

B. Discussion of Apparent Inconsistencies...........

....................................... ..............

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................-

............................. .......... ....

I .
0 SENT BY:

Nllmb

G- J - 2 Table I

2 Table 2

2 Table 3

1-Table 4

2 Table 5

G- 1-2 Table 6

6-28-99 13:36 J:J:l'-t ;#' 4/29

, 

J"", 'rr"""'."

: \1.lr," I"""

1'.\;\11111 (; I '

LIST OF TABLES

J2e~CJiRtiQIJ 

Summary of results from the 1995 Direct ComPllrisJn Study -

Modified Screens 

Summary of results from the 1995 Din~t:l Curnpuris n Study 

Original Screens

Summary or results from the 1997- 1998 ImPinge1nt Survival

Study (Modified Screens). 

Smrunary of results from the I 1982 Impinge nt Survival

Studies (Original Screens)o

Comparison of Impingement Mortality Rate Estima s from the

1978- 1982, 1995, and 1997- 1998 Studies. Mortality r te estimates

include initial and 48-hour latent mortalities.

Summary of effectiveness of the modified .screens or reducing

impingement mortality rates. 
: -SENT BY:

.

!)1Q~r

Or 1-2 Figure I

I- 2 Figure 2

2 Figure 3

2 Figure 4

2 Figure 5

2 Figure 6

6-28-99 ; 13:37 ; EEP-t ;# 5/29

I'Sl:.!o:ti K~ ,~".I \"1'"1;, ~:I"~

:~IM.:iII'I"11

hhl"'1 (;.

UST OF FIGURES

e~Cf.iu.tlQn

WeakfISh Imping.cment Mortality Rate. Original v. Modified

Screens

White Pen:h Impingement Mortality Rate, Original

Scrct:ns

, Modificd

Bay Anchovy Impingement Mortality Rate. Original s. Modified

Screens

Atlantic ' Croaker Impingement Mortality Rate, . ~riginal VS. Modified Screens 

Spot Impingement Mortality Rate. Original Ys. MOdifi~d Screens

rosa spp Impingement Mortality Rate, Original. vb. Modified

Screens
.. SENT BY:

-4f

6-28-99; 13:37; EJ::l'-t

; 

6/29

!':\I:.\:\ik II"'

:,:

::o:

; \I.

.:.

!\ i"'"

.

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Exhihit documents theelfectiveness of intake structure moditicalions thft have tx.~n

imaulled at Salem Generating Station (Salem or the Station) to improve lish liurvh' ability.

!,--s described in Exhibit G. I. the intake structure modifications were in.o;tulled in

compliance with Permit Special Condition H,2 of the NJPDES permit numbc NJOOO5612

(efti:ctive dale ( September 1994) for Salem. The Special Condition require PSE&G to

modity the Station s Ristroph traveling water screens (Original Ristroph Screens or

Origim\1 Screens) at the cooling water intake structure (CWlS) to incorpo ate recently

developed screen modification.~ for the purpose of improving survirc1l rates of impinged

fish. . 

The Original Risrroph Screens had mesh panels with 3/8-inch square mesh 0 nings and a

meraUicfish bucket See 0- 1 and Appendix B for a more complete descr ption of the

traveling screen component of the CWIS. PSE&G was required to modify e screens to

include a smooth WOven mesh having rectangular pore openings (0.25 inches 50 inches

(in)). PSE&G was also required to incorpomte u new fish bucket design with an extended

lip that bends inward toward the screen face at the top to prevent fish escape

The modifications were ~e!;ignedl Planned, and implemented to improve the operation of

both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 traveling screens (Modified Risuoph Screens or Modified

Screens). These modifications included changes to the screen panels. fish uckets, flap

seal~, spray nozzles. screen drive molors, trash rake, screen wash pumps, nd electrical

equipment that were designed to increase survival rates of fish. Det of thesc

modifications are described in Exhibit 0-

II. ASSESSMENT APPROACH

The approach used to assess the effectiveness of the modified intake tructure for

increasing fish survivability compares estimates of the impingement mortalit rate for the

modified CWIS traveling screens to estimates of the impingement mortalit rate for the

previous screens. This assessment approach relies on empirical observation!; 0 the survival

of fish that are impinged on the traveling screens: bay anchovy (Anch a mitchUm,

blueback herring (Alosa aeslivalis), alewife (Alo.ta pseudoharengus), erican shad

(A/os" $apicli~' imu), striped bass (Morone saxotlli$), spot (l..eiosromus xanl urus), white

perch (Morone americana), weakfish (Cynosdon regalis), and At! tic croaker

(Micropogonias undulalus). The data are tabulated in the form of impinge nt mortality

rates. Survival rates are calculated by subtracting the IIlQrtality rates fi' m 100. The

effectiveness of the Imdified Intake screens is expressed in terms of the perce tage change

in the impingement rates. Data for this assessment were collected by P &G during

impingement studies conducted at Salem in 1995. 1997. and 1998. (No tudies were

conducted in 1996 because neither unit was operated due to an extended out ge.
. ~tJ'H tH; tj-;aS-35 ; UJ. ~ 13:;:n ; ;; 7/29

VSI. ,...(;KII"' '"I~:' !,iI" '1I

~ ~l.lr.;:t 1"""

bl\1hl.~i.

The imping~m~nL study conducted in 1995 was a !;ide-by-sid~ ~tudy: on\! niL Il.: nit 1)

operat~d with th~ Moditied Scre~l\s. and one unit (Unit I) up~n1tecl with he Original

Scl' eens. Samples wt?r~ collected concurrently from the screens on both nits. Thus.

results from tM 1995 study provide a direct comparison of tishsurvival with t: Modifi~d

Scre~ns structure lU (hh ~ul'...ival with the Original Screens. Howe"'er. only w akfish were

collect~d in suflicicnt numbers to support statistically valid estimates of' pingemc:nt

mortality rat~s,

The impingement studies conducted in 1997 and 1998 providedatQ fo estimating

effectiveness fur species other than weakfish. The 1997 and 1998 impinge ent stu9ie.c;

were conducted after the installation of the Modified Screens was comple ed for both

units. Therefore, estimates of effectiveness. were derived from data collette during the

1997 and 1998 studies and compared to estimates from historical studie conducted

between 1978 and 1982 when both units had the Original Screens.

III. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING EFFECfIVENESS

As rlO~ed .in tIK: pr

7vious section. ~creen

' effectiveness is expressed as thl percet1t~ge

reduction In the Impmgement mortality rate: 

IMR IMR 

Effectiveness 

() .

x 100 

IMR

where IMRo is the estimated impingement mortality rate for the old intake s ructures and

IMRAf is the estimated impingement mortality rate for the modified int e structure.

Because each fish has a different susceptibility to injury when impinged, sep te estimates

of effectiveness are computed for each species. Also, separate estimates are mputed for

each month with available data because size (in addition to other fac rs such as

temperature. salinity, .etc.) affects fish susceptibility to injury. Since fish size ' creases over

me year as fish grow. month is a rough suII'ogate for fish size.

Impingement mortality rates for this assessment include initial mortality (i.e. fish that are

dead when initially collected from the fish return system) and latent mortality ie., fish that

die within 48 hours of initial collection). Descriptions of the methods used t collect and

hold fish during the impingement survival studies are presented in the folio inS section,

The impingement mortality rate is defined as the sum of 1) the proportion of olleeted fish

that are dead upon collection and 2) the proportion of fish that are alive w n collected

and die within 48 hours. This rate is expressed as: .

IMR::: P + ((1- P) LIMR)

where:

is the proportion of all fish collected that are dead upon collection, also referred

to as the initial mortality rate. and 
" SENT BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:38 ; tlP-t ;# 8/29

f"\I:.\..; H ' n~'

\..

1 \;'1"" ,",

~ \Iwl." ",...1

1-. ""'1 (; .

UJIR i~ th~ latent impingement mortality rate (i.e.. the proporti\m )f Ii~h uli\'

when collected that die wilhin -1-8 hours!.

. 

Th~ lar~nt impingement mortality rate is estimated as the ratio of the numbe~ of fish thur

die within -f8 ~urs of collect!on (NI.H1:.\T m:.w) to the number of fish collcctfd that were

not dead at the lime of collection (NIOT..\f. cYJLt.F.CTF.I) Ntxrrw. III-;,\1I):

Ll M R 

TT.\'T n(,IO

rtlr.~L ('oLLEC:fro N I.vmu D'-~D

In the impingement survival studies conducted between 19781!-nd 1982. separ te estimates

of latent impingement mortality rate were computed for fish initially cIas5i ed as "live

(but not damaged) and fish initially classified .as "damaged" (but not den . For these

studies. the Qveralliatent impingement mortality rate is estimated as a weight average of

the two estimates:

LlMR;;;;(Pc. LlMR o xUMR

where:

LIMRL is the latent impingement mortality rate for fish initially clw;si led as ulive

(but not damaged).

LIMRo b; the !alent impingement mortality rate for fish initially lassified as

damaged" (but not dead).

Pc. is the proponJon of fish. not dead upon collection. that are initiaU classified as

live" (but not damaged) .

N,oYfTI,u. UVF"..

N TOTAL COUE('TED N tNmiJ. DrAD

Po is lh~ proportion of fISh," not dead upon collection. that are initiall.J classified as

damaged" (but not dead) 

tN/T1.\L "DAMAGED"

NTOT...LCOillcttD 

; 

N C'ltTtALtJt.tD

In the analyses in this Exhibit, references to mortality always refer to to at mortality,

unless initial or latent mortality is specifically identified. For all years of dat an estimate

of impingement mortality rate was computed for a species and IOOnth only at least 30

fish were incl~ded in t~ latent mo~~ty e~periment. This data quality screentng was done

to exclude ciitlmates wnh low precIsIon. I
.. SENT BY:

..#

6-28-99 ; 13:38 ; tJ:.l'-t ;# 9/29

PSh,,\; H. , 'j"i'h.. I:"'1I

J 'I" ,dl 1""'1

I blll;,tt(i.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL STUDIES 

IV.A. 1995 Direct Comparison Study 

IY. I. Metlaod.~

The 1995 Direct Comparison Study was a side-by-~ide study. with the Origi I Ristroph

Screens on nn~ unit. Le.. Unit 1. and the Modified Screens on the other uni Unit I. A

detailed description of the study is presented in EnvirOnmental Con...ulting S vices. Inc.

and Lawler. Matusky & SkeUy 'Engineers (1996). Impingement survival sa pies were

collected on 19 separate dates between 20 June and 24 AugD."t 1995. A lO-ho sampling,

period on each of those days was followed by observations of mortality at 24 and 

hou~. The lO-oour sampling period began 2 hours before high slack water a d ended 2

hours after low slack water in order to encompass the entire ebb tide. d ring which

impingement was anticipated to be highest. ft"h were observed after 12, 24. 87d 48 hours

and mortality was recorded. RIS specie~ for this study were weakfish, bay a~chovy. and spot. 

. Combined f~h \rough and debris trough wash water fto';' eacII unil (see Ex bh G+ 

was diverted to the respective coUecting pools from the debris trough. typicauf for four to

six. minutes. Stop-gates were closed in themiuule of both the fish and de ristroughs

betwet:n the two units so that the combined screen wash from the old intak structures.

(Unit 1. six screens) discharged to the north collecting pOol and the combine wash from

the modified intake structure (Unit 2. siJt screens) discharged to the south co ting pool.

Samples from both units were taken. simultaneously by teams at each pool. S res were

collected until either the maximum number of fish was obtained for both units or until the

end of the IO-hour designated sampling duration. After about 2~ and 48 hoD of holding,

investigators classified fish by condition category (i.e.. live, -'damaged. 0 dead) and

dip netted them into holding tanks for mortality observations. Mortality 5 udies. were

conducted at the station in three 378-1iter (lOO-gallon) tanks fillcd with filter d Delaware

River water from the wash.water return trough. The tanks were equipped with JiJters.

heaters. and aeration. 

The number offish held per tank was initially 40, based on an APHA- (1992 "Standard

Methods") recommended loading range of 0. 1 to 0,8 grams of fISh per liter 0 water (g/l).

In . the interest of increasing statistical sample sizes, the number of fISh r tank was

increased first to 60 and then to lOOper tank. During testing, make-up wate was added

to compensate for evaporation and small plumbing leaks. Water temperature. salinIty, and

dissolved o~ygeD concentratIon were measured daily. 

IV.A.2. ResuUs

A total of 2.641 juvenile weakfISh wa.~ collected from the pools. 1.082 from t e nonh pool

(Original Screens) and 1.559 from the south Pool (Modified Screens). In sam les from the

Original Screens, 50 juvenile weakfISh were dead initially, and 228 and 157 were found

dead at 24 and 48 hours, respectively. At the termination of the ~ortality ex riments. 51
: ,

SENT BY: 6-28-33 ; 13:;jtl ; crr-t dHU/~tl

r..;r:,,\i~. II~,\"1 \;""".

:,,..

~ I'"'"

. hhi"'I().

fi:;h had not ht:~n al:counl~d rue: Thes\:: may ha\'t~ ~~t:n mbsing due to rniscoul1 s. prco:.llion

by ~l\(S. cannibalism (\',.hich was reported for ,',.c:akfish in lA 199~). ~!\t:ape fro n (h~ tunks~

or other reasons. A total of 1.031 rLSh w~r~ the basis for mortality rate e' timutcs. (n

sampl~s from the modified screens. 70 weakti!'h were dead initially. and 1"'5 . nd 88 were

found dcud at 1~ and .J8 hours. resp~cti\lely. At the termination of the tests. 97 tish had

not been accounted for. leaving a total of 1.462 fish on which to base m naUty rate

estimates. As noted above. only weakfish were collected in sufficient numoo . for reliable

estimates of impingement mortality rate.

Weakfish impingement mortality rate estimates for the Modified Screens ran ed from 17

percent in June to 2S ~rcc:nt in August (G- 2 Table 1 and I..2 Figure 1). For the

Original Screens, the weakfISh impingement mortality rate estimates rung d from 

percent in July to I percent in Aug\.lst (G- 2 Table 2 and 0- 2 Figure I).

IV.B. J997 and 1998 Impingement Survival Studies-Modified Scree s

IV. I. Methotb

The 1997 and 1998 studies provide est~es of impingement nlOrtaJity r.1 es with the

Modified Screens instal1~d on bolh units. Sampling was conducted roughly t ice a week.

from October through December 1997 and from April through Septe ber 1998.

Investigators took as many samples as possible within a 10-hour period t at typically

included the entire ebb tide and the beginning of flood tide. The colletti pool was

initially filled with filtered water to a depth of 2S centimeters (em). Scree wash was

diverted to either the north or south sampling pool. whichever was down tream with

respect to the tidal flow, for a typical duration of one to three minutes, with 0 fractional

minutes. The sample in the pool was held for five minutes, and then the pool as drained.

When the water level was low enough to enter the pool. invest1gators collee d fish with

dip nets as the pool completeLy drained.

Holding tanks were filled with river water. Temperature, salinity. ammonia c ncentration.

and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured before testing fish. FLSh R S that were

not dead upon coUection were moved into tanks for observation. Certain co matioos of

species were tested together. About 200 bay anchovy or other young-of-the- ear (YOY)

target species, or about 25 to 50 larger fish, such as one-year-old white per h or striped

bass, were tested per tank.

The number of dead fub in. the tanks was counled at Iipproxin1at~ly 24 and 4

fish lengths were measured at mortality or the termination of the test

Temperature. salinity and ammonia concentration were measured at 24 and 4

Iv.B.2. Results

Estimates of impingement mortality rates are based on a total of 8,919 fa h examined

during the experiments: 1.236 bay anchovy; 140 alosids (blueback herring. alewife and
PSE&G Renewal Application

4 March 1999

Exhibit G.

American shad combined); 91 spot; 1 036 white perch; 3 372 weakfish; and 3 044 Atlantic

croaker (G- 2 Table 3). Striped bass were not collected in sufficient numbers to estimate

mortality rates. The impingement mortality rate estimates for white perch ranged from 2

percent in December to 7 percent in April (G- 2 Table 3). The mortality estimates for

weakfish ranged from 12 percent in September to 82 percent in July. For bay anchovy,

estimates ranged from 28 percent in November to 80 percent in July, and for Atlantic

croaker, mortality estimates ranged from 2 percent in November to 42 percent in April.

The estimate for spot in November (the only month in which a sufficient number of spot

were collected) was 7 percent. Insufficient numbers of blueback herring, alewife, and

American shad were collected for species-specific estimates. Collections of these three

Alosa species were pooled to produce generic estimates that ranged from 18 percent in

April to 22 percent in November. .

IV. 1978-1982 hnpingement Survival Studies-Original Screens

IV.C. Methods

The 1978 to 1982 studies provide impingement rates for the Original Screens. These

studies are described in detail in Ichthyological Associates (1982). Survival studies were

conducted during a minimum of three 24-hour periods per week. The data analyzed here

are from the summary tables in PSE&G (1984),Appendices II through VIII, X, and XI.

Samples were taken by diverting the total screen wash flow for one to three minutes into a

holding pool. Pools were first filled with filtered water to a depth of about 25 cm, then a

swing gate was opened to allow wash flow to be diverted into the pool, and after one to

three minutes the diversion gate was closed. The sample in the pool was held for five

minutes, and then the pool was drained. When the water level drained to a depth of 0.3

meters (m), investigators collected fish as the pool completely drained.

Fish that were to be held for latent mortality examinations were removed from the

sampling pool with water-filled scoops rather than dip nets, placed in aerated test tanks,

fed, and monitored. Although testing was initially conducted off site, survival tests were

conducted .both at the Station and in an off-site laboratory. Beginning in 1981 , all bay

anchovy and herring tests were conducted at Salem On-site and off-site testing followed

the same protocols. The testing period began when the fish were collected. Fish were

observed for the first 30 minutes, then at approximate 24-hour intervals. Loading did not

exceed 2 g fisbll water. Water temperature and fish condition were reported at each

observation. At the end of the test or upon mortality, fish were measured for length.

Off-site tests were conducted in either 81-liter (22-gallon) circular or 189-liter (50-gallon)

oval tanks. For group testing, impinged and control fish were transported to the laboratory

by truck in aerated coolers. All fish in a cooler were of the same condition category. No

more than 20 impinged fish were put into a tank, and the same number of control fish

were put into a similar tank. Temperature, ammonia, pH, salinity, and dissolved oxygen

content of the water were measured. Water was, changed when total ammonia exceeded
.. ,

SENT BY: 6-26- ; 1~:4U

Po;L",I; JI1~\\' :I ' ;'1"_"

,,

~ ~1" (':1 I'~'"

1 1'\",1-,11

;2,0 milligrams p~r liter (mgll) or pH was below 7.0. On-site tests were COt1d cted in I Sl)-

liter (50-gilllon) oval tanks half-filled with water from the fish $ill11pling pool. T i.lnks w~r~

u~rilted and retillcd during ~ubsequent impingement sampling. Water was ch' nged at h~sl . ,cnni""'ion. 

1v.c.Z. Results 

The estimates of impingement mortality rates for the old intake structures we based on u

total of 10.467 tagh that were examined during the 1978. 1982 period. includi : 1 999 bay

anchovy: 306 blueback herring: 516 spot: 2.905 white perch: 3.681 weak h; and 175

Atlantic croaker (0- 2 Table 4). Striped ba')s were not col1ected in sufficient numbers for

the purpose of estimating mortality rates. The impingement monality rate stimates for

white perch ranged from 8 percent in December to 21 percent in October (G- -2 Table 4).

The estimates for weakfish ranged ITom 39 pefcent in June to 53 percent in etober. For

bay anchovy, estimates ranged Crom 32 percent in November to 90 percent in uly, and for

Atlantic croaker. the only estimate was 49 percent for the period December nd Januiry. .

Estimates for spot ranged from 19 percent in November to 48 percent n July, and

estimates for blueback herring ranged from 31 percent for the period October to

December to 89 percent for the March and April period.

V. RESULTS OF EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT

A. Estimates of Effectiveness

CoIItpwsons of impingement mortality rate estimates for the Original d Modified

Screens show that the intake modifications have been very effective in irnpro . g rates 

fish survival (G~ 1-2 Table. 5 and 0- 2 Figure~ 1 through 6). For whit perch. bay

anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, and the alosids, all estimates of impinge nt mortality

rates 'from the 1997 and 1998 stUdies (Modified Screens) are lower than c rresponding

estimates from the 1978 to 1982 studies (Original Screens).

For weakfi~h, results from the 1995 Direct Comparison Study show much 10 er mortality

rate estimates frum the unit with the Modified Screens in June and July. (n dition. the

August and September impingement mortality rate estimates from the 19 and 1998

studies are lower than the conesponding estimates from the 1978 to 1982 s dies. These

results appear to confirm the expectation that the Modified Screens improve survival of

weakfish. just as they did with all other fish. However. the weakfish morta ty estimates

from the 1997 and 1998 studies for June and July (Modified Screens) are hi her than the

corresponding estimates from the 1978 to 1982 stUdies (Original Screens). discussed in

the next section. there several hypotheses for these results, and SE&G has

undertaken additional studies to gain a better understanding of this apparent i consistency.

Because the 1995 Direct Comparison Study provided a concu~ntt

comparison, it was not biased by possible confounding factors (e.g., different

conditions. different conditions of fish used in dIe ex.periments) that

,iI'.LZI zoj
,

~t:NT tH: Q:.i ~

I'SI:.-.:\i H':' I \:' 1'("00 " 'I

1.\(" : I"

,

. bhl"'IU.

compurisons of results from the 1978 (0 1981 studies and results rrom the llJ9 and lLJI)X

studies. Some of these possibl~ confounding factors are di~cll!ist'!d below. J\1inimize

possible biases due to ~xtraneuus factors. only results from the 1995 Direct omparison

StUdy ure used to assess the ~ffectiveneS5 of the Modified Screens for specie:; md months

included in the 1995 slUdy. For this reason. estimates of effuctiveness for weak Ll;h in June.

July. and August (the months of the 1995 study) are based on the t 995 stud. Estimates

of effectiveness tor other species would have been based on this Jitudy also f sufficient

number of fish of those species had been collected in 1995.

ltl- 1~; ~U ; ;?~J.ij/2H

In addition to the month-specific estimates of effectiveness (0. 2 Table 6), nv rages over

months for each species were compuled as SUI11J1\a1)' measures of effectivenes . Estimates

of effectiveness range from an average of 23 percent for bay anchovy to an pv rage of69

percent for Atlantic croaker (G- 2 Table 6). For all species but bay anchovy. he average

effectiveness was over 50 percent

When intetpreting impingement mortality estimates. it should be' noted that s me smaller

fish (e, s., fish less than 40 millimeters) that woukl have p~sed throll,ght e Original

Screens (i.e.. woulci be entrained) would be unpiriged on the Modified Screen (ECSI and

LMS 1996). The greater irnpinge~nt of smaller fISh on the Modified Scree affects the

assessment of the effectiveness of the Modified Screens. Because mortality res on the

Modified Screens tend to be greater for smaller fish. the inclusion of these. maller fish

that otherwise would have been entrained. increases the estimates of' ingement

mortaljty rates for the Modified Screens. However, the entrainment morta ty rate for

many species is greater than the impingement mortality rate. For example, t estimated

entrainment mortality rate for weakfish greater than 10 millimeters is 50 pe ent (ECSI

and LMS 1996) excluding the effects of exposure to elevated temperatures w ' Ie passing

through the plant, which occaSionally cause the entrainment monaIity rate t exceed 50

percent. Therefore. the actual effectiveness of the Modified Screens for smaller weakfISh is

greater than the estimates in 0- 2 Table 6 indicate. The actual reduction in . naUty for

these fish is the difference between the entrainment mortality rate' (e.g. , 50 Percent Or

more for weakfish) and the estimated impingement mortality rate under t e Modified

Screens (e.g.. 17 to 18 percent for weakfish in June and July when weakfish e smaUer

see 0- 2 Table 5) rather than the difference between the impingement mort ry rate with

the Original Screens (e.g., 33 percent and 31 percent for weakfISh in Ju e and July,

respectively) and the estimated impingement mortality rates with the M ' d Screens,

Limited data do not allow a comprehensive analyses of this issue, but the stimates of

effectiveness for the Modified Screens may be biased low in some circumsta es because

of these factors.

B. Discussi~n of Apparent Inconsistencies 

As noted above, results from this assessment show a consistent pattern of' provements

due to the modified intake strUcture, with the exception of weakfish results ' June and

. July from the 1997 and 1998 studies. While these inconsistencies are small in the conte~t 

of the assessment as a whole, they still need to be addressed. The funowin discussion
: .

SENT BY: 6-28-99; 13:41 fEr-t ;#14/29

I'S!:.'-:li II. a~'

\ .

,1 \:' rll,.:I.."

~ \r.,rdll'J'~1

b!lIhll~j.

idcntiti~s possible explanations for the inconsistencies. Clnd PSE&G prt:)oienlly

undertaking studi~s 10 ass~ss these possible hypotheses. 

When I;'(\nsidering the mortality estimates of weakfish in June nnd July. o~e needs 

remember the rol!o\\'ing observations from the 1997 to 1998 studies;

. not 1111 species (e.g.. Atlantic croaker)hDd higher monallty estimates in Jun

. wcnkfish had low mortality estimates in August and September.

. all other species (e.g., white perch in April, November, and December: and y anchovy ~d in May. June. and July) had mortality estimates below the hi.~torical marrali y estimates:

. no changes were m~de to the intake system or fish handling protocols be

and September.

Estimates of impingement mortality may have been affected by two classes of controllable

factors (i.e., factors oilier than fi5h size and condition. and water quality):

. the intake ~tructure and fish return system. and

. fish collection and handling. equipment and protocols.

With respect to the intake structure and fish return system. one unintende factor not

present in earlier studies may have been present during the 1997 and 1998 s udies. Gaps

may have been present in the flap seals that separate the fish and debris ttou hs. Gaps in

the seals were detected during a 1998 impingement collectionefflciency stud (conducted

at the end of the 1997 through the early 1998 impingement survival study pe ad). Fifteen

tests were conducted at pump IlA, each involving the release of JOO dyed fis in front of

the screen. Roughly 60 percent .to 80 percent of the recaptured fish were rec vered from

the debris trough rather than the fish trough. Fish slipping into the debris t ugh would

have been subjected to additional stresses of high debris load and the high-pre ure sprays

of the debris removal system. After discovering this problem, PSE&G began inspection

program to identify flap-seal gaps and make adjustments, as needed.

Several changes to the experimental protocols may have also affected mortali estimates.

FlJ'st, as part of modifications to the fish return system that were made from 1 89 to 1990.

the J~shaped slide from the fish return trough to the fish collection pool was r placed by a

slide with 11 vertical stop at the end of the slide. The water and contents m the wash

fio",!, down the slide into the stop before entering the pooL The additional s ses likely

created by this feature would have been amplified by higher- flows (due to e improved

wash water system of the new screens) and associated higher velocities d wn the fish

slide. During the 199~ study. wash water from only 6 screens was divened to each flsh

collection pool. whereas in the 199,7 and 1998 studies (and in the 1978 to I 82 studies).

wash water from 12 screens was diverted into the fish collection pools.
: .

SENT BY:

..,

6-28-99; 13:41 t.t.t'-t ;#15/29

P~I,,\;\i R II~' I ';' 1111...1"",

: ~I,rr, n 1"""

E,I"",! (;.

A ~econd factor that could havc biased mortality e~timate!) without aff~.ting aclUul

mortality was the type of scre~n installed in the tish collection pools. During the 197H Lo

1981 and 1995 studie!i. the 3/8-inch-squarc mesh was installed in the fish coli 'ction pool. .

Use of this mcsh in the collection pools may . have allowed ~ome small tis to ~scape

through the collection pool screen. For the 1997 and 1998 !\tudie!'. rhe new screen with

snmller pore openings was installed in the fish collection pools. As a result. smaller fish

were collected in 1997 to 1998 than would have been in 1995. Therefore. so small fish

that were impinged on the Modified Screens in 1995 may have been small e ugh to slip

through the 3/S.inch-square mesh in the coUection pool screen. Since Inaner tish

generally exhibit higher mortality to stress. the loss of ~11Ul1l fish through the 3 8-inch mesh

in the collection pool may have induced a downward bias in mortality esti te~ in 1995

(for bolh the Original and Modified Screens).

Accordingly. at least three hypotheses are consistent with the observed pa terns in th~

impingement survival estimates and with the history of changes to the Dunk system and

fish collection protocols.

The flISt hypothesis is that the higher impingement mortality rate estimates fo weakfish in

June and July are biased due to fish collection methods. Elements of the tir t hyPothesis

are:

. the vertical terminus to the fish slide in the collection pool increased stress;

. the increased velocity of high volumes of wash water amplified. the effects 0 the vertical terminus: 

. smaller fish are more susceptible to s~sses than larger fish; and

. weakfish in June and July are small but grow quickly through Septembe

length.

The hypothesis is that small weakfish (in June and July) were highly suscepti to the fish

collection stresses induced by the new fish slide and high volumes of wash w ter from the

l2-pump operntion. Larger weakfish (later in the year) were not as suscept ble to these

stresses. If this. hypothesis i.. COJTect, the June and July estimates of impinge nt mortality

rates from the 1997 and 1998 studies are biased high due to the additional st esses of fish

collection and handling. . 

The second hypothesis is that the weakf1Sh POPUlalio~ in the ~tUary during t~at time' was

in poor condition. 1bis hypothesis, though, does not explicitly cons ide the factors

affectmg survival estimates. If the fISh population was in poor conditio. the added

stresses. of impingement and handling would have caused high mort ties. If this

hypothesis is COITcct.. the estimated survival rates in June and July may be acCllrate. In

some years and months poor fish condition may lead to unusually high ingemeot

, .
SENT BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:42 ; EEP-t . ;#16/29

I'Sb\.I;!( 'no

. ; \

;',"'00 110

~ ~r.",::: I'""'

bl" I!(

mortaliti~s. If this were the casc. data for weakfish from lh~ 1997 and 191:)S .. udics l'ould

not be directly compared to data from 197H to 1982 for th~ purpose of 'sessing (he

dftctivene~s of the modified intakt: structure,

The third hypOthesis i!; that the higher impingement mortality rate estimatt:s or weakfish

were accurate and rctlected improperly adjusted flap seals between the fis and debris

return systcm~ of the Modified Screens. Improperly adjusted flap seato; may ave caus~d

some fish to be subjected to the high-pressure spray wash of the debri:; rc: oval system

and to enter the debris return trough where entanglement with debris could 0 Uf. Smaller

fISh that entered the debris removal system may have been mOre susceptible t injury than

larger fish. PSE&O has put a progmm in place to inspect and adjust all ap seals to

prevent this type of problem in me future (Exhibit 0- 1).

Results for the species other than weakfISh. which are based on data from the 978 - 1982

and 1997 - 1998 studies, may be affected. to some extent. by the factors tho caused the

apparent bias in resultsfor small weakfish. However. no other data are prese tlyavailable

for these species. For this reason. the screen effectiveness estimates for the ther species

may be biased low.

To help 8n!iwer some of these questions. PSE&G initiated a special study in tober 1998

thar will ~ontinue through August 1999. The study is designed to provide co parisons of:

combined fish and debris wash from both units (i.e.. the standard collection procedure):

Unit I combined fish debris and wash and Unit 2 combined fISh and debris w separately

(utilizing the same procedure as described fOf the 1995 Direct comparison study); and

Units I and 2 fish wash combined to one coUection pooL with Units I and 2 debris wash

combined to the other collection pool. Upon completion of these special studies, the

estimates of effectiveness of the modified screens will be revise,! as needed. I

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

Results from trus assessment provide strong evidence that the Modified Sce ns are very

effective at improving fish survivability. The average effectiveness. over all sp~cies

studied, exceeds 50 percent. which means that the impingement mortality rot is now less

than half of what it was with the old intake structure. Clearly, the roo ified intake

structure is a ' successful technology for reducing fISh mortality due to the peration of

Salem.

These fmdings are a tribute to the late Dr. Ian Fletcher, who pioneered e design of

intake $troctures to improve fish survivability. and on whose designs the Mod' ed Screens

at Salem are based.

I .
;#17/29

I'~C,\G I "".11. 1 'i' I'II."t~.

4 :'01.",.:.1"'1'/

bh,Ion G.-

:.sENT BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:42 EEP-t

REFERENCES

APHA (Americun Public Health Association). 1992. Sta/ldard Merll 1d.\' for rile

mmillarioll of Water and Wastewater. 18111 edition, American ubli~ Health

Association. Washington, D.C. (CiLed in ECS and lMS 1996).

Ichthyologic:!I Associates. Inc. (IA). (Prepared for Public Service Eleel ' ' and Gas

Company. Newark. New Jersey). 1982. Procedures Manual for 31 (b) Studies:

Salem Generating Station. 5. 26. lA, Ithaca. New York. 

Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.. (ECg!) and Lawler, Matusky & Ske~Y Engineers

LlP. (Prepared for Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Hane cks Bridge.

New Jersey). 1996. 1995 Supplemental Impingement Studies with a Assessment

of Intake- Delaware. Related Losses at the Salem Generating Station. Co. ECSI. iddletown.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). 1984. Salem Gene ting Station

316(b) Demonstration. Newark, New Jersey.

. .
:SENT BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:42 ; ffP-+ ;#18/29 .

I'S!::o1.:(iIl.' n~'A.1 \;'

;,

':1"

~ \I",~;'I i'~",

billt-ll c.

,:!

2 Table 1. Summary of results from the 1995 Direc~ Comparison Study

Screens,

:vtodifi~cJ

Impingcm ot Monali!y 

~ale

(initi 1 plus

48 hi Latent)

Specit!s Month Number of Fish

Examined

Wenkfish June 366 I ~

473 ItS%

215~

July

Augus! 623
~SENT BY:

-IIi

6-28-99 ; 13:42 ; EEP-I ;#19/29

Ia\;( i ~lIc' ,.1 ""I'I'II~.III'"

.

'rdll\J')"

hhrhn (j .

2 Table 2. Summary of results from the t 995 Direct Comparison StUd Original

Screens.

Sp~ci~s Number of Fish

E'(ilmined

Month Impingl:! nr Mortality

utt

(init III plus

48 h Il1t~nt)

We:J.kfi~h June III

July

August

367

553 life
PSE&G Renewal Application

4 March 1999

Exhibit G2 Table 3. Summary of results from the 1997- 1998 Impingement Survival Study (Modified Screens). 

Species Month Number of Fish Impingement Mortality

Examined Rate

(initial plus

48 hr latent)

Weakfish June 846

July 1172

August 1076

SePtember 278 12%

White Perch April

November 602

December 345

Bay Anchovy April 329 54%

May 239 55%

June 161 78%

July 80%

October 311 35%

November 142 28%

Atlantic Croaker April 184 42%

May 751 34%

June 724 28%

July 35%

October 213

November 214

December 890 15%

Spot November

Alosa sp April 18%

November 102 22%

(* Alewife, blueback herring, and American shad combined)

.Joo
SENT BY: .

",I

6-28-99 . 13' 43 ; EEP-t

I'SE,';;C;' ~n..'\\. 11 \:' I'II'~ ;I'

~ \1""", "1'1"

bhlht( (j.

G-.1.2 Table 4. Sunlmary of results from the 197R~ 1982 Impingement Sur 'ivai Studies

(Original Screens).

Spedt!!O Month Number of Fish Implngen t:nt Morlulity

E'lumined ~te

(ini al plus

4gh lutenll

W ellkfish June 112 9CK

July' 1354 l'k

August 1523

September 692 :0%

October 102 3'k

White Perch Jl1nuary' 275

Februnry 422

Murch 1022

April 332

OCtober 109

Novernber 219

December 526

Bay Anchovy May 828 11%

June 1043 !9%

July 50S (0%

August !5%

September 123

October 366 .

November

Atlantic Croaker Dee.Jan lie 175 '9%

~pot June 282

July

.:%

August ,t7%

October 121

. November 19%

Blueback Herting Mar-Apr'" 252 !9%

OcI.Dee -Ii

(" Data from adjacent months pooled to produce adequate sample sizes.

;#21/29

..,
:$00 BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:43 ; EEf4 ;#22/29.

I'SI:."u . nc. 1 "';'1'11.,,:1.

J :\1.11\.'1\ I'~

l!~hl"l1 (;.1.

2 Table S. Comparison of Impi(!gement ~ortality Rate Estimates fro It the 197M

1982. 1995. and 1997~ 1998 Studies. Mortality rate estimates Include initial nd ~8-hou

lutent rIlOrtalitlt:s.

I s"'c;"

 

Mun" Original Screens Modified Ser ~n.'i

1978. 198~ 1995 1995 11997- 1998

MortalilY RaIC Monality Rale Mortality Rate rtalily Rate

Estimntes E'itimatl!s Estimates ~timalC:s

I WeakfiSh June 39% 33% 17Ck 19%

July Silk 31% 1&% 8~'k

August 52'k 51% 25% 38%

September .JO% 12%

October 53%

. .

White Pr:rch January 13%

February 16%

March 12%

April IS%

October 21%

November 16%

December 890

HiW Anchovy April 54%

May 81 C7o 55%

June 89% 78%

July 90% 80%

August 115%

Seplember 72%

October 65% 35%

November 32% 28%

Allantic Croaker April 42%

May 34%

June 28%

July 35%

October

November

Dee.Ian 49%. 15%

Spot Jl.lne 31%

July 48%

August 47%

October 38%

NoVember 19%

December ~9%

Alosa sp Mar-Ap'r 89'h 18%

Oct-Dee 31% 2:1%

(* Estimates for Original Screens are based on blueback herring only. Estimates for m Ddilied Intak

screens are based on AloIa sp. e.. blueback herring. alewife. and American shad combined.

..,
, "'U,. UI'

. . ,.......,.......,

u "-v OJ..., AV" 

I'Sh~(j n~".1 'rJ'I...." lh'n

~ \1.ldel'I"'1

t:\hl"II(j,

2 Table 6. Summary of effecti"~neS5 of the modified intak~ $creenS tor reducinlT

impingement mortalityrates,

Species Month Effccliveness in Reducing Impingement r.. ortulity Ratl! .

Month-Specific Avernge Effl cli\' enl!~Jj

Effecth' eness

Weakfish June 48% 53~

July 42%

AuguSt 51%

September 70%

White Perch April 5J% 61%

November 56%

December 75%

Bay Al1(:bovy" May 32% 23%

June 12%

July

OCtober

November 13%

AtlancJc Croaker Dee-Ian . 69% 69%

Spot November 63% 63%

A/om sp Mar-Apr 80% 55%

Oct. Dee 29%

. Effectiveness of 50% means the Impingenumt mortality rate for the modified intake screen was one-half

the rate for the on inal SClUns.

(

Estimates for the Ofigioal screens are based on blueback herring, Estimates for the ified intake

screens are based on AlOS4 sp.
,.

SENT BY: 6-28-99 ; 13:43 EEP-t

Jsnflny

IJ.ldy

qa.luw

l1m.r q a

A.rURUUf

ef..

#. $, $.

0\. It)

,..c

; #24/28

C1\

t.!.

C'\

tI:S

,...(

"5J

CII

CIa

6;,

.c. fl.

C'I

CD'

.... .

ii:

(!) 
...

:'!I

,.., ...

::I

!!.

6(;/9(;# :

$. ...... ;/ $.

I"""

'i!.

January

I""" \C 

.....

)0006.

ebruary

March

April

MayJune

July

I August

........

September

October

ecember

t-c133 :),,9 OOS" . : 66-96-9 : tv:~t 
Ci)

, I.J

'TI

ca-

. c

iii

,..

::I

IIoC:

, :I

. CD

::2

::!.

CCI

S~/97.#~

,. , (..,

::r

;:,

-...J

:c=

t!.

January

......

0cJ

"i:RMarch

....

I August

~ePtember

I October

+vember

reeember

....

R('.- ~ SB- ~ vv:CI .r:r:r

: ,

'-9 .L\9s"
Ci)

eel

::I

&:to

. n

CO)

...

. S'

(I)

!!.

1.7.:it! ~7./ 

tit tit tit t.A

$. ;/.

t1. ?f.

;/!.

January

February

March

August

.....

eptember

\l:)

....:a

October

ovember

recember

! tt:RT ...-.r:::r:::r

! 

: HI Hr:J~' . Ql-
..10.

"T1

.... .. g. 

::II

CD:

::II

IS'

CCI

IIa

II)

() !.

R7. /Q7."it ~

. I,C

.... .... ..

1M- J:r,. t.h CJI

$.

';ft. '1ft.

el'

'i!.

;;/:. .

January

February

March

April

S ptember

October

ecember

Q7.- ~ RR- ~~~~T 1-..1+1

, .

~IQ not:" .
90%

80010

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%10%

::I

.... ... ... . . 

a..

...

.c I7J 

... 

(1$ ~ .c .Q .8 .c ~ 

.

04 0 ~ J5 

r .1978-1982 .1997-1998 

. G~1";2 Figure 6. Afosa,spp. impingement mortality rate, original vs modified screens.

.....

1:1

to.:

CJ:CJ:e.:

I'.:

I'.:
SENT BY: 6-28-99; 13:36 tl::t'-t

ffR 

;;;

~Vf 

t:-cSv 

G- G0 PS~G

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS

ESTUARY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM I . o. BOX 236, M/C N33 

HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NJ 08038 

FAX NUMBER: (609)339-1163

TO:

COMPANY/DEPT:

, DATE;

TELEPHONE #: .

FAX #; &8 g27. 593'1 

,.

7\~ y fu~ ~CJ7 557 ?7~b

FROM;

TELEPHONE #:

NO. PAGES:

 

dina this coversheet1

ORIGINALS TO FOLLOW: 0 YES XNO

SUBJECT;

-L~ 

( 

t--~~~ l 1I 

& .:

MESSAGE/COMMENTS:

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The Infonnation Gontalned In this telefacsimile menage Is privileged and cOnfl ntlal, and

Intended only for the use of the Indivldual(s), andlor entity (i8$) narnedabove. If you are not the

Intended reclpiint, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, Istrlbutlon

or taking of anv action In reliance on the contents of the telecopied materials Is stric prohlblted

and review by any individual other than the intended recipient shall not constitute Iyer of the

conndentlallty of the Infonnatlon contained therein. If you have received this Iran mission In

error, please Immediately notify us by telephone (collect) to arrange for the return of materials.

Thank you.

If you any problems receiving this facsimile please contact me at the above

EEP96009