Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0026
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

316B
RULE
TELEPHONE
LOG
Name
of
Caller:
John
Sunda,
SAIC
Date:
July
30,
2002
Company
Name:
US
Filter
Street
Address:

City/
State/
ZIP:

Person
Contacted:
Henry
Petrovs
Title:
Sales
Mgr
Telephone
#:
800­
524­
6324
(
dial
0
operator)
I
had
sent
list
of
questions
previously
to
Glenn
Zetterburg
who
apparently
is
moving
to
another
department.
He
passed
the
questions
on
to
Henry
who
decided
to
answer
as
much
as
possible
when
I
called.
See
questions
and
answers
below.

US
FILTER
RESPONSE
TO
QUESTIONS
FOR
TRAVELING
SCREEN
MANUFACTURERS
OBTAINED
VIA
PHONE
CONTACT
JULY
30,
2002
REPLACING
COARSE
MESH
TRAVELING
SCREENS
WITH
FINE
MESH
TRAVELING
SCREENS
Regarding
equipment
costs,
he
requested
that
we
scan
and
send
via
email
the
confidential
cost
data
sent
to
SAIC/
EPA
previously
so
they
can
develop
updated
costs.
He
said
that
he
could
not
locate
files
of
the
1999
submission.
Note
all
response
information
is
printed
in
italics
and
red
line.

General
1.
In
consultations
and/
or
projects,
how
often
do
you
encounter
site
conditions
at
existing
intakes
where
the
existing
screens
cannot
be
readily
accessed
via
crane?
About
70
to
75%
have
problems
accessing
the
intake
screens
by
crane
from
overhead.
In
that
case
the
screens
are
dismantled
(
screen
panels
removed,
chain
removed
and
screen
structure
removed
in
sections
that
key
into
each
other).
Access
problem
may
be
due
to
structural
cover/
building
and
may
have
access
through
side
wall.
This
may
add
30%
to
the
installation
costs
which
is
typically
$
15,000
to
$
30,000
per
unit.

2.
What
range
of
screen
mesh
opening
sizes
do
you
consider
to
be
"
fine
mesh?"
When
facilities
examine
and/
or
select
finer
mesh
to
reduce
entrainment,
what
is
the
most
common
mesh
size?
Are
there
any
differences
in
the
fine
mesh
sizes
commonly
evaluated
and/
or
selected
for
new
intakes
versus
existing
intake
retrofits?
The
industry
standard
is
3/
8
inch
to
1/
4
inch
where
debris
removal
is
the
function.
They
have
installed
fine
mesh
from
0.5
mm
to
3
mm
but
can
not
provide
a
typical
value.

3.
What
is
the
range
and
typical
spacing
between
multiple
screen
units
at
most
existing
intakes?
In
other
words
how
wide
are
the
columns/
walls
at
the
screen
location?
How
close
can
they
be
if
space
limitation
is
an
issue?
How
much
of
the
well
width
does
the
screen
panel
cover?
For
each
screen
add
1
ft
2
inches
to
screen
width
for
well
width.
Distance
between
screen
housings
ranges
from
6
inches
to
4
ft
(
typical
value
is
2
ft).
For
new
systems
recommend
3
ft
for
better
equipment
accessability.

4.
How
practical
is
it
to
replace
screen
panels
only,
versus
replacing
the
entire
mechanical
unit?
When
finer
mesh
is
required,
how
practical
or
common
is
it
to
replace
screen
panels
only?
What
is
the
deciding
factor?
What
are
the
relative
cost
savings
compared
to
replacing
the
entire
screen
unit?
They
did
this
at
Northern
States
Prairie
Island
Plant.
In
this
case
and
others
the
fine
mesh
screens
are
installed
on
a
seasonal
basis.
The
reason
they
change
back
to
coarse
mesh
is
that
during
other
times
large
debris
such
as
leaves
causes
screen
clogging
problems
which
can
require
greater
monitoring
of
the
screens.
It
takes
a
2­
3
man
(
2
for
small
and
3
for
big
screens)
crew
1.5
hours
per
basket.
The
baskets
are
2
ft
tall
and
the
screen
extends
above
the
well.
A
15
ft
screen
well
depth
will
have
18
baskets,
a
90
ft
well
will
have
93
baskets.
Adding
fine
mesh
screens
as
an
option
will
increase
costs
about
30%.
Note
screen
replacement
can
be
done
while
the
screen
is
still
functioning
but
at
times
of
low
debris
&
fish
loading.
Each
panel
is
replaced
and
screen
is
rotated
between
each
panel
installation.

5.
Can
wedgewire
type
screen
panels
be
used
on
traveling
screens?
They
have
looked
into
this
and
concluded
it
is
feasible.
But
when
the
cost
has
been
relayed
to
the
customer,
the
customer
decided
the
higher
costs
were
not
worth
it.
So
they
have
not
done
this
yet.
He
estimates
using
wedgewire
will
add
60%
to
the
cost
of
the
screen
panels
alone.
He
thinks
Beaudrey
and
Brackett
Green
may
have
some
experience.

6.
What
problems
may
be
encountered
in
replacing
coarse
mesh
with
fine
mesh
traveling
screens
(
either
screen
panel
only
or
entire
unit).
What
are
the
typical
solutions?
Specifically,
­
Problems
with
collection
of
additional
debris?
Yes
as
noted
above
some
replace
coarse
mesh
screens
during
periods
when
fish
are
not
affected.
­
Problems
with
increase
in
through
screen
velocity?
Yes
in
that
finer
mesh
will
tend
to
plug
up
faster
and
result
in
less
time
to
react
­
may
require
more
monitoring
by
personnel.
­
Other
problems
(
describe)
Will
require
additional
spray
headers
and
therefore
more
spraywater,
larger
spraywater
pumps
and
may
depend
on
type
of
pumps
used
(
example
$
8,000
increase)
.
7.
Can
replacement
of
through
flow
with
dual
flow
(
double
entry
single
exit)
screens
be
used
to
increase
screen
area
and
thus
reduce
through
screen
velocities
and
reduce
impingement?
For
new
systems
the
answer
is
yes,
but
for
existing
systems
the
answer
is
generally
no.
Part
of
the
problem
is
that
the
existing
screen
well
dimensions
require
a
dual
screen
width
of
less
than
half
the
through
screen
width
For
example,
an
11
ft
screen
will
have
a
5.3
ft
space
in
front
resulting
in
a
4
ft
wide
screen
which
even
though
the
total
screen
area
is
double
is
still
less
than
the
original.
Thus,
the
screen
lost
2
ft
of
width.
Add
to
this
issues
with
differential
velocities
and
changes
in
direction
and
potential
for
vortexing
and
pump
cavitation,
USF
generally
does
not
recommend
dual
flow
retrofits.

8.
What
is
the
%
open
space
for
typical
coarse
mesh
traveling
screens
(
e.
g.,
3/
8
inch)
that
were
evaluated
and/
or
installed
at
power
plant
intakes
in
the
past?
If
not
known,
what
is
a
typical
wire
gauge?
What
is
the
%
open
space
for
different
sized
fine
mesh
screens?
He
recommends
we
contact
screen
wire
cloth
manufacturers
and
their
catalogs.
Companies
in
clude
Cambridge
Wire
Cloth
(
Casmbridge
MD)
and
Phoenix
Wire.
As
examples
a
3/
8
inch
mesh
with
14
gauge
wire
has
54%
open
space
compared
to
a
1
mm
mesh
with
32%
open
space.
9.
Are
you
aware
of
any
recent
retrofit
installations
where
the
system
capacity
or
flow
volume
was
not
increased,
yet
substantial
civil/
structural
modifications
were
necessary?
No.
If
so:
­
What
was
done
and
why?
­
What
was
the
facility
name
and
location?
­
What
were
costs
or
who
can
we
contact
for
cost
information?

Equipment
Costs
10.
EPA
previously
obtained
1999
costs
for
single
entry
single
exit
traveling
screens
with
the
structural
component
made
of
carbon
steel
coated
with
epoxy
paint
and
screens
made
of
304
stainless
steel,
with
non­
metallic
baskets.
Can
you
provide
delivered
equipment
costs
for
comparable
(
freshwater)
fine
mesh
(
using
most
common
mesh
size
from
above)
screen
units
with
widths
in
the
range
of
5,
10,
14
­
15
ft
and
well
depths
in
the
range
of
10,
25,
50,
75,
&
100ft?
The
1999
traveling
screen
costs
included:
­
Non­
metallic
fish
handling
panels
­
Spray
systems
­
Fish
trough
­
Housings
and
transitions
­
Continuous
operating
features
­
Drive
unit
­
Frame
seals
­
Engineering
He
would
like
to
see
what
data
was
submitted
in
1999
first.

If
we
are
unable
to
obtain
updated
costs
we
may
use
the
ENR
Construction
Cost
Index
which
results
in
a
capital
cost
increase
of
9%
when
updating
1999
costs
to
July
2002.
Do
you
feel
that
this
reasonably
reflects
the
actual
changes
over
this
period?
Can't
comment
on
this.

11.
What
equipment
materials
do
you
recommend
(
or
are
commonly
selected)
for
corrosive
environments,
such
as
brackish
and
saltwater?
What
is
the
most
common
material
selected
for
saltwater
environments?
­
Carbon
Steel
with
epoxy
coating
(
freshwater)
can
work
in
saltwater
if
used
with
cathodic
protection
­
304
Stainless
Steel
is
standard
for
screen
panels
in
freshwater
­
316
Stainless
Steel
throughout
can
be
used
for
saltwater
­
70/
30
Copper
Nickel
­
90/
10
Copper
Nickel
For
Zebra
mussels
most
solutions
use
special
paints
or
coatings
for
non­
screen
components.
Generally,
Zebra
Mussels
do
not
colonize
the
screens.
Biggest
problem
is
that
when
they
die
the
shells
abrade
the
pumps
and
clog
the
condensers.
Copper
Nickel
alloys
are
used
to
control
biofouling
through
leaching
of
copper
metal.
Calvert
Cliffs
uses
a
70/
30
Copper
nickel
alloy
to
retard
marine
growth
12.
Can
you
provide
equipment
costs
of
this
corrosion
resistant
equipment
or
provide
relative
equipment
cost
difference
compared
to
freshwater
unit,
such
as
a
cost
factor
or
percent
increase?
Use
of
all
stainless
steel
(
316)
will
increase
screen
costs
by
2
to
2.5
times
cost
for
freshwater
unit.

13.
What
waterbodies
are
experiencing
problems
with
Zebra
mussels
and
how
much
extra
are
the
equipment
costs
for
special
alloy
construction
or
comparable
materials?
Again
mostly
a
paint
or
coating
issue
no
estimate
provided.

14.
If
you
indicated
replacing
screen
panels
only
is
practical,
can
you
provide
estimates
of
the
costs
for
replacing
the
panels
only,
including
both
equipment
and
installation?
As
noted
above
add
30%
for
fine
mesh
screens
but
note
that
screens
may
be
installed
seasonally
and
require
additional
O&
M
costs
associated
with
changeout
and
increased
monitoring.

15.
Please
provide
a
description
of
installation
methods
and
typical
costs
for
screen
units,
and
whether
you
perform
such
services
including
differences
for
wet
versus
dry
installation.
Also
discuss
relative
cost
of
removal
and
disposal
of
existing
screens
(
are
the
costs
minimal?).
In
general,
about
80
to
85%
of
intakes
have
stopgates
or
stop
logs
for
dewatering
screen
wells.
In
an
example
with
a
dewatered
(
dry)
well,
3
screens
costing
$
450,000
(
I
believe
these
are
15
ft)
their
installation
costs
were
$
60,000
resulting
in
about
14%
(
percent
goes
up
for
smaller
units).
Add
to
this
the
cost
of
a
crane
($
15,000
to
$
20,000)
and
forklift
for
unloading.

16.
Are
there
any
special
considerations
for
nuclear
facilities
(
e.
g.,
does
screen
framing
need
to
be
stronger
and
more
resistant
to
collapse)
and
how
do
the
special
considerations
affect
equipment
selection,
costs
and/
or
performance?
Are
there
any
other
situations
where
similar
requirements
are
common?
Can
you
provide
an
equipment
cost
factor
for
selecting
screens
that
meet
these
requirements
versus
typical
non­
nuclear
installations?
Yes.
The
hassles
of
security
issues,
more
paperwork,
the
fact
that
security
personnel
must
observe
everything
add
costs
as
well
as
the
need
for
equipment
with
higher
seismic
performance
and
collapse
protection
increases
costs
by
about
1.5
to
2.0.

17.
Would
converting
to
fine
mesh
screens
have
a
significant
effect
on
O&
M
costs?
If
so
how
much
and
why?
One
difference
is
the
need
to
maintain
tighter
seals
on
fine
mesh.
Typical
3/
8
in
mesh
has
running
clearances
of
1/
4
in.
Tighter
seals
costs
5
to
10%
(
greater
for
deeper
screens)
of
equipment
costs
and
require
monitoring
every
5
yr.
Other
costs
such
as
increased
operation
and
debris
are
marginal.

Construction
Duration
18.
When
replacing
existing
screen
units
(
or
screen
panels
only),
approximately
how
long
would
the
intake
bay
and/
or
pumping
unit
need
to
be
shut
down?
As
noted
earlier
if
just
panels
are
replaced
then
no
downtime
is
needed.
In
general
it
takes
3
to
7
days
(
larger
value
if
unit
must
be
broken
down).
Usually
scheduled
during
routine
downtime.
If
more
than
one
screen
feed
a
pump
they
are
usually
designed
such
that
one
screen
can
handle
full
pump
flow.

Testing
19.
Once
the
new
screens
are
installed,
what
kind
of
performance
testing
is
typically
required?
Is
this
often
part
of
the
package
if
you
perform
installation?
What
are
typical
costs
and
how
do
these
costs
compare
to
other
construction/
equipment
costs?
What
factors
affect
the
costs?
Startup
test
costs
are
generally
insignificant.
In
general,
it
takes
one
trip
and
two
days
and
it
may
be
a
separate
charge.

ADDING
FISH
HANDLING
AND
RETURN
The
following
questions
inquire
about
adding
a
fish
handling
and
return
system
to
an
intake
with
traveling
screens
where
no
fish
return
existed
before.
This
can
involve
either
retrofitting
existing
screens
with
fish
handling
features
or
putting
in
new
screening
units.
In
either
case,
the
questions
also
focus
on
the
costs
and
technical
aspects
of
the
addition
of
a
fish
return
sluice/
conduit
(
and
possibly
fish
pumps).

20.
Do
you
sell
fish
return
retrofit
systems
for
existing
traveling
screens?
Can
most
existing
screens
be
retrofitted
without
replacing
the
entire
unit?
When
is
it
more
practical/
economical
to
replace
the
whole
screening
unit?
What
are
the
costs
for
adding
fish
buckets,
spray
systems
and
troughs
either
in
relation
to
other
costs
cited
or
for
equipment
sizes
described
earlier?
How
much
would
the
addition
of
fish
buckets
only
reduce
cost
over
replacing
entire
screen
unit?
While
it
is
certainly
possible,
costs
will
depend
on
how
much
must
be
replaced.
In
addition
unless
we
did
the
original
installation
we
can't
be
sure
of
what
modifications
were
made
to
the
original
equipment
which
may
cause
installation
problems.
A
retrofit
with
replacement
of
baskets
(
necesssary)
replacemebnt
of
chain,
elevate
head
section
to
add
new
spray
and
trough
with
rear
discharge
will
cost
about
80%
of
new
unit.
We
agreed
that
in
general
(
and
especially
for
my
effort)
a
fish
handling
retrofit
does
not
save
enough
over
replacing
the
unit
to
be
worth
it.

21.
How
do
you
determine
the
design
flow
volume
for
the
fish
return
conduit?
Generally,
what
proportion
of
the
intake
flow
is
diverted
to
the
fish
return?
Note
that
in
past
it
was
OK
to
return
debris
to
the
waterway
but
now
if
you
remove
it
you
must
dispose
of
it.
Rarely
is
debris
combined
with
fish
return.
Could
not
come
up
with
a
general
figure
but
gave
the
following
example:
a
screen
with
a
6.5
ft
wide
basket
width
requires
244
gpm
spraywater
with
113
for
debris,
104
for
two
fish
spray
headers
and
27
for
auxiliary
(
fish)
for
a
total
of
131
for
the
fish
return
system.
Note
that
varying
well
depth
does
not
change
these
figures.
Another
example
a
10
ft
wide
screen
without
fish
handling
required
260
gpm
22.
Do
you
design,
provide,
or
install
fish
return
equipment
such
as
pumps
and
return
conduit?
Not
the
conduit.
Was
not
aware
of
need
for
fish
pumps.
If
so:
­
How
are
the
return
pipes/
flume
configured
and
sized?
­
Is
there
a
minimum
diameter
to
accommodate
large
fish?
­
What
are
typical
slopes
and
velocities?
­
If
pipes
are
used,
do
they
tend
to
flow
full?
­
What
materials
of
construction
are
used
for
fish
return
conduits
(
fiberglass)?
Sometimes
a
requirement
for
a
short
conduit
combined
with
a
high
elevation
change
requires
the
use
of
spiral
arrangement
to
keep
velocities
down.
Typical
(
there
is
none)
is
40
to
60
ft.
One
facility
ion
RI
required
500
ft
to
get
past
flood
gates.
Sometimes
pipes
are
used.

23.
EPA
Survey
data
show
few
existing
traveling
screen
return
systems
use
fish
pumps.
Under
what
circumstances
would
fish
pumps
be
necessary?
He
has
no
experience
here
suggesting
this
is
rare.

24.
Do
you
have
any
cost
data
to
share
for
adding
fish
return
systems,
especially
fish
pumps
and
return
conduits?
In
general,
what
are
typical
equipment
and
installation
unit
costs
for
the
conduit
and
support
structure
for
return
flows
associated
with
intakes
with
capacities
of
5,000
gpm
to
500,000
gpm?
If
not
available,
who
should
we
contact
for
more
information?
They
do
not
do
flumes
or
pumps.

25.
What
is
the
typical
range
of
return
conduit
lengths?
How
does
waterbody
type
influence
return
conduit
length?
For
example,
do
lengths
tend
to
be
shorter
for
non­
tidal
rivers
and
streams?
See
Question
22
26.
Would
there
be
any
difference
in
intake
downtime
when
adding
fish
handling
features
compared
to
downtime
for
screen
replacement?
No
27.
What
additional
O&
M
cost
would
be
associated
with
a
fish
return
system
besides
the
operation
of
the
screens?
None