/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 J:J:l'-t 

### 13:36 ;#' 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 Planne 

### d, 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: pr7vious 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"" ,",

~ \Iw l." ",...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;;;;(P c. 

### 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 andPSE&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. ;?~J.ij/2H



## ltl- 1~; ~U ;

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 in May. 

### June. and July) had mortality estimates below the hi.~torical marrali y estimates: 

# ~d

. 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- Related Losses at the Salem Generating S

## tation. Co. ECSI. iddletown. 

# Delaware. 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 

## I ~ June 366 473 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 lifePSE&G Renewal Application 4 March 1999Exhibit 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)

.JooSENT 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 : tv:~t : 66-96-9 :),,9 OOS" .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:r:r ~ vv:CI ~ SB- R('.-

: , '-9 .L\9s"Ci) eel ::I &:to . n CO)

... . S' (I)

!!. ~7./ 1.7.:it!

'""'" """'" tit t.A tit tit

';/. "$. '*' ?f. t1.

';/!. January February March August

..... eptember \l:) ....:a October ovember recember ...-.r:::r:::r ! tt:RT

! ~~- Ql- : HI Hr:J~' ...10. "T1

.... . ~ .. "g. ::II CD: ::II IS' CCI IIa II)

(') !' . R7. /Q7."it ~

'""" . I,C

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

"$. '1ft. ';ft. el' 'i!.

'#. ';;/:. January February March April S ptember October ecember 1-..1+1 ~~~~T ~ RR- Q7.-

, . ~IQ not:" .30%90%8001070%60%50%40%20%10%::I~ -: ~........... .a.....-.cI7J... ~(1$ ~.c.Q.8.c ~~ .04 0 ~J5r .1978-1982.1997-1998. G~1";2Figure 6. Afosa,spp. impingement mortality rate, original vs modified screens.. '1:1to.:CJ:CJ:e.:I'.:.....I'.:SENT BY: 

### 6-28-99; 13:36 tl::t'-t 

# ffR 

# ~;;;

~Vft:-cSv

### G- G

# 0 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 cover 

## sheet1



# 0 YES XNO ORIGINALS TO FOLLOW: 

## 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