Technical Development Document for
the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing
Facilities Rule
February 12, 2004
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 821-R-04-007
DCN 6-0004
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule TDD Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Technology Cost Modules
Introduction
1.0 Submerged Passive Intakes
1.1 Relocated Shore-based Intake to Submerged Near-shore and Offshore with Fine Mesh Passive Screens at Inlet
1.1.1 Selection/Derivation of Cost Input Values
1.1.2 Capital Cost Development
1.2 Add Submerged Fine Mesh Passive Screens to Existing Offshore Intakes
References
Attachment A
Table Al
Table A2
Figures 1-1 to 1-17 [pg 22 to 38]
2.0 Improvements to Existing Shoreline Intakes with Traveling Screens [pg 39]
2.1 Replace Existing Traveling Screens with New Traveling Screen Equipment
2.1.1 Traveling Screen Capital Costs
2.1.2 Downtime Requirements
2.1.3 O&M Cost Development
2.1.4 Double Entry-Single Exit (Dual-Flow) Traveling Screens
2.2 New Larger Intake Structure for Decreasing Intake Velocities [pg 54]
Reference [pg 59]
Tables 2-8 to 2-13 and 2-21 to 2-26 [pg 60 to 65]
Figures 2-1 to 2-6 and 2-7 to 2-12 [pg 66 to78]
3.0 Existing Submerged Offshore Intakes - Add Velocity Caps [pg 79]
3.1 Capital Costs
3.2 O&M Costs
3.3 Application
References
Tables 3-1 to 3-2
Figures 3-1 to 3-2
4.0 Fish Barrier Nets [pg 85]
4.1 Capital Cost Development
4.2 O&M Costs Development
4.3 Nuclear Facilities
4.4 Application
References
Figure 4-1 to 4-2
5.0 Aquatic Filter Barriers [pg97]
5.1 Capital Cost Development
5.2 O&M Costs
5.3 Application
References
Figure 5-1
6.0 Determining Fixed Versus Variable O&M Costs
6.1 Overall Approach
6.2 Estimating the Fixed/Variable O&M Cost Mix
6.3 O&M Fixed Cost Factors
Chapter 2: Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Introduction
1.0 Technology Cost Modules Applied to Model Facilities
2.0 Examples of the Application of Technology Cost Modules to Model Facilities
3.0 Regional Cost Factors
4.0 Repowering Facilities and Model Facility Costs
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule TDD Table of Contents
Chapter 3: Cost-Cost Test
Introduction
1.0 Site-Specific Requirements - The Cost to Cost Test
2.0 Determining Facility's Costs
3.0 Cost to Cost Test
4.0 Cost Correction
Chapter 4: Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Introduction
1.0 Data Collection Overview
1.1 Scope of Data Collection Efforts
1.2 Technology Database
1.3 Data Limitations
1.4 Conventional Traveling Screens
1.5 Closed-Cycle Wet Cooling System Performance
2.0 Alternative Technologies
2.1 Modified Traveling Screens and Fish Handling and Return Systems
2.1.1 Example Studies
2.1.2 Summary
2.2 Cylindrical Wedgewire Screens
2.2.1 Example Studies
2.2.2 Other Facilities
2.2.3 Summary
2.3 Fine-Mesh Screens
2.3.1 Example Facilitie s
2.3.2 Other Facilities
2.3.3 Summary
2.4 Fish Net Barriers
2.4.1 Example Studies
2.4.2 Summary
2.5 Aquatic Microfiltration Barriers
2.6 Louver Systems
2.7 Angled and Modular Inclined Screens
2.8 Velocity Caps
2.9 Porous Dikes and Leaky Dams
2.10 Behavioral Systems
2.11 Other Technology Alternatives
2.12 Intake Location
3.0 Conclusion
Reference
Attachment A Cooling Water Intake Structure Technology Fact Sheets
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Chapter 1: Technology Cost Modules
INTRODUCTION
In the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (68 FR 13522, March 19, 2003), the Agency presented an approach for developing
compliance costs that included a broad range of compliance technologies as opposed to the approach used for the proposal, which
was based on a limited set of technologies. This chapter presents the technology cost modules used by the Agency to develop
compliance costs at model facilities for the final rule. The Agency presents further technical information on the technology cost
modules, including its analysis of the confidence of the cost estimates, inDCN 6-3584 in the record of the final rule. Chapter 2 of
this document describes the Agency's methodology for assigned particular cost modules to model facilities.
1.0 SUBMERGED PASSIVE INTAKES
The modules described in this section involve submerged passive intakes, and address both adding technologies to the inlet of
existing submerged intakes and converting shoreline based intakes (e.g., shoreline intakes with traveling screens) to submerged
offshore intakes with added passive inlet technologies. The passive inlet technologies that are considered include passive screens and
velocity caps. All intakes relocated from shore-based to submerged offshore are assumed to employ either a velocity cap or passive
screens. Costs for velocity caps are presented separately in Section 3.
1.1 RELOCATED SHORE-BASED INTAKE TO SUBMERGED NEAR-SHORE AND OFFSHORE WITH FINE MESH
PASSIVE SCREENS AT INLET
This section contains three sections. The first two sections respectively present documentation for passive screen technology
selection and estimation parameters; and for development of capital costs for submerged passive intakes. This discussion includes:
passive screen technology selection, selection of flow values, intake configurations, connecting walls, and connecting pipes. The
second section discusses cost development for: screen construction materials, connecting walls, pipe manifolds, airburst systems,
indirect costs, nuclear facilities, O&M costs, construction-related downtime. The third section presents a discussion of the
applicability of this cost module.
1.1.1 SELECTION/DERIVATION OF COST INPUT VALUES
Passive Screen Technology Selection
Passive screens come in one of three general configurations: flat panel, cylindrical, and cylindrical T-type. Only passive screens
constructed of welded wedgewire were considered due to the improved performance of wedgewire with respect to debris and fish
protection. After discussion with vendors concerning the attributes and prevalence of the various passive screen technology
configurations, EPA selected the T-screen configuration as the most versatile with respect to a variety of local intake and waterbody
attributes. The most important screen attribute was the requirement for screen placement. Both cylindrical and T-screens allow for
placement of the screens extending into the waterbody, which allows for debris to migrate away from the screens once dislodged. T-
screens produce greater flow per screen unit and thus were chosen because they are more practical in multi-screen installations.
Due to the potential for build-up and plugging by debris, passive screens are usually installed with an airburst backwash system. This
system includes a compressor, an accumulator (also known as, receiver), controls, a distributor and air piping that directs a burst of
air into each screen. The air burst produces a rapid backflow through the screen; this air-induced turbulence dislodges accumulated
debris, which then drifts away from the screen unit. Vendors claimed (although with minimal data) that only very stagnant water
with a high debris load or very shallow water (<2 ft deep) would prevent use of this screen technology. Areas with low water
velocities would simply require more frequent airburst backwashes, and few facilities are constrained by water depths as shallow as 2
feet.
While there are waterbodies with levels of debris low enough to preclude installation of an airburst system, EPA has chosen to
include an airburst backwash system with each T-screen installation as a prudent precaution. The capital cost of the airburst
backwash system is a substantial component, particularly in offshore applications, because of the need to install a separate air supply
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
pipe from the shoreline air supply to each screen or group of smaller screens. Thus, the assumption that airburst backwash systems
are needed in all applications is considered as part of an overall cost approach that increases projected capital costs to the industry to
develop a high-side cost estimate.
T-screens ranging in diameter from 2 feet (T24) to 8 feet (T96), in one-foot intervals, are used in the analysis. Costs provided are for
two types of screens one with a slot size of approximately 1.75 mm referred to as "fine mesh" and one with a slot size of 0.76 mm
referred to as "very fine mesh." The design flow values used for each size screen correspond to wedgewire T-screens with a through
screen velocity of 0.5 fps. Tables 1-1 and 1-2 presents design specifications for the fine mesh and very fine mesh wedgewire T-
screens costed.
TABLE 1-1
Fine Mesh Passive T-Screen Design Specifications
Screen
Size
T24
T36
T48
T60
T72
T84
T96
Capacity
apm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
Slot Size
mm
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Screen
Lenath
Ft
6.3
9.3
13.3
16.6
19.8
22.9
26.4
Airburst
Pipie
Diameter
Inches
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
Screen
Outlet
Diameter
Inches
18
30
36
42
48
60
72
Screen
Weiaht
Lbs
375
1,050
1,600
2,500
4,300
6,000
NA
*Source: Johnson Screen - Brochure 2002 - High Capacity Screen at 50% Open Area
TABLE 1-2
Very Fine Mesh Passive T-Screen Design Specifications
Screen
Size
T24
T36
T48
T60
T72
T84
T96
Capacity
apm
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
Slot Size
mm
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
Screen
Length
Ft
6.3
9.3
13.3
16.6
19.8
22.9
26.4
Airburst
Pipie
Diameter
Inches
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
Screen
Outlet
Diameter
Inches
18
30
36
42
48
60
72
Screen
Weiaht
Lbs
375
1,050
1,600
2,500
4,300
6,000
NA
*Source: Johnson Screen - Brochure 2002 - High Capacity Screen at 33% Open Are
1-2
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Selection of Flow Values
The flow values used in the development of cost equations range from a design flow of 2,500 gpm (which is the design flow for the
smallest screen (T24) for which costs were obtained) to a flow of 163,000 gpm (which is equivalent to the design flow of four T96
screens) for fine mesh screens and 1,680 gpm to 165,000 (which is equivalent to the design flow of six T96 screens) for very fine
mesh screens. The higher flow values were chosen because they were nearly equal to the flow in a 10-foot diameter pipe at a pipe
velocity of just 4.6 fps. A 10-foot diameter pipe was chosen as the largest size for individual pipes because this size was within the
range of sizes that are capable of being installed using the technology assumed in the cost model. Additionally, the need to spread
out the multiple screens across the bottom is facilitated by multiple pipes. One result of this decision is that for facilities with design
flows significantly greater than 165,000 gpm, the total costs are based on dividing the intake into multiple units and summing the
costs of each.
Intake Configuration
The scenarios evaluated in this analysis are based on retrofit construction in which the new passive screens are connected to the
existing intake by newly installed pipes, while the existing intake pumps and pump wells remain intact and functional. The cost
scenario also retains the existing screen wells and bays, since in most cases they are connected directly to the pump wells. Facilities
may retain the existing traveling screens as a backup, but the retention of functioning traveling screens is not necessary. No operating
costs are considered for the existing screens since they are not needed. Even if they are retained, there should be almost no debris to
collect on their surfaces. Thus, they would only need to be operated on an infrequent basis to ensure they remain functional.
The new passive screens are placed along the bottom of the waterway in front of the existing intake and connected to the existing
intake with pipes that are laid either directly on or buried below the stream bed. The key components of the retrofit are: the transition
connection to the existing intake, the connecting pipe or pipes (a.k.a. manifold or header), the passive screens or velocity cap located
at the pipe inlet, and if passive screens are used, the backwash system.
At most of the T-screen retrofit installations, particularly those requiring more than one screen, the installation of passive T-screens
will likely require relocating the intake to a near-shore location or to a submerged location farther offshore, depending on the screen
spacing, water depth, and other requirements. An exception would be smaller flow intakes where the screen could be connected
directly to the front of the intake with a minimal pipe length (e.g., half screen diameter). Other considerations that may make locating
farther offshore necessary or desirable include: the availability of cooler water, lower levels of debris, and fewer aquatic organisms
for placements outside the littoral zone. As such, costs have been developed for a series of distances from the shoreline.
In retrofits where flow requirements do not increase, EPA has found existing pumps and pump wells can be, and have been, retained
as part of the new system. The cost scenarios assume flow volumes do not increase. Thus, using existing pumps and pump wells is
both feasible and economically prudent. There are, however, two concerns regarding the use of existing pumps and pump wells. One
is the degree of additional head loss associated with the new pipes and screens. The second is the intake downtime needed to
complete the installation and connection of the new passive screen system or velocity cap. The downtime considerations are
discussed later in a separate section.
The additional head losses associated with the passive screen retrofit scenario described here include the frictional losses in the
connecting pipes and the losses through the screen surface. If the new connecting pipe velocities are kept low (e.g., 5 fps is used in
this analysis), then the head loss in the extension pipe should remain low enough to allow the existing pumps to function properly in
most instances. For example, a 48-inch diameter pipe at a flow of 28,000 gpm (average velocity of 4.96 fps) will have a head loss of
2.31 feet of water per 1,000-foot pipe length (Shaw and Loomis 1970). The new passive screens will contribute an additional 0.5 to
0.75 feet of water to this head loss, which will further increase when the screen is clogged by debris (Screen Services 2002). In fact,
the rate at which this screen head loss increases due to debris build-up will dictate the frequency of use of the air backwash. Pump
wells are generally equipped with alarms that warn of low water levels due to increased head loss through the intake. If the screen
becomes plugged to the point where backwash fails to maintain the necessary water level in the pump well, the pump flow rate must
be reduced. This reduction may result in a derating or shut down of the associated generating unit. Lower than normal surface water
levels may exacerbate this problem.
In terms of required dimensions for installation, Tables 1-1 and 1-2 show screen length is just over three times the diameter and each
screen requires a minimum clearance of one-half diameter on all sides except the ends. Thus, an 8-foot diameter screen will require a
minimum water depth of 16 feet at the screen location (four feet above, four feet below, and eight feet for the screen itself). It is
recommended that T-screens be oriented such that the long axis is parallel to the waterbody flow direction. T-screens can be
arranged in an end-to-end configuration if necessary. However, using a greater separation above the minimum will facilitate
dispersion of the released accumulated debris during screen backwashes.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
In the retrofit scenario described here, screen size and number are based on using a single screen with the screen size increasing with
increasing design flows. When flow exceeds the capacity of a single T96 screen, multiple T96 screens are used. This retrofit
scenario also assumes the selected screen location has a minimum water depth equal to or greater than the values shown in Table 1-3.
TABLE 1-3
Minimum Depth at Screen Location
For Single Screen Scenario
Fine Mesh
Flow
2,500 gpm
5,700 gpm
10,000 gpm
15,800 gpm
22,700 gpm
3 1,000 gpm
40,750 gpm
>40,750 gpm
Very Fine
Mesh Flow
1,680 gpm
3,850 gpm
6,750 gpm
10,700 gpm
15,300 gpm
20,900 gpm
27,500 gpm
>27,500 gpm
Screen Size
T24
T36
T48
T60
T72
T84
T96
Multiple T96
Minimum Depth
4ft
6ft
8ft
10ft
12ft
14ft
16ft
16ft
In certain instances water depth or other considerations will require using a greater number of smaller diameter screens. For these
cases the same size header pipe can be used, but the intake will require either more branched piping or multiple connections along the
header pipe.
Connecting Wall
The retrofit of passive T-screen technology where the existing pump well and pumps are retained will require a means of connecting
the new screen pipes to the pump well. Pump wells that are an integral part of shoreline intakes (often the case) will require
installing a wall in front of the existing intake pump well or screen bays. This wall serves to block the existing intake opening and to
connect the T-screen pipe(s) to the existing intake pump wells. In the proposed cost scenario, the T-screen pipe(s) can be attached
directly to holes passing through the wall at the bottom.
Two different types of construction have been used in past retrofits or have been proposed in feasibility studies. In one, a wall
constructed of steel plates is attached to and covers the front of each intake bay or pump well, such that one or more connecting pipes
feed water into each screen bay or pump well individually. In this scenario, a single steel plate or several interlocking plates are
affixed to the front of the screen bays by divers, and the T-screen pipe manifolds are then attached to flanged fittings welded at the
bottom of the plate(s). For smaller flow intakes that require a single screen, this may be the best configuration since the screen can be
attached directly to the front of the intake minimizing the intrusion of the retrofit operation into the waterway.
In the second scenario, an interlocking sheet pile wall is installed in the waterbody directly in front of, and running the length of, the
existing intake. Individual screen manifold pipe(s) are attached to holes cut in the bottom along the length of the sheet pile wall. In
this case, a common plenum between the sheet pile wall and the existing intake runs the length of the intake. This configuration
provides the best performance from an operational standpoint because it allows for flow balancing between the screen/pump bays and
the individual manifold pipes. If there are no concerns with obstructing the waterway, the sheet pile wall can be placed far enough out
so that the portion of the wall parallel to the intake can be installed first along with the pipes and screens that extend further offshore.
In this case, the plenum ends are left open so that the intake can remain functional until the offshore construction is completed. At
that point, the intake must shut down to install the final end portions of the wall, the air piping connection to the air supply, and make
final connections of the manifold pipes. EPA is not aware of any existing retrofits where this construction technique has been used.
However, it has been proposed in a feasibility study where a new, larger intake was to be constructed offshore (see discussion in
Construction Downtime Section).
Costs were developed for this module based on the second scenario described above. These costs are assumed equal or greater than
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
costs for steel plate(s) affixed to the existing intake opening, and therefore inclusive of either approach. This assumption is based on
the use of a greater amount of steel material for sheet piles (which is offset somewhat by the fabrication cost for the steel plates), the
use of similarly-sized heavy equipment (pile driver versus crane), and similar diver costs for constructing pipe connections and
reinforcements in the sheet pile wall versus installing plates. Costs were developed for both freshwater environments and, with the
inclusion a cost factor for coating the steel with a corrosion-resistant material, for saltwater environments.
Connecting Pipes
The design (length and configuration) of the connecting pipes (also referred to as pipe manifold or header) is partly dictated by intake
flow and water depth. A review of the pipe diameter and design flow data submitted to EPA by facilities with submerged offshore
intakes indicates intake pipe velocities at design flow were typically around 5 fps. Note that a minimum of 2.5 to 3 fps is
recommended to prevent deposition of sediment and sand in the pipe (Metcalf & Eddy 1972). Also, calculations based on vendor
data concerning screen attachment flange size and design flow data resulted in pipe velocities ranging from 3.2 to 4.5 fps for the
nominal size pipe connection. EPA has elected to size the connecting pipes based on a typical design pipe velocity of 5 fps.
Even at 5 fps, the piping requirements are substantial. For example, if the existing intake has traveling screens with a high velocity
(e.g., 2.5 fps through-screen velocity), then the cross-sectional area of the intake pipe needed to provide the same flow would be
approximately one-third of the existing screen area (assuming existing screen open area is 68%). Given the above assumptions, an
existing intake with a 10-foot wide traveling screen and a 20-foot water depth would require a 9.4-foot diameter pipe and be
connected to at least four 8-foot diameter fine mesh T-screens (T96). The flow rate for this hypothetical intake screen would be
155,000 gpm.
For small volume flows (40,750 gpm or less for fine mesh-see Table 1-3), T-screens (particularly those with a single screen unit) can
be installed very close to the existing intake structure, as the upstream or downstream extensions of the screen should not be an issue.
In the 10-foot wide by 20-foot deep traveling screen example above, each of the T96 screens required is 26 feet long. For this
example, it is possible to place the four T96 screens directly in front of the existing intake connected to a single manifold extending
56 feet (2*8+2*8+2*8+8) to the centerline of the last T-screen. This is based on a configuration where the manifold has multiple
ports (four in this case) spaced along the top. However, this configuration will experience some flow imbalance between the screens.
A better configuration would be a single pipe branching twice in a double "H" arrangement. In this case, the total pipe length would
be 62 feet (20+26+2*8). Therefore, a minimum pipe length of 66 feet (20 meters) was selected to cover the pipe installation costs for
screens installed close to the intake.
Based on the above discussion, facilities with design flow values requiring multiple manifold pipes (i.e., >163,000 gpm) will require
the screens to extend even further out. In these cases, costs for a longer pipe size are appropriate. Using a longer pipe allows for
individual screens to be spread out laterally and/or longitudinally. Longer pipes would also tend to provide access to deeper water
where larger screens can be used. While using smaller screens allows for operations in shallower water, many more screens would be
needed. This configuration covers a greater bottom area and requires more branching and longer, but smaller, pipes. Therefore, with
the exception of the lower intake flow facilities, a length of connecting pipe longer than66 feet (20 meters) is assumed to be required.
The next assumed pipe length is 410 feet (125 meters), based on the Phase I proposed rule cost estimates. A length of 125 meters was
selected in Phase I costing as a reasonable estimate for extending intakes beyond the littoral zone. Additional lengths of 820 feet
(250 meters) and 1640 feet (500 meters) were selected to cover the possible range of intake distances. The longest distance (1640
feet) is similar in magnitude to the intake distances reported for many of the Phase II facilities with offshore intakes located on large
bodies of water, such as oceans and Great Lakes.
As described in the document Economic and Engineering Analyses of the Proposed Section 316(b) New Facility Rule. Appendix A,
submerged intake pipes can be constructed in two ways. One construction uses steel that is concrete-lined and coated on the outside
with epoxy and a concrete overcoat. The second construction uses prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP). Steel is generally used
for lake applications; both steel and PCCP are used for riverine applications; PCCP is typically used in ocean applications. A review
of the submerged pipe laying costs developed for the Phase I proposed rule showed that the costs of installing steel and PCCP pipe
using the conventional method were similar, with steel being somewhat higher in cost. EPA has thus elected to use the Phase I cost
methodology for conventional steel pipe as representative of the cost for both steel and concrete pipes installed in all waterbodies.
The conventional pipe laying method was selected because it could be performed in front of an existing intake and was least affected
by the limitations associated with local topography.
While other methods such as the bottom-pull or micro-tunneling methods could potentially be used, the bottom-pull method requires
sufficient space for laying pipe onshore while the micro-tunneling method requires that a shaft be drilled near the shoreline, which
may be difficult to perform in conjunction with an existing intake. The conventional steel pipe laying cost methodology and
assumptions are described in detail in the document Economic and Engineering Analyses of the Proposed Section 316(b) New
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Facility Rule. Appendix A.
1.1.2 CAPITAL COST DEVELOPMENT
Screen Material Construction and Costs
Costs were obtained for T-screens constructed of three different types of materials: 304 stainless steel, 316 stainless steel, and copper-
nickel (CuNi) alloy. In general, screens installed in freshwater are constructed of 304 stainless steel. However, where Zebra Mussels
are a problem, CuNi alloys are often used because the leached copper tends to discourage screen biofouling with Zebra mussels. In
corrosive environments such as brackish and saltwater, 316 stainless steel is often used. If the corrosive environment is harsh,
particularly where oxygen levels are low, CuNi alloys are recommended. Since the T-screens are to be placed extending out into the
waterway, such low oxygen environments are not expected to be encountered.
Based on this information, EPA has chosen to base the cost estimates on utilizing screens made of 304 stainless steel for freshwater
environments without Zebra Mussels, CuNi alloy for freshwater environments with the potential for Zebra Mussels and 316 stainless
steel for brackish and saltwater environments. Table 1-4 provides a list of states that contain or are adjacent to waterbodies where
Zebra Mussels are currently found. The cost for CuNi screens are applied to all freshwater environments located within these states.
EPA notes that the screens comprise only a small portion of the total costs, particularly where the design of other components are the
same, such as the proposed design scenarios for freshwater environments with Zebra Mussels versus those without.
TABLE 1-4
Table 1-5 presents the component and total
List of States with
Freshwater Zebra Mussels
as of 2001
State Name
Alabama
Connecticut
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Abbreviation
AL
CT
IL
IN
IA
KY
LA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
NY
OH
OK
PA
TN
VT
WV
Wl
installed costs for the three types of screens. A
vendor indicated that the per screen costs will not change significantly between those with fine mesh and very fine mesh so the same
screen costs are used for each. Installation and mobilization costs are based on vendor-provided cost estimates for velocity caps,
which are comparable to those for T-screens. The individual installation cost per screen of $35,000 was reduced by 30% for multiple
1-6
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
screen installations. Costs for steel fittings are also included. These costs are based on steel fitting costs developed for the new
facility Phase I effort and are adjusted for a pipe velocity of 5 fps and converted to 2002 dollars. An additional 5% was added to the
total installed screen costs to account for installation of intake protection and warning devices such as pilings, dolphins, buoys, and
warning signs.
TABLE 1-5
T-Screen Equipment and Installation Costs
Size
T24
T36
T48
T60
172
T84
T96
T96
T96
T96
Number
of
Screens
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
Capacity
flpm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
Total Screen Cost bv Material
304SS
$5,800
$10,000
$17,000
$23,000
$34,000
$45,000
$61,000
$122,000
$183,000
$244,000
316SS
$6,100
$11,200
$18,800
$26,200
$39,500
$51,900
$70,200
$140,400
$210,600
$280,800
CuNi
$8,000
$18,000
$31,700
$44,500
$69,700
$93,400
$124,000
$248,000
$372,000
$496,000
Air Burst
Equipmen
t
$10,450
$15,050
$22,362
$28,112
$35,708
$43,588
$49,338
$49,338
$49,338
$49,338
Screen
Installat
ion
$25,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$49,000
$73,500
$98,000
Mobilizati
on
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
$20,000
$25,000
$25,000
$30,000
$30,000
Steel
Fittina
$2,624
$3,666
$5,067
$6,964
$9,227
$11,961
$15,189
$28,865
$42,840
$57,113
The same costs are used for both fine mesh and very fine mesh with major difference being the design flow for each screen size.
Connecting Wall Cost Development
The cost for the connecting wall that blocks off the existing intake and provides the connection to the screen pipes is based on the
cost of an interlocking sheet pile wall constructed directly in front of the existing intake. In general, the costs are mostly a function of
the total area of the wall and will vary with depth. Cost estimates were developed for a range of wall dimensions. The first step was
to estimate the nominal length of the existing intake for each of the design flow values shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. The nominal
length was estimated using an assumed water depth and intake velocity. The use of actual depths and intake velocities imparted too
many variables for the selected costing methodology. A depth of 20 feet was selected because it was close to both the mean and
median intake water depth values reported by Phase II facilities in their Detailed Technical Questionnaires.
The length of the wall was also based on an assumed existing intake, through-screen velocity of 1 fps and an existing screen open
area of 50%. Most existing coarse screens have an open area of 68%. However, a 50% area was chosen to produce a larger (i.e.,
more costly) wall size. Selecting a screen velocity of 1 fps also will overestimate wall length (and therefore, costs) for existing screen
velocities greater than 1 fps. This is the case for most of the facilities (just under 70% of the Phase II Facilities reported screen
velocities of 1 fps or greater). An additional length of 30 to 60 feet (scaled between 30 feet for 2,500 to 60 feet for 163,000 gpm with
a minimum of 30 ft for lower flows) was added to cover the end portions of the wall and to cover fixed costs for smaller intakes. The
costs are based on the following:
Sheet pile unit cost of $24.50/sq ft RS Means 2001)
An additional 50% of sheet pile cost to cover costs not included in sheet pile unit cost1
Total pile length of 45 feet for 20-foot depth including 15-foot penetration and 10-foot extension above water level
Mobilization of $18,300 for 20-foot depth RS Means 2001), added twice (assuming sheet pile would be installed in two
stages to minimize generating unit downtime (see Downtime discussion). The same mobilization costs are used for both
saltwater and freshwater environments.
An additional cost of 33% for corrosion-resistant coating for saltwater environments.
'Note that this 50% value was derived by comparing the estimated costs of a sheet pile wall presented in a feasibility
study for the Salem Nuclear Plant to the cost estimated for a similarly sized sheet pile wall using the EPA method described here.
This factor was intended to cover the cost of items such as walers, bracing and installation costs not included in the R S Means
unit cost. The Salem facility costs included bypass gates, which are assumed to be similar in cost to the pipe connections.
1-7
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Tables 1-6 and 1-7 present the estimated wall lengths, mobilization costs, and total costs for 20-foot depth for both freshwater and
saltwater environments for fine mesh and very fine mesh screens, respectively.
TABLE 1-6
Sheet Pile Wall Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
a om
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
Total
Estimated
Wall
Lenath
Ft
31
32
34
36
39
43
47
64
81
96
Mobilization
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
Sheet Pile Wall Total
Costs 20 Ft Water
Depth*
Freshwater
$87,157
$89,351
$92,359
$96,416
$101,243
$107,049
$113,870
$142,376
$170,883
$195,960
Saltwater
$103,840
$106,758
$110,759
$116,155
$122,575
$130,297
$139,369
$177,283
$215,196
$248,549
Pipe Manifold Cost Development
* Total costs include mobilization
TABLE 1-7
Sheet Pile Wall Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
a om
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82,500
110,000
165,000
Total
Estimated
Wall
Lenath
Ft
30
31
32
34
36
38
41
53
64
76
99
Mobilization
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
$36,600
Sheet Pile Wall Costs
20 Ft Water Depth*
Freshwater
$86,854
$88,056
$90,085
$92,848
$96,066
$99,984
$104,601
$123,838
$143,076
$162,314
$200,789
Saltwater
$103,438
$105,037
$107,735
$111,410
$115,690
$120,900
$127,041
$152,627
$178,213
$203,799
$254,971
* Total costs include mobilization
For facilities with design intake flows that are 10% or more greater than the 163,000 gpm to 165,000 gpm maximum costed (i.e.,
above 180,000 gpm), multiple intakes are costed and the costs are summed. This approach leads to probable costing over-estimates
for both the added length of end sections wall costs.
1-8
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Pipe costs are developed using the same general methodology as described in Economic and Engineering Analyses of the Proposed
Section 316(b) New Facility Rule. Appendix A, but modified based on a design pipe velocity of 5 fps. The pipe laying cost
methodology was revised to include: costs for several different pipe lengths were developed. These pipe lengths include: 66 feet (20
meters), 410 feet (125 meters), 820 feet (250 meters), and 1640 feet (500 meters). The cost for pipe installation includes an equipment
rental component for the pipe laying vessel, support barge, crew, and pipe laying equipment. The Phase I proposed rule Economic
and Engineering Analyses document estimates that 500 feet of pipe can be laid in a day under favorable conditions. Equipment rental
costs for the longer piping distances were adjusted upward, in single-day increments, to limit daily production rates not to exceed 550
feet/day. For the shorter distance of 66 feet (20 meters), the single-day pipe laying vessel/equipment costs were reduced by a factor
of 40%. This reduction is based on the assumption that, in most cases, a pipe laying vessel is not needed because installation can be
performed via crane located on the shoreline.
Figure 1-1 presents the capital cost curves for the pipe portion only for each of the offshore distance scenarios. The pipe cost
development methodology adopted from the Phase I effort used a different set of flow values than are shown in Table 1-1. Therefore,
second-order, best-fit equations were derived from pipe cost data. These equations were applied to the flow values in Table 1-1 to
obtain the relevant installed pipe cost component.
An additional equipment component representing the cost of pipe fittings such as tees or elbows are included in the screen equipment
costs. The costs are based on the cost estimates developed for the Phase I proposed rule, adjusted to a pipe velocity of 5 fps and 2002
dollars.
Airburst System Costs
Capital costs for airburst equipment sized to backwash each of the T-screens were obtained from vendor estimates. These costs
included air supply equipment (compressor, accumulator, distributor) minus the piping to the screens, air supply housing, and utility
connections and wiring. Capital costs of the airburst air supply system are shown in Table 1-8. Costs for a housing structure,
electrical, and controls were added based on the following:
electrical costs = 10% of air supply equipment (BPJ)
Controls = 5% of air supply equipment (BPJ)
Housing = $142/sq ft for area shown in Table 1-8. This cost was based on the $130/sq ft cost used in the Phase I cost for
pump housing, adjusted to 2002 dollars.
TABLE 1-8
Capital Costs of Airburst Air Supply Equipment
Screen
Size
T24
T36
T48
T60
T72
T84
T96
Vendor
Supplied
Equipment
Costs
$6,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Estimated
Housing
Area
5x5
5x5
6x6
6x6
7x7
8x8
8x8
Housing
Area
sqft
25
25
36
36
49
64
64
Housing
Costs
$3,550
$3,550
$5,112
$5,112
$6,958
$9,088
$9,088
Electrical
10%
$600
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Controls
5%
$300
$500
$750
$1,000
$1,250
$1,500
$1,750
Total
Airburst
Minus Air
Piping to
Screens
$10,450
$15,050
$22,362
$28,112
$35,708
$43,588
$49,338
1-9
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
The costs of the air supply pipes, or "blow pipes," are calculated for each installation depending on the length of the intake pipe, plus
an assumed average distance of 70 feet from the airburst system housing to the intake pipe at the front of the sheet pile wall. Pipe
costs are based on this total distance multiplied by a derived unit cost of installed pipe Vendors indicated that the pipes are typically
made of schedule 10 stainless steel or high density polyethylene and that material costs are only a portion of the total installed costs.
Consistent with the selection of screen materials, EPA chose to assume that the blow pipes are constructed of 304 stainless steel for
freshwater and 316 stainless steel for saltwater applications.
The unit costs for the installed blow pipes are based on the installed cost of similar pipe in a structure on land multiplied by an
underwater installation factor. This underwater installation factor was derived by reviewing the materials-versus-total costs for
underwater steel pipe installation, which ranged from about 3.2 to 4.5 with values decreasing with increasing pipe size. A review of
the materials-versus-installed-on-land costs for the smaller diameter stainless steel pipe ® S Means 2001) found that if the installed-
on-land unit costs are multiplied by 2.0, the resulting materials-to-total- estimated (underwater)-installed-cost ratios fell within a
similar range. These costs are considered as over-estimating costs somewhat because they include 304 and 316 stainless steel where
less costly materials may be used. Also, they do not consider potential savings associated with concurrent installation alongside the
much larger water intake pipe.
Blow pipe sizes were provided by vendors for T60 and smaller screens. For larger screens, the blow pipe diameter was derived by
calculating pipe diameters (and rounding up to even pipe sizes) using the same ratio of screen area to blow pipe area calculated for
T60 screens. This is based on the assumption that blow pipe air velocities are proportional to the needed air/water backwash
velocities at the screen surface. A separate blow pipe was included for each T-screen where multiple screens are included, but only
one set of the air supply equipment (compressor, accumulator, distributor, controls etc.) is included in each installation. The
calculated costs for the air supply pipes are shown in Table 1-9.
TABLE 1-9
Capital Costs of Installed Air Supply Pipes for Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow Fine
Mesh
dpm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22.700
31.000
40.750
81.500
122.250
163.000
-
Design
Flow
Very
Fine
Mesh
dpm
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15.300
20.900
27.500
55.000
82.500
110.000
165,000
Air Pipe
Unit Cost -
Schedule 10
304 SS
$/Ft
$57.3
$85.4
$102.0
$160.3
$222.8
$304.0
$376.8
$376.8
$376.8
$376.8
$376.8
Air Pipe
Unit Cost -
Schedule 10
316SS
$/Ft
$119.5
$102.0
$118.7
$188.4
$279.0
$368.5
$456.0
$456.0
$456.0
$456.0
$456.0
Freshwater Airburst Distribution Installed Pipe
Costs
20 Meters
$7,764
$11,575
$13,834
$21,739
$30.209
$41.220
$51.100
$102.199
$153.299
$204.398
$306,597
125 Meters
$27,485
$40,973
$48,970
$76,954
$106.934
$145.910
$180.883
$361.766
$542.650
$723.533
$1 ,085,299
250 Meters
$50,961
$75,970
$90,798
$142,685
$198.274
$270.542
$335.388
$670.775
$1.006.163
$1.341.550
$2,012,326
500 Meters
$97,915
$145,966
$174,454
$274,147
$380.954
$519.806
$644.396
$1 .288.793
$1.933.189
$2.577.586
$3,866,378
Saltwater Airburst Distribution Installed Pipe
Costs
20 Meters
$16,210
$13,834
$16,093
$25,550
$37.830
$49.971
$61.828
$123.656
$185.485
$247.313
$370,969
125 Meters
$57,379
$48,970
$56,966
$90,442
$133.910
$176.890
$218.861
$437.722
$656.582
$875.443
$1,313,165
250 Meters
$106,391
$90,798
$105,625
$167,694
$248.292
$327.983
$405.804
$811.609
$1.217.413
$1.623.218
$2,434,826
500 Meters
$204,413
$174,454
$202,943
$322,198
$477.056
$630.169
$779.692
$1.559.383
$2.339.075
$3.118.766
$4,678,150
Indirect Costs
The total calculated capital costs were adjusted to include the following added costs:
Engineering at 10% of direct capital costs
Contractor overhead and profit at 15% of direct capital costs (based on O&P component of installing lift station in
RS Means 2001); some direct cost components, e.g., the intake pipe cost and blow pipe cost, already include costs
for contractor overhead and profit
Contingency at 10% of direct capital costs
Sitework at 10% of direct capital costs; based on sitework component of Fairfax Water Intake costs data, including
costs for erosion & sediment control, trash removal, security, dust control, access road improvements, and
1-10
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
restoration (trees, shrubs, seeding & sodding).
Total Capital Costs
Fine Mesh
Table 1-10 presents the total capital costs of the complete system for fine mesh screens including indirect costs. Figures 1-2, 1-3, and
1-4 present the plotted capital costs in Table 1-10 for freshwater, saltwater, and freshwater with Zebra mussels, respectively. Figures
1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 also present the best-fit, second order equations used in estimating compliance costs.
Very Fine Mesh
Table 1-11 presents the total capital costs of the complete system for very fine mesh screens including indirect costs. Figures 1-5, 1-6,
and 1-7 present the plotted capital costs in Table 1-11 for freshwater, saltwater, and freshwater with Zebra mussels, respectively.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
TABLE 1-10
Total Capital Costs of Installed Fine Mesh T-screen System at Existing Shoreline Based Intakes
Design
Flow
a Dm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
Total Costs 20 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$330,608
$359,106
$405,008
$460,179
$530,563
$602,745
$691,543
$1 ,034,259
$1 ,420,292
$1,813,456
316SS
Saltwater
$356,632
$389,320
$437,575
$498,982
$580,486
$659,150
$757,467
$1,142,774
$1 ,571 ,396
$2,005,510
CuNI
Zebra Mussels
$333,958
$371 ,286
$427,389
$492,913
$584,916
$676,434
$787,461
$1 ,226,094
$1 ,708,044
$2,197,126
Total Costs 125 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$458,425
$524,990
$612,009
$739,998
$893,959
$1 ,069,950
$1 ,270,404
$2,120,425
$3,023,393
$3,943,125
316SS
Saltwater
$487,945
$563,194
$652,566
$792,284
$970,848
$1,157,317
$1,374,281
$2,304,845
$3,288,357
$4,286,990
CuNI
Zebra Mussels
$461 ,775
$537,170
$634,390
$772,732
$948,312
$1,143,639
$1 ,366,322
$2,312,260
$3,311,146
$4,326,795
Total Costs 250 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$694,677
$807,170
$944,036
$1,160,061
$1,415,327
$1,717,372
$2,054,067
$3,526,716
$5,071 ,576
$6,652,462
316SS
Saltwater
$728,359
$854,887
$994,105
$1,228,398
$1,524,319
$1,841,598
$2,203,125
$3,801,500
$5,472,086
$7,177,056
CuNI
Zebra Mussels
$698,027
$819,350
$966,417
$1,192,795
$1 ,469,680
$1,791,061
$2,149,984
$3,718,551
$5,359,329
$7,036,132
Total Costs 500 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$1,007,472
$1,210,950
$1,446,429
$1,837,241
$2,293,842
$2,846,829
$3,455,143
$6,175,421
$9,016,065
$11,940,891
316SS
Saltwater
$1 ,049,477
$1 ,277,690
$1,515,522
$1 ,937,682
$2,467,040
$3,044,774
$3,694,566
$6,630,933
$9,687,666
$12,826,940
CuNI
Zebra Mussels
$1,010,822
$1,223,130
$1,468,810
$1 ,869,975
$2,348,195
$2,920,518
$3,551 ,061
$6,367,256
$9,303,817
$12,324,561
TABLE 1-11
Total Capital Costs of Installed Very Fine Mesh T-screen System at Existing Shoreline Based Intakes
Design
Flow
aom
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82,500
110,000
165,000
Total Costs 20 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$329,296
$354,622
$396,579
$446,379
$510,005
$573,744
$652,189
$944,813
$1,270,016
$1 ,596,585
$2,276,664
316 SS
Saltwater
$355,254
$384,438
$428,325
$483,934
$558,302
$627,794
$714,992
$1,047,085
$1,411,756
$1,777,795
$2,536,812
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$332,813
$367,411
$420,079
$480,749
$567,076
$651,118
$752,903
$1,146,240
$1,572,156
$1,999,439
$2,880,944
Total Costs 125 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$451 ,952
$507,964
$580,540
$689,904
$820,297
$968,061
$1,134,364
$1 ,832,361
$2,567,323
$3,308,039
$4,829,568
316 SS
Saltwater
$481 ,545
$546,100
$620,605
$741 ,492
$896,659
$1,054,341
$1,236,677
$2,013,654
$2,827,597
$3,647,292
$5,326,782
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$455,469
$520,753
$604,039
$724,274
$877,368
$1 ,045,435
$1 ,235,077
$2,033,788
$2,869,463
$3,710,892
$5,433,848
Total Costs 250 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$681 ,91 1
$774,855
$884,451
$1 ,065,566
$1,276,515
$1,525,747
$1,798,524
$2,989,159
$4,225,531
$5,476,429
$8,044,641
316SS
Saltwater
$715,832
$822,895
$934,421
$1,133,860
$1 ,386,288
$1 ,650,395
$1 ,947,874
$3,264,526
$4,626,915
$6,003,830
$8,824,075
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$685,428
$787,644
$907,951
$1,099,937
$1,333,586
$1,603,120
$1,899,238
$3,190,586
$4,527,671
$5,879,283
$8,648,921
Total Costs 500 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$982,352
$1,148,553
$1 ,331 ,420
$1 ,655,065
$2,026,108
$2,477,203
$2,961 ,902
$5,136,240
$7,378,247
$9,656,71 1
$14,345,849
316SS
Saltwater
$1,024,929
$1,216,401
$1,401,198
$1,756,769
$2,202,703
$2,678,590
$3,205,326
$5,599,755
$8,061 ,852
$10,560,407
$15,689,726
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$985,869
$1,161,342
$1,354,919
$1 ,689,435
$2,083,179
$2,554,577
$3,062,615
$5,337,667
$7,680,387
$10,059,565
$14,950,129
1-12
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Nuclear Facilities
Construction and material costs tend to be substantially greater for nuclear facilities due to burden of increased security and to the
requirements for more robust system design. Rather than performing a detailed evaluation of the differences in capital costs for
nuclear facilities, EPA has chosen to apply a simple cost factor based on total costs.
In the Phase I costing effort, EPA used data from an Argonne National Lab study on retrofitting costs of fossil fuel power plants and
nuclear power plants. This study reported average, comparative costs of $171 for nuclear facilities and $108 for fossil fuel facilities,
resulting in a 1.58 costing factor. In comparison, recent consultation with a traveling screen vendor, the vendor indicated costing
factors in the range of 1.5-2.0 were reasonable for estimating the increase in costs associated with nuclear power plants based on their
experience. Because today there are likely to be additional security burdens above that experienced when the Argonne Report was
generated, EPA has selected 1.8 as a capital costing factor for nuclear facilities. Capital costs for nuclear facilities are not presented
here but can be estimated by multiplying the applicable non-nuclear facility costs by the 1.8 costing factor.
O&M Costs
O&M cost are based on the sum of costs for annual inspection and cleaning of the intake screens by a dive team and for estimated
operating costs for the airburst air supply system. Dive team costs were estimated for a total job duration of one to four days, and are
shown in Table 1-12. Dive team cleaning and inspections were estimated at once per year for low debris locations and twice per year
for high debris locations. The O&M costs for the airburst system are based on power requirements of the air compressor and labor
requirements for routine O&M. Vendors cited a backwash frequency per screen from as low as once per week to as high as once per
hour for fine mesh screens. The time needed to recharge the accumulator is about 0.5 hours, but can be as high as 1 hour for those
with smaller compressors or accumulators that backwash more than one screen simultaneously.
The Hp rating of the typical size airburst compressor for each screen size was obtained from a vendor and is presented in the table in
Attachment A. A vendor stated that several hours per week would be more than enough labor for routine maintenance, so labor is
assumed to be two to four hours per week based on roughly half-hour daily inspection of the airburst system. However, during
seasonal periods of high debris such as leaves in the fall, it may be necessary for someone to man the backwash system 24 hours/day
for several weeks (Frey 2002). Thus, an additional one to 4.5 weeks of 24-hour labor are included for these periods (one week low
debris fine mesh; 1.5 weeks low debris very fine mesh; three weeks high debris fine mesh; and 4.5 weeks high debris very fine
mesh). Since very fine mesh screens will tend to collect debris at a more rapid rate, backwash frequencies and labor requirements
were increased by 50% for very fine mesh screens.
The O&M cost of the airburst system are based on the following:
Average backwash frequency in low debris areas is 2 times per day (3 times per day for very fine mesh)
Average backwash frequency in high debris areas is 12 times per day (18 times per day for very fine mesh)
Time to recharge accumulator is 0.5 hours
• Compressor motor efficiency is 90%
Cost of electric power consumed is $0.04/Kwh
Routine inspection and maintenance labor is 3 hours per week (4.5 hours per week for very fine mesh) for systems up to
182,400 gpm
O&M labor rate per hour is $41.10/hr. The rate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Data using the median labor rates for
electrical equipment maintenance technical labor (SOC 49-2095) and managerial labor (SOC 11-1021); benefits and other
compensation are added using factors based on SIC 29 data for blue collar and white collar labor. The two values were
combined into a single rate assuming 90% technical labor and 10% managerial. See Doley 2002 for details.
Table 1-13 presents the total O&M cost for relocating intakes offshore with fine mesh and very fine mesh passive screens. These
data are plotted in Figures 1-8 and 1-9 which also shows the second-order equations that were fitted to these data and used to estimate
the O&M costs for individual Phase II facilities. Attachment A presents the worksheet data used to develop the annual O&M costs.
As with the capital costs, at facilities where the design flow exceeds the maximum cost model design flow of 165,000 gpm plus 10%
(180,000 gpm), the design flow are divided and the corresponding costs are summed.
1-13
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
TABLE 1-12
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DIVE TEAM TO INSPECT AND CLEAN T-SCREENS
In
Item
Duration
Cost Year
Supervisor
Tender
Diver
Air Packs
Boat
Mob/Demob
Total
Daily
Cost*
$575
$200
$375
$100
$200
stallation an
One Time
Cost*
$3,000
d Maintenan
Total
One Dav
1999
$575
$200
$750
$100
$200
$3,000
$4,825
ce Diver Team Costs
Adiusted Total
One Dav
2002
$627
$218
$818
$109
$218
$3,270
$5,260
Two Dav
2002
$1,254
$436
$1,635
$218
$436
$3,270
$7,250
Three Dav
2002
$1,880
$654
$2,453
$327
$654
$3,270
$9,240
Four Dav
2002
$2,507
$872
$3,270
$436
$872
$3,270
$11,230
*Source: Paroby 1999 (cost adjusted to 2002 dollars).
Table 1-13
Total O&M Costs for Passive Screens Relocated Offshore
Relocate Ofshore With New Fine
Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
dpm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
-
Total O&M
Costs -
Low
Debris
$16,463
$16,500
$16,560
$20,712
$20,748
$20,808
$20,869
$25,299
$25,601
$27,894
-
Total O&M
Costs -
High
Debris
$35,654
$35,872
$36,235
$42,497
$42,715
$43,078
$43,441
$51,374
$53,189
$58,984
-
Relocate Ofshore With New
Verv Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
dpm
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82,500
110,000
165000
Total
O&M
Costs -
Low
Debris
$22,065
$22,120
$22,210
$27,442
$27,497
$27,588
$27,678
$33,328
$33,782
$36,226
$37,133
Total
O&M
Costs -
High
Debris
$48,221
$48,548
$49,092
$56,496
$56,823
$57,367
$57,912
$67,821
$70,544
$77,246
$82,692
Construction Related Downtime
1-14
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Downtime may be a substantial cost item for retrofits using the existing pump wells and pumps. The EPA retrofit scenario includes a
sheet pile wall in front of the existing intake. This scenario is modeled after a proposed scenario presented in a feasibility study for
the Salem Nuclear Plant. In this scenario, a sheet pile plenum with bypass gates is constructed 40 feet in front of the existing intake
with about twelve 10-foot diameter header pipes connecting the plenum to about 240 T-screens. Construction is estimated to take
two years, with installation of the sheet pile plenum in the first year. The facility projects the installation of 10-foot header pipes and
screens to take nine months and the air backwash piping to take two months. The feasibility study states that Units 1 & 2 would each
have to be shutdown for about six months, to install the plenum, and for an additional two months to install the 10-foot header pipe
connection to the plenum and to install the air piping. Thus, an estimated total of eight months downtime is estimated for this very
large (near worst case) intake scenario. This scenario was discarded by the facility due to uncertainty about biofouling and debris
removal at slack tides. No cost estimates were developed and, therefore no incentive to focus on a system design and a construction
sequence that would minimize downtime existed.
In the same feasibility study, a scenario is proposed where a new intake with dual flow traveling screens is installed at a distance of
65 feet offshore inside a cofferdam. In this scenario, a sheet pile plenum wall connects the new intake to the existing shore intake. In
this scenario the intake is constructed first; Units 1 & 2 are estimated to be shut down for about one month each to construct and
connect the plenum walls to the existing intake.
It would seem that the T-screen plenum construction scenario could follow the same approach, i.e., performed while the units are
operating. This approach would result in a much lower downtime, similar to that for the offshore intake, but including consideration
for added time for near-shore air pipe installation. There are two relevant differences between these scenarios. One is the distance
offshore to the T-screen piping connection versus the new intake structure (40 feet versus 65 feet). The second is that T-screens,
pipes, and plenum would be installed underwater while the new intake would be constructed behind a coffer dam. Conceivably the
offshore portion of the T-screen plenum (excluding the ends) and all pipe and screen installation on the offshore side could be
performed without shutting down the intake.
The WH Zimmer plant is a facility that EPA has identified as actually having converted an existing shoreline intake with traveling
screens to submerged offshore T-screens. This facility was originally constructed as a nuclear facility but was never completed. In
the late 80's it was converted to a coal fired plant. The original intake was to supply service water and make-up water for
recirculating wet towers, and had been completed. However, the area in front of the intake was plagued with sediment deposition. A
decision was made to abandon the traveling screens and install T-screens approximately 50 feet offshore. However, because the
facility was not operating at the time of this conversion, there was no monetary incentive to minimize construction time. Actual
construction took six to eight months for this intake, with a design flow of about 61,000 gpm (Frey 2002). The construction method
in this case used a steel wall installed in front of the existing intake pump wells.
The Agency consulted the WH Zimmer plant engineer and asked him to estimate how long it would take to perform this retrofit
particularly with a goal of minimizing generating unit downtime. The estimated downtime was a minimum of seven to nine weeks,
assuming mobilization goes smoothly and a tight construction schedule is maintained. A more generous estimate of a total of 12 to 15
weeks was estimated for their facility assuming some predictable disruption to construction schedules. This estimate includes five to
six weeks for installing piping (some support pilings can be laid ahead of time), an additional five to six weeks to tie in piping and
install the wall, and an additional two to three weeks to clean and dredge the intake area. This last two- to three-week period was a
construction step somewhat unique to the Zimmer plant, especially because the presence of sediment was the driving factor in the
decision to convert the system.
Based on the above information, EPA has concluded that a reasonable unit downtime should be in the range of 13 to 15 weeks for
total downtime. It is reasonable to assume that this downtime can be scheduled to coincide with routine generating unit downtime of
approximately four weeks, resulting in a total potential lost generation period of nine to 11 weeks. Rather than select a single
downtime for all facilities installing passive screens, EPA chose to apply a 13 to 15 week total downtime duration based on variations
in project size using design flow as a measure of size. As such, EPA assumed a downtime of 13 weeks for facilities with intake flow
volumes of less than 400,000 gpm, 14 weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes greater than 400,000 gpm but less than 800,000
gpm, and 15 weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes greater than 800,000 gpm.
Application
General Applicability
The following site-related conditions may preclude the use of passive T-screens or create operational problems:
Water depths of <2 feet at screen location; for existing facilities this should not be an issue
Stagnant waterbodies with high debris load
TTs
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Waterbodies with frazil ice in winter.
Frazil ice consists of fine, small, needle-like structures or thin, flat, circular plates of ice suspended in water. In rivers and lakes it is
formed in supercooled, turbulent water. Remedies for this problem include finding another location such as deeper water that is
outside of the turbulent water or creating a provision for periodically applying heated water to the screens. The application of heated
water may not be feasible or economically justifiable in many instances.
Some facilities have reported limited success in alleviating frazil ice problems by blowing a small constant stream of air through the
screen backwash system (Whitaker 2002b).
Application of Different Pipe Lengths
As noted previously, the shortest pipe length cost scenario (20 meters) are assumed to be applicable only to facilities with flows less
than 163,000 gpm. Conversely, facilities located on large waterbodies that are subject to wave action and shifting sediment are
assumed to install the longest pipe length scenario of 500 meters. Large waterbodies in this instance will include Great Lakes, oceans,
and some estuarine/tidal rivers. The matrix in Table 1-14 will provide some initial guidance. Generally, if the waterbody width is
known, the pipe length should not exceed half the width.
TABLE 1-14
SELECTION OF APPLICABLE RELOCATION OFFSHORE PIPE LENGTHS
BY WATERBODY
20 Meters
125 Meters
250 Meters
500 Meters
Freshwater
Rivers/Streams
Flow <163,000
TBD
TBD
NA
Lakes/Reservoirs
Flow < 163, 000
TBD
TBD
NA
Estuaries/Tidal Rivers
NA
TBD
TBD
TBD
Great Lakes
NA
NA
TBD
TBD
Oceans
NA
NA
NA
ALL
TBD: Criteria or selection to be determined; criteria may include design flow, waterbody size (if readily available).
1-16
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
1.2
ADD SUBMERGED FINE MESH PASSIVE SCREENS TO EXISTING OFFSHORE INTAKES
Please note that much of the supporting documentation has been previously described in Section 1.1.
Capital Costs
Adding passive screens to an existing submerged offshore intake requires many of the same construction steps and components
described in section 1.1 above, excluding those related to the main trunk of the manifold pipe and connecting wall. Similar
construction components include: modifying the submerged inlet to connect the new screens, installing T-screens, and installing the
airburst backwash air supply equipment and the blowpipes. Nearly all of these components will require similar equipment,
construction steps and costs as described in Section 1.1 for the specific components. One possible difference is that the existing
submerged piping distance may not match one of the four lengths for which costs were estimated. This difference only affects this
component of cost. The cost scenario distance chosen is the one that closely matches or exceeds the existing offshore distance.
Tables 1-15 and 1-16 present the combined costs of the installed T-screens, airburst air supply system, and air supply pipes for fine
mesh and very fine mesh screens, respectively. The costs in Tables 1-15 and 1-16 include direct and indirect costs, as described in
Section 1.1. Figures 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, and 1-15 present plots of the data in Tables 1-15 and 1-16. The figures include
the second-order, best-fit equations are used to estimate technology costs for specific facilities.
TABLE 1-15
Capital Cost of Installing Fine Mesh Passive T-screens at an Existing Submerged Offshore Intake
Design
Flow
ciDin
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
Total Costs 20 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$100,137
$120,312
$154,594
$194,029
$245,131
$293,433
$352,983
$562,086
$795,243
$1,021,242
316 SS
Saltwater
$112,839
$125,414
$160,610
$204,426
$264,554
$316,628
$382,546
$621,213
$883,934
$1,139,497
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$103,487
$132,492
$176,975
$226,763
$299,484
$367,122
$448,900
$753,921
$1 ,082,995
$1,404,912
Total Costs 125 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$128,732
$162,939
$205,541
$274,090
$356,382
$445,234
$541,169
$938,458
$1,359,802
$1,773,988
316 SS
Saltwater
$172,535
$176,361
$219,877
$298,519
$403,871
$500,659
$610,243
$1,076,608
$1,567,025
$2,050,286
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$132,081
$175,119
$227,922
$306,823
$410,736
$518,923
$637,086
$1,130,293
$1,647,554
$2,157,658
Total Costs 250 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$162,773
$213,685
$266,192
$369,400
$488,825
$625,950
$765,200
$1,386,521
$2,031,896
$2,670,113
316 SS
Saltwater
$243,602
$237,012
$290,432
$410,535
$569,725
$719,744
$881,312
$1,618,744
$2,380,230
$3,134,559
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$166122
$225,865
$288,573
$402,134
$543,178
$699,639
$861,118
$1,578,356
$2,319,649
$3,053,783
Total Costs 500 Meters Offshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$230,855
$315,178
$387,494
$560,020
$753,711
$987,382
$1,213,263
$2,282,647
$3,376,084
$4,462,364
316 SS
Saltwater
$385,735
$358,314
$431,543
$634,566
$901 ,432
$1,157,915
$1 ,423,448
$2,703,017
$4,006,639
$5,303,105
CuNi
Zebra Mussels
$234,204
$327,358
$409,874
$592,754
$808,064
$1,061,071
$1,309,181
$2,474,482
$3,663,837
$4,846,034
TABLE 1-16
Capital Cost of Installing Very Fine Mesh Passive T-screens at an Existing Submerged Offshore Intake
O&M Costs
Design
Row
arm
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82500
110,000
165,000
Total Costs 20 Meters Offishote
304 SS
Freshwater
$100,173
$120,156
$154275
$193,241
$244,023
$291,795
$350,954
$557,781
$788,414
$1,011,641
$1,458,718
316 SS
Saltwater
$102,084
$125,350
$160428
$203,882
$263,866
$315,515
$381,218
$618,309
$879,206
$1,132697
$1,640,302
CUM
Zebra Mussels
$103,690
$132945
$177,774
$227,611
$301,094
$369,168
$451,667
$759,208
$1,090,554
$1,414,495
$2062999
Total Costs 125 Meters Oftshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$128,768
$162,783
$205221
$273,302
$355,275
$443,596
$539,140
$934,154
$1,352973
$1,764,387
$2587,837
316 SS
Saltwater
$134,314
$176,297
$219694
$297,975
$403,183
$499,547
$608,915
$1,073,703
$1,562298
$2043,486
$3,006,486
CUM
Zebra Mussels
$132284
$175,572
$228721
$307,672
$412346
$520,970
$639,854
$1,135,580
$1,655,113
$2167,240
$3,192117
Total Costs 250 Meters onshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$162809
$213,530
$265,872
$368,612
$487,718
$624,313
$763,172
$1,382216
$2025,067
$2660,512
$3,932025
316 SS
Saltwater
$172683
$236,948
$290,250
$409,990
$569,036
$718,632
$879,984
$1,615,840
$2375,502
$3,127,759
$4,632895
CUM
Zebra Mussels
$166,326
$226,319
$289,372
$402982
$544,789
$701,686
$863,885
$1,583,643
$2327,207
$3,063,366
$4,536,305
Total Costs 500 Meters Ofrshore
304 SS
Freshwater
$230,891
$315,023
$387,174
$559,232
$752603
$985,745
$1,211,235
$2278,342
$3,369,255
$4,452763
$6,620,401
316 SS
Saltwater
$249,421
$358,250
$431,360
$634,022
$900,743
$1,156,802
$1,422,120
$2700,113
$4,001,912
$5,296,305
$7,885,714
CUM
Zebra Mussels
$234,408
$327,812
$410,674
$593,603
$809,674
$1,063,118
$1,311,948
$2479,769
$3,671,395
$4,855,617
$7,224,682
1-17
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
O&M costs are assumed to be nearly the same as for relocating the intake offshore with passive screens. EPA assumes there are
some offsetting costs associated with the fact that the existing intake should already have periodic inspection/cleaning by divers. The
portion of the costs representing a single annual inspection has therefore been deducted. Tables 1-17 and 1-18 presents the annual
O&M costs for fine mesh and very fine mesh screens, respectively. Separate costs are provided for low debris and high debris
locations. Figure 1-16 and 1-17 present the plotted O&M data along with the second-order, best fit equations.
TABLE 1-17
Net Intake O&M Costs for Fine Mesh Passive T-screens Installed at Existing Submerged Offshore Intakes
Existing Offshore With New Fine
Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
dpm
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
-
Total O&M
Costs -
Low
Debris
$11,203
$11,240
$11,300
$13,462
$13,498
$13,558
$13,619
$16,059
$16,361
$16,664
-
Total O&M
Costs -
High
Debris
$30,394
$30,612
$30,975
$35,247
$35,465
$35,828
$36,191
$42,134
$43,949
$47,754
-
Existing Offshore With New
Verv Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
dpm
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82,500
110,000
165000
Total
O&M
Costs -
Low
Debris
$16,805
$16,860
$16,950
$20,192
$20,247
$20,338
$20,428
$24,088
$24,542
$24,996
$25,903
Total
O&M
Costs -
High
Debris
$42,961
$43,288
$43,832
$49,246
$49,573
$50,117
$50,662
$58,581
$61,304
$66,016
$71 ,462
Construction Downtime
Unlike the cost for relocating the intake from shore-based to submerged offshore, the only construction activities that would require
shutting down the intake is to modify the inlet and install the T-screens. Installing the air supply system and the major portion of the
air blowpipes can be performed while the intake is operating. Downtimes are assumed to be similar to those for adding velocity caps,
which were reported to range from two to seven days. An additional one to two days may be needed to connect the blowpipes to the
T-screens. The total estimated intake downtime of three to nine days can easily be scheduled to coincide with the routine
maintenance period for power plants (which the Agency assumed to be four weeks for typical plants).
Application
Separate capital costs have been developed for freshwater, freshwater with Zebra mussels, and saltwater environments. In selecting
the materials of construction, the same methodology described in Section 1.1 is used. Because the retrofit is an addition to an existing
intake, selecting the distance offshore involves matching the existing distance to the nearest or next highest distance costed.
Similarly, the O&M costs are applied using the same method as described in Section 1.1.
1-18
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
REFERENCES
Whitaker, J. Hendrick Screen Company. Telephone Contact Report with John Sunda, SAIC, concerning Tscreen cost and design
information. August 2, & September 9, 2002a
Whitaker, J. Hendrick Screen Company. Email correspondence with John Sunda SAIC concerning Tscreen cost and design
information. August 9, 2002b
Johnson Screen - Brochure - "High Capacity Surface Water Intake Screen Technical Data."
Petrovs, H. Johnson Screens. Telephone Contact Report Regarding Answers to Passive Screen Vendor Questions.
Screen Services - Brochure - Static Orb, 2002
Shaw, G. V. & Loomis, A.W. Cameron Hydraulic Data. Ingersoll-Rand Company. 1970
Frey, R. Cinergy. Telephone Contact Report Regarding Retrofit of Passive T-Screens. September 30, 2002.
Doley, T. SAIC Memorandum to the 316b Record regarding Development of Power Plant Intake Maintenance Personnel hourly
compensation rate. 2002
R.S. Means. R.S. Means Costworks Database, 2001.
Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. 1972
1-19
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
ATTACHMENT A
O&M DEVELOPMENT DATA
Table A-l
O&M Development Data - Relocate Offshore with Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
2,500
5,700
10,000
15,800
22,700
31,000
40,750
81,500
122,250
163,000
Compres
sor
Power
2
5
10
12
15
20
25
25
25
25
Low Debris
Backwash
Freauencv
Events/day
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
8
High Debris
Backwash
Freauencv
Events/day
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
24
36
48
Annual
Power
Required -
Low
Debris
Kwh
605
1,513
3,025
3,631
4,538
6,051
7,564
15,127
22,691
30,254
Annual
Power
Required -
High
Debris
Kwh
3,631
9,076
18,153
21,783
27,229
36,305
45,382
90,763
136,145
181,527
Annual
Power
Costs -
Low
Debris*
$0.04
$24
$61
$121
$145
$182
$242
$303
$605
$908
$1,210
Annual
Power
Costs -
High
Debris*
$0.04
$145
$363
$726
$871
$1,089
$1,452
$1,815
$3,631
$5,446
$7,261
Annual
Labor
Required
- Low
Debris
Hours
272
272
272
324
324
324
324
376
376
376
Annual
Labor
Cost-
Low
Debris
$11,179
$11,179
$11,179
$13,316
$13,316
$13,316
$13,316
$15,454
$15,454
$15,454
Annual
Labor
Required
High
Debris
Hours
608
608
608
660
660
660
660
712
712
712
Annual
Labor
Cost-
High
Debris
$24,989
$24,989
$24,989
$27,126
$27,126
$27,126
$27,126
$29,263
$29,263
$29,263
Dive
Team
Days
Low
Debris
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
Dive
Team
Costs
Low
Debris
$5,260
$5,260
$5,260
$7,250
$7,250
$7,250
$7,250
$9,240
$9,240
$11,230
Dive
Team
Costs
High
Debris
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$14,500
$14,500
$14,500
$14,500
$18,480
$18,480
$22,460
1-20
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table A-2
O&M Development Data - Relocate Offshore with Very Fine Mesh Screens
Design
Flow
qom
1,680
3,850
6,750
10,700
15,300
20,900
27,500
55,000
82,500
110,000
165000
Compres
sor
Power
HD
2
5
10
12
15
20
25
25
25
25
25
Low Debris
Backwash
Frequency
Events/day
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
9
12
18
High Debris
Backwash
Frequency
Events/day
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
36
54
72
108
Annual
Power
Required -
Low
Debris
Kwh
908
2,269
4,538
5,446
6,807
9,076
11,345
22,691
34,036
45,382
68,073
Annual
Power
Required -
High
Debris
Kwh
5,446
13,615
27,229
32,675
40,844
54,458
68,073
136,145
204,218
272,290
408,435
Annual
Power
Costs -
Low
Debris*
at $/kw =
$0.04
$36
$91
$182
$218
$272
$363
$454
$908
$1,361
$1,815
$2,723
Annual
Power
Costs -
High
Debris*
at $/kw =
$0.04
$218
$545
$1,089
$1,307
$1,634
$2,178
$2,723
$5,446
$8,169
$10,892
$16,337
Annual
Labor
Required
- Low
Debris
Hours
408
408
408
486
486
486
486
564
564
564
564
Annual
Labor
Cost-
Low
Debris
$16,769
$16,769
$16,769
$19,975
$19,975
$19,975
$19,975
$23,180
$23,180
$23,180
$23,180
Annual
Labor
Required
High
Debris
Hours
912
912
912
990
990
990
990
1068
1068
1068
1068
Annual
Labor
Cost-
High
Debris
$37,483
$37,483
$37,483
$40,689
$40,689
$40,689
$40,689
$43,895
$43,895
$43,895
$43,895
Dive
Team
Days
Low
Debris
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
Dive
Team
Costs
Low
Debris
$5,260
$5,260
$5,260
$7,250
$7,250
$7,250
$7,250
$9,240
$9,240
$11,230
$11,230
Dive
Team
Costs
High
Debris
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$14,500
$14,500
$14,500
$14,500
$18,480
$18,480
$22,460
$22,460
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-1
Capital Costs Conventional Steel Pipe Laying Method At Various Offshore Distances
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
o $5,000,000
o
£ $4,000,000
O
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
50,000
./ —
y —
+
'
R = 0.9995
y = 1E-05x2 + 12.81 x +249598
FT = 0.9993
= 6b-06x + 6.4038X + 125256
R2 = 0.9992
100,000 150,000
Design Flowgpm
200,000
250,000
125 Meter • 250 Meter 500 Meter 20 Meter
300,000
7-22
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-2
Capital Costs forFine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Freshwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
o
o
O
Q.
ra
O
"5
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
y = 3E-05x2 + 63.854X + 844049
y = 1E-05x2 + 35.281x + 609870
R2 =
y = 6E-06x^ + 20.846X + 41328£
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-23
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-3
Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Saltwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
o
O
Q.
ra
O
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
y = 4E-05x' + 68.013x + 917166
y = 2E-05x' + 37.783X + 658856
y = 8E-06x + 22.519x + 450208
y = 2E-06x' + 9.8423X + 345205
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow(gpm)
* 20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-24
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-4
Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Freshwater with Zebra
Mussels at Selected Offshore Distances
o
O
Q.
ra
O
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
y = 3E-05xz + 66.263X + 841964
y= 1E-05x' + 37.69x +607785
= 6E-06x" + 23.255X + 41
y = 2E-06x + 11.275x +
316335
R = 0.9997
1203
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow(gpm)
* 20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-25
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Figure 1 -5 Technology Cost Modules
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Freshwater at
Selected Offshore Distances
J3
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-6
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Saltwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
o
o
O
"5
+j
'5.
ra
O
"5
$17,000,000
$16,000,000
$15,000,000
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
y = 2E-05x + 47.12x + 638750
y = 8E-06x' + 28.327X + 442288
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow(gpm)
X 20 Meter Very Fine Mesh * 125 Meter Very Fine Mesh +250 Meter Very Fine Mersh "500 Meter Very Fine Mesh
7-27
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-7
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocation Offshore in Freshwater with
Zebra Mussels at Selected Offshore Distances
o
O
&
a.
co
O
"5
$16,000,000
$15,000,000
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
V = 3E-05x + 80.227X + 840117
5268
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow(gpm)
X 20 Meter Very Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Very Fine Mesh +250 Meter Very Fine Mesh "500 Meter Very Fine Mesh
1-28
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-8
Total O&M Cost for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Relocated Offshore with Airburst Backwash
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
O $40,000
08
O
"5
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
y = -6E-07x + 0.2289X + 35945
R = 0.9531
V = -5E-07x" + 0.1393X + 16582
20,000 40,000 60,000
Low Debris • High Debris
80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow
1-29
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-9
Total O&M Cost for Very Fine Mesh
Passive Screen Relocated Offshore with Airburst Backwash
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
| $40,000
c
c
<
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
o
O
08
O
y = -1 E-06x + 0.3735X + 49030
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Design Intake Flow
120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
+ Low Debris B High Debris
1-30
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-10
Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore in Freshwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
o $3,000,000
Q.
re
O
& $2,000,000
o
$1,000,000
y = 3E-06x' + 25.941 x + 157260
2E-06x' + 10.504x+10
687
5400
14719
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-31
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-11
Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Passive Screen at Existing Offshore in Saltwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
o
o
To
a. $3,000,000
re
O
I
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
y= 1E-05x +29.751X + 207212
5E-07x2 + 17.945x+1
y = -5E-08x;>J 1.828x + 1
;!6572
2155
38339
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
*20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-32
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-12
Capital Costs for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore in Freshwater with Zebra
Mussels at Selected Offshore Distances
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
w $4,000,000
o
o
a. $3,000,000
re
O
5
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
y = 3E-06x + 28.349X + 155175
y = -6E-07x + 18.058X+ 122602
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
*20 Meter Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Fine Mesh 250 Meter Fine Mesh 500 Meter Fine Mesh
1-33
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-13
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore in Freshwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
y = 3E-06x'+ 38.65x + 154511
y = 3E-07x +23.006X+12
y- 1E 06x + 15.183X+ 1
^. $3,000,000
6127X + J
0.9994
5879
-1563
9538
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
* 20 Meter Very Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Very Fine Mesh + 250 Meter Very Fine Mesh - 500 Meter Very Fine Mesh
1-34
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-14
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen at Existing Offshore in Saltwater at Selected
Offshore Distances
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
. $5,000,000
re
.*;
o.
re
H $4,000,000
re
I
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
y = 4E-06x +46.211x + 16
999
y = 5E-07x +27.201X+1;
y = -1 E-06x + 17.696x + 1134
9
y = -2E-06x +9.7123x
906
9575
9830
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
140,000 160,000 180,000
* 20 Meter Very Fine Mesh * 125 Meter Very Fine Mesh + 250 Meter Very Fine Mesh " 500 Meter Very Fine Mesh
1-35
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-15
Capital Costs for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore in Freshwater with Zebra
Mussels at Selected Offshore Distances
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
o
To
Q. $4,000,000
re
O
I $3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
y = 3E-06x2 + 42.359X + 152706
y = 1E-07x +26.715x+ 12407
+ 18.893X+ 109758
999
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
140,000 160,000 180,000
* 20 Meter Very Fine Mesh • 125 Meter Very Fine Mesh + 250 Meter Very Fine Mesh - 500 Meter Very Fine Mesh
1-36
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-16
Total O&M Cost for Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore with Airburst Backwash
o
o
re
c
c
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
y = -4E-07x2 + 0.1741X + 30519
R^ = 0.9651
= -3E-Q7x + 0 Q845x +11155 t
R2 = 0.9376
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Design Intake Flow
Low Debris • High Debris
1-37
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 1-17
Total O&M Cost for Very Fine Mesh Passive Screen Existing Offshore with Airburst
Backwash
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
ti> $50,000
o
O
$40,000
re
3
c
5 $30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
y = -8E-07x + 0.2952X + 43574
R2 = 0.9786
20,000 40,000
60,000 80,000 100,000
Design Intake Flow
120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
+ Low Debris • High Debris
1-38
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
2.0 IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SHORELINE INTAKES WITH TRAVELING SCREENS
2.1 REPLACE EXISTING TRAVELING SCREENS WITH NEW TRAVELING SCREEN EQUIPMENT
The methodology described below is based on data, where available, from the Detailed Technical Questionnaires. Where certain
facility data are unavailable (e.g., Short Technical Questionnaire facilities), the methodology generally uses statistical values (e.g.,
median values). The costs for traveling screen improvements described below are for installation in an existing or newly built intake
structure. Where the existing intake is of insufficient design or size, construction costs for increasing the intake size are developed in a
separate cost module and the cost for screen modification/installation at both the existing and/or new intake structure(s) are applied
according to the estimated size of each.
Estimating Existing Intake Size
The capital cost of traveling screen equipment is highly dependent on the size and surface area of the screens employed. In developing
compliance costs for existing facilities in Phase I, a single target, through-screen velocity was used. This decision ensured the overall
screen area of the units being costed was a direct function of design flow. Thus, EPA could rely on a cost estimating methodology for
traveling screens that focused primarily on design flow. In the Phase I approach, a single screen width was chosen for a given flow
range. Variations in cost were generally based on differences in screen well depth. Where the flow exceeded the maximum flow for
the largest screen costed, multiples of the largest (14 ft wide) screens were costed. Because, in this instance, EPA was applying it's
cost methodology to hypothetical facilities, screen well depth could be left as a dependent variable. However, for existing facilities
this approach is not tenable because existing screen velocities vary considerably between facilities. Because the size of the screens is
very much dependent on design flow and screen velocity, a different approach ~ one that first estimates the size of the existing screens
~ is warranted.
Estimating Total Screen Width
Available data from the Detailed Questionnaires concerning the physical size of existing intake structures and screens are limited to
vertical dimensions (e.g., water depth, distance of water surface to intake deck, and intake bottom to water surface). Screen width
dimensions (parallel to shore) are not provided. For each model facility EPA has developed data concerning actual and estimated
design flow. Through-screen velocity is available for most facilities-even those that completed only the Short Technical
Questionnaire. Given the water depth, intake flow, and through screen velocity, the aggregate width of the intake screens can be
estimated using the following equation:
Screen Width (Ft) = Design Flow (cfs) / (Screen Velocity (fps) x Water Depth (Ft) x Open Area (decimal %))
The variables "design Flow," "screen velocity," and "water depth" can be obtained from the database for most facilities that completed
the Detailed Technical Questionnaire. These database values may not always correspond to the same waterbody conditions. For
example, the screen velocity may correspond to low flow conditions while the water depth may represent average conditions. Thus,
calculated screen widths may differ from actual values, but likely represents a reasonable estimate, especially given the limited
available data. EPA considers the above equation to be a reasonable method for estimating the general size of the existing intake for
cost estimation purposes. Determining the value for water depth at the intake, where no data is available, is described below.
The last variable in the screen width equation is the percent open area, which is not available in the database. However, the majority
of the existing traveling screens are coarse mesh screens (particularly those requiring equipment upgrades). In most cases (at least for
power plants), the typical mesh size is 3/8 inch (Petrovs 2002, Gathright 2002). This mesh size corresponds to an industry standard
that states the mesh size should be half the diameter of the downstream heat exchanger tubes. These tubes are typically around 7/8
inch in diameter for power plant steam condensers. For a mesh size of 3/8 inch, the corresponding percent open area for a square
mesh screen using 14 gauge wire is 68%. This combination was reported as "typical" for coarse mesh screens (Gathright 2002). Thus,
EPA will use an assumed percent open area value of 68% in the above equation.
At facilities where the existing through-screen velocity has been determined to be too high for fine mesh traveling screens to perform
properly, a target velocity of 1.0 fps was used in the above equation to estimate the screen width that would correspond to the larger
size intake that would be needed.
Screen Well Depth
The costs for traveling screens are also a function of screen well depth, which is not the same as the water depth. The EPA cost
estimates for selected screen widths have been derived for a range of screen well depths ranging from 10 feet to 100 feet. The screen
7^39
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
well depth is the distance from the intake deck to the bottom of the screen well, and includes both water depth and distance from the
water surface to the deck. For those facilities that reported "distance from intake bottom to water surface" and "distance from water
surface to intake top," the sum of these two values can be used to determine actual screen well depth. For those Phase II facilities that
did not report this data, statistical values such as the median were used. The median value of the ratio of the water depth to the screen
well depth for all facilities that reported such data was 0.66. Thus, based on median reported values, the screen well depth can be
estimated by assuming it is 1.5 times the water depth where only water depth is reported. For those Phase II facilities that reported
water depth data, the median water depth at the intake was 18.0 ft.
Based on this discussion, screen well depth and intake water depth are estimated using the following hierarchy:
If "distance from intake bottom to water surface" plus "distance from water surface to intake top" are reported, then the sum
of these values are used for screen well depth
If only the "distance from intake bottom to water surface" and/or the "depth of water at intake" are reported, one of these
values (if both are known, the former selected is over the latter) is multiplied by a factor of 1.5
If no depth data are reported, this factor is applied to the median water depth value of 18 feet (i.e., 27 feet) and this value is
used.
This approach leaves open the question of which costing scenario well depth should be used where the calculated or estimated well
depth does not correspond to the depths selected for cost estimates. EPA has selected a factor of 1.2 as the cutoff for using a shallower
costing well depth. Table 2-1 shows the range of estimated well depths that correspond to the specific well depths used for costing.
Table 2-1
Guidance for Selecting Screen Well Depth for Cost Estimation
Calculated or Estimated Screen Well Depth (Ft)
0-12 ft
>12-30 ft
>30-60 ft
>60-90 ft
Well Depth to be Costed
10ft
25ft
50ft
75ft
Traveling Screen Replacement Options
Compliance action requirements developed for each facility may result in one of the following traveling screen improvement options:
No Action.
Add Fine Mesh Only (improves entrainment performance).
Add Fish Handling Only (improves impingement performance).
Add Fine Mesh and Fish Handling (improves entrainment and impingement performance).
Table 2-2 shows potential combinations of existing screen technology and replacement technologies that are applied to these traveling
screen improvement options. In each case, there are separate costs for freshwater and saltwater environments.
Areas highlighted in grey in Table 2-2 indicate that the compliance scenario is not compatible with the existing technology
combination. The table shows there are three possible technology combination scenarios that for a retrofit involving modifying the
existing intake structure only,. Each scenario is described briefly below:
Scenario A -Add fine mesh only
This scenario involves simply purchasing a separate set of fine mesh screen overlay panels and installing them in front of the existing
coarse mesh screens. This placement may be performed on a seasonal basis. This option is not considered applicable to existing
screens without fish handling and return systems, since the addition of fine mesh will retain additional aquatic organisms that would
require some means for returning them to the waterbody. Corresponding compliance O&M costs include seasonal placement and
removal of fine mesh screen overlay panels.
1-40
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-2
Compliance Action Scenarios and Corresponding Cost Components
Compliance Action
Add Fine Mesh Only
(Scenario A)
Add Fish Handling Only
(Scenario B)
Add Fine Mesh With Fish
Handling
(Scenario C and Dual-Flow
Traveling Screens)
Cost Component Included in
EPA Cost Estimates
New Screen Unit
Add Fine Mesh Screen
Overlay
Fish Buckets
Add Spray Water Pumps
Add Fish Flume
New Screen Unit1
Add Fine Mesh Screen
Overlay2
Fish Buckets
Add Spray Water Pumps
Add Fish Flume
New Screen Unit
Add Fine Mesh Screen
Overlay
Fish Buckets
Add Spray Water Pumps
Add Fish Flume
Existing Technology
Traveling Screens Without
Fish Return
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Traveling Screens With Fish
Return
No
Yes
No
No
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Replace entire screen unit, includes one set of smooth top or fine mesh screen.
2 Add fine mesh includes costs for a separate set of overlay fine mesh screen panels that can be placed in front of coarser mesh screens
on a seasonal basis.
3 Does not include initial installation labor for fine mesh overlays. Seasonal deployment and removal of fine mesh overlays is included
in O&M costs.
Scenario B -Add fish handling and return
This scenario requires the replacement of all of the traveling screen units with new ones that include fish handling features, but no
specific mesh requirements are included. Mesh size is assumed to be 1/8-inch by '/2-inch smooth top. A less costly option would be to
retain and retrofit portions of the existing screen units. However, vendors noted that approximately 75% of the existing screen
components would require replacement and it would be more prudent to replace the entire screen unit (Gathright 2002, Petrovs 2002).
Costs for additional spray water pumps and a fish return flume are included. Capital and O&M costs do not include any component
for seasonal placement of fine mesh overlays.
Scenario C - Add fine mesh with fish handling and return
This scenario requires replacement of all screen units with units that include fish handling and return features plus additional spray
water pumps and a fish return flume. Costs for a separate set of fine mesh screen overlay panels with seasonal placement are included.
1-41
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Double Entry-Single Exit (Dual-Flow) Traveling Screens
The conditions for scenario C also apply to dual-flow traveling screens described separately below.
Fine Mesh Screen Overlay
Several facilities that have installed fine mesh screens found that during certain periods of the year the debris loading created operating
problems. These problems prompted operators to remove fine mesh screens and replace them with coarser screens for the duration of
the period of high and/or troublesome debris. As a high-side approach, when fine mesh screens replace coarse mesh screens
(Scenarios A and C), EPA has decided to include costs for using two sets of screens (one coarser mesh screen such as 1/8-inch by 1/4-
inch smooth top and one fine mesh overlay) with annual placement and removal of the fine mesh overlay. This placement of fine
mesh overlay can occur for short periods when sensitive aquatic organisms are present or for longer periods being removed only
during a the period when troublesome debris is present. Fine mesh screen overlays are also included in the costs for dual-flow
traveling screens described separately below.
Mesh Type
In general three different types of mesh are considered here. One is the coarse mesh which is typical in older installations. Coarse
mesh is considered to be the baseline mesh type and the typical mesh size is 3/8 inch square mesh. When screens are replaced, two
types of mesh are considered. One is fine mesh, which is assumed to have openings in the 1 to 2 mm range. The other mesh type is
the smooth top mesh. Smooth top mesh has smaller openings (at least in one dimension) than coarse mesh (e.g., 1/8-inch by '/2-inch is
a common size) and is manufactured in a way that reduces the roughness that is associated with coarse mesh. Smooth top mesh is used
in conjunction with screens that have fish handling and return systems. The roughness of standard coarse mesh has been blamed for
injuring (descaling) fish as they are washed over the screen surface when they pass from the fish bucket to the return trough during the
fish wash step. Due to the tighter weave of fine mesh screens, roughness is not an issue when using fine mesh.
2.1.1 TRAVELING SCREEN CAPITAL COSTS
The capital cost of traveling screen equipment is generally based on the size of the screen well (width and depth), construction
materials, type of screen baskets, and ancillary equipment requirements. While EPA has chosen to use the same mix of standard
screen widths and screen well depths as were developed for the new facility Phase I effort, as described above, the corresponding
water depth, design flow, and through-screen velocities in most cases differ. As presented in Table 2-2, cost estimates do not need to
include a compliance scenario where replacement screen units without fish handling and return equipment are installed. Unlike the
cost methodology developed for Phase I, separate costs are developed in Phase II costing for equipment suitable for freshwater and
saltwater environments. Costs for added spray water pumps and fish return flumes are described below, but unlike the screening
equipment are generally a function of screen width only.
Screen Equipment Costs
EPA contacted traveling screen vendors to obtain updated costs for traveling screens with fine mesh screens and fish handling
equipment for comparison to the 1999 costs developed for Phase I. Specifically, costs for single entry-single exit (through-flow)
screens with the following attributes were requested:
-Spray systems
-Fish trough
-Housings and transitions
-Continuous operating features
-Drive unit
-Frame seals
-Engineering
-Freshwater versus saltwater environments.
Only one vendor provided comparable costs (Gathright 2002). The costs for freshwater environments were based on equipment
constructed primarily of epoxy-coated carbon steel with stainless steel mesh and fasteners. Costs for saltwater and brackish water
environments were based on equipment constructed primarily of 316 stainless steel with stainless steel mesh and fasteners.
EPA compared these newly obtained equipment costs to the costs for similar freshwater equipment developed for Phase I, adjusted for
1-42
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
inflation to July 2002 dollars. EPA found that the newly obtained equipment costs were lower by 10% to 30%. In addition, a
comparison of the newly obtained costs for brackish water and freshwater screens showed that the costs for saltwater equipment were
roughly 2.0 times the costs for freshwater equipment. This factor of approximately 2.0 was also suggested by a separate vendor
(Petrovs 2002). Rather than adjust the Phase I equipment costs downward, EPA chose to conclude that the Phase I freshwater
equipment costs adjusted to 2002 were valid (if not somewhat overestimated), and that a factor of 2.0 would be reasonable for
estimating the cost of comparable saltwater/brackish water equipment. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 present the Phase I equipment costs,
adjusted for inflation to July 2002 dollars, for freshwater and saltwater environments respectively.
Table 2-3
Equipment Costs for Traveling Screens with Fish Handling for Freshwater Environments
2002 Dollars
Well Depth
(Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screen ina Panel Width (Ft)
2
$69,200
$88,600
$133,500
$178,500
$245,300
5
$80,100
$106,300
$166,200
$228,900
$291,600
10
$102,500
$145,000
$237,600
$308,500
$379,300
14
$147,700
$233,800
$348,300
$451,800
$549,900
Table 2-4
Equipment Costs for Traveling Screens with Fish Handling for Saltwater Environments
2002 Dollars
Well Depth
(Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screening Panel Width (Ft)
2
$138,400
$177,200
$267,000
$357,000
$490,600
5
$160,200
$212,600
$332,400
$457,800
$583,200
10
$205,000
$290,000
$475,200
$617,000
$758,600
14
$295,400
$467,600
$696,600
$903,600
$1,099,800
Costs for fine mesh screen overlay panels were cited as approximately 8% to 10% of the total screen unit costs (Gathright 2002). The
EPA cost estimates for fine mesh overlay screen panels are based on a 10% factor applied to the screen equipment costs shown in
Tables 2-3 and 2-4. Note that if the entire screen basket required replacement, then the costs would increase to about 25% to 30% of
the screen unit costs (Gathright 2002, Petrovs 2002). However, in the scenarios considered here, basket replacement would occur only
when fish handling is being added. In those scenarios, EPA has chosen to assume that the entire screen unit will require replacement.
The cost of new traveling screen units with smooth top mesh is only about 2% above that for fine mesh (Gathright 2002). EPA has
concluded that the cost for traveling screen units with smooth top mesh is nearly indistinguishable from that for fine mesh. Therefore,
EPA has not developed separate costs for each.
Screen Unit Installation Costs
Vendors indicated that the majority of intakes have stop gates or stop log channels that enable the isolation and dewatering of the
screen wells. Thus, EPA assumes, in most cases, screens can be replaced and installed in dewatered screen wells without the use of
divers. When asked whether most screens were accessible by crane, a vendor did note that about 70% to 75% may have problems
accessing the intake screens by crane from overhead. In such cases, the screens are dismantled (screen panels are removed, chains are
removed and screen structure is removed in sections that key into each other). Such overhead access problems may be due to
structural cover or buildings, and access is often through the side wall. According to one vendor, this screen dismantling requirement
may add 30% to the installation costs. For those installations that do not need to dismantle screens, these costs typically are $15,000
to $30,000 per unit (Petrovs 2002). Another vendor cited screen installation costs as +/- $45,000 per screen giving an example of
1-43
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
$20,000 for a 15-foot screen plus the costs of a crane and forklift ($15,000 - $20,000 divided between screens) (Gathright 2002). Note
that these installation costs are for the typical range of screen sizes; vendors noted that screens in the range of the 100-foot well depth
are rarely encountered.
Table 2-5 presents the installation costs developed from vendor supplied data. These costs include crane and forklift costs and are
presented on a per screen basis. Phase I installation costs included an intake construction component not included in Phase II costs.
The costs shown here assume the intake structure and screen wells are already in-place. Therefore, installation involves removing
existing screens and installing new screens in their place. Any costs for increasing the intake size are developed as a separate module.
Vendors indicated costs for disposing of the existing screens were minimal. The cost of removal and disposal of old screens,
therefore, are assumed to be included in the Table 2-5 estimates.
Table 2-5
Traveling Screen Installation Costs
Well Depth
Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screening Panel Width (Ft)
2
$15,000
$22,500
$30,000
$37,500
$45,000
5
$18,000
$27,000
$36,000
$45,000
$54,000
10
$21,000
$31,500
$42,000
$52,500
$63,000
14
$25,000
$37,000
$50,000
$62,500
$75,000
Installation of Fine Mesh Screen Panel Overlays
Screen panel overlay installation and removal costs are based on an estimate of the amount of labor required to replace each screen
panel. Vendors provided the following estimates for labor to replace screen baskets and panels (Petrovs 2002, Gathright 2002):
1.0 hours per screen panel overlay (1.5 hours to replace baskets and panel)
Requires two-man team for small screen widths (assumed to be 2- and 5-foot wide screens)
Requires three-man team for large screen widths (assumed to be 10- and 14-foot wide screens)
Number of screen panels is based on 2-foot tall screen panels on front and back extending 6 feet above the deck. Thus, a
screen for a 25-foot screen well is estimated to have 28 panels.
Labor costs are based on a composite labor rate of $41.10/hr (See O&M cost section).
These assumptions apply to installation costs for Scenario A. These same assumptions also apply to O&M costs for fine mesh screen
overlay in Scenarios A and C, where it is applied twice for seasonal placement and removal.
Indirect Costs Associated with Replacement of Traveling Screens
EPA noted that equipment costs (Tables 2-3 and 2-4) included the engineering component and that installation costs (Table 2-5)
included costs for contractor overhead and profit. Because the new screens are designed to fit the existing screen well channels and
the existing structure is of a known design, contingency and allowance costs should be minimal. Also, no costs for sitework were
included because existing intakes, in most cases, should already have provisions for equipment access. Because inflation-adjusted
equipment costs exceeded the recently obtained equipment vendor quotation by 10% to 30%, EPA has concluded any indirect costs are
already included in the equipment cost component.
Combining Per Screen Costs with Total Screen Width
As noted above, total screen costs are estimated using a calculated screen width as the independent variable. In many cases, this
calculated width will involve using more than one screen, particularly if the width is greater than 10 to 14 feet. Vendors have
indicated there is a general preference for using 10-foot wide screens over 14-foot screens, but that 14-foot screens are more
economical (reducing civil structure costs) for larger installations. The screen widths and corresponding number and screens used to
plot screen cost data and develop cost equations are as follows:
1-44
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
2ft
5ft
10ft
20ft
30ft
40ft
50ft
60ft
70ft
84ft
98ft
112ft
126ft
140ft
a single
a single
a single
two
three
four
five
six
five
= six
seven
eight
= nine
ten
2-ft screen
5 -ft screen
10-ft screen
10-ft screens
10-ft screens
10-ft screens
10-ft screens
10-ft screens
14-ft screens
14-ft screens
14-ft screens
14-ft screens
14-ft screens
14-ft screens.
Any widths greater than 140 feet are divided and the costs for the divisions are summed.
Ancillary Equipment Costs for Fish Handling and Return System
When adding a screen with a fish handling and return system where no fish handling system existed before, there are additional
requirements for spray water and a fish return flume. The equipment and installation costs for the fish troughs directly adjacent to the
screen and spray system are included in the screen unit and installation costs. However, the costs for pumping additional water for the
new fish spray nozzles and the costs for the fish return flume from the end of the intake structure to the discharge point are not
included. Fish spray and flume volume requirements are based solely on screen width and are independent of depth.
Pumps for Spray Water
Wash water requirements for the debris wash and fish spray were obtained from several sources. Where possible, the water volume
was divided by the total effective screen width to obtain the unit flow requirements (gpm/ft). Total unit flow requirements for both
debris wash and fish spray combined ranged from 26.7 gpm/ft to 74.5 gpm/ft. The only data with a breakdown between the two uses
reported a flow of 17.4 gpm/ft for debris removal and 20.2 gpm/ft for fish spray, with a total of 37.5 gpm/ft (Petrovs 2002). Based on
these data, EPA assumed a total of 60 gpm/ft with each component being equal at 30 gpm/ft. These values are near the high end of the
ranges reported and were selected to account for additional water needed at the upstream end of the fish trough to maintain a minimum
depth.
Because the existing screens already have pumps to provide the necessary debris spray flow, only the costs for pumps sized to deliver
the added fish spray are included in the capital cost totals. Costs for the added fish spray pumps are based on the installed equipment
cost estimates developed for Phase I, adjusted to July 2002 dollars. These costs already include an engineering component. An
additional 10% was added for contingency and allowance. Also, 20% was added to theses costs to account for any necessary
modifications to the existing intake (based on BPJ). Table 2-6 presents the costs for adding pumps for the added fish spray volume.
The costs in Table 2-6 were plotted and a best-fit, second-order equation derived from the data. Pump costs were then projected from
this equation for the total screen widths described earlier.
Table 2-6
Fish Spray Pump Equipment and Installation Costs
1-45
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Fish Return Flume
In the case of the fish
of water to be carried was
Centrifug
al Pump
Flow
(gpm)
10
50
75
100
500
1,000
2,000
4,000
Costs for
Centrifugal
Pumps -
Installed (1999
Dollars)
$800
$2,250
$2,500
$2,800
$3,700
$4,400
$9,000
$18,000
Pump Costs
Adjusted to
July 2002
$872
$2,453
$2,725
$3,052
$4,033
$4,796
$9,810
$19,620
Retrofit
Cost&
Indirect
Costs
$262
$736
$818
$916
$1,210
$1,439
$2,943
$5,886
Total
Installed
Cost
$1,134
$3,189
$3,543
$3,968
$5,243
$6,235
$12,753
$25,506
return flume, the total volume
assumed to include both the fish
spray water and the debris wash water. A total unit flow of 60 gpm/ft screen width was assumed as a conservative value for
estimating the volume to be conveyed. Return flumes may take the form of open troughs or closed pipe and are often constructed of
reinforced fiberglass (Gathright 2002, Petrovs 2002). The pipe diameter is based on an assumed velocity of 1.5 fps, which is at the
low end of the range of pipe flow velocities. Higher velocities will result in smaller pipes. Actual velocities may be much higher in
order to ensure fish are transported out of the pipe. With lower velocities fish can continually swim upstream. Vendors have noted
that the pipes do not tend to flow full, so basing the cost on a larger pipe sized on the basis of a low velocity is a reasonable approach.
Observed flume return lengths varied considerably. In some cases, where the intake is on a tidal waterbody, two return flumes may be
used alternately to maintain the discharge in the downstream direction of the receiving water flow. A traveling screen vendor
suggested lengths of 75 to 150 feet (Gathright 2002). EPA reviewed facility description data and found example flume lengths ranging
from 30 ft to 300 ft for intakes without canals, and up to several thousand feet for those with canals. For the compliance scenario
typical flume length, EPA chose the upper end of the range of examples for facilities without intake canals (300 ft). For those intakes
located at the end of a canal, the cost for the added flume length to get to the waterway (assumed equal to canal length) is estimated by
multiplying an additional unit cost-per-ft times the canal length. This added length cost is added to the non-canal facility total cost.
To simplify the cost estimation approach, a unit pipe/support structure cost ($/inch-diameter/ft-length) was developed based on the unit
cost of a 12-inch reinforced fiberglass pipe at $70/ft installed RS Means 2001) and the use of wood pilings at 10-foot intervals as the
support structure. Piling costs assume that the average piling length is 15 feet and unit cost for installed pilings is $15.80/ft (RS Means
2001). The unit costs already include the indirect costs for contractor overhead and profit. Additional costs include 10% for
engineering, 10% for contingency and allowance, and 10% for sitework. Sitework costs are intended to cover preparation and
restoration of the work area adjacent to the flume. Based on these cost applied to an assumed 300-foot flume, a unit cost of
$10.15/India./ft was derived. Flume costs for the specific total screen widths were then derived based on a calculated flume diameter
(using the assumed flow volume of 60 gpm/ft, the 1.5-fps velocity when full) times the unit cost and the length.
EPA was initially concerned whether there would be enough vertical head available to provide the needed gradient, particularly for the
longer applications. In a typical application, the upstream end of the flume is located above the intake deck and the water flows down
the flume to the water surface below. A vendor cited a minimum gradient requirement in the range of 0.001 to 0.005 ft drop/ft length.
For a 300-foot pipe, the needed vertical head based on these gradients is only 0.3 feet to 1.5 feet. The longest example fish return
length identified by EPA was 4,600 feet at the Brunswick, SC plant. The head needed for that return, based on the above minimum
gradient range, is 4.6 feet to 23 feet. Based on median values from the Phase II data base, intake decks are often about half the intake
water depth above the water surface, EPA has concluded in most cases there was more than enough gradient available. Indeed, the data
suggest if the return length is too short, there may be a potential problem from too great a gradient producing velocities that could
injure fish.
Table 2-7 presents the added spray water pumps costs, 300-foot flume costs and the unit cost for additional flume length above 300
feet. Note that a feasibility study for the Drayton Point power plant cited an estimated flume unit cost of $ 100/ft which does not
include indirect costs but is still well below comparable costs shown in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7
1-46
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Spray Pump and Flume Costs
Total Screen Wdth (ft)
fish Sprav Row at 30 qprrift (qcm)
FlrrpCosts 1
Total V\teh Rowat 60 qprrfft (qpm)
RpeDacM.5fos(ln)
RirreCostsatl $10.15
Rume Cost par R Aided
2
60
$3,400
1Z
6.C
$18,272
$51
C
15C
$a9oc
30C
ac
$24,362
$31
10
300
$4,400
60C
120
$36,543
$122
2C
60C
$550C
120C
16.C
$48,724
$162
3C
go:
$6,70:
iax
20.C
$60,905
$203
4C
120C
$8,10:
240:
23C
$70,041
$233
5C
150C
$9,50C
30X
25.C
$76,131
$254
6C
180C
$11,10:
380C
23.C
$85,267
$234
7C
210:
$12,80:
420C
30.C
$91,358
$305
84
252C
$15,300
504C
33.C
$100,493
$335
96
294C
$18000
53SC
35.C
$106,584
$355
112
336C
$21 000
672C
38.C
$115,72C
$386
126
3780
$24100
7560
400
$121,810
$406
14C
420C
$27,50C
sec
42.C
$127,901
$426
Total Capital Costs
Indirect costs such as engineering, contractor overhead and profit, and contingency and allowance have been included in the individual
component costs as they apply. Tables 2-8 through 2-13 (at the end of this section) present the total capital costs for compliance
scenarios A, B, and C for both freshwater and saltwater environments. These costs are then plotted in Figures 2-1 through 2-6, which
also include the best-fit, second-order equations of the data. These equations are used in the estimation of capital costs for the various
technology applications.
2.1.2 DOWNTIME REQUIREMENTS
Placement of the fine screen overlay panels (Scenario A & C) can be done while the screen is operating. The screens are stopped
during the placement and, between the placement of each panel, the screen rotated once. Installation of the ancillary equipment for the
fish return system can be performed prior to screen replacement. Only the step of replacing the screen units would require shutdown
of that portion of the intake. Vendors have reported that it would take from one to three days to replace traveling screen units where
fish troughs and new spray piping are needed. The total should be no more than two weeks for multiple screens (Gathright 2002). If
necessary, facilities with multiple screens and pumps could operate at the reduced capacity associated with taking a single pump out
of service. However, it would be more prudent to schedule the screen replacement during a scheduled maintenance shutdown which
typically occurs on an annual basis. Even at the largest installations with numerous screens, there should be sufficient time during the
scheduled maintenance period to replace the screens and install controls and piping. Therefore, EPA is not including any monetary
consideration for unit downtime associated with screen replacement or installation. Downtime for modification or addition to the
intake structure to increase its size are discussed in a separate cost module.
Nuclear Facilities
Costs for nuclear facilities are not presented here. However, these costs were estimated applying a 1.8 cost factor to the applicable
non-nuclear facility costs (see passive screen module for discussion).
2.1.3
O&M COST DEVELOPMENT
In general, O&M costs for intake system retrofit involve calculating the net difference between the existing system O&M costs and the
new system O&M costs. The Phase I O&M cost estimates for traveling screens were generally derived as a percentage of the capital
costs. This approach, however, does not lend itself well to estimating differences in operating costs for retrofits that involve similar
equipment but have different operating and maintenance requirements such as changes in the duration of the screen operation.
Therefore, a more detailed approach was developed.
The O&M costs developed here include only those components associated with traveling screens. Because cooling water flow rates
are assumed not to change as a result of the retrofit, the O&M costs associated with the intake pumps are not considered. For traveling
screens, the O&M costs are broken down into three components: labor, power requirements, and parts replacement. The basis and
assumptions for each are described below.
Labor Requirements
The basis for estimating the total annual labor cost is based on labor hours as described below. In each baseline and compliance
scenario the estimated number of hours is multiplied times a single hourly rate of $41.10/hour. This rate was derived by first
estimating the hourly rate for a manager and a technician. The estimated management and technician rates were based on Bureau of
1-47
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Labor Statistics hourly rates for management and electrical equipment technicians. These rates were multiplied by factors that estimate
the additional costs of other compensation (e.g., benefits) to yield estimates of the total labor costs to the employer. These rates were
adjusted for inflation to represent June 2002 dollars (see Daley 2002 for details). The two labor category rates were combined into one
compound rate using the assumption that 90% of the hours applied to the technicians and 10% to management. A 10% management
component was considered as reasonable because the majority of the work involves physical labor, with managers providing oversight
and coordination with the operation of the generating units.
A vendor provided general guidelines for estimating basic labor requirements for traveling screens as averaging 200 hours and ranging
from 100 to 300 hours per year per screen for coarse mesh screens without fish handling and double that for fine mesh screens with
fish handling (Gathright 2002). The lower end of the range corresponds to shallow narrow screens and the high end of the range
corresponds to the widest deepest screens. Tables 2-14 and 2-15 present the estimated annual number of labor hours required to
operate and maintain a "typical" traveling screen.
Table 2-14
Basic Annual O&M Labor Hours for
Coarse Mesh Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Well Depth
feet
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screening Panel Width
2
100
120
130
140
150
5
150
175
200
225
250
10
175
200
225
250
275
14
200
225
250
275
300
Table 2-15
Basic Annual O&M Labor Hours for
Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Well Depth
feet
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screening Panel Width (Ft)
2
78
168
318
468
618
5
78
168
318
468
618
10
117
252
477
702
927
14
117
252
477
702
927
When fine mesh screens are added as part of a compliance option, they are included as a screen overlay. EPA has assumed when
sensitive aquatic organisms are present these fine mesh screens will be in place. EPA also assumes during times when levels of
troublesome debris are present the facility will remove the fine mesh screen panels leaving the coarse mesh screen panels in place. The
labor assumptions for replacing the screen panels are described earlier, but in this application the placement and removal steps occur
once each per year. Table 2-16 presents the estimated annual labor hours for placement and removal of the fine mesh overlay screens.
Table 2-16
Total Annual O&M Hours for Fine Mesh Overlay Screen Placement and Removal
1-48
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Well Depth
feet
10
25
50
75
100
Basket Screening Panel Width
2
78
168
318
468
618
5
78
168
318
468
618
10
117
252
477
702
927
14
117
252
477
702
927
Operating Power Requirement
Power is needed to operate the mechanical equipment, specifically the motor drives for the traveling screens and the pumps that
deliver the spray water for both the debris wash and the fish spray.
Screen Drive Motor Power Requirement
Coarse mesh traveling screens without fish handling are typically operated on an intermittent basis. When debris loading is low the
screens may be operated several times per day for relatively short durations. Traveling screens with fish handling and return systems,
however, must operate continuously if the fish return system is to function properly.
A vendor provided typical values for the horsepower rating for the drive motors for traveling screens which are shown in Table 2-17.
These values were assumed to be similar for all of the traveling screen combinations considered here. Different operating hours are
assumed for screens with and without fish handling. This is due to the fact that screens with fish handling must be operated
continuously. A vendor estimated that coarse mesh screens without fish handling are typically operated for a total of 4 to 6 hrs/day
(Gathright 2002). The following assumptions apply:
The system will be shut down for four weeks out of the year for routine maintenance
For fine mesh, operating hours will be continuous (24 hrs/day)
For coarse mesh, operating hours will be an average of 5 hours/day (range of 4 to 6)
Electric motor efficiency of 90%
• Power cost of $0.04/kWh for power plants.
Wash Water and Fish Spray Pump Power Requirement
As noted previously, spray water is needed for both washing debris off of the screens (which occurs at all traveling screens) and for a
fish spray (which is needed for screens with fish handling and return systems). The nozzle pressure for the debris spray can range
from 80 to 120 psi. A value of 120 psi was chosen as a high value which would include any static pressure component. The following
assumptions apply:
Spray water pumps operate for the same duration as the traveling screen drive motors
Debris wash requires 30 gpm/ft screen length
Fish spray requires 30 gpm/ft screen length
Pumping pressure is 120 psi (277 ft of water) for both
Combined pump and motor efficiency is 70%
Electricity cost is $0.04/KWh for power plants.
The pressure needed for fish spray is considerably less than that required for debris, but it is assumed that all wash water is pumped to
the higher pressure and regulators are used to step down the pressure for the fish wash. Tables 2-18 and 2-19 present the power costs
for the spray water for traveling screens without and with fish handling, respectively. Spray water requirements depend on the
presence of a fish return system but are assumed to otherwise be the same regardless of the screen mesh size.
Table 2-17
Screen Drive Motor Power Costs
1-49
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Screen
Width
Ft
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
14
14
Well
Deoth
Ft
10
25
50
75
100
10
25
50
75
100
10
25
50
75
100
10
25
50
75
75
Motor
Power
HD
0.5
1
2.7
5
6.7
0.75
1.5
4
7.5
10.0
1
3.5
10
15
20.0
2
6.25
15
20
26.6
Electric
Power
Kw
0.414
0.829
2.210
4.144
5.512
0.622
1.243
3.316
6.217
8.268
0.829
2.901
8.289
12.433
16.536
1.658
5.181
12.433
16.578
22.048
Power Costs - Fine Mesh
Operating
Hours
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
8,064
Annual
Power
Kwh
3,342
6,684
17,824
33,421
44,450
5,013
10,026
26,737
50,131
66,674
6,684
23,395
66,842
100,262
133,349
13,368
41,776
100,262
133,683
177,799
Annual
Power
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$134
$267
$713
$1,337
$1,778
$201
$401
$1,069
$2,005
$2,667
$267
$936
$2,674
$4,010
$5,334
$535
$1,671
$4,010
$5,347
$7,112
Power Costs - Coar
Operating
Hours
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
1,680
Annual
Power
Kwh
696
1,393
3,713
6,963
9,260
1,044
2,089
5,570
10,444
13,891
1,393
4,874
13,925
20,888
27,781
2,785
8,703
20,888
27,851
37,041
se Mesh
Annual
Power
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$28
$56
$149
$279
$370
$42
$84
$223
$418
$556
$56
$195
$557
$836
$1,111
$111
$348
$836
$1,114
$1,482
Table 2-18
Wash Water Power Costs
Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Screen
Width
ft
2
5
10
14
Flow Rate
qpm
60
150
300
420
Total Head
ft
277
277
277.1
277
Hydraulic-
He
HD
4.20
10.49
20.98
29.37
Brake-He
HD
6.0
15.0
30.0
42.0
Power
Requirem
ent
Kw
4.5
11.2
22.4
31.3
Fine Mesh
Annual
Hours
hr
8064
8064
8064
8064
Annual
Power
Kwh
36,072
90,179
180,359
252,502
Total
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$1,443
$3,607
$7,214
$10,100
Coarse Mesh
Annual
Hours
hr
1680
1680
1680
1680
Annual
Power
Kwh
7,515
18787
37575
52605
Total
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$301
$751
$1,503
$2,104
Parts
ement
Table 2-19
Wash Water and Fish Spray Power Costs
Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Screen
Width
ft
2
5
10
14
Flow Rate
acm
120
300
600
840
Total Head
ft
277
277
277
277
Hydraulic-
Hp
HD
8.39
20.98
41.97
58.76
Brake-Hp
HD
12.0
30.0
60.0
83.9
Power
Requirem
ent
Kw
8.9
22.4
44.7
62.6
Fine Mesh
Annual
Hours
hr
8064
8064
8064
8064
Annual
Power
Kwh
72,143
180,359
360,717
505,004
Total
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$2,886
$7,214
$14,429
$20,200
Coarse Mesh
Annual
Hours
hr
1680
1680
1680
1680
Annual
Power
Kwh
15,030
37575
75149
105209
Total
Costs at
$/Kwh of
$0.04
$601
$1,503
$3,006
$4,208
Replac
1-50
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
A vendor estimated that the cost of parts replacement for coarse mesh traveling screens without fish handling would be approximately
15% of the equipment costs every 5 years (Gathright 2002). For traveling screens with fish handling, the same 15% would be replaced
every 2.5 years. EPA has assumed for all screens that the annual parts replacement costs would be 6% of the equipment costs for those
operating continuously and 3% for those operating intermittently. These factors are applied to the equipment costs in Table 2-3 and 2-
4. Traveling screens without fish handling (coarse mesh) operate fewer hours (estimated at 5 hrs/day) and should therefore experience
less wear on the equipment. While the time of operation is nearly five times longer for continuous operation, the screen speed used is
generally lower for continuous operation. Therefore, the wear and tear, hence O&M costs, are not directly proportional.
Baseline and Compliance O&M Scenarios
Table 2-20 presents the six baseline and compliance O&M scenario cost combinations developed by EPA.
For the few baseline operations with fine mesh, nearly all had fish returns and or low screen velocities, indicating that such facilities
will likely not require compliance action. Thus, there is no baseline cost scenario for traveling screens with fine mesh without fish
handling and return. Tables 2-21 through -26 (at the end of this section) present the O&M costs for the cost scenarios shown in Table
2-20. Figures 2-7 through 2-12 present the graphic plots of the O&M costs shown in these tables with best-fit, second-order equations
of the plots. These equations are used in the estimation of O&M costs for the various technology applications.
Table 2-20
Mix of O&M Cost Components for Various Scenarios
Mesh Type
Fish Handling
Water Type
Screen Operation
Basic Labor
Screen Overlay Labor
Screen Motor Power
Debris Spray Pump
Power
Fish Spray Pump Power
Parts Replacement - %
Equipment Costs
Baseline
Without
Fish
Handling
Coarse
None
Freshwater
5 hrs/day
100-300 hrs
None
5 hrs/day
5 hrs/day
None
3%
Baseline
Without
Fish
Handling
Coarse
None
Saltwater
5 hrs/day
100-300 hrs
None
5 hrs/day
5 hrs/day
None
3%
Baseline with
Fish Handling &
Scenario B
Compliance
Coarse or Smooth
Top
Yes
Freshwater
Continuous
200-600 hrs
None
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
6%
Baseline with
Fish Handling
& Scenario B
Compliance
Coarse or
Smooth Top
Yes
Saltwater
Continuous
200-600 hrs
None
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
6%
Scenario
A&C
Compliance
Smooth Top
&Fine
Yes
Freshwater
Continuous
200-600 hrs
Yes
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
6%
Scenario
A&C
Compliance
Smooth Top
&Fine
Yes
Saltwater
Continuous
200-600 hrs
Yes
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
6%
O&M for Nuclear Facilities
Unlike the assumption for capital costs, the O&M costs for nuclear facilities consider the differences in the component costs. The
power cost component is assumed to be the same. The equipment replacement cost component uses the same annual percentage of
equipment cost factors, but is increased by the same factor as the capital costs (2.0). A Bureau of Labor Statistics document (BLS
2002) reported that the median annual earnings of a nuclear plant operator were $57,220 in 2002 compared to $46,090 for power plant
operators in general. Thus, nuclear operators earnings were 24% higher than the industry average. No comparable data were available
for maintenance personnel. This factor of 24% is used for estimating the increase in labor costs for nuclear facilities. This factor may
be an overestimation: nuclear plant operators require a proportionally greater amount of training and the consequences of their actions
engender greater overall risks than the intake maintenance personnel. EPA recalculated the O&M costs using the revised equipment
1-51
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
replacement and labor costs. EPA found that the ratio of non-nuclear to nuclear O&M costs did not vary much for each scenario and
water depth. Therefore, EPA chose to use the factor derived from the average ratio (across total width values) of estimated nuclear
facility O&M to non-nuclear facility O&M for each scenario and well depth to estimate the nuclear facility O&M costs. Table 2-27
presents the cost factors to be used to estimate nuclear facility O&M costs for each cost scenario and well depth using the non-nuclear
O&M values as the basis.
Table 2-27
Nuclear Facility O&M Cost Factors
\Afell Depth
Ft
10
25
50
75
100
Baseline O&M
Traveling Screens
Without Fish Handlina
Freshwater
1.32
1.35
1.39
1.41
1.42
Baseline O&M
Traveling Screens
Without Fish Handlina
Saltwater
1.41
1.45
1.51
1.53
1.55
Baseline & Scenario
B Compliance O&M
Traveling Screens
With Fish Handlina
Freshwater
1.29
1.33
1.39
1.43
1.45
Baseline & Scenario
B Compliance O&M
Traveling Screens
With Fish Handlina
Saltwater
1.40
1.46
1.53
1.57
1.60
Scenario A & C
Compliance O&M
Traveling Screens
With Fish Handlina
Freshwater
1.28
1.32
1.36
1.38
1.40
Scenario A & C
Compliance O&M
Traveling Screens
With Fish Handlina
Saltwater
1.39
1.44
1.49
1.51
1.53
2.1.4 DOUBLE ENTRY-SINGLE EXIT (DUAL-FLOW) TRAVELING SCREENS
Another option for replacing coarse mesh single entry-single exit (through-flow) traveling screens is to install double entry-single exit
(dual-flow) traveling screens. Such screens are designed and installed to filter water continuously, using both upward and downward
moving parts of the screen. The interior space between the upward and downward moving screen panels is closed off on one side
(oriented in the upstream direction), while screened water exits towards the pump well through the open end on the other side.
One major advantage of dual-flow screens is that the direction of flow through the screen does not reverse as it does on the back side
of a through-flow screen. As such, there is no opportunity for debris stuck on the screen to dislodge on the downstream side. In
through-flow screens, debris that fails to dislodge as it passes the spray wash can become dislodged on the downstream side
(essentially bypassing the screen). Such debris continues downstream where it can plug condenser tubes or require more frequent
cleaning of fixed screens set downstream of the intake screen to prevent condenser tube plugging. Such maintenance typically
requires the shut down of the generating units. Since dual-flow screens eliminate the opportunity for debris carryover, the spray water
pressure requirements are reduced with dual-flow screens requiring a wash water spray pressure of 30 psi compared to 80 to 120 psi
for through-flow screens (Gathright 2002). Dual-flow screens are oriented such that the screen face is parallel to the direction of flow.
By extending the screen width forward (perpendicular to the flow) to a size greater than one half the screen well width, the total screen
surface area of a dual-flow screen can exceed that of a through-flow screen in the same application. Therefore, if high through-screen
velocities are affecting the survival of impinged organisms in existing through-flow screens, the retrofit of dual-flow screens may help
alleviate this problem. The degree of through-screen velocity reduction will be dependent on the space constraints of the existing
intake configuration. In new intake construction, dual-flow screens can be installed with no walls separating the screens.
Retrofitting existing intakes containing through-flow screens with dual-flow screens can be performed with little or minor
modifications to the existing intake structure. In this application, the dual-flow screens are constructed such that the open outlet side
will align with the previous location of the downstream side of the through-flow screen. The screen is constructed with supports that
slide into the existing screen slots and with "gull wing" baffles that close off the area between the screens downstream end and the
screen well walls. The baffles are curved to better direct the flow. For many existing screen structures, the opening where the screen
passes through the intake deck (including the open space in front of the screen) is limited to a five-foot opening front to back which
limits the equivalent total overall per screen width of just under 10 ft for dual-flow retrofit screens. Because dual-flow screens filter on
both sides the effective width is twice that of one screen panel. However, a vendor indicated, in many instances the screen well
opening can be extended forward by demolishing a portion of the concrete deck at the front end. The feasibility and extent of such a
modification (such as maximum width of the retrofit screen) is dependent on specific design of the existing intake, particularly
concerning the proximity of obstructions upstream of the existing screen units. Certainly, most through-flow screens of less than 10 ft
widths could be retrofitted with dual-flow screens that result in greater effective screen widths. Those 10 ft wide or greater that have
large deck openings and/or available space could also install dual-flow screens with greater effective screen widths.
Capital Cost for Dual-Flow Screens
1-52
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
A screen vendor provided general guidance for both capital and O&M costs for dual-flow screens (Gathright 2002). The cost of dual-
flow screens with fish handling sized to fit in existing intake screen wells could be estimated using the following factors applied to the
costs of a traveling screen with fish handling that fit the existing screen well:
For a screen well depth of 0 to <20 ft add 15% to the cost of a similarly sized through-flow screen.
For a screen well depth of 20 ft to <40 ft add 10% to the cost of a similarly sized through-flow screen.
For a screen well depth of greater than 40 ft add 5% to the cost of a similarly sized through-flow screen.
Installation costs are assumed to be similar to that for through-flow screens. The above factors were applied to the total installed cost
of similarly sized through-flow screens, However, an additional 5% was added to the above cost factors to account for modifications
that may be necessary to accommodate the new dual-flow screens such as demolition of a portion of the deck area. It is assumed that
dual-flow screens can be installed in place of most through-flow screens but the benefit of lower through screen velocities may be
limited for larger width (e.g., 14-ft) existing screens. The dual-flow screens are assumed to include fine mesh overlays and fish return
systems, so the cost factors are applied to the scenario C through-flow screens only. The costs for dual-flow screens are not presented
here but can be derived by applying the factor shown in Table 2-28 below
The capital costs for adding fine mesh overlays to existing dual-flow screens (scenario A) is assumed to be the same as for through-
flow screens. This assumption is based on the fact that installation labor is based on the number of screen panels and should be the
nearly the same and that the cost of the screen overlays themselves should be nearly the same. The higher equipment costs for dual-
flow screens is mostly due to the equipment and equipment modifications located above the deck.
Table 2-28
Capital Cost Factors for Dual-Flow Screens
Screen Depth
10 Ft
25 Ft
50 Ft
75 Ft
Capital Cost Factor1
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.1
1 Applied to capital costs for similarly sized through-flow screens derived from equations shown in Figures 2-5 and 2-6 (Scenario C
freshwater and saltwater)
O&M Costs for Dual-Flow Screens
A vendor indicated that a significant benefit of dual-flow screens is reduced O&M costs compared to similarly sized through-flow
screens. O&M labor was reported to be as low as one tenth that for similarly sized through-flow traveling screens (Bracket Green
2002). Also, wash water flow is nearly cut in half and the spray water pressure requirement drops from 80 to 120 psi for through-flow
screens to about 30 psi. Examples were cited where dual-flow retrofits paid for themselves in a two to five year period. Using an
assumption of 90% reduction in routine O&M labor combined with an estimated reduction of 70% in wash water energy requirements
(based on combined reduction in flow and pressure), EPA calculated that the O&M costs for dual-flow screens would be equal
approximately 30% of the O&M costs for similarly sized through-flow screens with fine mesh overlays and fish handling and return
systems. O&M costs for dual-flow screens were calculated as 30% of the O&M costs for similarly sized through-flow screens derived
from the equations shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 (Scenario C freshwater and saltwater).
The O&M costs for adding fine mesh overlays to existing dual-flow screens (scenario A) is assumed to be the same as the net
difference between through-flow screens with fish handling with and without fine mesh overlays (net O&M costs for scenario A
versus scenario B). The majority of the net O&M costs are for deployment and removal of the fine mesh overlays.
Downtime for Dual-Flow Screens
As with through-flow screens dual-flow screens can be retrofitted with minimal generating unit downtime and can be scheduled to
occur during routine maintenance downtime. While there may be some additional deck demolition work, this effort should add no
more than one week to the two week estimate for multiple through-flow screens described above.
7753
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Technology Application
Capital Costs
The cost scenarios included here assume that the existing intake structure is designed for and includes through-flow (single entry,
single exit) traveling screens, either with or without fish handling and return. For those systems with different types of traveling
screens or fixed screens, the cost estimates derived here may also be applied. However, they should be viewed as a rough estimate for
a retrofit that would result in similar performance enhancement. The cost scenario applied to each facility is based on the compliance
action required and whether or not a fish handling and return system is in place. For those facilities with acceptable through-screen
velocities no modification, other than described above, is considered as necessary. For those with high through-screen velocities that
would result in unacceptable performance, costs for modifications/additions to the existing intake are developed through another cost
module. The costs for new screens to be installed in these new intake structures will be based on the design criteria of the new
structure.
Capital costs are applied based on waterbody type with costs for freshwater environments being applied to facilities in freshwater
rivers/streams, lakes/reservoirs and the Great Lakes, and costs for saltwater environments being applied to facilities in estuaries/tidal
rivers and oceans.
No distinction is being made here for freshwater environments with Zebra mussels. A vendor indicated that the mechanical movement
and spray action of the traveling screens tend to prevent mussel attachment on the screens.
For facilities with intake canals, an added capital cost component for the additional length of the fish return flume (where applicable)
are added. Where the canal length is not reported. The median canal length for other facilities with the same waterbody type are used.
O&MCosts
The compliance O&M costs are calculated as the net difference between the compliance scenario O&M costs and the baseline scenario
O&M costs. For compliance scenarios that start with traveling screens where the traveling screens are then rendered unnecessary
(e.g., relocating a shoreline intake to submerged offshore), the baseline scenario O&M costs presented here can be used to determine
the net O&M cost difference for those technologies.
2.2 NEW LARGER INTAKE STRUCTURE FOR DECREASING INTAKE VELOCITIES
The efficacy of traveling screens can be affected by both through-screen and approach velocities. Through-screen velocity affects: the
rate of debris accumulation; the potential for entrainment and impingement of swimming organisms; and the amount of injury that may
occur when organisms become impinged and a fish return system is in use. Performance, with respect to impingement and
entrainment, generally tends to deteriorate as intake velocities increase. For older intake structures, the primary function of the screen
was to ensure downstream cooling system components continued to function without becoming plugged with debris. The design often
did not take into consideration the effect of through-screen velocity on entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. For these
older structures, the standard design value for through-screen velocity was in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 fps (Gathright 2002). These
design velocities were based on the performance of coarse mesh traveling screens with respect to their ability to remove debris as
quickly as it collected on the screen surface. As demonstrated in the Facility Questionnaire database, actual velocities may be even
higher than standard design values. These higher velocities may result from cost-saving, site-specific designs or from an increased
withdrawal rate compared to the original design.
As described previously, solutions considered for reducing entrainment on traveling screens are to replace the coarse mesh screens
with finer mesh screens or to install fine mesh screen overlays. However, a potential problem with replacing the existing intake
screens with finer mesh screens is that a finer mesh will accumulate larger quantities of debris. Thus, retrofitting existing coarse mesh
screens with fine mesh may affect the ability of screens to remove debris quickly enough to function properly. Exacerbating this
potential problem is finer mesh may result in slightly higher through-screen velocities (Gathright 2002). If the debris problems
associated with using fine mesh occur on a seasonal basis, then one possible solution (see Section 2.1, above) is to use fine mesh
overlays during the period when sensitive aquatic organisms are present. This solution is predicated on the assumption that the period
of high debris loading does not substantially coincide with the period when sensitive aquatic organisms are most prevalent. When
such an approach is not feasible, some means of decreasing the intake velocities may be necessary.
The primary intake attributes that determine intake through-screen velocities are the flow volume, effective screen area, and percent
open area of the screen. The primary intake attributes that determine approach velocity are flow volume and cross-sectional area of the
1-54
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
intake. In instances where flow volume cannot be reduced, a reduction in intake velocities can only be obtained in two ways: for
through-screen velocities, an increased screen area and/or percent open area, or for approach velocity, an increased intake cross-
sectional area. In general, there are practical limits regarding screen materials and percent open area. These limits prevent significant
modification of this attribute to reduce through-screen velocities. Thus, an increase in the screen area and/or intake cross-sectional
area generally must be accomplished in order to reduce intake velocities. Passive screen technology (such as T-screens) relies on
lower screen velocities to improve performance with respect to impingement and entrainment and to reduce the rate of debris
accumulation. For technology options that rely on the continued use of traveling screens, a means of increasing the effective area of
the screens is warranted. EPA has researched this problem and has identified the following three approaches to increasing the screen
size:
Replace existing through flow (single entry-single exit) traveling screens with dual-flow (double entry-double exit) traveling
screens. Dual-flow screens can be placed in the same screen well as existing through flow screens. However, they are
oriented perpendicular to the orientation of the original through-flow screens and extend outward towards the front of the
intake. Installation may require some demolition of the existing intake deck. This solution may work where screen velocities
do not need to be reduced appreciably. This technology has a much improved performance with respect to debris carry over
and is often selected based on this attribute alone (Gathright 2002; see also Section 2.1.4).
Replace the function of the existing intake screen wells with larger wells constructed in front of the existing intake and
hydraulically connected to the intake front opening. This approach retains the use and function of the existing intake pumps
and pump wells with little or no modification to the original structure. A concern with this approach (besides construction
costs) is whether the construction can be performed without significant downtime for the generating units.
Add a new intake structure adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the existing intake. The old intake remains functional, but
with the drive system for the existing pumps modified to reduce the flow rate. The new structure will include new pumps
sized to pump an additional flow. The new structure can be built without a significant shutdown of the existing intake.
Shutdown would only be required at the final construction step, where the pipes from new pumps are connected to the
existing piping and the pumps and/or pump drives for the existing pumps are modified or replaced. In this case, generating
downtime is minimized. However, the need for new pumps, and the modification to existing pumps that reduce their original
flow, entail significant additional costs.
Option 3 is a seemingly simple solution where the addition of new intake bays adjacent or in close proximity to the existing intake
would add to the total intake and screen cross-sectional area. A problem with this approach is that the current pumping capacity needs
to be distributed between the old and new intake bays. Utilizing the existing pump wells and pumps is desirable to help minimize
costs. However, where the existing pumps utilize single speed drives, the distribution of flow to the new intake bays would require
either an upstream hydraulic connection or a pump system modification. Where the existing intake has only one or two pump wells a
hydraulic connection with a new adjacent intake bay could be created through demolition of a sidewall downstream of the traveling
screen. While this approach is certainly feasible in certain instances, the limitations regarding intake configurations prevents EPA from
considering this a viable regulatory compliance alternative for all but a few existing systems. A more widely applicable solution
would be to reduce pump flow rate of the existing pumps either by modifying the pump drive to a multi-speed or variable speed drive
system, or by replacing the existing pumps with smaller ones. The new intake bays would be constructed with new smaller pumps
that produce lower flow rates. The combined flows of the new and older, modified pumps satisfies the existing intake flow
requirement. The costs of modifying existing pumps, plus the new pumps and pump wells, represents a substantial cost component.
Option 2 does not require modifications or additions to the existing pumping equipment. In this approach a new intake structure to
house more and/or larger screen wells would be constructed in front of the existing intake. The old and new intake structures could
then be hydraulically connected by closing off the ends with sheet pile walls or similar structures. EPA is not aware of any
installations that have performed this retrofit but it was proposed as an option in the Demonstration Study for the Salem Nuclear Plant
(PSE&G 2001). In that proposal the new screens were to be dual-flow screens but the driving factor for the new structure was a need
to increase the intake size.
EPA initially developed rough estimates of the comparative costs of applying option 2 versus option 3 (in the hypothetical case the
intake area was doubled in size). The results indicated that adding a new screen well structure in front of the existing intake was less
costly and therefore, this option was selected for consideration as a compliance technology option. This cost efficiency is primarily
due to the reuse of the existing intake in a more cost efficient manner in option 2. However, option 2 has one important drawback: it
may not be feasible where sufficient space is not available in front of the existing intake. To minimize construction downtime, EPA
assumes the new intake structure is placed far enough in front of the existing intake to allow the existing intake to continue functioning
until construction of the structure is completed. As a result of the need for sufficient space in front of the intake, the Agency has
applied the technology in appropriate circumstances in developing model facility costs.
7755
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Scenario Description
In this scenario, modeled on option 2 described above, a new reinforced concrete structure is designed for new through-flow or dual-
flow intake screens. This structure will be built directly in front of the existing intake. The structure will be built inside a temporary
sheet pile coffer dam. Upon completion of the concrete structure, the coffer dam will be removed. A permanent sheet pile wall will be
installed at both ends, connecting the rear of the new structure to the front of the old intake structure hydraulically. Such a
configuration has the advantage of providing for flow equalization between multiple new intake screens and multiple existing pumps.
The construction includes costs for site development for equipment access. Capital costs were developed for the same set of screen
widths (2 feet through 140 feet) and depths (10 feet through 100 feet) used in the traveling screen cost methodology. Best-fit, second-
order equations were used to estimated costs for each different screen well depth, using total screen width as the independent variable.
Construction duration is estimated to be nine months.
Capital Costs
Capital costs were derived for different well depths and total screen widths based on the following assumptions.
Design Assumptions - On-shore Activities
Clearing and grabbing: this is based on clearing with a dozer, and clearing light to medium brush to 4" diameter; clearing
assumes a 40 feet width for equipment maneuverability near the shore line and 500 feet accessibility lengthwise at
$3,075/acre (R S Means 2001); surveying costs are estimated at $1,6737 acre (R S Means 2001), covering twice the access
area.
Earth work costs: these include mobilization, excavation, and hauling, etc., along a water front width, with a 500-foot inland
length; backfill with structural sand and grave (backfill structural based on using a 200 HP bulldozer, 300-foot haul, sand and
gravel; unit earthwork cost is $3957 cu yd (R S Means 2001)
Paving and surfacing, using concrete 10" thick; assuming a need for a 20-foot wide and 2- foot long equipment staging area at
a unit cost of $33.57 sq yd (R S Means 2001)
Structural cost is calculated @ $1250/CY (R S Means 2001),assuming two wing walls 1.5 feet thick and 26 feet high, with 10
feet above ground level, and 36 feet long with 16 feet onshore (these walls are for tying in the connecting sheet pile walls).
Sheet piling, steel, no wales, 38 psf, left in place; these are assumed to have a width twice the width of the screens + 20 feet,
with onshore construction distance, and be 30 feet deep, at $24.57 sq ft (R S Means 2001).
Design Assumptions - Offshore Components
Structure width is 20% greater than total screen width and 20 ft front to back
Structural support consists of the equivalent of four 3-foot by 3-foot reinforced concrete columns at $9357 cuyd (R S Means
2001) plus two additional columns for each additional screen well (a 2-foot wide screen assumes an equivalent of 2-foot by 2
feet columns)
Overall structure height is equal to the well depth plus 10%
The elevated concrete deck is 1.5 ft thick at $487 cu yd (R S Means 2001)
Dredging mobilization is $9,925 if total screen width is less than 10 feet; is $25,890 if total screen width is 10 feet to 25 feet;
and is $52,500 if total screen width is greater than 25 ft (R S Means 2001)
The cost of dredging in the offshore work area is $23/cu yd to a depth of 10 feet
The cost of the temporary coffer dam for the structure is $22.57 sq ft (R S Means 2001), with total length equal to the
structure perimeter times a factor of 1.5 and the height equal to 1.3 times well depth.
Field Project Personnel Not Included in Unit Costs:
Project Field Manager at $2,525 per week (R S Means 2001)
Project Field Superintendent at $2,375 per week (R S Means 2001)
Project Field Clerk at $440 per week (R S Means 2001).
The above cost components were estimated and summed and the costs were expanded using the following cost factors.
Add-on and Indirect Costs:
Construction Management is 4.5% of direct costs
Engineering and Architectural fees for new construction is 17% of direct costs
1-56
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Contingency is 10% of direct costs
Overhead and profit is 15% of direct costs
Permits are 2% of direct costs
Metalwork is 5% of direct costs
Performance bond is 2.5% of direct costs
Insurance is 1.5% of direct costs.
The total capital costs were then adjusted for inflation from 2001 dollars to July 2002 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index.
Table 2-29 presents the total capital costs for various screen well depths and total screen widths. No distinction was made between
freshwater and brackish or saltwater environments. Figure 13 plots the data in Table 2-29 and presents the best-fit cost equations. The
shape of these curves indicates a need for separate equations for structures with widths less than and greater than 10 feet. In general,
however, the Phase II compliance applications of this technology option included only new structures greater than 10 feet wide.
Table 2-29
Total Capital Costs for Adding New Larger Intake Screen Well Structure
in Front of Existing Shoreline Intake
Well Derjth
Width (Ft)
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
10 Ft
$ 291.480
$ 333.120
$ 916,080
$ .051.410
$ ,270,020
$ .426.170
$ .582.320
$ ,748,880
$ .925.850
$ 2,165,280
$ 2.425.530
$ 2.696.190
$ 2,977,260
$ 3,268,740
25 Ft
$ 562.140
$ 624.600
$1,957,080
$2.175.690
$2,487,990
$2.727.420
$2.977.260
$3,227,100
$3.487.350
$3,851,700
$4.236.870
$4.622.040
$5,028,030
$5,444,430
50 Ft
$ 1.176.330
$ 1.290.840
$ 4,361,790
$ 4.757.370
$ 5,236,230
$ 5.642.220
$ 6.058.620
$ 6,485,430
$ 6.922.650
$ 7,536,840
$ 8.161.440
$ 8.994.240
$ 9,462,690
$ 10,139,340
75ft
$ 1.842.570
$ 1.998.720
$ 6,922,650
$ 7.484.790
$ 8,130,210
$ 8.713.170
$ 9.306.540
$ 9,899,910
$ 10.503.690
$ 11,367,720
$ 12.242.160
$ 13.127.010
$ 14,032,680
$ 14,948,760
100 Ft
$ 2.581.680
$ 2.800.290
$ 9,806,220
$ 10.545.330
$ 11,378,130
$ 12.138.060
$ 12.908.400
$ 13,689,150
$ 14.469.900
$ 15,583,770
$ 16.718.460
$ 17.863.560
$ 19,029,480
$ 20,205,810
No separate O&M costs were derived for the structure itself since the majority of the O&M activities are covered in the O&M costs
for the traveling screens to be installed in the new structure.
Construction Downtime
As described above, this scenario is modeled after an option described in a 316b Demonstration Study for the Salem Nuclear Plant
(PSE&G 2001). In that scenario which applies to a very large nuclear facility, the existing intake continues to operate during the
construction of the offshore intake structure inside the sheet pile cofferdam. Upon completion of the offshore structure and removal of
the cofferdam, the final phase on the construction requires the shut down of the generating units for the placement of the sheet pile
end walls. The feasibility study states that units 1 and 2 would be required to shut down for one month each. Based on this estimate
and the size of the Salem facility (average daily flow of over 2 million gpm), EPA has concluded that a total construction downtime
estimate in the range of 6 to 8 weeks is reasonable. EPA did not select a single downtime for all facilities installing an offshore
structure. Instead, EPA applied a six- to eight-week downtime duration based on variations in project size, using design flow as a
measure of size. EPA assumed a total downtime of six weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes of less than 400,000 gpm; seven
weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes greater than 400,000 gpm but less than 800,000 gpm; and eight weeks for facilities with
intake flow volumes greater than 800,000 gpm.
Application
1-57
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
The input value for the cost equation is the screen well depth and the total screen width (see Section 1.1 for a discussion of the
methodology for determining the screen well depth). The width of the new larger screen well intake structure was based on the design
flow, and an assumed through-screen velocity of 1.0 fps and a percent open area of 50%. The 50 % open area value used is consistent
with the percent open area of a fine mesh screen. The same well depth and width values are used for estimating the costs of new
screen equipment for the new structure. New screen equipment consisted of fine mesh dual flow (double entry single exit) traveling
screens with fish handling and return system.
1-58
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
REFERENCES
Daley, T. SAID Memorandum to the 316b Record regarding Development of Power Plant Intake Maintenance Personnel hourly
compensation rate. 2002
Gathright, Trent. Bracketed Green. Telephone contact with John Sunday, SAID, regarding estimates for traveling Screen O&M.
September 10, 2002 & October 23, 2002.
Gathright, Trent. Bracketed Green. Telephone contact with John Sunday regarding screen velocities and dual-flow screens.. August
21,2002
Gathright, Trent. Bracketed Green. Telephone contact with John Sunday regarding submission of questions and velocity limits. July
26, 2002
Gathright, Trent. Bracketed Green. Answers to questions about traveling screens, Submitted by email September 11, 2002
Gathright, Trent. Bracketed Green. Telephone contact with John Sunday regarding capital and O&M costs for dual-flow screens.
November 21, 2002.
Petrovs, Henry. US Filter (US). Telephone contact with John Sunday regarding answers to questions about traveling screens. July 30,
2002
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Occupational Outlook Handbook 2002-2003 Edition. Page 531
R.S. Means. 2001. R.S. Means Cost Works Database, 2001.
PS&G. Permit Demonstration Supporting Documentation. Section describing Feasibility Study of Intake Technology Modification.
2001.
1-59
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-8
Total Capital Costs for Scenario A - Adding Fine Mesh Without Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
Total Widtt
Well Depth
10'-0
25'-0
50'-0
75'-0
100-0
2
One 2 ft
$7,989
$11,162
$17,707
$24,262
$32,997
5
One 5 ft
$9,079
$12,932
$20,977
$29,302
$37,627
10
One 10 ft
$11,853
$17,952
$30,295
$40,467
$50,630
20
Two 10ft
$23,706
$35,905
$60,590
$80,935
$101,260
30
Three 10 ft
$35,559
$53,857
$90,885
$121,402
$151,890
40
Four 10 ft
$47,412
$71,810
$121,180
$161,870
$202,520
50
Five 10ft
$59,265
$89,762
$151,475
$202,337
$253,150
60
Six 10 ft
$71,117
$107,714
$181,769
$242,804
$303,779
70
Five 14 ft
$81,865
$134,162
$206,825
$273,987
$338,450
84
Six 14 ft
$98,237
$160,994
$248,189
$328,784
$406,139
98
Seven 14ft
$114,610
$187,827
$289,554
$383,582
$473,829
112
Eiaht14ft
$143,806
$242,278
$383,198
$515,318
$643,118
126
Nine 14ft
$147,356
$241 ,492
$372,284
$493,177
$609,209
140
Ten 14 ft
$163,729
$268,324
$413,649
$547,974
$676,899
Table 2-9
Total Capital Costs for Scenario A - Adding Fine Mesh Without Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
Total Widtt
Well Depth
10-0
25-0
50-0
75-0
100-0
2
One 2 ft
$14,909
$20,022
$31,057
$42,112
$57,527
5
One 5 ft
$17,089
$23,562
$37,597
$52,192
$66,787
10
One 10ft
$22,103
$32,452
$54,055
$71,317
$88,560
20
Two 10ft
$44,206
$64,905
$108,110
$142,635
$177,120
30
Three 10 ft
$66,309
$97,357
$162,165
$213,952
$265,680
40
Four 10ft
$88,412
$129,810
$216,220
$285,270
$354,240
50
Five 10 ft
$110,515
$162,262
$270,275
$356,587
$442,800
60
Six 10ft
$132,617
$194,714
$324,329
$427,904
$531,359
70
Five 14 ft
$155,715
$251,062
$380,975
$499,887
$613,400
84
Six 14 ft
$186,857
$301,274
$457,169
$599,864
$736,079
98
Seven 14ft
$218,000
$351,487
$533,364
$699,842
$858,759
112
Eiqht14ft
$249,143
$401,699
$609,559
$799,819
$981,439
126
Nine 14 ft
$280,286
$451,912
$685,754
$899,797
$1,104,119
140
Ten 14 ft
$311,429
$502,124
$761,949
$999,774
$1,226,799
1-60
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-10
Total Capital Costs for Scenario B - Adding Fish Handling and Return
Freshwater Environments
Total Wdth
\Afell Depth I
10'-0
25'-0
50'-0
75'-0
100'-0
2
One 2 ft
$105,872
$132,772
$185,172
$237,672
$31 1 ,972
5
One 5 ft
$126,362
$161,562
$230,462
$302,162
$373,862
10
One 10 ft
$164,443
$217,443
$320,543
$401 ,943
$483,243
20
Two 10 ft
$301 224
$407 224
$613,424
$776,224
$938,824
30
Three 10 ft
$438,105
$597,105
$906,405
$1,150,605
$1 ,394,505
40
Four 10 ft
$572,141
$784,141
$1,196,541
$1,522,141
$1 ,847,341
50
Five 10 ft
$703,131
$968,131
$1 ,483,631
$1 ,890,631
$2,297,131
60
Six 10 ft
$837,367
$1,155,367
$1 ,773,967
$2,262,367
$2,750,167
70
Five 14 ft
$967,658
$1 ,460,658
$2,095,658
$2,675,658
$3,228,658
84
Six 14 ft
$1,151,993
$1 ,743,593
$2,505,593
$3,201 ,593
$3,865,193
98
Seven 14 ft
$1 ,333,484
$2,023,684
$2,912,684
$3,724,684
$4,498,884
112
Eidht14ft
$1,518,320
$2,307,120
$3,323,120
$4,251,120
$5,135,920
126
Nine 14 ft
$1,700,210
$2,587,610
$3,730,610
$4,774,610
$5,770,010
140
Ten 14 ft
$1 ,882,401
$2,868,401
$4,138,401
$5,298,401
$6,404,401
Table 2-11
Total Capital Costs for Scenario B - Adding Fish Handling and Return
Saltwater Environments
Total Wdth
\Afell Depth I
10'-0
25'-0
50'-0
75'-0
100'-0
2
One 2 ft
$175,072
$221,372
$318,672
$416,172
$557,272
5
One 5 ft
$206,462
$267,862
$396,662
$531,062
$665,462
10
One 10 ft
$266,943
$362,443
$558,143
$710,443
$862,543
20
Two 10 ft
$506,224
$697,224
$1 ,088,624
$1 ,393,224
$1 ,697,424
30
Three 10 ft
$745,605
$1,032,105
$1,619,205
$2,076,105
$2,532,405
40
Four 10 ft
$982,141
$1,364,141
$2,146,941
$2,756,141
$3,364,541
50
Five 10 ft
$1,215,631
$1,693,131
$2,671 ,631
$3,433,131
$4,193,631
60
Six 10ft
$1 ,452,367
$2,025,367
$3,199,567
$4,113,367
$5,025,967
70
Five 14 ft
$1,706,158
$2,629,658
$3,837,158
$4,934,658
$5,978,158
84
Six 14 ft
$2,038,193
$3,146,393
$4,595,393
$5,912,393
$7,164,593
98
Seven 14ft
$2,367,384
$3,660,284
$5,350,784
$6,887,284
$8,348,184
112
Eidht14ft
$2,699,920
$4,177,520
$6,109,520
$7,865,520
$9,535,120
126
Nine 14 ft
$3,029,510
$4,691,810
$6,865,310
$8,840,810
$10,719,110
140
Ten 14 ft
$3,359,401
$5,206,401
$7,621 ,401
$9,816,401
$11,903,401
1-61
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-12
Total Capital Costs for Scenario C - Adding Fine Mesh with Fish Handling and Return
Freshwater Environments
Total Width
Well Depth (
10'-0
25'-0
50'-0
75'-0
100-0
2
One 2 ft
$112,772
$141,672
$198,572
$255,572
$336,472
5
One 5 ft
$134,362
$172,162
$247,062
$325,062
$403,062
10
One 10ft
$174,743
$231,943
$344,343
$432,843
$521,143
20
Two 10ft
$321,824
$436,224
$661,024
$838,024
$1,014,624
30
Three 10ft
$469,005
$640,605
$977,805
$1,243,305
$1,508,205
40
Four 10ft
$613,341
$842,141
$1,291,741
$1,645,741
$1,998,941
50
Five 10 ft
$754,631
$1,040,631
$1,602,631
$2,045,131
$2,486,631
60
Six 10 ft
$899,167
$1,242,367
$1,916,767
$2,447,767
$2,977,567
70
Five 14 ft
$1,041,658
$1,577,658
$2,269,658
$2,901,658
$3,503,658
84
Six 14 ft
$1,240,793
$1,883,993
$2,714,393
$3,472,793
$4,195,193
98
Seven 14ft
$1,437,084
$2,187,484
$3,156,284
$4,041,084
$4,883,884
112
Eight 14 ft
$1,636,720
$2,494,320
$3,601,520
$4,612,720
$5,575,920
126
Nine 14 ft
$1,833,410
$2,798,210
$4,043,810
$5,181,410
$6,265,010
140
Ten 14 ft
$2,030,401
$3,102,401
$4,486,401
$5,750,401
$6,954,401
Table 2-13
Total Capital Costs for Scenario C - Adding Fine Mesh with Fish Handling and Return
Saltwater Environments
Total Wdth
Well Depth (
10'-0
25'-0
50'-0
75'-0
100-0
2
One 2 ft
$188872
$239,172
$345,472
$451,972
$606,272
5
One 5 ft
$222 462
$289,062
$429,862
$576,862
$723,862
10
One 10 ft
$287 543
$391,443
$605,743
$772,243
$938,343
20
Two 10 ft
$547 424
$755,224
$1,183,824
$1,516,824
$1,849,024
30
Three 10 ft
$807 405
$1,119,105
$1,762,005
$2,261,505
$2,759,805
40
Four 10 ft
$1 064 541
$1,480,141
$2,337,341
$3,003,341
$3,667,741
50
Five 10 ft
$1 318631
$1,838,131
$2,909,631
$3,742,131
$4,572,631
60
Six 10ft
$1 575 967
$2,199,367
$3,485,167
$4,484,167
$5,480,767
70
Five 14 ft
$1 854158
$2,863,658
$4,185,158
$5,386,658
$6,528,158
84
Six 14 ft
$2215793
$3,427,193
$5,012,993
$6,454,793
$7,824,593
98
Seven 14ft
$2 574 584
$3,987,884
$5,837,984
$7,520,084
$9,118,184
112
Eiqht14ft
$2 936 720
$4,551,920
$6,666,320
$8,588,720
$10,415,120
126
Nine 14ft
$3295910
$5,113,010
$7,491,710
$9,654,410
$11,709,110
140
Ten 14 ft
$3 655 401
$5,674,401
$8,317,401
$10,720,401
$13,003,401
1-62
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-21
Baseline O&M Costs for Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
Total Width
V\fell Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$5,419
$6,433
$7,591
$8,786
$10,597
5
One 5 ft
$8,103
$9,499
$11,483
$13,687
$15,833
10
One 10 ft
$10,223
$11,880
$14,741
$16,865
$18,985
20
Two 10ft
$20,445
$23,760
$29,482
$33,729
$37,970
30
Three 10 ft
$30,668
$35,640
$44,223
$50,594
$56,956
40
Four 10 ft
$40,891
$47,520
$58,964
$67,458
$75,941
50
Five 10 ft
$51,113
$59,400
$73,705
$84,323
$94,926
60
Six 10 ft
$61,336
$71,280
$88,446
$101,187
$113,911
70
Five 14 ft
$62,805
$75,667
$89,781
$101,216
$112,279
84
Six 14 ft
$75,367
$90,800
$107,737
$121,459
$134,735
98
Seven 14ft
$87,928
$105,933
$125,693
$141,702
$157,191
112
Eiqht14ft
$100,489
$121,067
$143,650
$161,946
$179,647
126
Nine 14 ft
$113,050
$136,200
$161,606
$182,189
$202,103
140
Ten 14 ft
$125,611
$151,333
$179,562
$202,432
$224,558
Table 2-22
Baseline O&M Costs for Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
Total Width
Well Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$6,400
$7,577
$9,389
$11,238
$14,357
5
One 5 ft
$9,247
$10,971
$13,772
$16,957
$20,084
10
One 10 ft
$11,694
$13,842
$18,175
$21,116
$24,054
20
Two 10 ft
$23,388
$27,684
$36,349
$42,231
$48,107
30
Three 10 ft
$35,083
$41,526
$54,524
$63,347
$72,161
40
Four 10 ft
$46,777
$55,368
$72,698
$84,462
$96,215
50
Five 10 ft
$58,471
$69,210
$90,873
$105,578
$120,269
60
Six 10 ft
$70,165
$83,052
$109,047
$126,693
$144,322
70
Five 14 ft
$73,433
$92,834
$113,498
$129,829
$144,979
84
Six 14 ft
$88,120
$111,401
$136,186
$155,794
$173,975
98
Seven 14 f
$102,806
$129,968
$158,884
$181,760
$202,971
112
Eight 14 ft
$117,493
$148,535
$181,582
$207,726
$231,967
126
Nine 14ft
$132,179
$167,101
$204,279
$233,691
$260,963
140
Ten 14 ft
$146,866
$185,668
$226,977
$259,657
$289,958
1-63
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-23
Baseline & Scenario B Compliance O&M Totals for Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
Total Width
Well Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$15,391
$18,333
$22,295
$26,441
$31,712
5
One 5 ft
$24,551
$28,378
$34,696
$41,449
$47,927
10
One 10 ft
$35,231
$40,504
$49,853
$57,499
$65,126
20
Two 10ft
$70,462
$81,009
$99,707
$114,998
$130,251
30
Three 10 ft
$105,693
$121,513
$149,560
$172,498
$195,377
40
Four 10ft
$140,924
$162,018
$199,413
$229,997
$260,503
50
Five 10 ft
$176,155
$202,522
$249,267
$287,496
$325,628
60
Six 10 ft
$211,386
$243,027
$299,120
$344,995
$390,754
70
Five 14 ft
$230,185
$271,971
$328,293
$376,302
$424,831
84
Six 14 ft
$276,221
$326,365
$393,952
$451,563
$509,797
98
Seven 14ft
$322,258
$380,759
$459,61 1
$526,823
$594,763
112
Eiqht14ft
$368,295
$435,154
$525,269
$602,084
$679,729
126
Nine 14 ft
$414,332
$489,548
$590,928
$677,344
$764,695
140
Ten 14 ft
$460,369
$543,942
$656,587
$752,605
$849,661
Table 2-24
Baseline & Scenario B Compliance O&M Totals for Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
Total Width
Well Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$19,543
$23,649
$30,305
$37,151
$46,430
5
One 5 ft
$29,357
$34,756
$44,668
$55,183
$65,423
10
One 10ft
$41,381
$49,204
$64,109
$76,009
$87,884
20
Two 10 ft
$82,762
$98,409
$128,219
$152,018
$175,767
30
Three 10 ft
$124,143
$147,613
$192,328
$228,028
$263,651
40
Four 10 ft
$165,524
$196,818
$256,437
$304,037
$351,535
50
Five 10 ft
$206,905
$246,022
$320,547
$380,046
$439,418
60
Six 10 ft
$248,286
$295,227
$384,656
$456,055
$527,302
70
Five 14 ft
$274,495
$342,111
$432,783
$511,842
$589,801
84
Six 14 ft
$329,393
$410,533
$519,340
$614,211
$707,761
98
Seven 14ft
$384,292
$478,955
$605,897
$716,579
$825,721
112
Eiqht14ft
$439,191
$547,378
$692,453
$818,948
$943,681
126
Nine 14 ft
$494,090
$615,800
$779,010
$921,316
$1,061,641
140
Ten 14 ft
$548,989
$684,222
$865,567
$1,023,685
$1,179,601
1-64
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 2-25
Scenario A & C Compliance O&M Totals for Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
Total Wdth
Well Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$17,529
$22936
$31,008
$39,264
$48,645
5
One 5 ft
$26,688
$32,982
$43,409
$54,272
$64,861
10
One 10ft
$38,437
$47,409
$62,923
$76,734
$90,525
20
Two 10ft
$76,874
$94,819
$125,846
$153,468
$181,051
30
Three 10 ft
$115,311
$142,228
$188,769
$230,202
$271,576
40
Four 10 ft
$153,747
$189,637
$251,693
$306,936
$362,102
50
Five 10 ft
$192,184
$237,046
$314,616
$383,670
$452,627
60
Six 10 ft
$230,621
$284,456
$377,539
$460,404
$543,153
70
Five 14 ft
$246,214
$306,495
$393,642
$472,476
$551,830
84
Six 14 ft
$295,456
$367,794
$472,371
$566,972
$662,195
98
Seven 14ft
$344,699
$429,093
$551,099
$661,467
$772,561
112
Eiqht14ft
$393,942
$490,392
$629,828
$755,962
$882,927
126
Nine 14 ft
$443,184
$551,691
$708,556
$850,458
$993,293
140
Ten 14 ft
$492,427
$612,990
$787,285
$944,953
$1,103,659
Table 2-26
Scenario A & C Compliance O&M Totals for Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
Total Width
Well Depth (Ft)
10
25
50
75
100
2
One 2 ft
$21,681
$28,252
$39,018
$49,974
$63,363
5
One 5 ft
$31,494
$39,360
$53,381
$68,006
$82,357
10
One 10ft
$44,587
$56,109
$77,179
$95,244
$113,283
20
Two 10ft
$89,174
$112,219
$154,358
$190,488
$226,567
30
Three 10ft
$133,761
$168,328
$231,537
$285,732
$339,850
40
Four 10ft
$178,347
$224,437
$308,717
$380,976
$453,134
50
Five 10ft
$222,934
$280,546
$385,896
$476,220
$566,417
60
Six 10 ft
$267,521
$336,656
$463,075
$571,464
$679,701
70
Five 14ft
$290,524
$376,635
$498,132
$608,016
$716,800
84
Six 14 ft
$348,628
$451,962
$597,759
$729,620
$860,159
98
Seven 14ft
$406,733
$527,289
$697,385
$851,223
$1,003,519
112
Eiqht14ft
$464,838
$602,616
$797,012
$972,826
$1,146,879
126
Nine 14ft
$522,942
$677,943
$896,638
$1,094,430
$1,290,239
140
Ten 14 ft
$581,047
$753,270
$996,265
$1,216,033
$1,433,599
1-65
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-1. Scenario A - Capital Cost - Add Fine Mesh Replacement Screen Panels
Freshwater
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
y = 0.4531 x2 + 4857.GX + 9390.2
R2 = 0.9869
= 0.5052*2 +3918.1*+626 3.
R2 = 0.9885
:0.4568*2+ 2943.6* +424^
1=0.9906
= 1
,3278x2+1782.8x
p? = n
.7
1.3
y = 0.3662*2 + 1123.5* +251
R2 = 0.9958
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+10 Ft Well Depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
1-66
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-2. Scenario A - Capital Cost -Add Fine Mesh Replacement Screen Panels
Saltwater
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
= 2.7755x2+8244.6x+21648
R2 = 0.999G
• 2.4261 x2+6722.6x +147
R2 = 0.9997
11
= 1.8755x2 + 5130.4x+9966.4
= 0.9997
y = 3 1638^+31658* + 38E9
R2 = 0.9982
y - 0.9684x?+ 2061.4x + 5384.5
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+ 10 Ft Well Depth -25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
1-67
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-3. Scenario B - Capital Cost -Add Traveling Screen
With Fish Handling and Return
Freshwater
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
16.308x2+42746x+129320
R2 = 0.9996
y = 12.91 x2 +35525x+ 974
R2 = 0.9996
59
8.5055x2 +27952x +
= 0.9997
76555
48389
R2 = 0.9986
2000000 --
1000000 --
y = 1.5111x2 + 12863x +56
= 0.9997
372
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+10 Ft Well Depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 24. Scenario B - Capital Cost -Add Traveling Screen
With Fish Handling and Return
Saltwater
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
y = 38.869x: + 78611 x + 207527
R2 = 0.9995
31.616x2+65080x
- n QQQE
73
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+10 Ft Well Depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
1-69
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-5. Scenario C -Capital Cost -Add Fine Mesh Traveling Screen
With Fish Handling and Return
Freshwater
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
y = 18.587 x2+46331 x +137116
R2 = 0.9996
<14.761 x2+38484x
= u.yyyb
2 + dLLtfdx + HLJLJ5Q
l2 = 0.9997
y= 15.124x2 + 19955x
R2 = 0.9985
• 49998
y = 2.0844 x2+13830x+i
jj2 = 0.9997
58690
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+ 10 Ft Well Depth -25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-70
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-6. Scenario C -Capital Cost -Add Fine Mesh Traveling Screen
With and Fish Handling and Return
Saltwater
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000 -
:43.428x2+85779x+223119
R2 = 0.9995
= 35.318x2+70998x +158519
R2 = 0.9995
25.047x2+55429x + 1179|25
~ = 0.9995
= 35
131x2 +35765x +62289
R2 = 0.9979
= 8.5957x2 +24428x+84 40
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
+10 Ft Well Depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-77
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-7. Baseline O&M Costs For Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
250000
200000
J9
g 150000
u
o
T5
100000
50000
20
40
60 80 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
y = -1.0776x2 + 1679.2X
R2 = 0.9954
-7012.9
+ 1Q82.2X +3489
= 0.9986
120
140
160
-10 ft Well depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-72
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-8. Baseline O&M Costs For Traveling Screens Without Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
350000
300000
250000
(J 200000
1 150000
100000
50000
= -1.0778x2+2131.2x +8860.3
.= u.yyb4
1902.3x +6763
= 0.9974
6261x2 + 1655.4x +523
= 0.998
1.2
8.8
+ 1283.4x +3457.4
= 0.9996
106Q.4x +3562.
0.9982
60 30 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
+ 10 ft Well depth -25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-79
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-9. Scenarios A & C Compliance O&M Total
Costs For Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
V)
a
u
1200000
1000000
aooooo
600000
400000
200000
20
40
60 80 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
-4.3397x" + 8193.8x+27
R = 0.997
314
y = -2.3932x'i +5785.Ex + 16185
= 0.9981
y = -1.0415x^ + 3574.3x + 8705.
R2 = 0.9989
4408.7x +10848
= 0.9991
120
140
160
10 ft Well depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
1-74
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 2-10. Scenarios A & C Compliance O&M Total
Costs For Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
o
U
o sooooo
< 600000
400000
200000
2.986x2
R2 = 0.9984
2.298x2 + 8766.8x + 24687
? = 0.308;
1.5625x2+7159.2x
0.6852x^ +4152.1x + 10094
20
40
60 80 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
120
140
160
+10 ft Well depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-75
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
| 400000
=
I
300000
200000
100000
a
(J
03
o
20
40
60 80 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
0.6059x2 +4682.6* + 10003
Figure 2-11. Baseline & Scenario B Compliance O&M Total
Costs For Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Freshwater Environments
v = -0.3662X2 +G050.4X + 15301
R2 = 0.9992
0.79X" +5370.4X + 12541
^fi2 = 0.9993
x2 + 3826 x + 75iE!2
= 0.9997
y = -0.6031 x2+3303.7* + 7189.
R2 = 0.9993
120
140
160
+10 ft Well depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
1-76
-------
Figure 2-12. Baseline & Scenario B Compliance O&M Total
Costs For Traveling Screens With Fish Handling
Saltwater Environments
&
3
u
s*
O
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
= 600000
400000
200000
20
40
60 80 100
Total Screen Width (Ft)
y = 0.4874 x2 +82Q2.3x + 19994
R2 = 0 9996
.3324x2 +7143.7x
= 0.9997
Q.2248x2+6056.3x
= 0.9997
V = -0.2468x2+ 3881.6x + 8577.
120
140
160
10 ft Well depth • 25 Ft Well Depth 50 Ft Well Depth 75 Ft Well Depth * 100 Ft Well Depth
7-77
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
o
a
o
CM
OS
+J
'a.
O
Figure 2-13
Total Capital Costs of New Larger Intake Structure
$25,000,000
2 $20,000,000
$15,000,000 -
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
y =166040x -1E+06x + 4E+06
j£^A
y = 1 16592x2 - 764094x + 3E+06
R2=1
= 30.525x2 + 75267x + 9E+Of
R2=1
y = 27.299X2 + 57514x + 6E+06
y = 72003x -465848x + 2E+06
R2=1
R2=1
= 22.85x2 + 41223x + 4E+06
y = 3071 Ox2-194147X + 82759
R2=1
R = 0.9993
y = 17.679X2 + 24028x + 2EJ-06
y=12839x -75993X +
10 100
Total Effective Traveling Screen Width (Ft)
R^ = 0.9998
y = 17.977X2 + 15269x + 767)784
R? = 0.9996
1000
* well depth 10ft
* well depth 75 ft
+ small screens well depth 25
small screens well depth 100 ft
• well depth 25 ft
* well depth 100ft
• small screens well depth 50 ft
A well depth 50 ft
• small screens well depth 10 ft
small screens well depth 75
1-78
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
3.0 EXISTING SUBMERGED OFFSHORE INTAKES - ADD VELOCITY CAPS
Velocity caps are applicable to submerged offshore intakes. Adding velocity caps to facilities with existing or new
submerged offshore intakes can provide appreciable impingement reduction. Therefore, this module may be most applicable
when the compliance option only requires impingement controls and the intake requires upgrading. However depending on
site-specific conditions, velocity caps could conceivably be used in conjunction with onshore screening systems tailored for
entrainment reduction.
Research on velocity cap vendors identified only one vendor, which is located in Canada. (A possible reason for this scarcity
in vendors is that many velocity caps are designed and fabricated on a site-specific basis, often called "intake cribs".) This
vendor manufactures a velocity cap called the "Invisihead," and was contacted for cost information (Elarbash 2002a and
2002b). The Invisihead is designed with a final entrance velocity of 0.3 fps and has a curved cross-section that gradually
increases the velocity as water is drawn farther into the head. The manufacturer states the gradual increase in velocity though
the velocity cap minimizes entrainment of sediment and suspended matter and minimizes inlet pressure losses (Elmosa 2002).
All costs presented below are in July 2002 dollars.
3.1 CAPITAL COSTS
The vendor provided information for estimating retrofit costs for velocity caps manufactured both from carbon steel and from
stainless steel. Stainless steel construction is recommended for saltwater conditions to minimize corrosion. Carbon steel is
recommended for freshwater systems. Due to the rather large opening, Invisihead performance is not affected by the
attachment of Zebra mussels, so no special materials of construction are required where Zebra mussels are present.
Installation costs include the cost for a support vessel and divers to cut, weld and/or bolt the fitting flange for the velocity cap;
make any needed minor reinforcements of the existing intake; and install the cap itself. Installation was said to take between
two and seven days, depending on the size and number of heads in addition to the retrofit steps listed above. Costs also
include mobilization and demobilization of the installation personnel, barge, and crane. The vendor indicated these costs
included engineering and contractor overhead and profit, but did not provide break-outs or percentages for these cost
components. EPA has concluded that the installation costs for adding a velocity cap on a new intake (relocated offshore) and
on an existing offshore intake should be similar because most of the costs involve similar personnel and equipment. (See the
"Application" section below for a discussion of new/existing submerged offshore intake cost components.)
Table 3-1 presents the component (material, installation, and mobilization/demobilization) and total capital costs for stainless
steel and carbon steel velocity caps provided by the vendor (Elarbash 2002a and 2002b). Data are presented for flows
ranging from 5,000 gpmto 350,000 gpm. Figure 3-1 presents a plot of these data. The upper end of this flow range covers
existing submerged pipes up to 15 feet in diameter at pipe velocities of approximately 5 fps. Second-order polynomial
equations provided the best fit to the data and were used to produce cost curves. These cost curves serve as the basis for
estimating capital costs for installing velocity caps on existing or new intakes submerged offshore at Phase II facilities. When
applying these cost curves, if the intake flow exceeds 350,000 gpm plus 10% (385,000 gpm), the flow is divided into equal
increments and these lower flows costed. The costs for these individual incremental flows are summed to estimate total
capital cost. In these cases, costs are assumed to be applied to multiple intake pipes. If the intake flow is less than 5,000 gpm,
the capital cost for 5,000 gpm will be used rather than extrapolating beyond the bottom end of the cost curve.
3.2 O&M COSTS
For velocity caps, O&M costs generally include routine inspection and cleaning of the intake head. As noted above,
biofouling does not affect velocity cap performance, so rigorous cleaning is not necessary. The vendor stated that their
equipment is relatively maintenance free. However, O&M costs based on an annual inspection and cleaning of offshore
intakes by divers were cited by facilities with existing offshore intakes, including some with velocity caps and especially
those with bar racks at the intake. Therefore, estimated O&M costs are presented for an annual inspection and cleaning by
divers because EPA believes this is common practice for submerged offshore intakes of all types.
Table 3-2 presents the component and total O&M costs for the diver inspection and cleaning, for one to four days (Paroby
1999). In general, O&M costs are based on less than one day per head for inspection and cleaning of smaller intake heads
and one day per head for the largest intake head. There is a minimum of one day for each inspection event. Inspection and
cleaning events are assumed to occur once per year. Figure 3-2 presents the plot of the O&M costs by flow. A second-order
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
polynomial equation provided the best fit to this data and serves as the basis for estimating the O&M costs.
Figure 3-2 also shows data for two facilities that reported actual O&M costs based on diver inspection and cleaning of
submerged offshore intakes. While these two facilities use different intake technologies (passive screens for the smaller flow
and bar rack type intakes for the larger flow), the inspection and cleaning effort should be similar for all three types of
intakes. For both facilities, the actual reported O&M costs were less than the costs estimated using the cost curves, indicating
that the estimated O&M costs should be considered as high-side estimates.
3.3 APPLICATION
As Retrofit of Existing Offshore Intake
Adding velocity caps to facilities with existing offshore intakes will provide impingement reduction only. For facilities
withdrawing from saltwater/brackish waters (ocean and estuarine/tidal rivers), the capital cost curve for stainless steel caps
will be applied. For the remaining facilities withdrawing freshwater (freshwater rivers/streams, reservoirs/lakes, Great
Lakes), the capital cost curve for carbon steel caps will be applied. The same O&M cost curve will be used for both
freshwater and saltwater systems. It is assumed that the existing intake is in a location that will provide sufficient clearance
and is away from damaging wave action.
As Component of Relocating Existing Shoreline Intake to Submerged Offshore
These same velocity cap retrofit costs can be incorporated into retrofits where an existing shoreline intake is relocated to
submerged offshore. In this application, some of the same equipment and personnel used in velocity cap installation may
also be used to install other intake components, such as the pipe. Therefore, the mobilization/demobilization component
could be reduced if these tasks are determined to occur close together in time. However, a high-side costing approach would
be to cost each step separately, using the same velocity cap costs for both new and existing offshore intake pipes. In this
case, the installation costs for velocity caps at existing offshore intakes (which include costs for cutting, and welding and/or
bolting the velocity cap in place) are assumed to also cover costs of installing connection flanges at new offshore intakes.
Costs for other components of relocating existing shoreline intakes to submerged offshore are developed as a separate cost
module associated with passive screens. The compliance cost estimates did not include this scenario.
REFERENCES
Elarbash, M. Elmosa Canada, email correspondence with John Sunda, SAIC concerning cost and technical data for
Invisihead velocity caps. August 9, 2002a
Elarbash, M. Elmosa Canada, email correspondence with John Sunda, SAIC concerning cost and technical data for
Invisihead velocity caps. August 19, 2002b
Elmosa. Website at http://www.imasar.com/elmosa/invisiheaddetails.htm accessed May 9, 2002.
Paroby, Rich. Personal communication between Rich Paroby, District Sales Manager, Water Process Group and Deborah
Nagle, USEPA E-mail dated May 12, 1999.
1-80
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 3-1
Velocity Cap Retrofit Capital and O&M Costs (2002 $)
Flow (gnm)
Water Tvoe
5.000
10.000
25,000
50.000
100.000
200.000
350,000
# Heads
All
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
Material
Costs -
Stainless
Steel /Head
Saltwater
$30.000
$30.000
$40.000
$35.000
$80.000
$80.000
$106,000
Material
Costs -
Stainless
Steel Total
Saltwater
$30.000
$30,000
$40.000
$70.000
$160.000
$320.000
$424,000
Material
Costs -
Carbon
Steel /Head
Freshwater
$22.500
$22.500
$30.000
$26.250
$60.000
$60.000
$79,500
Material
Costs -
Carbon
Steel Total
Freshwater
$22.500
$22.500
$30.000
$52,500
$120.000
$240.000
$318,000
Installation
All
$25.000
$30.000
$35.000
$49.000
$49.000
$98.000
$98,000
Mobilization/
Demobilization
All
$10.000
$15,000
$15.000
$25,000
$25.000
$30.000
$30,000
Total
Capital
Costs -
Stainless
Steel
Saltwater
$65.000
$75.000
$90.000
$144.000
$234.000
$448.000
$552,000
Total
Capital
Costs -
Carbon
Steel
Freshwater
$57.500
$67,500
$80.000
$126.500
$194.000
$368.000
$446,000
Total
O&M
All
$5.260
$5,260
$5.260
$7,250
$7.250
$11.230
$11,230
Note: Vendor indicated installation took 2 to 7 days
Note: Installation includes retrofit activities such as cutting pipe and & attaching connection flange on intake inlet pipe.
1-81
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 3-2
Installation and Maintenance Diver Team Costs
Item
Duration
Cost Year
Supervisor
Tender
Diver
Air Packs
Boat
Mob/Demob
Total
Daily
Cost*
$575
$200
$375
$100
$200
One Time
Cost*
$3,000
Total
One Dav
1999
$575
$200
$750
$100
$200
$3,000
$4.825
Adiusted Total
One Dav
2002
$627
$218
$818
$109
$218
$3,270
$5.260
Two Dav
2002
$1,254
$436
$1,635
$218
$436
$3,270
$7.250
Three Dav
2002
$1,880
$654
$2,453
$327
$654
$3,270
$9.240
Four Dav
2002
$2,507
$872
$3,270
$436
$872
$3,270
$11.230
*Source: Paroby 1999 (cost adjusted to 2002 dollars).
1-82
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 3-1
u
$600,000
$550,000
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
I
E.
U $250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Velocity Cap Capital Costs
2002 Dollars
y = -3E-06x^ + 2.4809X + 38934
R2 = 0.9917
y = -2E-06x^ + 2.0196X + 38053
R2 = 0.9913
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Flow (gpm)
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
•Stainless Steel
Carbon Steel
1-83
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 3-2
$14,000 T—————
$12,000
$10,000
° $8,000
s $6,000
=
•I
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Velocity Cap O&M Cost
2002 Dollars
y = -7E-08x + 0.0424X + 4731.4
R2 = 0.9469
*Velociity Cap O&M "Actual Diver Based O&M
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
Flow (gpm)
1-8
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
4.0
FISH BARRIER NETS
Fish barrier net can be used where improvements to impingement performance is needed. Because barrier nets can be installed
independently of intake structures, there is no need to include any costs for modifications to the existing intake or technology
employed. Costs are assumed to be the same for both new and existing facilities. Barrier nets can be installed while the facility is
operating. Thus, there is no need to coordinate barrier net installation with generating unit downtime .
Fish Barrier Net Questionnaire
EPA identified seven facilities from its database that employed fish barrier nets and sent them a brief questionnaire requesting barrier
net design and cost data (EPA 2002). The following four facilities received but did not submit a response:
Bethlehem Steel - Sparrows Point
Consumers Energy Co. - J.R. Whiting Plant
Exelon Corp. (formerly Commonwealth Edison) - LaSalle County Station
Southern Energy - Bowline Generating Station
The following three facilities submitted completed questionnaires:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. - Arkansas Nuclear One
Potomac Electric Power Co. - Chalk Point
Minnesota Power - Laskin Energy Center
Net Velocity
An important design criterion for determining the size of fish barrier nets is the velocity of the water as it passes through the net. Net
velocity (which is similar to the approach velocity for a traveling screen) determines how quickly debris will collect on the nets. Net
velocity also determines the force exerted on the net, especially if it becomes clogged with debris. For facilities that supplied technical
data, Table 4-1 presents the design intake flow (estimated by EPA) and facility data reported in the Barrier Net Questionnaire. These
data include net size, average daily intake flow, and calculated net velocities based on average and design flows. Note that the Chalk
Point net specifications used for purchasing the net, indicated a net width of 27 ft (Langley 2002) while the Net Questionnaire reported
a net width of 30 ft. A net width of 27 ft was used for estimating net velocities and unit net costs The two larger facilities have similar
design net velocity values that, based on design flow, is equal to 0.06 feet per second (fps). This values are roughly an order of
magnitude lower than compliance velocities used for rigid screens in the Phase I Rule as well as design velocities recommended for
passive screens. There are two reasons for this difference. One difference is rigid screens can withstand greater pressure differentials
because they are firmly held in place. The second is rigid screens can afford to collect debris at a more rapid rate because they have an
active means for removing debris collected on the surface.
Based on the data presented in Table 4-1, EPA has selected a net velocity of 0.06 fps (using the design flow) as the basis for
developing compliance costs for fish barrier nets. Nets tested at a high velocity (> 1.3 fps) at a power plant in Monroe Michigan
clogged and collapsed. Velocities higher than 0.06 fps may be acceptable at locations where the debris loading is low or where
additional measures are taken to remove debris. While tidal locations can have significant water velocities, the periodic reversal of
flow direction can help dislodge some of the debris that collects on the nets. The technology scenario described below, for tidal
waterbodies, is designed to accommodate significant debris loading through the use of dual nets and frequent replacement with cleaned
nets.
Table 4-1
Net Velocity Data Derived from Barrier Net Questionnaire Data
Facility Owner
PEPCO
Enterav
Minn. Power
Facility Name
Chalk Point
Arkansas Nuclear One
Laskin Energy Center
Depth*
Ft
27
20
16
Lenath*
Ft
1000
1500
600
Area
sqft
27,000
30,000
9,600
EPA Design
Flow
gpm
762,500
805,600
101,900
Net Velocity
at Design
Flow
fps
0.06
0.06
0.02
Average
Daily
Flow*
gpm
500,000
593,750
94,250
Net Velocity
at Daily
Flow
fps
0.04
0.04
0.02
* Source: 2002 EPA Fish Barrier Net Questionnaire and Langley 2002
1-85
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Mesh size determines the fish species and juvenile stages that will be excluded by the net. While smaller mesh size has the ability to
exclude more organisms, it will plug more quickly with debris. The Chalk Point facility tried to use 0.5-inch stretch mesh netting and
found that too much debris collected on the netting; it instead uses 0.75 inch stretch (0.375 inch mesh) netting (Langley 2002). Unlike
rigid screens, fish nets are much more susceptible to lateral forces which can collapse the net.
Mesh size is specified in one of two ways, either as a "bar" or "stretch" dimension. A "stretch" measurement refers to the distance
between two opposing knots in the net openings when they are stretched apart. Thus, assuming a diamond shaped netting, when the
netting is relaxed the distance between two opposing sides of an opening will be roughly 1A the stretch diameter. A "bar" measurement
is the length of one of the four sides of the net opening and would be roughly equal to 1A the stretch measurement. The term "mesh
size" as used in this document refers to either 1A the "stretch" measurement or is equal to the "bar" measurement
Table 4-2 presents reported mesh sizes from several power plant facilities that either now or in the past employed fish barrier nets. An
evaluation report of the use of barrier fish nets at the Bowline Plant in New York cited that 0.374 inch mesh was more effective than
0.5 inch mesh at reducing the number of fish entering the plant intake (Hutcheson 1988). Both fish barrier net cost scenarios described
below are based on nets with a mesh size of 0.375 in. (9.5 mm) and corresponds to the median mesh size of those identified by EPA.
Table 4-2
Available Barrier Net Mesh Size Data
Facility
Chalk Point
Entergy Arkansas
Nuclear One
Laskin Enerqv
Bowline Point
J.P. Pulliam
Description
Inner Net
Outer Net
Low
High (preferred)
More Effective Size
Reported Mesh Size
Inch
0.75
1.25
0.375
0.5
0.25
0.374
0.25
mm
19
32
10
13
6.4
9.5
6.4
Type of
Measurement
and Source
Stretch (1)
Stretch (1)
Mesh (Bar) (1)
Mesh (Bar) (1)
Mesh (Bar) (1)
Bar (3)
Stretch (2)
Median
Effective Mesh Size
Inch
0.375
0.625
0.375
0.5
0.25
0.374
0.126
0.374
mm
9.5
15.9
9.5
12.7
6.4
9.5
3.2
9.5
(1): 2002 EPA Fish Barrier Survey
(2):ASCE 1982
(3): Hutcheson 1988
Twine
Twine size mostly determines the strength and weight of the fish netting. Only the Chalk Point facility reported twine size data (#252)
knotless nylon netting. Netting #252 is a 75-lb test braided nylon twine in which the twine joints are braided together rather than
knotted (Murelle 2002). The netting used at the Bowline Power Plant was cited as multi-filament knotted nylon, chosen because of its
low cost and high strength (Hutcheson 1988).
Support/Anchoring System
In general, two different types of support and anchoring systems have been identified by EPA. In the simplest system the nets are held
in-place and the bottom is sealed with weights running the length of the bottom usually consisting of a chain or a lead line. The
weights may be supplemented with anchors placed at intervals. Vendors indicated the requirement for anchors varies depending on
the application and waterbody conditions. The nets are anchored along the shore and generally placed in a semi-circle or arc in front
of the intake. The Bowline Facility net used a v-shape configuration with an anchor and buoy at the apex and additional anchors
placed midway along the 91 meter length sides. In some applications anchors may not be needed at all. If the nets are moved by
current or waves, they can be set back into the proper position using a boat. The nets are supported along the surface with buoys and
1-86
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
floats. The buoys may support signs warning boaters of the presence of the net. The required spacing and size of the anchors and
buoys is somewhat dependent on the size of the net and lateral water velocities. The majority of facilities investigated used this
float/anchor method of installation. This net support configuration, using weights, anchors, floats, and buoys, is the basis for
compliance scenario A.
A second method is to support nets between evenly spaced pilings. This method is more appropriate for water bodies with currents.
The Chalk Point Power Plant uses this method in a tidal river. The Chalk Point facility uses two concentric nets. Each has a separate
set of support pilings with a spacing between pilings of about 18 feet to 20 feet (Langley 2002). Nets are hung on the outside of the
pilings with spikes and are weighted on the bottom with galvanized chain. During the winter top of the net is suspended below the
water surface to avoid ice damage but generally thick ice does not persist during the winter months at the facility location.
Debris
Debris problems generally come in two forms. In one case large floating debris can get caught in the netting near the surface and
result in tearing of the netting. In the other cases, floating and submerged debris can plug the openings in the net. This increases the
hydraulic gradient across the net, resulting in net being pulled in the downstream direction. The force can become so great that it can
collapse the net, and water flows over the top and/or beneath the bottom. If the net is held in place by only anchors and weights it may
be moved out of place. At the Chalk Point facility, debris that catches on the nets mostly comes in the form of jellyfish and colonial
hydroids (Langley 2002).
Several solutions are described for mitigating problems created by debris. At the Chalk Point Power Plant two concentric nets are
deployed. The outer net has a larger mesh opening designed to capture and deflect larger debris so it does not encounter the inner net,
which catches smaller debris. This configuration reduces the debris buildup on any one net extending the time period before net
cleaning is required. Growth of algae and colonization with other organisms (biofouling) can also increase the drag force on the nets.
Periodic removal and storage out of the water can solve this problem. At Chalk Point both nets are changed out with cleaned nets on a
periodic basis. This approach is considered to be appropriate for high debris locations.
Another solution is to periodically lift the netting and manually remove debris. A solution for floating debris is to place a debris boom
in front of the net (Hutcheson 1988).
Ice
During the wintertime ice can create problems in that the net can become embedded in surface ice with the net subject to tear forces
when the ice breaks up or begins to move. Flowing ice can create similar problems as floating debris. Ice will also affect the ability to
perform net maintenance such as debris removal. Solutions include:
Removing the nets during winter
Drop the upper end of the net to a submerged location; can only be used with fixed support, such as pilings and in locations
where thick ice is uncommon
Installing an air bubbler below the surface. Does not solve problems with flowing ice.
Net Deployment
EPA assumes that barrier nets will be used to augment performance of the existing shore-based intake technology such as traveling
screens. The float/anchor supported nets are assumed to be deployed on a seasonal basis to reduce impingement offish present during
seasonal migration. The Arkansas Energy Arkansas Nuclear One Plant deploys their net for about 120 days during winter months.
The Minnesota Power Laskin Energy Center, which is located on a lake, deploys the net when ice has broken up in spring and removes
the net in the fall before ice forms. Thus, the actual deployment period will vary depending on presence of ice and seasonal migration
offish. For the compliance scenario that relies upon float/anchor supported nets, a total deployment period of eight months (240 day)
is assumed. This is equal to or greater than most of the deployment periods observed by EPA.
EPA notes that the Chalk Point facility currently uses year round deployment and avoids problems with ice in the winter time by
lowering the net top to a location below the surface. Prior to devising this approach, nets were remove during the winter months.
This option is available because the nets are supported on pilings. Thus, the surface support rope (with floats removed) can be
stretched between the pilings several feet below the surface. Therefore, a scenario where nets are supported by pilings may include
year round deployment as was the case for the Chalk Point Power Plant. However, in northern climates the sustained presence of thick
ice during the winter may prevent net removal and cleaning and therefore, it may still be necessary to remove the nets during this
period.
1-87
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
4.1 CAPITAL COST DEVELOPMENT
Compliance costs are developed for the two different net scenarios.
Scenario A Installation at Freshwater Lake Using Anchors and Buoys/Floats
This scenario is intended for application in freshwater waterbodies where low water velocities and low debris levels occur such as
lakes and reservoirs. This scenario is modeled on the barrier net data from the Entergy Arkansas Nuclear One facility but has been
modified to double the annual deployment period from 120 days to 240 days. Along with doubling the deployment period, the labor
costs were increased to include an additional net removal and replacement step midpoint through this period. To facilitate the mid
season net replacement, the initial net capital costs will include purchase of a replacement net.
Scenario B Installation Using Pilings.
This scenario is modeled after the system used at Chalk Point. In this case two nets are deployed in concentric semi-circles with the
inner net having a smaller mesh (0.375 in) and the outer net having a larger mesh. Deployment is assumed to be year round. A marine
contractor performs all O&M, which mostly involves periodically removing and the replacing both nets with nets they have cleaned.
The initial capital net costs will include purchase of a set of replacement nets. This scenario is intended for application in waterbodies
with low or varying currents such as tidal rivers and estuaries. Two different O&M cost estimates are developed for this scenario. In
one the deployment is assumed to be year round as is the case at Chalk Point. In the second, the net is deployed for only 240 days
being taken out during the winter months. This would apply to facilities northern regions where ice formation would make net
maintenance difficult.
Net Costs
The capital costs for each scenario includes two components, the net and the support. The net portion includes a rope and floats spaced
along the top and weights along the bottom consisting of either a "leadline"or chain. If similar netting specifications are used the cost
of the netting is generally proportional to the size of the netting and can be expressed in a unitized manner such as "dollars/sq ft."
Table 4-3 presents the reported net costs and calculated unit costs. While different water depths will change the general ratio of net
area to length of rope/floats and bottom weights , the differences in depth also result in different float and weight requirements. For
example, a shallower net will require more length of surface rope and floats and weights per unit net area but a shallower depth net
will also exert less force and require smaller floats and weights.
EPA is using the cost of nets in the average depth range of 20 to 30 feet as the basis for costing. This approach is consistent with the
median Phase II facility shoreline intake depth of 18 feet and median "average bay depth" of 20 feet. While nets are deployed offshore
in water deeper than a shoreline intake, costs are for average depths, which include the shallow sections at the ends, and net placement
can be configured to minimize depth. To see how shallower depths may affect unit costs, the costs for a shallower 10-foot net with
specifications similar to the Chalk Point net (depth of 27 feet) were obtained from the facility's net supplier. As shown in Table 4-3,
the unit cost per square foot for the shallower net was less than the deeper net. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the use of shallower
nets does not increase unit costs and has chosen to apply the unit costs, based on the 20-foot and 30-foot depth nets, to shallower
depths.
Table 4-3 presents costs obtained for the net portion only from the facilities that completed the Barrier Net Questionnaire. These costs
have been increased by 12% over what was reported to include shipping costs. This 12% value was obtained from the Chalk Point net
supplier who confirmed that the costs reported by Chalk Point did not include shipping (Murelle 2002) The unit net costs range from
$0.17/sq ft to $0.78/sq ft. Consultation with net vendors indicates that the barrier net specifications vary considerably and that there is
no standard approach. Although no net specification data (besides mesh size) was submitted with the Laskin Energy Center data, EPA
has concluded that the data for this net probably represents lower strength netting which would be suitable for applications where the
netting is not exposed to significant forces. Because the compliance cost scenarios will be applied to facilities with a variety net
strength requirements, EPA has chosen to use the higher net costs that correspond to higher net strength requirements. As such, EPA
has chosen to use the cost data for the Chalk Point and Arkansas Nuclear One facilities as the basis for each scenario.
1-8
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 4-3
Net Size and Cost Data
Facility
Chalk Point
Chalk Point (equivalent
Enterqv Arkansas
Enterav Arkansas
Laskin Energy Center
Depth
ft
27
27
10
20
20
16
Lenath
ft
300
300
300
250
1500
600
Area
sqft
8,100
8,100
3,000
5,000
30,000
9,600
Component
Replacement Net 0.675 in.*
Replacement Net 0.375 in.*
Replacement Net*
Replacement Net*
Net & Support Costs**
Net Costs***
Cost/net
$4,640
$4,410
$1,510
$3,920
$36,620
$1,600
Cost/so ft
$0.57
$0.54
$0.50
$0.78
$1.22
$0.17
*Costs include floats and lead line or chain and are based on replacement costs plus 12% shipping.
** Costs include replacement net components plus anchors, buoys & cable plus 12% shipping
***Cost based on reported 1980 costs adjusted to 2002 dollars plus 12% for shipping.
Scenario A Net Costs
In this scenario the net and net support components are included in the unit costs. At the Arkansas Nuclear One facility unitized costs
for the net and anchors/buoys are $1.22/sq ft plus $0.78/sq ft for the replacement net, resulting in a total initial unit net costs of
$2.00/sq ft for both nets. Because the data in Table 4-3 indicate that, if anything, unit costs for nets may decrease with shallower
depths, EPA concluded that this unit cost was representative of most of the deeper nets and may slightly overestimate the costs for
shallower nets.
Scenario A Net Installation costs
Installation costs for Arkansas Nuclear One (Scenario A) were reported as $30,000 (in 1999 dollars; $32,700 when adjusted for
inflation to 2002 dollars) for the 30,000 sq ft net. This included placement of anchors and cable including labor. In order to
extrapolate the installation costs for different net sizes, EPA has assumed that approximately 20% ($6,540) of this installation cost
represents fixed costs (e.g., mobilization/demobilization). The remainder ($26,160) divided by the net area results in an installation
unit cost of $0.87/sq ft to be added to the fixed cost.
Scenario A Total Capital Costs
Table 4-4 presents the component and total capital costs for Scenario A. Indirect costs are added for engineering (10%) and
contingency/allowance (10%). Contractor labor and overhead are already included in the component costs. Because most of the
operation occurs offshore no cost for sitework are included.
Table 4-4
Capital Costs for Scenario A Fish Barrier Net With Anchors/Buoys as Support Structure
Flow (a DID)
Net Area (sa ft)
Net Costs
Installation Costs Fixed
Installation Costs Variable
Total Direct Capital Costs
Indirect Costs
Total Capital Costs
2,000
74
$149
$6,540
$65
$6,754
$1 ,351
$8,104
10,000
371
$744
$6,540
$324
$7,608
$1 ,522
$9,130
50,000
1,857
$3,722
$6,540
$1,619
$1 1 ,881
$2,376
$14,258
100,000
3,714
$7,445
$6,540
$3,238
$17,223
$3,445
$20,667
250,000
9,284
$18,611
$6,540
$8,096
$33,247
$6,649
$39,896
500,000
18,568
$37,223
$6,540
$16,191
$59,954
$1 1 ,991
$71 ,945
750,000
27,852
$55,834
$6,540
$24,287
$86,661
$17,332
$103,993
1 ,000,000
37,136
$74,445
$6,540
$32,383
$113,368
$22,674
$136,042
1 ,250,000
46,420
$93,057
$6,540
$40,478
$140,075
$28,015
$168,090
1-89
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Scenario B Net Costs
In this scenario the net costs are computed separately from the net support (pilings) costs. In this scenario there are two separate nets
and an extra set of replacement nets for each. This, the unit costs for the nets will be two times the sum of the units net costs for each
of the large and small mesh nets. As shown in Table 4-3, the unit costs for each net was $0.57/sq ft and $0.54/sq ft resulting in a total
cost for all four nets of $2.24/sq ft for the area of a single net.
Scenario B Installation Costs
Installation costs were not provided for the Chalk Point facility. Initial net installation is assumed to be performed by the O&M
contractor and is assumed to be a fixed cost regardless of net size. EPA assumed the initial installation costs to be two-thirds of the
contractor, single net replacement job cost of $1,400 or $933 (See O&M Costs - Scenario B).
Scenario B Piling Costs
The cost for the pilings at the Chalk Point facility were not provided. The piling costs for scenario B is based primarily on the
estimated cost for installing two concentric set of treated wooden pilings with a spacing of 20 ft between pilings. To see how water
depth affects piling costs, separate costs were developed at water depths of 10 feet, 20 feet, and 30 feet. Piling costs are based on the
following assumptions:
Costs for pilings is based on a unit cost of $28.507 ft of piling (RS Means, 2001)
Piling installation mobilization costs are equal to $2,325 based on a mobilization rate of $46.50/mile for barge
mounted pile driving equipment (RS Meaens 2001) and an assumed distance of 50 miles
Each pile length includes the water depth plus a 6-foot extension above the water surface plus a penetration depth (at
two-thirds the water depth); the calculated length was rounded up to the next even whole number
The two concentric nets are nearly equal in length with one pile for every 20 feet in length and one extra pile to
anchor the end of each net.
Table 4-5 presents the individual pile costs and intake flow for each net section between two pilings (at 0.06 fps).
Table 4-5
Pile Costs and Net Section Flow
Water
Depth
Ft
10
20
30
Total Pile
Lenath
Ft
24
40
56
Cost Per
Pile
684
1140
1596
Flow Per
20 ft Net
Section
apm
5385.6
10771.2
16156.8
Fixed
Cost
Mobilizati
on
2325
2325
2325
Tables 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8 present the total capital costs and cost components for the installed nets and pilings. Indirect costs are added
for engineering (10%) and contingency/allowance (10%). Contractor labor and overhead are already included in the component costs.
Because most of the operation occurs offshore no cost for sitework are included. The costs were derived for nets with multiple 20 ft
sections. Because the net costs are derived such that the cost equations are linear with respect to flow, the maximum number of
sections shown are selected so they cover a similar flow range. Values that exceed this range can use the same cost equation.
Table 4-6
1-90
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 10 Ft Deep Nets
Number of 20 ft Sections
Total Number of Pilinas
Sinale Net Lenath (ft)
Net Area (sa ft)
Flow (a om)
Total Pilina Cost
Net Costs
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Total Capital Costs
2
6
40
400
10,771
$6,429
$1 ,380
$7,809
$1 ,562
$9,371
4
10
80
800
21 ,542
$9,165
$1 ,827
$10,992
$2,198
$13,190
8
18
160
1,600
43,085
$14,637
$2,721
$17,358
$3,472
$20,829
12
26
240
2,400
64,627
$20,109
$3,614
$23,723
$4,745
$28,468
25
52
500
5,000
134,640
$37,893
$6,519
$44,412
$8,882
$53,295
50
102
1000
10,000
269,280
$72,093
$12,106
$84,199
$16,840
$101,039
75
152
1500
15,000
403,920
$106,293
$17,692
$123,985
$24,797
$148,782
100
202
2000
20,000
538,560
$140,493
$23,279
$163,772
$32,754
$196,526
200
402
4000
40,000
1,077,120
$277,293
$45,624
$322917
$64,583
$387,501
Table 4-7
Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 20 Ft Deep Nets
Number of 20 ft Sections
Total Number of Pilinas
Sinale Net Lenath (ft)
Net Area (sa ft)
Flow (apm)
Total Pilina Cost
Net Costs
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Total Caoital Costs
2
6
40
800
21,542
$9,165
$1,827
$10,992
$2,198
$13,190
4
10
80
1600
43,085
$13,725
$2,721
$16,446
$3,289
$19,735
8
18
160
3200
86,170
$22,845
$4,508
$27,353
$5,471
$32,824
12
26
240
4800
129,254
$31,965
$6,296
$38,261
$7,652
$45,913
25
52
500
10000
269,280
$61,605
$12,106
$73,711
$14,742
$88,453
50
102
1000
20000
538,560
$118,605
$23,279
$141,884
$28,377
$170,260
75
152
1500
30000
807,840
$175,605
$34,452
$210,057
$42,011
$252,068
100
202
2000
40000
1,077,120
$232,605
$45,624
$278,229
$55,646
$333,875
Table 4-8
Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 30 Ft Deep Nets
Number of 20 ft Sections
Total Number of Pilinas
Sinale Net Lenath (ft)
Net Area (sa ft)
Flow(aom)
Total Pilina Cost
Net Costs
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Total Capital Costs
2
6
40
1,200
32,314
$9,576
$2,274
$11,850
$2,370
$14,220
4
10
80
2,400
64,627
$15,960
$3,614
$19,574
$3,915
$23,489
8
18
160
4,800
129,254
$28,728
$6,296
$35,024
$7,005
$42,029
12
26
240
7,200
193,882
$41,496
$8,977
$50,473
$10,095
$60,568
25
52
500
15,000
403,920
$82,992
$17,692
$100,684
$20,137
$120,821
50
102
1000
30,000
807,840
$162,792
$34,452
$197,244
$39,449
$236,692
75
152
1500
45,000
1,211,760
$242,592
$51,211
$293,803
$58,761
$352,563
Figure 4-1 presents the total capital costs for scenarios A and B from Tables 4-4 through 4-8, plotted against design flow. Figure 4-1
also presents the best-fit linear equations used top estimate compliance costs. EPA notes that pilings for shallower depths costed out
more, due to the need for many more pilings. Scenario B costs for 10-foot deep nets will be applied wherever the intake depth is less
than 12 ft. For scenario B applications in water much deeper than 12 feet, EPA will use the cost equation for 20-foot deep nets.
4.2 O&M COSTS DEVELOPMENT
Scenario A O&M Costs - Float/Anchor Supported Nets
Barrier net O&M costs generally include costs for replacement netting, labor for net inspection, repair, and cleaning, and labor for net
placement and removal. The Arkansas Nuclear One facility supplied data that estimate all three components for its 1500 ft long by 20
1-91
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
ft deep net located on a reservoir. Net deployment, however, was for only a 120-day period. This net is installed in November and
removed in March (in-place for 120 days total). Each year two 250-foot sections of the net (one-third of the total) are replaced due to
normal wear and tear.
EPA assumes the labor rate is similar to the estimate for traveling screen maintenance labor ($41.10/hr). The reported Arkansas
Nuclear One O&M labor requirements includes 3 hrs per day during the time the net is deployed for inspection & cleaning by
personnel on a boat (calculated at $14,800). This involves lifting and partially cleaning the nets on a periodic basis. Labor to deploy
and remove the net was reported at 240 hrs (calculated at $9,860). Two sections of the six total net sections were replaced annually at a
cost of $7,830 total (including shipping). Total annual O&M costs are calculated to be $32,500.
Because other facilities on lakes reported longer deployment periods (generally when ice is not present), EPA chose to adjust O&M
costs to account for longer deployment. EPA chose to base O&M costs for scenario A on a deployment period of 240 days
(approximately double the Arkansas Nuclear One facility deployment period). EPA also added costs for an additional net removal and
deployment step using the second replacement net midway through the annual deployment period. The result is a calculated annual
O&M cost of $57,200.
Scenario B O&M Costs - Piling Supported Nets
Nearly all of the O&M labor for Chalk Point facility is performed by a marine contractor who charges $1,400 per job to
simultaneously remove the existing net and replace it with a cleaned net. This is done with two boats where one boat removes the
existing net followed quickly by the second that places the cleaned net keeping the open area between nets minimized . The
contractors fee includes cleaning the removed nets between jobs. This net replacement is performed about 52 to 54 times per years. It
is performed about twice per week during the summer and once every two weeks during the winter. The facility relies upon the
contractor to monitor the net. Approximately one third of the nets are replaced each year, resulting in a net replacement cost of
$9,050.
Using an average of 53 contractor jobs per year and a net replacement cost of $9,050 the resulting annual O&M cost was $83,250.
EPA notes that some facilities that employ scenario B technology may choose to remove the nets during the winter. As such, EPA has
also estimated the scenario B O&M costs based on a deployment period of approximately 240 days by reducing the estimated number
of contractor jobs from 53 to 43 (deducting 10 jobs using the winter frequency of roughly 1 job every 2 weeks). The resulting O&M
costs are shown in Tables 4-9 and 4-10.
EPA notes that other O&M costs reported in literature are often less than what is shown in Table 4-9. For example, 1985 O&M cost
estimates for the IP Pulliam plant ($7,500/year, adjusted to 2002 dollars) calculate to $11,800 for a design flow roughly half that of
Arkansas Entergy. This suggests the scenario A and B estimates represent the high end of the range of barrier net O&M costs. Other
O&M estimates, however, do not indicate the cost components that are included and may not represent all cost components.
In order to extrapolate costs for other flow rates, EPA has assumed that roughly 20% of the Scenario A and B O&M costs represent
fixed costs. Table 4-9 presents the fixed and unit costs based on this assumption for both scenarios.
Table 4-9
Cost Basis for O&M Costs
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario B
Deploym
ent
Days
240
365
240
Net
Replaceme
nt
$7,830
$9,050
$9,050
O&M
Labor
$49,320
$74,200
$60,200
Model
Facility
O&M
$57,150
$83,250
$69,250
Fixed
Cost
$11,430
$16,650
$13,850
Variable
Costs
$45,720
$66,600
$55,400
Unit
Variable
O&M
Costs
$/sqft
$1.52
$2.47
$2.05
Note that Unit Variable O&M Costs are based on a total net area of 30,000 sq ft (Entergy Arkansas) for scenario A and 27,000 sq ft for
scenario B (Chalk Point).
1-92
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 4-10 presents the calculated O&M costs based on the cost factors in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-2 presents the plotted O&M costs
and the linear equations fitted to the cost estimates.
Table 4-10
Annual O&M Cost Estimates
Flow (apm)
Net Area (sa
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario B
m
240 days
365 days
240 days
2,000
74
$11,543
$16,833
$14,002
10,000
371
$11,996
$17,566
$14,612
50,000
1,857
$14,260
$21,230
$17,660
100,000
3,714
$17,090
$25,810
$21,470
250,000
9,284
$25,579
$39,551
$32,899
500,000
18,568
$39,728
$62,451
$51,949
750,000
27,852
$53,877
$85,352
$70,998
1,000,000
37,136
$68,025
$108,252
$90,048
1,250,000
46,420
$82,174
$131,153
$109,097
4.3
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
Even though the scenario A costs are modeled after the barriers nets installed at a nuclear facility, the higher unit net costs cited by the
Arkansas Nuclear One facility include components that are not included with the non-nuclear Chalk Point nets and thus the differences
may be attributed to equipment differences and not differences between nuclear and non-nuclear facilities. In addition, the labor rates
used for scenario A and B O&M were for non-nuclear facilities. Because the function of barrier nets is purely for environmental
benefit, and not critical to the continued function of the cooling system (as would be technologies such as traveling screens). EPA
does not believe that a much more rigorous design is warranted at nuclear facilities. However, higher labor rates plus greater
paperwork and security requirements at nuclear facilities should result in higher costs. As such, EPA has concluded that the capital
costs for nuclear facilities should be increased by a factor of 1.58 (lower end of range cited in passive screen section). Because O&M
costs rely heavily on labor costs, EPA has concluded that the O&M costs should be increased by a factor of 1.24 (based on nuclear vs
non-nuclear operator labor costs).
4.4
APPLICATION
Fish barrier net technology will augment, but not replace, the function of any existing technology. Therefore, the calculated net O&M
costs will include the O&M costs described here without any deductions for reduction in existing technology O&M costs. Fish barrier
nets may not be applicable in locations where they would interfere with navigation channels or boat traffic.
Fish barrier nets require low waterbody currents in order to avoid becoming plugged with debris that could collapse the net. Such
conditions can be found in most lakes and reservoirs, as well as some tidal waterbodies such as tidal rivers and estuaries. Placing
barrier nets in a location with sustained lateral currents in one direction may cause problems because the section of net facing the
current will continually collect debris at higher rate than the remainder of the net. In this case, net maintenance cleaning efforts must
be able to keep up with debris accumulation. As such, barrier nets are suitable for intake locations that are sheltered from currents, e.g.,
locations within an embayment, bay, or cove. On freshwater rivers and streams only those facilities within an embayment, bay, or
cove will be considered as candidates for barrier nets.. The sheltered area needs to be large enough for the net sizes described above.
The fish barrier net designs considered here would not be suitable for waterbodies with the strong wave action typically found in ocean
environments.
Scenario A is most suitable for lakes and reservoirs where water currents are low or almost nonexistent. Scenario B is more suitable
for tidal waterbodies and any other location where higher quantities of debris and light or fluctuating currents may be encountered. In
northern regions where formation of thick ice in winter would prevent access to the nets, and scenario B may be applied, the scenario
B O&M costs for a 240-day deployment should be used. However, because this scenario results in reduced costs, EPA has chose to
apply the scenario B 365 days deployment for all facilities in suitable waterbodies.
EPA notes that nets with net velocities higher than 0.07 fps have been successfully employed (EPRI1985). While such nets will be
smaller than those described here, they will accumulate debris at a faster rate. Because the majority of the O&M costs are related to
cleaning nets, EPA expects the increase in frequency of cleaning smaller nets will be offset by the smaller net size such that the
smaller nets should require similar costs to maintain.
Facilities with Canals
Most facilities with canals have in-canal velocities of between 0.5 and 1 fps based on average flow. These velocities are an order of
1-93
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
magnitude greater than the design net velocity used here. If nets with mesh sizes in the range considered here were placed within the canals they will likely experience problems
with debris. Therefore, if barrier nets are used at facilities with canals, the net would need to be placed in the waterbody just outside the canal entrance.
REFERENCES
EPA. Responses to Fish Barrier Net Questionnaires. 2002.
Taft, E.P. "Fish Protection Technologies: A Status Report." Alden Research laboratory, Inc. 1999.
Hutcheson, J.B. Jr. Matousak, J.A. "Evaluation of a Barrier Net Used to Mitigate Fish Impingement at a Hudson River Power Plant." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:208-
285. 1988
Murelle, D. Nylon Nets Company. Telephone Contact Report with John Sunda,. SAIC. Regarding cost and design information for fish barrier nets. November 5, 2002.
Langley, P. Chalk Point Power Station. Telephone Contact Report with John Sunda,. SAIC. Regarding fish barrier net design, operation, and O&M costs. November 4, 2002.
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1982.
EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, New York, for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS-3976. May
1985.
RS Means. Costworks 2001.
1-94
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
$450,000
$400,000
Figure 4-1
Total Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Nets
= 0.3038x + 6645T6
y = 0.2869x + 7740
7848
200,000
400,000
600,000 800,000
Design Flow(gpm)
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
+ Scenario A Barrier Net • Scenario B Net at 10 ft Depth Scenario B Net at 20 ft Depth Scenario B Net at 30 ft
1-95
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Figure 4-2
Barrier Net Annual O&M Costs
(/)
o
o
s
08
o
15
c
c
<
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
200,000
400,000 600,000 800,000
Design Flow (gpm)
1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
+ Scenario A • Scenario B 365 Days Scenario B 240 days
1-96
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
5.0 AQUATIC FILTER BARRIERS
Filter Barrier
Aquatic filter barrier systems are barriers that employ a filter fabric designed to allow passage of water into a cooling water intake
structure, while excluding aquatic organisms. One company, Gunderboom, Inc., has a patented system, the Marine/Aquatic Life
Exclusion System (MLES)™ that can be deployed as a full-water-depth filter curtain suspended from floating booms extending out in
the waterway or supported on a fixed structure as described below. The filter fabric material is constructed of matted unwoven
synthetic fibers.
Pore Size and Surface Loading Rate
Filter fabric materials with different pore sizes can be employed depending on performance requirements. In the MLES™ system two
layers of fabric are used. Because the material is a fabric and thus the openings are irregular, the measure of the mesh or pore size is
determined by an ASTM method that relies on a sieve analysis of the passage of tiny glass beads. The results of this analysis is
referred to as apparent opening size. The standard MLES ™ filter fabric material has an apparent opening size (AOS) of 0.15 mm.
(McCusker 2003b). Gunderboom can also provides filter fabric material that has been perforated to increase the apparent opening
size. Available perforation sizes range from 0.4 mm to 2.0 mm AOS. The "apparent opening size" is referred to as the "pore size" in
the discussion below. While smaller pore sizes can protect a greater variety of aquatic organisms, smaller the pore sizes also increase
the proportion of suspended solids collected and thus the rate at which it collects. In addition, smaller pore sizes tend to impede the
flow of water through the filter fabric which becomes even more pronounced as solids collect on the surface. This impedance of flow
results in an increase in the lateral forces acting on the AFB. The filter surface loading rate (gpm/ sq ft) or equivalent approach
velocity (fps) determines both the rate at which suspended particles collect on the filter fabric and the intensity of the lateral forces
pushing against the AFB. While the airburst system (see description below) is designed to help dislodge and removed such suspended
particles, there are practical limits regarding pore size and surface loading rate. For filter fabric of any given pore size, decreasing the
surface loading rate will reduce the rate of solids accumulation and the lateral forces acting upon the AFB. Thus, pore size is an
important design parameter in that it determines the types of organisms excluded as well as contributes to the selection of an
acceptable surface loading rate. The surface loading rate combined with the cooling water intake design flow determines the required
AFB surface area. This total filter fabric area requirement when combined with the local bathymetry determines the area that resides
within the AFB.
Since the AFB isolates and essentially restricts the function of a portion of the local ecosystem, anything that increases the AFB total
surface area will also increase the size of the isolated portion of the ecosystem. As such, there is an environmental trade off between
minimizing the pore size to protect small size organisms/lifestages versus minimizing the size of the area being isolated. Additionally,
requirements for large AFB surface areas may preclude its use where conflicts with other waterbody uses (e.g., navigation) or where
the waterbody size or configuration restricts the area that can be impacted. Vendors can employ portable test equipment or pilot scale
installations to test pore size selection and performance which can aid in the selection of the optimal pore size. Acceptable design
filter loading rates will vary with the pore size and the amount of sediment and debris present. An initial target loading rate of 3 to 5
gpm/sq ft have been suggested (EPA 2001). This is equivalent to approach or net face velocities of 0.007 to 0.01 fps which is nearly
an order of magnitude lower than the 0.06 fps design velocity used by EPA for barrier nets. This difference is consistent with the fact
that barrier net use much greater mesh sizes. Use of larger AFB pore sizes can result in greater net velocities. Since the cost estimates
as presented here are based on design flow, differences in design filter loading rates will affect the size of the AFB which directly
affects the costs. The range between the high and low estimates in capital and O&M costs presented below account at least in part for
the differences associated with variations in pore size as well as other design variations that result from differences in site conditions.
Floating Boom
For large volume intakes such as once-through systems, an AFB supported at the top by a floating boom that extends out into the water
body and anchored onshore at each end is the most likely design configuration to be employed because of the large surface area
required. In this design, a filter fabric curtain is supported by the floating boom at the top and is held against the bottom of the
waterbody by weights such as a heavy chain. The whole thing is held in place by cables attached to fixed anchor points placed at
regular intervals along the bottom. The Gunderboom MLES design employ a two layer filter fabric curtain that is divided vertically
into sections to allow for replacement of an individual sections when necessary. The estimated capital and O&M costs described
below are for an AFB using this floating boom-type construction.
Fixed Support
The AFB vendor, Gunderboom Inc., also provides an AFB supported by rigid panels that can be placed across the opening of existing
intake structures. This technology is generally applicable to existing intakes where the intake design flow has been substantially
reduced such as where once-through systems are being converted to recirculating cooling towers. For other installations, Gunderboom
has developed what they refer to as a cartridge-type system which consists of rigid structures surrounded by filter fabric with filtered
water removed from the center (McCusker 2003). Costs for either of these rigid type of installation have not been provided.
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release 1-97
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Air Backwash
The Gunderboom MLES™ employs an automated air burst technology that periodically discharges air bubbles between the two layers
of fabric at the bottom of each MLES curtain panel. The air bubbles create turbulence and vibrations that help dislodge particulates
that become entrained in the filter fabric. The airburst system can be set to purge individual curtain panels on a sequential basis
automatically or can be operated manually. The airburst technology is included in the both the capital and O&M costs provided by the
vendor.
5.1
CAPITAL COST DEVELOPMENT
Estimated capital costs were provided by the only known aquatic filter barrier manufacturer, Gunderboom, Inc. Cost estimates were
provided for AFBs supported by floating booms representing a range of costs; low, high, and average that may result from differences
in construction requirements that result from different site specific requirements and conditions. Such requirements can include
whether sheetwall piles or other structures are needed and whether dredging is required which can result in substantial disposal costs.
Costs were provided for three design intake flow values: 10,000 gpm, 104,000 gpm, and 347,000 gpm. Theses costs were provided in
1999 dollars and have been adjusted for inflation to July 2002 dollars using the ENR construction cost index. The capital costs are
total project costs including installation. Figure 5-1 presents a plot of the data in Table 5-1 along with the second order equation fitted
to this data.
The vendor recently provided a total capital cost estimate of 8 to 10 million dollars for full scale MLES™ system at the Arthur Kill
Power Station in Staten Island, NY (McCusker 2003a). The vendor is in the process of conducting a pilot study with an estimated cost
of $750,000. The NYDEC reported the permitted cooling water flow rate for the Arthur Kill facility as 713 mgd or 495,000 gpm.
Applying the cost equations in Figure 5-1 results in a total capital cost of $8.7, $10.1 and $12.4 million dollars for low, average and
high costs, respectively. These data indicate that the inflation adjusted cost estimates are consistent with this more recent estimate
provided by the vendor. Note that since the Arthur Kill intake flow exceeded the range of the cost equation input values the cost
estimates presented above for this facility were derived by first dividing the flow by two and then adding the answer.
Table 5-1
Capital Costs for Aquatic Filter Barrier Provided by Vendor
Flow
dom
10,000
104,000
347,000
Floatina Boom
Capital Cost (2002 Dollars)
Low
$545,000
$1,961,800
$6,212,500
Hiah
$980,900
$2,724,800
$8,501,300
Averaae
$762,900
$2,343,300
$7,356,900
5.2
O&M COSTS
Estimated O&M costs were also provided by Gunderboom Inc., As with the capital costs the O&M costs provided apply to floating
boom type AFBs and include costs to operate an air burst system. Table 5-2 presents a range of O&M costs from low to high and the
average which served as the basis for cost estimates. As with the capital costs, the costs presented in Table 5-2 have been adjusted for
inflation to July 2002 dollars. Figure 5-1 presents a plot of the data in Table 5-2 along with the second order equation fitted to this
data.
Table 5-2
Estimated AFB Annual O&M Costs
5.3
APPLICATION
Flow
cmm
10,000
104,000
347,000
O&M
Low
$109,000
$163,500
$545,000
O&M
Hiah
$327,000
$327,000
$762,900
O&M
Average
$218,000
$245,200
$653,900
1-98
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
Aquatic filter barriers (AFBs) can be used where improvements to impingement performance is needed. Because they can be installed
independently of intake structures, there is no need to include any costs for modifications to the existing intake structure or technology
employed. Costs are assumed to be the same for both new and existing facilities. AFBs can be installed while the facility is operating.
Thus, there is no need to coordinate AFB installation with generating unit downtime. Capital cost estimates used in the economic
impact analysis used average costs.
EPA assumed that the existing screen technology would be retained as a backup following the installation of floating boom AFBs.
Therefore, as with barrier nets, the O&M costs of the existing technology was not deducted from the estimated net O&M cost used in
the Phase II economic impact analysis. Upon further consideration, EPA has concluded that at a minimum there should be a reduction
in O&M cost of the existing intake screen technology equivalent to the variable O&M cost component estimated for that technology.
REFERENCES
EPA, Technology Fact Sheet 316(b) Phase I Technical Development Document. (EPA-821-R-01-036). November 2001.
McCusker, A. Gunderboom, Inc., Telephone contact report with John Sunda, SAIC. Regarding MLES system technology. August, 8,
2003a.
McCusker, A. Gunderboom, Inc., email correspondence with John Sunda, SAIC. Regarding MLES system technology pore size and
costs. October 2 , 2003b.
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release 1-99
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
M $7,000,000
+j
i/)
o
$6,000,000
•5 $5,000,000
3
C
C
< $4,000,000
•o
a
Q.
O
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
Figure 5-1
Gunderboom Capital and O&M Costs
For Floating Structure in 2002 Dollars
High Capital
y = 2E-05x' + 16.786X + 811486
Average Capital
y = 1E-05x'+ 15.521X + 606559
Annual O&M
y = 4E-06x' - 0.1817X + 219404
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Flow GPM
250,000
300,000
350,000
* Average Capital
'Annual O&M
High Capital
1 Low Capital Costs
400,000
1-100
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Technology Cost Modules
6.0 DETERMINING FIXED VERSUS VARIABLE O&M COSTS
When developing the annual O&M cost estimates, the underlying assumption was that facilities were operating nearly continuously
with the only downtime being periodic routine maintenance. This routine maintenance was assumed to be approximately four weeks
per year. The economic model however, considers variations in capacity utilization. Lower capacity utilization factors result in
additional generating unit shutdown that may result in reduced O&M costs. However, it is not valid to assume that intake technology
O&M costs drop to zero during these additional shutdown periods. Even when the generating unit is shut down, there are some O&M
costs incurred. To account for this, total annual O&M costs were divided into fixed and variable components. Fixed O&M costs
include items that occur even when the unit is periodically shut down, and thus are assumed to occur year round. Variable O&M
costs apply to items that are allocable based on estimated intake operating time. The general assumption behind the fixed and variable
determination is that shutdown periods are relatively short (on the order of several hours to several weeks).
6.1 OVERALL APPROACH
The annual O&M cost estimates used in the cost models is the net O&M cost, which is the difference between the estimated baseline
and compliance O&M costs. Therefore, the fixed/variable proportions for each facility may vary depending on the mix of baseline and
compliance technologies. In order to account for this complexity, EPA calculated the fixed O&M costs separately for both the
baseline technology and each compliance technology and then calculated the total net fixed and variable components for each
facility/intake.
In order to simplify the methodology (i.e., avoid developing a whole new set of O&M cost equations), a single fixed O&M component
cost factor was estimated for each technology application represented by a single O&M cost equation. To calculate fixed O&M
factors, EPA first calculated fixed O&M cost factors for the range of data input values, using the assumptions described below, to
develop the cost equation . For baseline technologies, EPA selected the lowest value in the range of fixed component factors for each
technology application. The lowest value was chosen for baseline technologies to yield a high-side net compliance costs for
intermittently operating facilities. Similarly, for compliance technologies, EPA selected the highest value in the range of fixed
component factors for each technology application, again, to provide a high-side estimate.
For each O&M cost equation, a single value (expressed either as a percentage or decimal value) representing the fixed component of
O&M costs, is applied to each baseline and compliance technology O&M cost estimate for each facility. The variable O&M
component is the difference between total O&M costs and the fixed O&M cost component. The fixed and variable cost components
were then separately combined to derive the overall net fixed and overall net variable O&M costs for each facility/intake.
6.2 ESTIMATING THE FIXED/VARIABLE O&M COST MIX
Depending on the technology, the O&M cost estimates may generally include components for labor, power, and materials. The cost
breakdown assumes facility downtime will be relatively short ( hours to weeks). Thus, EPA assumes any periodic maintenance tasks,
e.g., changing screens, changing nets, or inspection/cleaning by divers) are performed regardless of plant operation, and therefore are
considered fixed costs. Fixed costs associated with episodic cost components are allocated according to whether they would still occur
even if the downtime coincided with the activity. For example, annual labor estimates for passive screens includes increased labor for
several weeks during high debris episodes. This increased labor is considered a 100% variable component because it would not be
performed if the system were not operating during this period. A discussion of the assumptions and rationale for each general
component is described below.
Power Requirements
In most cases, power costs are largely a variable cost. If there is a fixed power cost component, it will generally consists of low
frequency, intermittent operations necessary to maintain equipment in working condition. For example, a 1% fixed factor for this
component would equal roughly 1.0 hours of operation every four days for systems that normally operated continuously. Such a
duration and frequency is considered as reasonable for most applications. For systems already operating intermittently, a factor that
results in the equivalent of one hour of operation or one backwash every four days was used.
Labor Requirements
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release 1-101
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Labor costs generally have one or more of the following components:
Routine monitoring and maintenance
Episodes requiring higher monitoring and maintenance (high debris episodes)
Equipment deployment and removal
Periodic inspection/cleaning by divers.
Routine Monitoring and Maintenance
This component includes monitoring/adjustment of the equipment operation, maintaining equipment (repairs & preventive O&M), and
cleaning. Of these the monitoring/adjustment and cleaning components will drop significantly when the intakes are not operating. A
range of 30% to 50% will be considered for the fixed component.
Episodes requiring higher monitoring and maintenance
This component is generally associated with equipment that is operating and will be assumed to be 100% variable.
Equipment deployment and removal
This activity is generally seasonal in nature and assumed performed regardless of operation (i.e., 100% fixed).
Periodic Inspection/Cleaning by Divers
This periodic maintenance task is assumed to be performed regardless of plant operation, and therefore is considered as 100% fixed
costs.
Equipment Replacement
The component includes two factors: parts replacement due to wear and tear (and varies with operation) and parts replacement due to
corrosion (and occurs regardless of operation). A range of 50% to 70% of these costs will be considered the fixed component.
Technology-Specific Input Factors
Traveling Screens
To determine the range of calculated total O&M fixed factors, fixed O&M cost factors (Table 6-1) were applied to individual O&M
cost components for the various screen width values that were used to generate the O&M cost curves. As described earlier, the lowest
value of this range was selected for the baseline O&M fixed cost factor and the highest of this range was selected as the compliance
O&M fixed cost factor.
Table 6-1
O&M Cost Component Fixed Factor
All Traveling Screens Without Fish
Handling
All Traveling Screens
With Fish Handling
Routine Labor
0.5
0.3
Parts Replacement
0.7
0.5
Equipment Power
0.05
0.01
Equipment
Deployment
1.0
1.0
Passive Screens
The fixed O&M component was based on the following:
Seasonal high debris period monitoring labor set equal to 0 hours
Routine labor set at 50% of full time operation
Back washes are performed once every four days
Dive team costs for new screens at existing offshore for high debris were set at 50% of full time operation
Dive team costs for new screens at existing offshore were set equal to 0 assuming no net additional diver costs over what was
necessary for existing submerged intake without screens.
The same assumptions are applied to both fine mesh and very fine mesh screens.
Velocity Caps
Velocity Caps
Because the O&M cost for velocity caps was based on annual inspection and cleaning by divers, the entire velocity cap O&M
assumed to be fixed (100%).
cost is
1-102
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Fish Barrier Nets
Fish barrier net O&M costs are based on deployment and removal of the nets plus periodic replacement of net materials. As described
above, EPA assumes seasonal deployment and removal is a 100% fixed O&M cost. EPA has assumed that the need for net
maintenance and replacement is a due to its presence in the waterbody and should not vary with the intake operation. Therefore,
entire fish barrier net O&M cost is assumed to be fixed (100%).
Aquatic Filter barriers
The O&M costs for aquatic filter barriers (AFB) includes both periodic maintenance and repair of the filter fabric and equipment plus
energy used in the operation of the airburst system. As with barrier nets the need for net repairs and replacement should not vary with
the intake operation. There may be a reduction in the deposition of sediment during the periods when the intake is not operating and as
a result there may be a reduction in the required frequency of airburst operation. However, the presence of tidal and other waterbody
currents may continue to deposit sediment on the filter fabric requiring periodic operation. Thus, the degree of reduction in the
airburst frequency will be dependent on site conditions. Additionally, the O&M costs provided by the vendor did not break out the
O&M costs by component. Therefore, EPA concluded that an assumption that AFB O&M costs is 100% fixed is reasonable and
represents a conservative estimate in that it will slightly overestimate O&M costs during periods when the intake is not operating.
Recirculating Wet Cooling Towers
Because the cooling tower O&M costs were derived using cost factors that estimate total O&M costs that are based on capital costs, a
detailed analysis is not possible. However, using the pumping and fan energy requirements described in the Proposed Rule
Development Document, EPA was able to estimate that the O&M energy component was under 50% of the total O&M cost. This
energy requirement reduction, coupled with reductions in labor and parts replacement requirements, should result in a fixed cost factor
of approximately 50%.
6.3
O&M FIXED COST FACTORS
Table 6-2 and 6-3 present the fixed O&M cost factors for baseline technologies and compliance technologies, respectively, derived
using the above assumptions.
Table 6-2
Baseline Technology Fixed O&M Cost Factors
Technoloav Description
Travelina Screen With Fish Handlina
Travelina Screen With Fish Handlina
Traveling Screen With Fish Handlinq
Traveling Screen With Fish Handlinq
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Without Fish Handling
Application
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
Water Type
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Fixed Factor
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.33
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.45
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.53
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release
1-103
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Technology Cost Modules
Table 6-3
Compliance Technology Fixed O&M Cost Factors
Technology Description
Aquatic Filter Barrier
Add Fish Barrier Net Using Anchors and Bouys
Add Fish Barrier Net Using Pilings for Support
Add Fish Barrier Net Using Pilings for Support
Add Fine Mesh Passive T-screensto Existing Offshore Intake
Add Fine Mesh Passive T-screensto Existing Offshore Intake
Add Very Fine Mesh Passive T-screens to Existing Offshore Intake
Add Very Fine Mesh Passive T-screens to Existing Offshore Intake
Relocate Intake Offshore with Fine Mesh Passive T-screens
Relocate Intake Offshore with Fine Mesh Passive T-screens
Relocate Intake Offshore with Very Fine Mesh Passive T-screens
Relocate Intake Offshore with Very Fine Mesh Passive T-screens
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling and Fine Mesh
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen With Fish Handling
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Traveling Screen Dual-Flow
Velocity Cap
Cooling Towers
Application
All
All
10 Ft Net Depth
20 Ft Net Depth
High Debris
Low Debris
High Debris
Low Debris
High Debris
Low Debris
High Debris
Low Debris
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
10 Ft Screen Wells
25 Ft Screen Wells
50 Ft Screen Wells
75 Ft Screen Wells
All
All
Water Type
All
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
Saltwater
All
All
Fixed Factor
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.21
0.27
0.19
0.27
0.46
0.56
0.38
0.49
0.38
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.40
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
1.0
0.5
1-104
Draft - February 9, 2004 - Predecisional, Deliberative; Do Not, Cite, Quote, or Release
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Chapter 2: Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the methodology used by the Agency to develop cost estimates for model facilities. For the final rule,
the Agency used the cost modules, presented in Chapter 1, to develop cost estimates for 543 model facilities. These model
facility costs and other costs of complying with the various requirements of the final rule were then used in the economic
analysis to develop unit costs. Unit costs were then assigned to the 554 in-scope facilities, based on the facilities' modeled
compliance responses, and aggregated to the national level. See the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Final Section
316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule for additional information national costs.
The term model facility is used frequently throughout this chapter. The Agency notes that model facilities are not actual
existing facilities. Model facilities are statistical representations of existing facilities (or fractions of existing facilities).
Therefore, the cost estimates developed for the rule should not be considered to reflect those exactly of a particular existing
facility. However, in the Agency's view, the national estimates of benefits, compliance costs, and economic impacts are
representative of those expected from the industry as a whole.
1.0 TECHNOLOGY COST MODULES APPLIED TO MODEL FACILITIES
EPA developed the following costing modules for assessing model-facility compliance costs for today's final rule:
1. Fish handling and return system (impingement mortality controls only (I only))
2. Fine mesh traveling screens with fish handling and return (impingement mortality & entrainment controls
(I&E))
3. New larger intake structure with fine mesh, handling and return (I&E)
4. Passive fine mesh screens with 1.75 mm mesh size at shoreline (I&E)
5. Fish barrier net (I only)
6. Gunderboom (I&E)
7. Relocate intake to submerged offshore with passive fine mesh screen with 1.75 mm mesh size (I&E)
8. Velocity cap at inlet of offshore submerged (I only)
9. Passive fine mesh screen with 1.75 mm mesh size at inlet of offshore submerged (I&E)
10. Add/modify shoreline tech for submerged offshore (I only or I&E)
11. Add double-entry, single-exit with fine mesh and fish handling and return (I&E)
12. Add passive fine mesh screens with 0.76 mm mesh size at shoreline (I&E)
13. Relocate intake to submerged offshore with passive fine mesh screen with 0.75 mm mesh size (I&E)
14. Passive fine mesh screen at inlet of offshore submerged with 0.75 mm mesh size (I&E)
The derivation and background for each of these technology cost modules is presented in Chapter 1 of this document.
For the final rule, each model facility had three potential compliance actions: (1) no controls for impingement mortality or
entrainment, (2) impingement morality controls only, or (3) impingement mortality controls plus entrainment controls. A
facility qualifies for compliance action (1) if it has recirculating cooling systems in place or meets the impingement and/or
entrainment reduction requirements with controls in-place. Figures 1 and 2 at the end of this section provide a decision tree
for assigning compliance actions (2) and (3) to the in-scope Phase II model facilities.
Of the modules listed above, numbers 1, 5, and 8 are dedicated to impingement mortality controls alone. The Agency
generally applied the remainder of the technology modules for cases where the model facility received entrainment and
impingement requirements.
In the cases that a facility had a functional impingement control system at baseline and was deemed to require upgrades to
entrainment controls, the Agency generally assigned costs to the model facility to upgrade the existing impingement mortality
controls in addition to the entrainment upgrade. The Agency learned through its research that in the majority of cases when
upgrading a technology for entrainment controls, the effort and cost of replacing the attached impingement controls generally
compared with the effort and cost to retain and reuse the existing impingement controls (for more details, see the traveling
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
screen technology module documentation in Chapter 1). The Agency assigned entrainment only (with no additional
impingement upgrade costs) requirements to a few unique situations for the main option in the final rule. This included the
case of a low-velocity, double-entry, single-exit screening system operating in-place at baseline. The Agency assigned only
the costs associated with adding fine-mesh overlays for this system because the model facility had additional, redundant
impingement technologies in-place. In addition, those facilities with barrier net systems in-place that required entrainment
upgrades received only the entrainment system costs, as the existing barrier net would be functional for impingement controls
regardless of changes to an intake structure.
The Agency based its approach of assigning costing modules to model facilities on a combination of facility and intake-
specific questionnaire data in addition to publicly available satellite photos and maps, where appropriate. Because not all
facilities received the same questionnaire, the Agency attempted to utilize data responses to questions that were asked in both
the short-technical and detailed questionnaires whenever possible. In the end, the primary difference in data analysis between
short-technical (STQ) and detailed questionnaire (DQ) respondents was the level to which the Agency developed costs. The
STQ respondents did not provide significant intake-level data, outside of intake identification information and velocity. For
instance, for the STQ, the Agency did not obtain intake-specific information on the exact technology in-place for each intake.
The Agency instead obtained technology in-place information at the facility-level for STQs. Necessarily, the Agency utilized
this facility-level information for the STQ respondents and treated the facility as though it were a single intake with the
characteristics reported for the facility. For the DQ respondents, the Agency obtained sufficient intake-level information to
develop individual costing decisions for each intake.
The Agency utilized questionnaire data as the primary tool in the assessment of the types of intake technologies and upgrades
applied at each model-facility. For those facilities utilizing recirculating cooling systems in-place, the Agency assigned no
compliance actions as they meet the requirements at baseline. For those with once-through, combination, other, or unknown
cooling system types, the Agency treated the facility as though all intakes were of once-through configuration. The Agency
chose this method so as to best estimate the compliance costs, as the Agency's methodology utilizes flow as the independent
variable. For example, one intake of three at a facility is recirculating and the others of once-through configuration, then the
flow rate of the recirculating intake assigned costs would not be too great in comparison to the once-through flows. See DCN
6-3585 for a discussion of the small effect on costs from this assumption about combination cooling system types The
Agency then determined those intakes (facilities) that met compliance requirements with technologies in-place. These
facilities received no capital or annual operating and maintenance compliance upgrade costs (although they may receive
administrative or monitoring costs). The Agency categorized facilities according to waterbody type from which they
withdraw cooling water. The Agency then sorted the intakes (facilities) within each waterbody type based on their
configuration as reported in the questionnaires. (Note, as discussed above, the Agency examined short-technical questionnaire
facilities on the facility-level and detailed questionnaire respondents by the intake level.)
Generally, the categories of intakes within one waterbody type are as follows: canal/channel, bay/embayment/cove, shoreline,
and offshore. Once the intake (facility) is classified to this level the Agency examines the type of technology in-place and
compares that against the compliance requirements of the particular intake (facility). For the case of entrainment
requirements, the intake technologies (outside of recirculating cooling) that qualify to meet the requirements at baseline are
fine mesh screen systems, and combinations of far-offshore inlets with passive intakes or fish handling/return systems. A
small subset of intakes has entrainment qualifying technologies in-place at baseline (for the purposes of this costing effort).
The Agency estimates that intakes at 24 facilities would pre-qualify for the entrainment requirements and avoid costs of such
upgrades. Therefore, in the case of entrainment requirements, most facilities with the requirement would receive technology
upgrades. The methodology for choosing these entrainment technology upgrades is explained further on in this discussion.
For the case of impingement requirements, there are a variety of intake technologies that qualify (for the purposes of this
costing effort) to meet the requirements at baseline. The intake types meeting impingement requirements at baseline include
the following: barrier net, passive intakes (of a variety of types), and fish handling and return systems. A significant number
of intakes (facilities) have impingement technology in-place that meets the qualifications for this costing effort. The Agency
estimates that intakes at 87 facilities would pre-qualify for the impingement requirements and avoid costs of such upgrades.
Therefore, some intakes (facilities) require no technology upgrades when only impingement requirements apply.
For facilities that do not pre-qualify for impingement and/or entrainment technology in-place (for the purposes of this costing
effort), the Agency focuses next on questionnaire data relating to the intake type - canal/channel, bay/ embayment/cove,
shoreline, and offshore. Within each intake type, the Agency further classifies according to certain specific characteristics.
For the case of bays, embayments, and coves, the Agency determined if the intake is flush, protruding, or recessed from
shoreline. For the case of canals and channels, the Agency similarly focuses on whether the intake is flush, protruding, or
recessed from a shoreline. In addition, the Agency calculates an approximate approach velocity using reported information
on the canal flow rate and cross-sectional area, where applicable (specific to detailed questionnaire respondents only). The
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
approximated approach velocity aided the Agency in verifying the reported mean intake velocity. For the case of shoreline
intakes, the Agency necessarily assessed whether the intake is flush, protruding, or recessed. For the case of offshore intakes,
the Agency attempted to examine whether or not the intake has an onshore terminus (or well) and assesses the characteristics
of the onshore system. The Agency found that very few facilities with offshore intakes reported consistent and clear
information about onshore wells. Therefore, the Agency chose to develop costs for onshore intakes without using technology
module 10.
The information the Agency gathers up to this point is sufficient to narrow down the likely technology applications for each
intake (facility). However, in order to determine the best technology application, the Agency also utilizes publicly available
satellite images and maps where appropriate. The use of the satellite images and maps aided the Agency in determining the
potential for the construction of expanded intakes in-front of existing intakes, the possibility of installing a barrier net system,
and the potential for an intake modification to protrude into the waterbody (such as a near-shore t-screen) due to the degree of
navigational traffic in the near vicinity of the intake and whether a protrusion might be tolerated. The satellite images also
helped identify obvious signs of strong currents, the relative distance of a potentially relocated intake inlet, the possibility for
fish return installations of moderate length, etcetera. The Agency was able to collect satellite images for most intakes
(facilities) for which it required the resource. However, in some cases (especially those in the rural, mid-western US), only
maps were available. Hence, for the case of a significant number facilities located near small freshwater rivers/streams and
lakes/reservoirs, the Agency utilized only the questionnaire data and the overhead maps available.
The Agency prepared the following crosswalk and breakdown of the application of the technology modules. The following
sections provide the factors that the Agency used in determining the proper technology application and explain any
exceptions to these cases.
Module 1 - Add Fish Handling and Return System: This technology applies for the case of impingement only upgrades. The
Agency applied this technology generally to facilities that when requiring the impingement only upgrade had an existing
traveling screen system. The Agency applied this technology generally when the intake velocity of the intake (facility) was
roughly 1 ft/sec or below. The rationale behind applying this technology in this case is that because the intake velocity is
relatively low and the existing traveling screen system is functional, the fish handling and return system could be added to the
operating system and would perform under these conditions. Vendors noted that approximately 75% of the existing screen
components would require replacement when adding fish handling and return. It would be more prudent to replace the entire
screen unit. (See the traveling screen cost module in Chapter 1 of this document.)
Module 2 - Add Fine Mesh Travelling Screens with or without Fish Handling and Return: This technology generally applies
for the case of impingement and entrainment upgrades. The Agency applied this technology to intakes (facilities) with an
existing traveling screen system in-place. The Agency applied this technology when the intake velocity was roughly 1 ft/sec
or below. The rationale behind the application is similar to that of Module 1, in that the low existing velocity allowed for
replacement of the existing screen overlays without expanding the size of the intake appreciably to lower the velocity. As a
general approach, the Agency applied this technology to a variety of waterbody types and intake locations (such as in canals,
in coves, and along shorelines). In addition to adding fine-mesh screens that this technology also may replace the fish
handling and return system of the intake. When the replacement of fish handling scenario is applied it requires replacement
of all screen units with units that include fish handling and return features plus additional spray water pumps and a fish return
flume. For those facilities with existing functional fish handling and return systems, the Agency may have applied fine mesh
screen overlay panels only. See the documentation for this particular module in Chapter 1 of this document for more
information.
Module 3 - Add New Larger Intake Structure with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return: This technology generally applies for the
case of impingement and entrainment upgrades. However, in a few select cases, the Agency applied it for the case of
impingement only, more on that below. The Agency applied this technology to intakes with a variety of onshore
configurations. The Agency applied this technology when the intake velocity was appreciably above 1 ft/sec. The rationale
behind the application is that demonstrated cases of operable fine-mesh screening systems for large plants have used design
velocities of approximately 1 ft/sec. Because of the velocity implications, the Agency necessarily required certain intakes
(facilities) to enlarge their intakes. Therefore, these intakes would be constructed anew in front of an existing structure and
tied in towards the end of the construction project. As a general approach, the Agency applied this technology to a variety of
waterbody types and intake locations (such as in canals, in coves, and along shorelines). Note that the Agency verified
(through observation of satellite images and overhead maps) that sufficient open water area existed in front of the existing
intake, and that the new protruding intake would not hinder boat traffic. In a select few cases, the intake velocity of a facility
complying with the impingement only requirements was extremely high (ie, above 3 ft/s). In these cases, the Agency may
have applied this module to allow for proper operation of the impingement technologies.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Modules 4 and 12 - Add Passive Fine Mesh Screens at Shoreline: This technology applies mostly for the case of entrainment
and impingement upgrades. Module 12 applied to ocean and estuarine environments and module 4/12 to all others. The
Agency applied this technology generally in a very similar fashion to Module 3 above. The primary difference for their
applications is that Module 4/12 is slightly more flexible in its location than Module 3 and that Module 4/12 has the ability to
be retrofitted to unusual intake structures, such as protruding intakes, submerged shoreline intakes, etc. In addition, the
passive wedgewire t-screen system is very well suited for application where currents are present, as the system is designed to
utilize currents for controlling impingement. The Agency applied this technology generally when the intake velocity of the
intake (facility) was above roughly 1 ft/sec. However, that is not exclusively the case, as there were exceptions where even
for low velocity, unusual passive screen systems, the Agency upgraded these intakes with Module 4/12. This module,
similarly to Module 3 above, would apply for a select few cases that had extremely high intake velocities, even though they
were required to comply with impingement only.
Module 5 - Add Fish Barrier Net: The Agency applied the barrier net module to control impingement, both in the case of
impingement only upgrades and in a few cases for the combined impingement/entrainment upgrades. As a general rule, the
Agency applied the barrier net only to cases where it could acertain that a favorable geographical condition existed, such as
the case of a wide mouth canal without boat traffic and low current potential, the similar conditions in a wide mouth
cove/bay, and the similar conditions for a lake/reservoir shore. In a select number of situations, the Agency applied both the
fish barrier net system and an entrainment controlling system. Generally, this was for the case that a fish handling and return
system could not reasonably be configured to deliver impinged fish safely away from the intake. Therefore, the barrier net
served the purpose of preventing the cyclical impingement/reimpingement condition in several cases. The Agency did not
examine intake velocities when applying barrier nets. Instead, the Agency focused on the configuration of the intake and its
adjoining shorelines and sized the net according to an empirical, through-net velocity.
Module 6 - Marine Life Exclusion System (gunderboom): The Agency applied the gunderboom system to several intakes for
the final rule analysis. The Agency examined the set of intakes according to similar criteria as for barrier nets (module 5
above), with respect to entrainment and impingement upgrade requirements. If an intake had an extremely high intake
velocity (above 3 ft/sec), an below average intake flow, a suitable environment for a gunderboom system, similar to that for
the barrier net technology described above, and no other entrainment options appeared reasonable, the Agency considered
applying the gunderboom. This was a very small set of intakes, several of which the Agency did not have sufficient
information to determine the potential wave/current activity, nor navigation traffic. Hence, the Agency applied the
gunderboom in only a small set of cases for entrainment and impingement upgrades. It is likely that the Agency has
underestimated the degree to which the gunderboom system could be applied in the final analysis, due to data uncertainty and
its concern for applying the best technology for known site conditions. This had the effect of potentially biasing costs upward
for entrainment controls in select cases, as the gunderboom system is less expensive than some other entrainment control
technologies.
Modules 7 and 13 - Relocate Intake to Submerged Offshore with Passive Screen: The Agency applied these costing modules
to address impingement and entrainment requirements. The Agency applied these module, generally, to any waterbody for
which there was a clear advantage to its implementation. The module 13 was used for estuarine and ocean waters, and
module 7 for all others. What the Agency defined as an advantage for this module generally related to the fact that an
onshore intake or short canal intake provided no clear avenue for applying one of the velocity reducing modules, such as
numbers 3 and 4. As a rule the Agency applied the relocation of an intake to submerged offshore only for cases where the
existing intake velocity was significantly above 1 ft/s. At the NOD A, the Agency relied on this module to represent situations
where there was not one module that stood out as the clear choice solution, but in response to comments did not use that
approach for the final rule. Instead, the Agency applied the module in a portion of the cases where no clear entrainment
module choice stood out, balancing the number and distribution of applications so as not to bias costs upward above the
median cost for entrainment controls in the final analysis. Contrary to intuition, the Agency learned in its research of offshore
submerged intakes that a good number are used in river environments. Hence, the Agency utilized this module in several
cases for large rivers. The relocation distance utilized for each case was that derived from the median of those within the
intake's waterbody class.
Module 8 - Add Velocity Cap at Offshore Inlet: The Agency applied a velocity cap at the inlet of a submerged offshore pipe
in several cases to address impingement only requirements. The prerequisite for this module was that the intake/facility had
to have a submerged offshore intake with no reported impingement controls. This combination was not too common, as a
significant portion of submerged offshore intakes had either passive offshore intake inlets or fish handling systems onshore.
However, for the small number of cases where facilities did not have impingement controls (or at least did not report them in
the questionnaire), the Agency applied this module to meet the impingement only requirements. As a general rule, the
Agency has reservations about the ability of a velocity cap system to meet the numerical requirements of the impingement
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
standards. However, it should be noted that in the case of offshore intakes that the "location" of an intake can be considered
for the compliance action. Therefore, an offshore intake with a velocity cap is a combination that the Agency feels
reasonably represents the costs of complying with the impingement requirements.
Modules 9 and 14 - Add Passive Fine Mesh Screen at Inlet of Offshore Submerged: The Agency applied a passive, fine-
mesh, wedgewire, t-screen system at the inlet of a submerged offshore pipe to address impingement and entrainment
requirements. Module 14 applied to ocean and estuarine environments and module 9 to all others. The prerequisite for this
module was that the intake/facility had to have a submerged offshore intake with no reported entrainment controls. In some
cases, the intake (facility) may have reported impingement controls, but the Agency generally ignored these controls and
presumed that the installation of the passive fine mesh at the offshore inlet would suffice to control both entrainment and
impingement effectively. This module obviously is one of the simplest in application, as it is clear for all intakes (facilities)
through the questionnaire whether or not their intake is submerged offshore. The primary nuance for this situation exists
where the intake (facility) may have reported both offshore inlet controls and onshore screening controls. See module 10 for
more discussion of onshore screening technologies for submerged offshore intakes. For the purposes of the discussion of this
module, it should be noted that the Agency treated the existence of an offshore inlet as the primary location for the
application of a compliance technology over an onshore modification where both pre-existed.
Module 10 - Add/Modify Shoreline Tech for Submerged Offshore: The Agency did not apply this module for any of the
intakes/facilities for the final rule. Even though this technology would be a reasonable method for an intake (facility) to
comply with the rule, the Agency chose not to use it. The basic reason that the Agency did not use the technology was due to
an incomplete and unclear data set on the existence and type of onshore wells for offshore intakes. In addition, in most cases
where entrainment controls would be required this method did not allow the reconfigured intake to be enlarged in order to
lower the intake velocity. In addition, the passive screen intake at the inlet of the offshore pipe was slightly more expensive.
From the perspective of a range of facilities, the passive screen is likely more applicable for a wider range of applications.
Module 11 - Add Double-Entry, Single-Exit with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return: This would be a useful application for
facilities attempting to comply with the impingement and entrainment requirements in the narrow terminus of a canal or cove.
Additionally, in cases where the intake is recessed from shore, this technology can be applied to shoreline applications. The
Agency generally applied this technology to canal facilities and when the intake velocity was roughly 1 ft/sec. The Agency
mistakenly assumed for the NODA analysis that this module would lower the through-screen velocity for an intake without
enlarging the intake structure. This is not the case, the Agency learned upon further research. However, the Agency did
confirm that this module will offer considerable advantage in some high debris situations over a conventional flat-panel
traveling screen, as the configuration allows for reduced debris carry through. Hence, the Agency chose to apply this type of
technology as the standard for the screening portion of module 3, new expanded intake. This module may require clear space
in front of the structure, which the Agency considered in its application.
2.0 EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY COST MODULES TO MODEL FACILITIES
Because the determination of the best technology application depends on a variety of factors and there is a large population of
intakes to which these multiple factors apply, the Agency views a series of examples as the best means for demonstrating the
logical progression that it applied to the decisions. Based on the classification system described above, the Agency presents
examples of each major intake type - canal/channel, bay/ embayment/cove, shoreline, and offshore- to aid the understanding
of the Agency's costing assignment process.
Example 1: Canal or Channel Intake
In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water through a canal branching off a tidal river. The intake is a shoreline
intake, flush with the shore and built at the terminus of the canal. Based on its characteristics, the facility is subject to
impingement and entrainment requirements. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse-mesh
traveling screen with a fish diversion system in-place. The Agency determined that the reported fish diversion technology in-
place was a fish-bypass technology. The reported mean intake velocity is 1.0 ft/s, and the Agency calculated the approximate
canal approach velocity as 1.1 ft/s based on the canal cross-sectional area and canal flow rate reported in the questionnaire.
Therefore, the Agency concludes that the reported intake velocity is accurate. The canal length is reported at 100 ft. Both the
overhead map and satellite photo demonstrate that the intake is close to this estimated length. In addition, the Agency
observes that the intake location at the terminus of the canal is less than 100 feet from the bank of the tidal river. The Agency
determines that the mouth of the canal is not significantly wider than the canal itself and that the apparent route of boat
navigation is to utilize a portion of the canal for barge docking and traffic.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Based on the above factors, the Agency determines that the best technology for this model intake application is to add fine
mesh traveling screen with fish handling and return system. The Agency studied existing cases of retrofit fine-mesh screen
applications and found the 1 ft/s threshold a reliable design criterion for large intake systems where surface area can be
constricted. Therefore, in this case, the existing screen system is sufficiently large to accommodate fine-mesh. The fish
handling and return system in this case addresses the impingement control requirements. Because the canal is not long and
the return branch would be of reasonable length, the Agency considered the fish handling and return system to be appropriate.
The existing fish by-pass system is not considered to be adequate (in and of itself) for meeting the impingement requirements
of the national rule. In addition, the navigational use of the canal and the canal's limited throat width necessarily prevents the
use of a barrier net system.
In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is high. This is due to the clear evidence
of boat/barge traffic and the known nature of the particular tidal river from which this facility withdraws water.
Example 2: Bay/Embayment/Cove
In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a Great Lake. The intake is a shoreline intake, flush with shore and
built at the terminus of the cove. Based on its characteristics, the facility is subject to impingement and entrainment
requirements. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse-mesh traveling screen with no
impingement reducing technologies in-place. The reported mean intake velocity is 2.0 ft/s. Both the overhead map and
satellite photo demonstrate that the cove recedes approximately 500 ft from the main water body. The Agency determines
that the mouth of the cove is approximately 250 feet in width. Based on the overhead map and satellite image, there is no
evidence of boat traffic in the cove. The onshore access routes of the plant apparently meet the fuel delivery needs of the
plant.
Based on the above factors, the Agency determined that the best technology for this model intake application is construction
of a new, larger intake directly in front of the existing structure. The reason that the Agency utilized a new, larger intake
system in this case is that the velocity of the intake is significantly above 1 ft/s and the there is ample room directly in front of
the existing intake to allow for the larger intake. The larger intake system provides increased surface area (compared to the
existing single-entry, single-exit system), thereby reducing the intake velocity to a level that would facilitate use of the fine-
mesh system. Alternatively, the Agency could have applied the gunderboom technology, but the flow of the intakes implied
that the size of the system would be far larger than other planned and demonstrated cases of the technology.
A fish handling and return system in this case would be difficult to implement due to the orientation of the deep cove.
Therefore, the Agency determined that a barrier net system would address the impingement requirements imposed on the
intake. The Agency would be concerned about the creation of a cyclical impingement condition, which would exacerbate the
strain on the organisms. A 500-foot return system could be built, but the alternative system of a barrier net is favorable for
this particular situation, in the Agency's view. The lack of navigational use of the cove and the cove's wide throat provides a
good environment for barrier net deployment.
In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is low. This is due to the lack of
boat/barge traffic evidence and the known nature of the particular Great Lake from which this facility withdraws water.
Example 3: Shoreline
In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a freshwater river. The facility withdraws more than 5 percent of the
mean annual flow of this river, even though this is a large river. Hence, it is subject to impingement and entrainment
requirements. The intake is a shoreline intake, protruding from shore. The Agency determined that the intake extends 10 feet
into the waterbody by examining the satellite imagery and overhead maps, using the reported latitude and longitude of the
intake. The Agency also observes that the apparent river width at the intake location is well over 200 feet. The intake is
located on a straight section of river, and an approximately 25 foot protruding diversion wall protects the intake from river
debris and traffic. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse-mesh traveling screen with a fish
handling and return system. The reported mean intake velocity is 3.0 ft/s. Based on the satellite images, there is evidence of
coal barge traffic near the intake, but significantly far away to allow for the protruding intake.
Based on the above factors, the Agency determines that the best technology for this model intake application is construction
of a fine-mesh, cylindrical, wedge wire t-screen system. This passive intake would be constructed to branch from the original
protruding intake. In the Agency's view, the wedge wire t-screen system will address the impingement and entrainment
2-6
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
requirements imposed on the intake. The reason that the Agency utilized a new intake system in this case is that the velocity
of the intake is significantly above 1 ft/s and there is already precedence to allow for a protruding intake. With the
construction of a properly sized replacement intake, the velocity can be lowered for entrainment and impingement controls,
and the current of the river can be utilized to aid the operation of the intake. Another alternative would be to use a new,
larger intake protruding into the waterbody as in the cove example above. Both of the larger intake system provides increased
surface area (compared to the existing single-entry, single-exit system), thereby reducing the intake velocity to a level that
would facilitate use of the fine-mesh system. However, the wedgewire screen system would provide additional advantages in
the form of inherent impingement controls. A fish handling and return system with a traditional traveling system could be an
option. Alternatively, the Agency could have applied a relocated intake to the center of the river and applied fine-mesh
passive screens. For other cases where the Agency encountered similar conditions, the Agency did vary the application of
modules so as to achieve a set of costs about the median cost technology.
In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is high. This is due to the clear evidence
of boat/barge traffic and the known nature of the particular river from which this facility withdraws water.
Example 4: Offshore
In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a submerged offshore intake in an Ocean. At the offshore inlet of
the intake is a passive intake built approximately 500 feet from shore. The facility is a short-technical questionnaire facility,
and the Agency has no information as to whether or not the intake delivers water to an onshore well. Based on observations
of the satellite imagery, the Agency was also unable to identify an onshore well. Based on its characteristics, the facility
requires neither an entrainment nor impingement technology upgrade. The existing intake - a passive screen system - is
insufficient to meet the entrainment requirements in and of itself. However, in combination with the offshore intake location,
the intake meets both requirements.
3.0 REGIONAL COST FACTORS
As described in the sections above, the Agency developed technology-specific cost estimates for model facilities using the
cost modules presented in Chapter 1. However, capital construction costs can vary significantly for different locations within
the United States. Therefore, to account for these regional variations, EPA adjusted the capital cost estimates for the existing
model plants using zip-code based cost factors. The applicable cost factors were multiplied by the facility model cost
estimates to obtain the facility location-specific capital costs used in the impact analysis. The Agency derived the site-
specific capital cost factors from the "location cost factor database" in RS Means Cost Works 2001. The Agency used the
weighted-average factor category for total costs (including material and installation). The RS Means database provides cost
factors (by 3-digit Zip code) for numerous locations.
4.0 REPOWERING FACILITIES AND MODEL FACILITY COSTS
Under this final rule certain forms of repowering could be undertaken by an existing power generating facility that uses a
cooling water intake structure and it would remain subject to regulation as a Phase II existing facility. For example, the
following scenarios would be existing facilities under the rule:
- An existing power generating facility undergoes a modification of its process short of total replacement of the
process and concurrently increases the design capacity of its existing cooling water intake structures;
- An existing power generating facility builds a new process for purposes of the same industrial operation and
concurrently increases the design capacity of its existing cooling water intake structures;
- An existing power generating facility completely rebuilds its process but uses the existing cooling water intake
structure with no increase in design capacity.
Thus, in most situations, repowering an existing power generating facility would be addressed under this final rule.
As discussed in the preamble, the section 316(b) Survey acquired technological and economic information from facilities for
the years 1998 and 1999. With this information, the Agency established a subset of facilities potentially subject to this rule.
Since 1999, some existing facilities have proposed and/or enacted changes to their facilities in the form of repowering that
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
could potentially affect the applicability of the final rule or a facility's compliance costs. The Agency therefore conducted
research into repowering facilities for the section 316(b) existing facility rule and any information available on proposed
changes to their cooling water intake structures. The Agency used two separate databases to assemble available information
for the repowering facilities: RDFs NEWGen Database, November 2001 version and the Section 316(b) Survey.
In January 2000, EPA conducted a survey of the technological and economic characteristics of 961 steam-electric generating
plants. Only the detailed questionnaire, filled out by 283 utility plants and 50 nonutility plants, contains information on
planned changes to the facilities' cooling systems (Part 2, Section E). Of the respondents to the detailed questionnaire, only
six facilities (three utility plants and three nonutility plants) indicated that their future plans would lead to changes in the
operation of their cooling water intake structures.
The NEWGen database is a compilation of detailed information on new electric generating capacity proposed over the next
several years. The database differentiates between proposed capacity at new (greenfield) facilities and
additions/modifications to existing facilities. To identify repowering facilities of interest, the Agency screened the 1,530
facilities in the NEWGen database with respect to the following criteria: facility status, country, and steam electric additions.
The Agency then identified 124 NEWGen facilities as potential repowering facilities.
Because the NEWGen database provides more information on repowering than the section 316(b) survey, the Agency used it
as the starting point for the analysis of repowering facilities. Of the 124 NEWGen facilities identified as repowering
facilities, 85 responded to the section 316(b) survey. Of these 85 facilities, 65 are in-scope and 20 are out of scope of this
rule. For each of the 65 in scope facilities, the NEWGen database provided an estimation of the type and extent of the
capacity additions or changes planned for the facility. The Agency found that 36 of the 65 facilities would be combined-cycle
facilities after the repowering changes. Of these, 34 facilities are projected to decrease their cooling water intake after
repowering (through the conversion from a simple steam cycle to a combined-cycle plant). The other 31 facilities within the
scope of the rule would increase their cooling water intake. The Agency examined the characteristics of these facilities
projected to undergo repowering and determined the waterbody type from which they withdraw cooling water. The results of
this analysis are presented in Table 2-2.
Of the 65 in scope facilities identified as repowering facilities in the NEWGen database, 24 received the detailed
questionnaire, which requested information about planned cooling water intake structures and changes to capacity. Nineteen
of these 24 facilities are utilities and the remaining five are nonutilities. The Agency analyzed the section 316(b) detailed
questionnaire data for these 24 facilities to identify facilities that indicated planned modifications to their cooling systems (in
the NEWGen database) which will change the capacity of intake water collected for the plant and the estimated cost to
comply with today's rule. Four such facilities were identified, two utilities and two nonutilities. Both utilities responded that
the planned modifications will decrease their cooling water intake capacity and that they do not have any planned cooling
water intake structures that will directly withdraw cooling water from surface water. The two nonutilities, on the other hand,
indicated that the planned modifications will increase their cooling water intake capacity and that they do have planned
cooling water intake structures that will directly withdraw cooling water from surface water.
Table 2-2: In-Scope Existing Facilities Projected to Enact Repowering Changes
Waterbody Type Repowering Facilities Projected to Repowering Facilities Projected to Decrease
Increase Cooling Water Withdrawals or Maintain Cooling Water Withdrawals
Ocean N/A N/A
Estuary/Tidal River 3 17
Freshwater River/Stream 14 10
Freshwater Lake/Reservoir 10 1
Great Lakes 0 1
Using the NEWGen and section 316(b) detailed questionnaire information on repowering facilities, the Agency examined the
extent to which planned and/or enacted repowering changes would effect cooling water withdrawals and, therefore, the
potential costs of compliance with this final rule. Because the Agency developed a cost estimating methodology that
primarily utilizes design intake flow as the independent variable, the Agency examined the extent to which compliance costs
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
would change if the repowering data summarized above were incorporated into the cost analysis of this rule. The Agency
determined that projected compliance costs for facilities withdrawing from estuaries could be lower after incorporating the
repowering changes. The primary reason for this is the fact that the majority of estuary repowering facilities would change
from a steam cycle to a combined-cycle, thereby maintaining or decreasing their cooling water withdrawals (note that a
combined-cycle facility generally will withdraw one-third of the cooling water of a comparably sized full-steam facility).
Therefore, the portion of compliance costs for regulatory options that included flow reduction requirements or technologies
could significantly decrease if the Agency incorporated repowering changes into the analysis. As shown in Table 2-2 the
majority of facilities projected to increase cooling water withdrawals due to the repowering changes use freshwater sources.
In turn, the compliance costs for these facilities would increase if the Agency incorporated repowering for this final rule.
2-9
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Impingement
N o n -
Recircu latin g
F acilities
Does (he facility
have impingement
co n tro Is in -p lace?
No costs for
impingement
co n tro Is.
F acility will incur
costs for
impingement
co n tro Is
Figure 1. Impingement Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs
2-10
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
E ntrain m ent
N on-Recirc.
F acilities
Does the facility
have en train m en t
controls in-place?
Does the facility
w ithd raw from a
Lake or
R ese rvoir?
C on tin ue to
N ext Page...
No costs for
entrainm ent
controls.
N o costs for
e ntrain m e n t
controls.
Facility wi
costs for
e ntrain m e n t
co n tro Is.
incur
Figure 2. Entrainment Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs
2-11
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Costing Methodology for Model Facilities
Entrapment:
Continued from
Previous Page
Does the Facility
withdraw > 500
MGD from an
Ocean?
Is the intake flow
greater than 5 % of
the freshwater
river/stream flow?
No costs for
entrainment
controls.
Facility will incur
costs for
l/M entrainment
\ controls
Facility will incur
costs for
entrainment
controls
Figure 2 (cent). Entrainment Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs
2-12
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Cost to Cost Test
Chapter 3: Cost to Cost Test
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the cost-cost test for alternative site-specific requirements. The first two sections present the
requirements of the cost-cost test and the data needs to carry out the test. Section 3 presents the step-by-step instructionf for
carrying out the cost-cost test and the tabular data to be used with the cost-cost test. Section 4 presents the background
information that supports the cost correction equations.
1.0 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS - THE COST TO COST TEST
The final rule in § 125.94(a) (2) through (4) allows for a comparison between the projected costs of compliance of a facility
(based on data specific to the facility) to the costs considered by the Agency for a facility like yours. A facility requesting a
cost cost determination must submit a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and a Site Specific Technology Plan, the
requirements of each can be found at §125.94(b)(6)(i) and 125.94(b)(6)(iii), respectively. The Comprehensive Cost
Evaluation Study must include engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing design
and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures at the facility that would be needed to meet
the applicable performance standards of the final rule; a demonstration that the documented costs significantly exceed the
costs considered by EPA for a facility like yours in establishing the applicable performance standards; and engineering cost
estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing alternative design and construction technologies,
operational measures, and/or restoration measures in the facility's Site-Specific Technology Plan. If the facility's costs are
significantly greater than the costs considered by the Agency for a facility like yours, then the Director may make a site-
specific determination of the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
2.0 DETERMINING COSTS
To make the demonstration that compliance costs are significantly greater than those considered by EPA, the facility must
first determine its actual compliance costs. To do this, the facility first should determine the costs for any new design and
construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures that would be needed to comply with the
requirements of § 125.94 (a)(2) through (4), which may include the following cost categories: the installed capital cost of the
technologies or measures, the net operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the technologies or measures (that is, the O&M
costs for the final suite of technologies and measures once all new technologies and measures have been installed less the
O&M costs of any existing technologies and measures), the net revenue losses (lost revenues minus saved variable costs)
associated with net construction downtime (actual construction downtime minus that portion which would have been needed
anyway for repair, overhaul or maintenance) and any pilot study costs associated with on-site verification and/or optimization
of the technologies or measures.
Costs should be annualized using a 7 percent discount rate, with an amortization period of 10 years for capital costs and 30
years for pilot study costs and construction downtime net revenue losses. Annualized costs should be converted to 2002
dollars ($2002), using the engineering news record construction cost index (see Engineering News-Record. New York:
McGraw Hill. Annual average value is 6538 for year 2002). Costs for permitting and post-construction monitoring should
not be included in this estimate, as these are not included in the EPA-estimated costs against which they will be compared, as
described below. Because existing facilities already incur monitoring and permitting costs, and these are largely independent
of the specific performance standards adopted and technologies selected to meet them, it is both simpler and more
appropriate to conduct the cost comparison required in this provision using direct compliance costs (capital, net O&M, net
construction downtime, and pilot study) only. Adding permitting and monitoring costs to both sides of the comparison would
complicate the methodology without substantially changing the results.
To calculate the costs that the Administrator considered for a like facility in establishing the applicable performance
standards, the facility must follow the steps laid out below, based on the information in Table 3-2 provided in Section 3.0 of
this chapter. Note that those facilities that claimed the flow data that they submitted to EPA, and which EPA used to
calculate compliance costs, as confidential business information (CBI), are not listed in the table provided in Table 3-2, unless
the total calculated compliance costs were zero. If these facilities wish to request a site-specific determination of best
technology available based on significantly greater compliance costs, they will need to waive their claim of confidentiality
prior to submitting the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study so that EPA can make the necessary flow data available to the
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Cost to Cost Test
facility, Director, and public.
Cost Categories Considered By The Agency
The installed capital cost of the technology (suite) represents the material, equipment, and labor costs of the technology and
retrofit, the civil and site work costs, instrumentation and controls, electrical (installed), construction management,
engineering and architectural fees, contingency, overhead and profit, non-316(b) related permits, metalwork, performance
bond, and insurance. Once determined by the facility, the capital costs for comparison to the Agency's estimates must be
amortized with a 7 percent discount factor and a 10 year amortization period. The dollar years of the capital costs must be
expressed in 2002 average dollars. The Agency used the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY) for estimating dollar year values. The capital costs are presented in pre-tax form for the cost to cost
comparison.
The net operation and maintenance costs of the technology or technology suite is the projected operation and maintenance
costs of the upgraded intake technology, post-construction and start-up, less the operation and maintenance costs of the
cooling water intake structures(s) in-place at the facility prior to enacting the technology upgrade. The Agency considered
the periodic replacement of parts, the periodic and intermittent maintenance of the technology (such as debris clearing, parts
changeout, etc.), the periodic and intermittent inspection of the technology, the energy usage of screen motors and spray wash
and fish return pumps, and management/technician labor. Additional factors may apply for special intakes located far
offshore, such as diver inspections, or for net systems or wedgewire screens, such as energy and maintenance costs associated
with self-cleaning airburst systems. The Agency notes that for the technologies considered for meeting the requirements of
the final rule that cooling water intake flows did not change from baseline to the technology upgrade. As a result the
operation and maintenance of the main cooling water intake pumps would typically not be considered a component of a net
operation and maintenance cost for the purposes of the cost to cost test. Some facilities may choose to comply with the
requirements of the rule by adopting strategic flow reduction activities. As such, reduced O&M costs associated with reduced
intake flows for strategic plant operation should not be factored into the compliance comparison of costs, as the Agency did
not account for these savings in its cost estimates. Similarly, if dredging of canals or screen areas was a typical portion of the
maintenance activities of the site at baseline, then the net operation and maintenance costs for the purposes of the cost to cost
test may not include these costs. The Agency represented O&M costs on an annual basis. The O&M costs are presented in
pre-tax form for the cost to cost comparison.
The Agency determined the cost of the technology connection outage downtime as the revenue loss during the downtime less
the variable expenses that would normally be incurred during that period. The duration of the connection outage should be
the total construction outage less any concurrent outages due to planned maintenance. The Agency notes that with the
flexible compliance scheduling allowed with the final rule that facilities will have opportunities to plan construction
schedules to take advantage of concurrent downtime periods (such as period inspections and maintenance outages). The
following formulas were used to calculate the net loss due to downtime:
Cost of Connection Outage = Revenue Loss - Variable Production Costs
where
Variable Production Cost = Fuel Cost + Variable Operating A Maintenance Cost.
The Agency amortized net construction downtime costs using a discount rate of 7 percent and an amortization period of 30
years. The downtime costs are presented in pre-tax form for the cost to cost comparison.
The technology pilot study costs associated with site verification of the technology estimated by the Agency included the
total capital and total operation and maintenance costs associated with a technology pilot study. Because pilot studies, by
their nature, are short term activities, the Agency represented the total cost of the study as a one-time capital cost, even
though the actual study may be extend out over a half-year to two-years; the total cost of the study was represented as a single
one-time cost. Therefore, facilities enacting pilot studies should represent the total costs of the pilot study in a similar
manner. Similar to a construction project lasting several months to years, some minor correction for dollar years may be
necessary. The Agency amortized total capital costs using a discount rate of 7 percent and an amortization period of 30 years.
The pilot study costs are presented in pre-tax form for the cost to cost comparison.
3-2
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Cost to Cost Test
Site-specific Technology Plan
The Site-Specific Technology Plan is developed based on the results of the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and must
contain the following information:
• A narrative description of the design and operation of all existing and proposed design and construction
technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures that you have selected;
• An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/or implemented design and construction technologies or
operational measures, and/or restoration measures. This estimate must include a site-specific evaluation of the
suitability of the technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and/or entrainment (as
applicable) of all life stages offish and shellfish based on representative studies (e.g., studies that have been
conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological
characteristics) and, if applicable, site-specific technology prototype or pilot studies. If restoration measures will be
used, you must provide a Restoration Plan (see § 125.95 (b)(5));
• A demonstration that the proposed and/or implemented design and construction technologies, operational measures,
and/or restoration measures achieve an efficacy that is as close as practicable to the applicable performance
standards of § 125.94(b) without resulting in costs significantly greater than either the costs considered by the
Administrator for a facility like yours in establishing the applicable performance standards, or as appropriate, the
benefits of complying with the applicable performance standards at your facility; and,
• Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and estimates prepared by a qualified professional to support the
elements of the Plan.
3.0 COST TO COST TEST INSTRUCTIONS
The data in Table 3-2 is keyed to survey ID number. Table 3-3 presents Facilities should be able to determine their ID
number from the survey they submitted to EPA during the rule development process.
Step 1: Determine which technology EPA modeled as the most appropriate compliance technology for your facility. To do
this, use the code in column 12 of Table 3-2 to look up the modeled technology in Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1: Technology Codes and Descriptions
Technology Code
1
2
o
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
[Technology Description
jAddition of fish handling and return system to an existing traveling screen system
jAddition of fine-mesh screens to an existing traveling screen system
[Addition of a new, larger intake with fine-mesh and fish handling and return system in front of an
[existing intake system
[Addition of passive fine-mesh screen system (cylindrical wedgewire) near shoreline with mesh
[width of 1.75 mm
[Addition of a fish net barrier system
[Addition of an aquatic filter barrier system
[Relocation of an existing intake to a submerged offshore location with passive fine-mesh screen
[inlet with mesh width of 1.75 mm
[Addition of a velocity cap inlet to an existing offshore intake
[Addition of passive fine-mesh screen to an existing offshore intake with mesh width of 1 .75 mm
[Addition of dual-entry, single-exit traveling screens (with fine- mesh) to a shoreline intake system
[Addition of passive fine-mesh screen system (cylindrical wedgewire) near shoreline with mesh
[width of 0.76 mm
[Addition of passive fine-mesh screen to an existing offshore intake with mesh width of 0.76 mm
[Relocation of an existing intake to a submerged offshore location with passive fine-mesh screen
[inlet with mesh width of 0.76 mm
3-3
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Cost to Cost Test
Step 2: Using EPA's costing equations, calculate the annualized capital and net operation and maintenance costs for a facility
with your design flow using this technology. To do this, you should use the following formula, which is derived from the
results of EPA's costing equations (see Section 4.0 of this chapter for more discussion) for a facility like yours using the
selected technology:
-xepa), (i)
where yf = annualized capital and net O&M costs using actual facility design intake flow,
Xf = actual facility design intake flow (in gallons per minute),
xepa= EPA assumed facility design intake flow (in gallons per minute) (column 3),
yepa = Annualized capital and net O&M costs using EPA design intake flow (column 7), and
m = design flow adjustment slope (column 13).
EPA has provided some additional information in Table 3-2, beyond that which is needed to perform the calculations, to
facilitate comparison of the results obtained using formula 1 to the detailed costing equations presented in Chapter 1 of this
document, for those who wish to do so. EPA does not expect facilities or permit writers to do this, and has in fact provided
the simplified formula to preclude the need for doing so, but is providing the additional information to increase transparency.
Thus, for informational purposes, the total capital cost (not annualized), baseline O&M cost, and post construction O&M cost
from which the annualized capital and net O&M costs using EPA design intake flow (yepa in column 7) are derived are listed
separately in columns 4 through 6. To calculate yepa, EPA annualized the total capital cost using a 7 percent discount rate and
10 year amortization period, and added the result to the difference between the post construction O&M costs and the baseline
O&M costs.
Note that some entries in Table 3-2 have "n/a" indicated for the EPA assumed design intake flow in column 2. These are
facilities for which EPA projected that they would already meet otherwise applicable performance standards based on existing
technologies and measures. EPA projected zero compliance costs for these facilities, irrespective of design intake flow, so no
flow adjustment is needed. These facilities should use $0 as their value for the costs considered by EPA for a like facility in
establishing the applicable performance standards. EPA recognizes that these facilities will still incur permitting and
monitoring costs, but these are not included in the cost comparison for the reasons stated above.
Step 3 : Determine the annualized net revenue loss associated with net construction downtime that EPA modeled for the
facility to install the technology and the annualized pilot study costs that EPA modeled for the facility to test and optimize the
technology. The sum of these two figures is listed in column 10. For informational purposes, the total (not annualized) net
revenue losses from construction downtime, and total (not annualized) pilot study costs are listed separately in columns 8 and
9. These two figures were annualized using a 7% discount rate and 30 year amortization period and the results added
together to get the annualized facility downtime and pilot study costs in column 10.
Step 4: Add the annualized capital and O&M costs using actual facility design intake flow (yf from step 2), and the
annualized facility downtime and pilot study costs (column 10 from step 3) to get the preliminary costs considered by EPA
for a facility like yours.
Step 5: Determine which performance standards in 125.94(b)(l) and (2) (i.e., impingement mortality only, or impingement
mortality and entrainment) are applicable to your facility, and compare these to the performance standards on which EPA's
cost estimates are based, listed in column 11. If the applicable performance standards and those on which EPA's cost
estimates are based are the same, then the preliminary costs considered by EPA for a facility like yours are the final costs
considered by EPA for a facility like yours. If only the impingement mortality performance standards are applicable to your
facility, but EPA based its cost estimates on impingement mortality and entrainment performance standards, then you should
divide the preliminary costs by a factor of 2. 148 to get the final costs. If impingement mortality and entrainment performance
standards are applicable to your facility, but EPA based its cost estimates on impingement mortality performance standards
only, then you should multiply the preliminary costs by 2.148 to get the final costs. See section 4.0 of this chapter for more
discussion of the performance standard correction factor.
Survey IDs
The survey ID for a facility was that assigned to the recipients of either the short-technical questionnaire (STQ) or the
detailed questionnaire (DQ). The Agency assigned STQ recipients questionnaire IDs in the form of "AUT0001", where the
"AUT" prefix was constant and the four number suffix varies for each facility. The Agency assigned DQ recipient
questionnaire IDs dependent on the type of recipient. Utilities received IDs in the form of "DUT1000", where the "DUT"
3-4
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Cost to Cost Test
prefix was constant and the four number suffix varied in the " 1000" range for each recipient. Non-utilities received IDs in the
form of "DNU2000", where the "DNU" prefix was constant and the four number suffix varied in the "2000" range for each
recipient. Municipality operated facilities received IDs in the form of "DMU3000", where the "DMU" prefix was constant
and the four number suffix varied in the "3000" range for each recipient.
Table 3-2 presents costs for individual cooling water intake structures only for the case of DQ recipients. For STQ recipients,
the Agency necessarily estimated costs on the facility-level by assuming that the entire set of intakes at the facility would
have the intake characteristics reported at the facility level. STQ recipients would make the potential corrections to EPA's
estimated costs at the facility-level only (as outlined in Steps 2, 3, and 4 below).
In completing the questionnaire, the DQ respondents assigned each cooling water intake structure at their plant a designating
number or name (through part 2, question la). The Agency has included these reported intake descriptors in Table 3-2 to
allow the DQ recipients to identify individual intake structures. Even though the cost to cost test is evaluated on the facility-
level, DQ recipients would make potential corrections to EPA's estimated capital and O&M costs as outlined in Step 2 for
each cooling water intake structure and then aggregate at the facility-level.
If a facility within the scope of the rule completed and returned a questionnaire but is not included in Table 3 -1, then the
facility may have claimed cooling water intake flow information pertaining to their facility to be confidential business
information (CBI). If these facilities wish to request a site-specific determination of best technology available based on
significantly greater compliance costs, they will need to waive their claim of confidentiality prior to submitting the
Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study so that EPA can make the necessary flow data available to the facility, Director, and
public.
Because the Agency has based its list of facilities projected to be within the scope of the rule on information collected through
a survey that is subject to some degree of uncertainty, there could be a small set of facilities that are subject to this rule that
may not be included in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 is the Agency's best estimate of the facilities that it projects to fall within the
scope of the final rule (less those claiming flow information as CBI). However, Table 3-2 is not a definitive list of the in-
scope population of facilities for the final rule. Therefore, a complying facility may discover when attempting to conduct a
cost to cost test that the Agency did not include costs for the particular facility in Table 3-2. This is not to say that the
Agency has not considered costs for the facility, as the Agency scaled its national costs to represent weighted a population of
facilities not receiving the survey. In the case of a facility not included in Table 3-2, the method for determining the
representative costs that EPA considered for a similar facility should be conducted by assessing the projected annual capital
cost + net annual O&M cost of the intake technology determined by a facility like that facility. Figures 3-1 through 3-13
provide estimated equations for calculating annual capital cost + net annual O&M cost for each technology module
considered by the Agency. In addition, the facility should find in Table 3-2 facilities with the same cost-correction equation
slope (m) and could utilize the median annualized facility-level downtime and pilot study costs for that technology in the
comparison.
3-5
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUT0001
AUT0002
AUT0004
AUT0011
AUT0012
AUT0014
AUT0015
AUT0016
AUT0019
AUT0020
AUT0021
AUT0024
AUT0027
AUT0044
AUT0049
AUT0051
AUT0053
AUT0057
AUT0058
AUT0064
AUT0066
AUT0078
AUT0084
AUT0085
AUT0092
AUT0095
AUTO 106
AUTO 110
AUTO 120
AUTO 123
AUTO 127
AUT0130
AUTO 131
AUT0134
AUT0137
AUTO 139
AUTO 142
AUTO 143
AUTO 146
AUTO 148
AUTO 149
AUTO 151
AUTO 161
AUTO 168
AUTO 171
AUTO 174
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
401,881
549,533
239,107
453,758
2,018,917
572,383
1,296,872
301,127
848,784
207,514
267,138
639,702
404,214
457,869
820,866
348,052
147,762
56,391
624,376
553,145
65,571
288,792
2,100,000
975,261
2,786,349
67,369
325,449
551,114
207,333
62,226
104,672
929,723
492,987
99,252
401,222
369,074
407,669
289,294
213,207
1,036,476
848,079
482,911
555,680
329,758
1,189,016
1,341,997
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 322,884
$ 5,750,259
$ 528,427
$ 967,675
$ 48,835,329
$ 2,732,729
$ 510,784
$ 41,613
$ 11,094,343
$ 1,517,779
$ 1,187,727
$ 72,402
$ 2,362,864
$ 183,653
$ 6,080,054
$ 11,832,011
$ 454,296
$ 271,166
$ 8,582,766
$ 3,039,302
$ 2,006,184
$ 5,683,876
$ 2,976,122
$ 23,279,870
$ 929,777
$ 55,826
$ 1,104,684
$ 6,445,617
$ 2,085,862
$ 106,975
$ 573,136
$ 8,127,384
$ 3,299,931
$ 3,334,593
$ 1,916,441
$ 117,095
$ 9,461,494
$ 971,645
$ 1,618,126
$ 12,443,192
$ 109,389
$ 1,465,485
$ 1,600,167
$ 5,156,763
$ 14,989,478
$ 934,469
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$ 699,866
$ 68,489
$ 30,725
$ 55,545
$ 360,813
$ 91,057
$
$
$ 271,045
$ 34,859
$ 65,395
$
$ 147,563
$
$ 196,361
$ 17,181
$ 27,346
$ 19,811
$ 68,231
$ 195,656
$ 80,531
$ 267,577
$ 3,003,550
$ 341,127
$
$ 120,772
$ 55,757
$ 70,141
$ 55,736
$ 7,021
$ 34,651
$ 402,025
$ 195,321
$ 8,170
$ 117,385
$
$ 66,798
$ 50,004
$ 88,506
$
$
$ 95,774
$ 101,254
$ 39,196
$ 120,512
$ 1,387,449
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 795,393
$ 104,063
$ 104,458
$ 193,660
$ 989,876
$ 110,893
$ 134,070
$ 28,195
$ 994,876
$ 42,089
$ 263,140
$ 47,164
$ 532,881
$ 57,997
$ 797,241
$ 50,842
$ 108,078
$ 65,525
$ 225,908
$ 695,636
$ 63,685
$ 1,083,987
$3,318,577
$ 452,608
$ 269,122
$ 140,422
$ 223,858
$ 104,066
$ 225,656
$ 20,122
$ 118,506
$ 1,628,672
$ 694,407
$ 35,218
$ 475,099
$ 49,945
$ 78,036
$ 200,412
$ 313,588
$ 288,984
$ 58,838
$ 340,264
$ 360,434
$ 51,388
$ 398,517
$ 1,537,156
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 141,498
$ 854,282
$ 148,969
$ 275,890
$ 7,582,115
$ 408,915
$ 206,794
$ 34,120
$ 2,303,416
$ 223,327
$ 366,851
$ 57,472
$ 721,737
$ 84,145
$ 1,466,543
$ 1,718,273
$ 145,413
$ 84,322
$ 1,379,670
$ 932,709
$ 268,790
$ 1,625,667
$ 738,760
$ 3,426,011
$ 401,501
$ 27,598
$ 325,383
$ 951,636
$ 466,900
$ 28,333
$ 165,457
$ 2,383,804
$ 968,921
$ 501,819
$ 630,572
$ 66,617
$ 1,358,342
$ 288,748
$ 455,467
$ 2,060,615
$ 74,413
$ 453,142
$ 487,008
$ 746,399
$ 2,412,170
$ 282,755
3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUTO 175
AUTO 176
AUTO 183
AUTO 185
AUTO 187
AUTO 190
AUTO 191
AUTO 192
AUTO 193
AUTO 196
AUTO 197
AUT0202
AUT0203
AUT0205
AUT0208
AUT0222
AUT0227
AUT0228
AUT0229
AUT0238
AUT0242
AUT0244
AUT0245
AUT0254
AUT0255
AUT0261
AUT0264
AUT0266
AUT0268
AUT0273
AUT0277
AUT0278
AUT0284
AUT0292
AUT0295
AUT0297
AUT0298
AUT0299
AUT0302
AUT0305
AUT0308
AUT0309
AUT0314
AUTOS 19
AUT0321
AUTOS 31
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
258,008
1,652,395
118,504
810,911
1,242,691
511,950
692,335
359,686
1,006,084
230,120
407,061
2,080,399
1,083,174
313,218
220,683
156,464
82,468
147,594
483,349
376,148
1,113,045
49,980
491,302
145,838
194,919
201,229
840,000
653,994
712,677
173,689
88,831
1,642,492
728,495
556,596
359,098
184,293
897,819
864,873
71,413
762,197
394,361
789,860
1,039,315
468,117
669,493
178,562
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 2,505,868
$ 6,892,691
$ 196,689
$ 97,503
$ 257,332
$ 27,779,896
$ 19,255,865
$ 959,625
$ 19,112,665
$ 374,975
$ 4,773,876
$ 106,025,028
$ 4,847,332
$ 720,557
$ 3,140,556
$ 299,274
$ 523,999
$ 837,743
$ 1,784,794
$ 757,400
$ 8,239,161
$ 426,844
$ 1,459,999
$ 353,928
$ 258,805
$ 943,433
$ 21,384,690
$ 139,380
$ 2,998,753
$ 994,534
$ 1,192,106
$ 6,410,550
$ 3,743,165
$ 2,227,636
$ 3,584,905
$ 1,172,223
$ 100,769
$ 9,012,107
$ 91,562
$ 42,822,242
$ 3,381,768
$ 81,433
$ 2,438,597
$ 1,326,662
$ 2,092,630
$ 24,860
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$ 134,658
$ 425,370
$ 7,303
$
$
$ 616,589
$ 184,161
$ 71,963
$ 90,728
$
$ 248,548
$ 477,625
$ 232,706
$ 37,147
$ 27,181
$
$ 30,107
$ 41,023
$ 87,496
$ 51,856
$ 291,327
$ 22,868
$ 50,879
$ 22,339
$
$ 57,335
$1,502,211
$ 307,951
$ 114,173
$ 52,039
$ 45,779
$ 771,895
$ 208,370
$ 99,379
$ 53,365
$ 63,592
$
$ 150,709
$ 6,933
$ 146,012
$ 151,364
$
$ 134,759
$ 88,025
$ 88,910
$
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 484,461
$ 1,533,553
$ 21,121
$ 56,756
$ 107,659
$ 191,870
$ 66,491
$ 253,183
$ 323,635
$ 10,672
$ 891,410
$ 769,048
$ 851,244
$ 127,449
$ 51,205
$ 9,554
$ 102,249
$ 163,811
$ 391,634
$ 180,342
$ 1,039,947
$ 76,413
$ 61,192
$ 74,527
$ 10,232
$ 230,290
$ 185,672
$ 351,075
$ 417,470
$ 208,703
$ 51,021
$ 257,586
$ 742,487
$ 350,087
$ 114,232
$ 255,790
$ 61,625
$ 127,282
$ 19,813
$ 281,593
$ 77,961
$ 55,577
$ 484,839
$ 355,386
$ 107,698
$ 21,328
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 706,582
$ 2,089,548
$ 41,823
$ 70,638
$ 144,297
$ 3,530,513
$ 2,623,932
$ 317,849
$ 2,954,121
$ 64,060
$ 1,322,554
$ 15,387,001
$ 1,308,689
$ 192,893
$ 471,169
$ 52,164
$ 146,748
$ 242,064
$ 558,253
$ 236,323
$ 1,921,691
$ 114,318
$ 218,185
$ 102,580
$ 47,080
$ 307,278
$ 1,728,160
$ 62,969
$ 730,253
$ 298,263
$ 174,971
$ 398,409
$ 1,067,059
$ 567,874
$ 571,276
$ 359,096
$ 75,972
$ 1,259,694
$ 25,916
$ 6,232,505
$ 408,085
$ 67,171
$ 697,281
$ 456,248
$ 316,732
$ 24,867
3-7
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUTOS 3 3
AUT0337
AUT0341
AUT0345
AUT0349
AUTOS 51
AUT0358
AUT0361
AUT0362
AUT0364
AUT0365
AUT0368
AUT0370
AUT0379
AUTOS 81
AUTOS 84
AUTOS 85
AUTOS 87
AUTOS 98
AUTOS 99
AUT0401
AUT0404
AUT0408
AUT0416
AUT0423
AUT0427
AUT0431
AUT0434
AUT0435
AUT0441
AUT0446
AUT0449
AUT0472
AUT0476
AUT0483
AUT0489
AUT0490
AUT0493
AUT0496
AUT0499
AUT0501
AUT0513
AUT0517
AUTOS 18
AUT0522
AUT0523
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
336,448
1,110,944
405,256
610,223
2,429,925
301,024
210,439
433,165
312,830
505,137
140,093
83,406
322,374
351,933
50,143
146,511
130,966
576,057
537,402
140,486
613,529
291,400
73,728
143,562
564,501
148,668
143,775
400,472
183,306
108,296
278,043
487,640
239,620
233,631
1,146,722
211,629
405,350
257,137
603,432
45,374
346,213
1,296,772
98,553
193,413
237,692
608,373
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 786,807
$ 131,046
$ 2,429,275
$ 5,103,322
$ 8,146,829
$ 6,389,631
$ 2,170,195
$ 7,652,621
$ 1,566,464
$ 5,447,440
$ 445,526
$ 2,715,938
$ 1,816,861
$ 41,890
$ 960,912
$ 66,229
$ 1,823,217
$ 5,283,933
$ 6,842,592
$ 232,496
$ 578,957
$ 4,124,975
$ 900,969
$ 41,835
$ 29,714,518
$ 291,697
$ 356,208
$ 763,363
$ 483,907
$ 276,983
$ 3,528,075
$ 1,738,410
$ 218,958
$ 489,074
$ 2,715,801
$ 1,477,232
$ 3,527,610
$ 1,429,134
$ 1,649,804
$ 171,551
$ 115,781
$ 27,395,451
$ 1,040,022
$ 435,346
$ 856,098
$ 7,741,521
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$ 46,794
$
$ 115,249
$ 267,506
$ 424,696
$ 42,269
$ 117,833
$ 59,105
$ 51,821
$ 170,196
$ 29,331
$ 146,752
$ 79,915
$
$ 9,964
$ 91,020
$ 20,420
$ 122,322
$ 63,631
$
$
$ 44,642
$ 13,020
$ 96,659
$ 122,524
(D
J>
$ 20,913
$ 40,353
$ 27,166
$ 17,492
$ 28,547
$ 110,263
$ 453,683
$ 27,565
$ 112,654
$ 84,570
$ 73,321
$ 51,159
$ 57,304
$ 9,346
$ 205,027
$ 170,929
$ 20,976
$ 28,467
$ 40,165
$
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 162,104
$ 73,566
$ 412,169
$ 952,013
$ 1,514,477
$ 99,196
$ 421,759
$ 140,320
$ 185,883
$ 611,090
$ 116,166
$ 529,832
$ 289,868
$ 31,041
$ 22,083
$ 104,211
$ 25,983
$ 496,655
$ 75,697
$ 9,212
$ 72,110
$ 51,995
$ 49,057
$ 112,954
$ 248,148
$ 9,392
$ 69,450
$ 138,952
$ 107,346
$ 57,275
$ 111,202
$ 393,700
$ 511,926
$ 93,169
$ 136,742
$ 299,177
$ 78,027
$ 206,956
$ 206,130
$ 48,606
$ 230,840
$ 603,316
$ 72,416
$ 96,388
$ 162,010
$ 189,045
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 227,333
$ 92,224
$ 642,794
$ 1,411,106
$ 2,249,706
$ 966,667
$ 612,913
$ 1,170,775
$ 357,091
$ 1,216,487
$ 150,268
$ 769,768
$ 468,633
$ 37,006
$ 148,931
$ 22,620
$ 265,149
$ 1,126,646
$ 986,297
$ 42,314
$ 154,541
$ 594,657
$ 164,315
$ 22,251
$ 4,356,303
$ 50,923
$ 99,253
$ 207,284
$ 149,077
$ 79,220
$ 584,973
$ 530,948
$ 89,417
$ 135,237
$ 410,757
$ 424,931
$ 506,958
$ 359,274
$ 383,721
$ 63,685
$ 42,297
$ 4,332,883
$ 199,516
$ 129,905
$ 243,734
$ 1,291,263
3-8
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUT0529
AUT0534
AUT0535
AUT0539
AUT0541
AUT0547
AUT0551
AUT0552
AUT0553
AUT0554
AUT0557
AUT0564
AUT0567
AUT0568
AUT0570
AUT0577
AUT0583
AUT0585
AUT0588
AUT0590
AUT0599
AUT0600
AUT0601
AUT0603
AUT0607
AUT0611
AUT0612
AUT0613
AUT0617
AUT0619
AUT0620
AUT0621
AUT0623
AUT0625
AUT0630
AUT0631
AUT0635
AUT0638
AUT0639
DMU3244
DMU3244
DMU3310
DNU2003
DNU2010
DNU2011
DNU2013
DNU2014
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
422,181
70,565
196,084
1,056,137
117,759
780,279
295,707
1,226,625
71,128
429,991
37,500
1,129,749
441,177
584,525
951,201
741,931
222,087
128,015
396,576
147,803
198,681
711,801
1,151,214
1,228,633
635,364
547,114
186,464
493,923
2,292,812
159,600
551,528
391,137
73,622
562,255
569,211
480,721
72,550
201,395
479,860
1 22,222
2 56,250
41,319
156,944
67,000
181,250
65,000
42,798
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 3,402,665
$ 230,241
$ 3,706,283
$ 13,978,398
$ 3,346,437
$ 9,747,498
$ 823,114
$ 133,029
$ 230,549
$ 8,840,925
$ 20,033
$ 14,903,816
$ 5,817,871
$ 2,308,321
$ 4,021,857
$ 10,647,710
$ 2,210,305
$ 1,561,382
$ 1,788,685
$ 315,803
$ 3,040,887
$ 1,717,012
$ 541,482
$ 684,562
$ 9,044,216
$ 3,195,898
$ 6,614,075
$ 4,341,494
$ 37,040,390
$ 62,547
$ 2,198,869
$ 2,018,600
$ 267,379
$ 2,841,330
$ 16,086,712
$ 11,721,529
$ 1,057,088
$ 2,336,881
$ 2,960,066
$ 138,465
$ 163,334
$ 25,594
$ 68,455
$ 1,010,938
$ 2,707,585
$ 588,369
$ 531,997
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$ 144,308
$ 17,175
$ 25,082
$ 183,682
$ 108,327
$ 118,281
$ 30,125
$
$ 10,379
$ 249,963
$
$ 170,408
$ 67,488
$ 342,703
$ 164,817
$ 113,337
$ 36,279
$ 49,933
$ 191,759
$ 22,592
$ 21,121
$ 80,592
$ 677,194
$ 720,077
$ 111,819
$ 88,288
$
$ 155,354
$ 1,403,836
$ 98,454
$ 264,319
$ 70,658
$ 13,006
$ 104,168
$ 94,881
$ 77,934
$ 50,149
$ 50,154
$ 143,531
$
$
$ 8,793
$
$ 11,787
$ 21,222
$
$ 64,365
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 530,442
$ 56,150
$ 66,100
$ 342,369
$ 37,393
$ 129,393
$ 35,820
$ 80,047
$ 32,023
$ 170,468
$ 19,881
$ 396,749
$ 77,963
$ 382,141
$ 591,048
$ 129,884
$ 51,245
$ 54,853
$ 66,639
$ 75,430
$ 104,455
$ 284,636
$ 742,753
$ 802,140
$ 226,342
$ 320,973
$ 85,670
$ 572,021
$ 741,877
$ 112,506
$ 90,714
$ 245,595
$ 49,653
$ 380,113
$ 227,787
$ 190,232
$ 201,000
$ 202,851
$ 527,524
$ 27,927
$ 33,357
$ 27,169
$ 30,711
$ 23,430
$ 102,473
$ 24,812
$ 22,327
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 870,598
$ 71,756
$ 568,710
$ 2,148,896
$ 405,523
$ 1,398,937
$ 122,888
$ 98,987
$ 54,468
$ 1,179,253
$ 22,734
$ 2,348,309
$ 838,809
$ 368,091
$ 998,853
$ 1,532,542
$ 329,663
$ 227,225
$ 129,548
$ 97,801
$ 516,288
$ 448,508
$ 142,654
$ 179,529
$ 1,402,216
$ 687,709
$ 1,027,365
$ 1,034,798
$ 4,611,760
$ 22,957
$ 139,464
$ 462,340
$ 74,715
$ 680,487
$ 2,423,292
$ 1,781,179
$ 301,357
$ 485,416
$ 805,439
$ 47,641
$ 56,612
$ 22,020
$ 40,458
$ 155,578
$ 466,750
$ 108,583
$ 33,707
3-9
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DNU2017
DNU2018
DNU2021
DNU2025
DNU2032
DNU2032
DNU2032
DNU2038
DUT0062
DUT0062
DUT0576
DUT0576
DUT0576
DUT1002
DUT1002
DUT1003
DUT1006
DUT1006
DUT1007
DUT1008
DUT1011
DUT1012
DUT1014
DUT1022
DUT1023
DUT1023
DUT1029
DUT1029
DUT1029
DUT1029
DUT1031
DUT1031
DUT1033
DUT1034
DUT1036
DUT1038
DUT1041
DUT1043
DUT1044
DUT1047
DUT1048
DUT1048
DUT1050
DUT1051
DUT1057
DUT1062
column 2
Intake ID
Units 1 & 2
Unit3
Unit 4
1
2
5&6
7
CT
Screenhouse 1
Screenhouse 2
Unit 1/2
Unit 3/4
CWS #535
DWS #536
CRS
CRNuc
CRN
HCT
1
2
HI-1
HI-2
column 3
EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
38,194
44,260
55,750
120,689
156,250
124,306
136,806
41,667
72,917
156,250
50,000
43,056
2,083
685,833
685,833
38,500
173,611
20,833
242,778
60,000
283,611
173,611
87,000
2,200,000
478,444
520,000
638,000
680,000
68,000
735,000
59,000
140,000
240,000
1,231,944
444,000
65,972
188,958
280,556
756,944
614,306
256,944
170,139
2,104,167
374,000
340,000
670,139
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 984,494
$ 446,336
$ 292,158
$ 7,720,257
$
$
$ 143,049
$ 465,858
$ 1,069,902
$ 1,922,088
$ 1,434,192
$ 866,245
$ 202,358
$ 166,652
$ 166,652
$ 703,237
$ 1,286,341
$ 281,263
$ 680,059
$ 1,016,367
$ 1,350,484
$ 522,205
$ 920,321
$ 8,268,801
$ 28,961,166
$ 39,708,776
$ 14,391,478
$ 6,740,847
$ 649,893
$ 4,654,560
$ 808,777
$ 1,524,044
$ 1,076,251
$ 4,990,608
$ 753,297
$ 213,848
$ 433,167
$ 36,345
$ 76,726
$ 16,998,704
$ 1,766,372
$ 473,836
$ 407,068
$ 1,027,013
$ 2,844,898
$ 67,658
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$
$ 11,513
$ 18,165
-
$
$
$
$ 50,489
$ 8,527
$ 14,312
$ 51,770
$ 29,000
$
$ 322,571
$ 322,571
$ 15,912
$ 54,154
$ 12,914
$ 32,861
$ 26,935
$ 76,112
$ 29,576
$ 40,859
$ 291,801
$ 360,609
$ 97,288
$ 63,709
$ 162,470
$ 13,914
$ 159,675
$ 17,797
$ 24,132
$ 43,293
$ 202,923
$ 41,568
$ 12,804
$ 27,973
$
$
$ 151,032
$ 113,534
$ 33,127
$
$ 55,468
$ 35,159
$
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 13,803
$ 13,633
$ 59,671
$ 825,174
$
$
$ 54,324
$ 58,892
$ 48,944
$ 56,483
$ 185,694
$ 101,863
$ 25,785
$ 367,337
$ 367,337
$ 20,989
$ 153,027
$ 39,309
$ 39,165
$ 107,846
$ 267,481
$ 100,351
$ 163,140
$ 1,051,593
$ 274,535
$ 361,137
$ 254,538
$ 659,152
$ 16,340
$ 194,358
$ 22,826
$ 26,017
$ 55,502
$ 820,337
$ 141,630
$ 38,918
$ 94,625
$ 27,042
$ 53,732
$ 103,667
$ 405,813
$ 113,050
$ 171,852
$ 193,382
$ 51,102
$ 48,869
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 153,973
$ 65,668
$ 83,103
$ 1,924,365
$
$
$ 74,691
$ 74,730
$ 192,747
$ 315,834
$ 338,121
$ 196,197
$ 54,596
$ 68,493
$ 68,493
$ 105,202
$ 282,018
$ 66,440
$ 103,129
$ 225,619
$ 383,648
$ 145,125
$ 253,315
$ 1,937,083
$ 4,037,344
$ 5,917,486
$ 2,239,852
$ 1,456,426
$ 94,956
$ 697,388
$ 120,181
$ 218,874
$ 165,443
$ 1,327,964
$ 207,314
$ 56,561
$ 128,325
$ 32,217
$ 64,656
$ 2,372,868
$ 543,770
$ 147,387
$ 229,809
$ 284,137
$ 420,993
$ 58,502
3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1066
OUT 1067
OUT 1067
DUT1067
DUT1068
DUT1072
DUT1084
DUT1085
DUT1086
DUT1086
DUT1088
DUT1088
DUT1093
DUT1097
DUT1098
DUT1100
DUT1100
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1109
DUT1111
DUT1111
DUT1112
DUT1113
DUT1113
DUT1116
DUT1118
DUT1122
DUT1123
DUT1123
DUT1123
DUT1132
DUT1133
DUT1138
DUT1140
DUT1140
DUT1145
DUT1146
DUT1152
DUT1156
DUT1157
DUT1157
DUT1165
column 2
Intake ID
1
2
3
Unitl
Unit 2
#4
#5
Units 1 & 2
Units 3 & 4
Unit 1 Screenhouse
Unit 2 Screenhouse
Hvdc Lake Intake
Hvdc Separator
Dike
River Intake
Unit 1&2
Unit3
System 27
System 67
6
7
8
Mc2-4
Mc5&6
6
7
1
column 3
EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
1,712,000
63,611
31,667
69,653
91,528
366,597
264,583
297,000
57,292
57,292
49,280
99,458
307,760
106,007
71,528
188,000
188,000
118,000
250,000
1,200
1,200
7,800
58,333
199,716
189,842
193,750
1,125,000
44,028
355,556
667,361
120,000
111,806
256,250
220,139
1,896,000
213,889
77,083
131,250
383,958
178,472
181,944
399,306
496,000
110,000
5,833
480,000
column 4
Capital Cost
$ 32,777,974
$
$
$ 23,159
$ 360,536
$ 691,381
$ 835,764
$ 2,410,696
$ 667,197
$ 667,197
$ 865,324
$ 1,438,399
$ 9,456,466
$ 2,349,646
$ 507,025
$
$ 136,878
$
$ 47,060
$ 34,615
$ 34,615
$ 75,587
$ 873,553
$ 764,700
$ 717,221
$ 501,403
$ 6,518,329
$ 181,599
$ 2,886,459
$ 140,959
$ 23,134
$ 4,071,741
$ 5,809,773
$ 5,590,610
$ 3,995,072
$ 1,180,537
$ 264,532
$ 334,100
$ 1,450,787
$ 2,702,979
$ 325,271
$ 10,606,982
$ 16,234,946
$ 1,262,753
$ 305,286
$ 9,356,403
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$ 260,695
$
$
$
$ 56,351
$ 40,319
$ 54,494
$ 159,608
$ 29,048
$ 29,048
$ 11,129
$ 12,058
$
(D
J>
$ 29,461
$
$
-
-
-
$
$ 5,734
$ 32,385
$ 99,547
$ 93,277
$ 28,510
$ 281,013
$
$ 69,804
-
$
$ 15,536
(D
J>
$ 27,185
$ 197,552
$ 44,631
$ 12,475
$ 20,512
$ 82,444
$ 38,035
$ 276,184
$ 355,225
$ 67,033
$ 47,827
$ 13,438
$ 220,447
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$ 678,771
$
$
$ 20,564
$ 20,060
$ 137,184
$ 189,863
$ 619,834
$ 122,691
$ 122,691
$ 22,007
$ 25,232
$ 33,762
$ 242,606
$ 99,942
$
$ 50,573
$
$ 31,941
$ 4,734
$ 4,734
$ 15,570
$ 130,170
$ 37,851
$ 35,552
$ 96,543
$ 1,001,831
$ 8,508
$ 84,921
$ 64,789
$ 18,047
$ 39,240
$ 431,082
$ 73,721
$ 927,311
$ 57,260
$ 37,753
$ 66,264
$ 290,867
$ 57,101
$ 309,256
$ 1,321,682
$ 77,047
$ 25,593
$ 17,201
$ 189,951
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 5,084,922
$
$
$ 23,862
$ 15,042
$ 195,303
$ 254,363
$ 803,455
$ 188,637
$ 188,637
$ 134,081
$ 217,970
$ 1,380,150
$ 577,143
$ 142,669
$
$ 70,062
$
$ 38,642
$ 9,662
$ 9,662
$ 20,597
$ 222,159
$ 47,181
$ 44,391
$ 139,421
$ 1,648,882
$ 34,364
$ 426,084
$ 84,858
$ 21,341
$ 603,428
$ 1,258,263
$ 842,513
$ 1,298,568
$ 180,711
$ 62,942
$ 93,320
$ 414,982
$ 403,909
$ 79,383
$ 2,476,653
$ 2,321,504
$ 157,553
$ 47,229
$ 1,301,645
3-11
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1165
DUT1169
DUT1173
DUT1179
DUT1185
DUT1186
DUT1186
OUT 11 87
DUT1187
OUT 11 89
DUT1189
DUT1198
DUT1202
DUT1202
DUT1206
DUT1206
DUT1206
DUT1209
DUT1209
DUT1211
DUT1212
DUT1214
DUT1217
DUT1217
DUT1217
DUT1219
DUT1223
DUT1223
DUT1227
DUT1227
DUT1229
DUT1238
DUT1238
DUT1248
DUT1249
DUT1250
DUT1252
DUT1258
DUT1258
DUT1258
DUT1259
DUT1261
DUT1261
DUT1265
DUT1268
DUT1269
column 2
Intake ID
2
Unit 4
Unit5
Mt2&3
Mt6-8
Unit 6 & 8
Unit 7
Power Plant
Filtration Plant
1
2
3
Plant a
Plant B
Unitl
Unit 6-8
Unit 4
1
2
1&2
3
A
B
Screen House No. 1
Screen House No.2
Screen House No. 3
U12
U34
column 3
EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
489,233
620,000
37,986
390,278
225,000
62,000
62,000
147,014
500,000
72,222
80,000
279,511
36,000
30,000
85,972
85,000
120,972
640,000
515,972
1,666,667
687,500
51,944
-
104,861
-
550,000
142,000
224,800
130,000
185,000
73,000
676,000
334,000
452,083
43,900
360,000
112,000
287,083
422,708
243,056
71,181
79,000
139,750
70,000
2,400,000
456,000
column 4
Capital Cost
$
$ 14,855,719
$ 312,285
$ 1,204,485
$ 3,496,693
$ 577,654
$ 577,654
$
$ 78,370
(D
J>
$ 22,427
$ 5,198,159
$ 1,154,817
$ 987,137
$ 53,440
$ 59,054
$ 87,045
$ 2,227,053
$ 10,503,729
$ 32,926,766
$ 2,000,922
$ 754,488
$
$ 848,612
$
$ 2,862,608
$ 1,422,632
$ 2,121,274
$ 373,205
$ 512,326
$ 30,638
$ 386,447
$ 344,428
$ 49,114
$ 10,765
$ 12,788,752
$ 157,353
$ 6,665,603
$ 9,009,434
$ 4,842,849
$ 2,706,303
$ 49,889
$ 1,735,631
$ 495,281
$ 20,911,797
$ 3,012,280
column 5
Baseline O&M
Annual Cost
$
$ 47,990
$ 18,521
$ 74,177
$ 21,560
$ 26,371
$ 26,371
$
$
(D
J>
$
$ 27,451
$
$
$ 56,705
$ 56,155
$ 76,530
$ 89,172
$ 51,204
$ 3,240,832
$ 85,020
$ 34,900
$
$
$
$ 108,307
$ 8,898
$ 22,284
$ 21,493
$ 29,084
$ 82,612
$ 531,800
$ 525,715
(D
J>
$
$ 160,063
$ 10,988
$ 171,249
$ 248,577
$ 108,025
$ 20,742
$ 119,643
$ 101,580
$ 35,987
$ 1,793,928
$ 107,765
column 6
Post
Construction
O&M Annual
Cost
$
$ 185,073
$ 72,119
$ 261,241
$ 51,324
$ 88,907
$ 88,907
$
$ 47,573
(D
J>
$ 19,852
$ 92,443
$ 13,668
$ 13,284
$ 65,852
$ 65,236
$ 88,027
$ 116,036
$ 184,394
$ 1,072,136
$ 302,122
$ 22,241
$
$ 16,547
$
$ 438,079
$ 55,779
$ 56,502
$ 71,516
$ 98,594
$ 96,918
$ 688,788
$ 662,610
$ 36,652
$ 13,783
$ 151,944
$ 32,494
$ 116,490
$ 168,448
$ 73,278
$ 26,203
$ 139,137
$ 26,018
$ 143,288
$ 623,613
$ 130,761
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$
$ 2,252,203
$ 98,061
$ 358,556
$ 527,614
$ 144,780
$ 144,780
$
$ 58,732
(D
J>
$ 23,045
$ 805,093
$ 178,088
$ 153,830
$ 16,756
$ 17,489
$ 23,890
$ 343,947
$ 1,628,685
$ 2,519,335
$ 501,987
$ 94,763
$
$ 137,371
$
$ 737,343
$ 249,432
$ 336,239
$ 103,159
$ 142,454
$ 18,668
$ 212,010
$ 185,934
$ 43,645
$ 15,316
$ 1,812,711
$ 43,910
$ 894,273
$ 1,202,611
$ 654,766
$ 390,778
$ 26,598
$ 171,552
$ 177,818
$ 1,807,054
$ 451,877
3-12
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1270
DUT1271
DUT1272
DUT1272
DUT1273
DUT1274
DUT1275
DUT1276
DUT1278
AUT0010
AUT0013
AUT0018
AUT0022
AUT0033
AUT0036
AUT0041
AUT0047
AUT0050
AUT0054
AUT0067
AUT0068
AUT0071
AUT0072
AUT0073
AUT0077
AUT0079
AUT0080
AUT0083
AUT0087
AUT0091
AUT0093
AUT0097
AUT0101
AUT0104
AUT0111
AUT0114
AUT0125
AUT0126
AUT0129
AUTO 152
AUTO 156
AUTO 157
AUT0160
column 2 column 3 column 4 column 5 column 6
Intake ID EPA Capital Cost Baseline O&M Post
Assumed Annual Cost Construction
Design Intake O&M Annual
Flow, gpm Cost
(Xepa)
89,583 $ 18,084 $ - $ 16,343
186,000 $ 14,970,016 $ 30,165 $ 49,913
Mol&2 713,889 $ 1,238,695 $ 76,910 $ 270,425
Mo3 528,472 $ 849,029 $ 53,826 $ 185,965
444,444 $ 2,752,775 $ 164,719 $ 582,187
330,556 $ 1,564,234 $ 62,476 $ 225,250
1,992,500 $ 6,739,793 $ - $ 355,766
62,500 $ 412,277 $ 23,754 $ 26,574
559,722 $ 4,962,033 $ 193,479 $ 688,069
Facilities Receiving No EPA Technology Upgrade Costs
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
n/a $ - $ - $
column 7
Annualized
Capital3 + Net
O&M Using
EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$ 18,918
$ 2,151,142
$ 369,877
$ 253,021
$ 809,401
$ 385,486
$ 1,315,361
$ 61,518
$ 1,201,071
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
-
(D
J>
$
$
$
(D
J>
$
$
$
(D
J>
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
3-13
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUT0163
AUT0170
AUT0173
AUT0178
AUT0181
AUTO 182
AUTO 199
AUT0201
AUT0215
AUT0216
AUT0221
AUT0226
AUT0230
AUT0232
AUT0235
AUT0240
AUT0241
AUT0246
AUT0248
AUT0257
AUT0260
AUT0270
AUT0275
AUT0276
AUT0285
AUT0286
AUT0287
AUT0296
AUT0300
AUT0304
AUT0307
AUT0310
AUTOS 15
AUT0343
AUT0344
AUT0350
AUT0355
AUTOS 56
AUT0359
AUT0363
AUT0373
AUTOS 80
AUTOS 88
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
column 4 column 5 column 6 column 7
Capital Cost Baseline O&M Post Annualized
Annual Cost Construction Capital3 + Net
O&M Annual O&M Using
Cost EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$*t C <£
4) 4> ~ 4>
$*t C <£
4) 4> ~ 4>
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4>
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4>
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$*C C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$*c c <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$c 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
3-14
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUTOS 90
AUTOS 94
AUTOS 96
AUTOS 97
AUT0403
AUT0405
AUT0406
AUT0411
AUT0415
AUT0419
AUT0424
AUT0433
AUT0440
AUT0443
AUT0444
AUT0453
AUT0455
AUT0459
AUT0462
AUT0463
AUT0467
AUT0473
AUT0477
AUT0478
AUT0481
AUT0482
AUT0492
AUT0500
AUT0507
AUTOS 12
AUTOS 15
AUT0521
AUT0531
AUT0536
AUT0537
AUT0538
AUT0540
AUT0544
AUT0546
AUT0555
AUT0559
AUT0561
AUT0571
AUT0573
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
column 4 column 5 column 6 column 7
Capital Cost Baseline O&M Post Annualized
Annual Cost Construction Capital3 + Net
O&M Annual O&M Using
Cost EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$C C <£
4» 4» 4>
$C C <£
4» 4» 4>
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$C C <£
4» 4» 4>
$C C <£
4» 4» Lj)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$C C <£
-4) -4) 4)
$C C <£
-4) -4) 4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£ <£ C
4) - 4) -4)
$<£
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
AUT0575
AUT0580
AUT0582
AUT0595
AUT0602
AUT0604
AUT0606
AUT0608
AUT0618
AUT0636
AUT0637
AUT0755
DNU2002
DNU2005
DNU2006
DNU2015
DNU2031
DNU2047
DUT1010
OUT 10 13
OUT 1021
OUT 1026
OUT 1027
DUT1032
OUT 103 9
OUT 1046
OUT 1049
DUT1053
DUT1056
OUT 1070
OUT 1071
OUT 1078
OUT 1081
OUT 1087
OUT 1092
DUT1104
DUT1105
DUT1106
DUT1117
DUT1120
DUT1129
DUT1130
DUT1142
column 2 column 3
Intake ID EPA
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
column 4 column 5 column 6 column 7
Capital Cost Baseline O&M Post Annualized
Annual Cost Construction Capital3 + Net
O&M Annual O&M Using
Cost EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$*t C <£
4) 4> ~ 4>
$*t C <£
4) 4> ~ 4>
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$*C C <£
4> 4> 4>
$*C C <£
4> 4> 4>
$c <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$*C C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$*t C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C 4> 4)
$*t C <£
4> 4> 4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£
-4) -4) -4)
$C <£ C
-4) -4) -4)
3-16
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1143
DUT1148
DUT1149
DUT1153
OUT 11 54
DUT1155
DUT1161
DUT1167
DUT1170
DUT1172
DUT1174
DUT1175
DUT1176
DUT1177
OUT 11 83
OUT 11 88
DUT1191
OUT 11 92
OUT 11 94
OUT 11 99
OUT 1201
OUT 12 13
OUT 1220
OUT 1222
OUT 1224
OUT 1225
OUT 1228
OUT 123 3
DUT1234
OUT 123 5
OUT 123 9
OUT 1243
DUT1254
DUT1257
OUT 1262
column 2 column 3 column 4
Intake ID EPA Capital Cost
Assumed
Design Intake
Flow, gpm
(Xepa)
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
n/a $
column 5 column 6 column 7
Baseline O&M Post Annualized
Annual Cost Construction Capital3 + Net
O&M Annual O&M Using
Cost EPA Design
Intake Flow2
(Yepa)
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$C C
M> M>
$C C
M> M>
$<£
4> - q)
$ - q)
$C C
M> M>
$C C
M> M>
$<£ (T;
4> - q)
$<£
4> - q)
$C C
M> M>
$C C
M> M>
$ - q)
$<£ tf;
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ - q)
$ - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ - q)
$ - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$<£
4> - q)
$ - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$<£ tf;
4> - q)
$<£
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ - q)
3-17
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2 column 8
Facility ID Intake ID Net Revenue
Losses from
Net
Construction
Downtime
AUT0001
AUT0002
AUT0004
AUT0011
AUT0012
AUT0014
AUT0015
AUT0016
AUT0019
AUT0020
AUT0021
AUT0024
AUT0027
AUT0044
AUT0049
AUT0051
AUT0053
AUT0057
AUT0058
AUT0064
AUT0066
AUT0078
AUT0084
AUT0085
AUT0092
AUT0095
AUT0106
AUT0110
AUT0120
AUT0123
AUT0127
AUT0130
AUT0131
AUT0134
AUTO 137
AUT0139
AUTO 142
AUT0143
AUT0146
AUT0148
AUT0149
AUT0151
AUT0161
AUTO 168
AUTO 171
AUTO 174
AUT0175
AUTO 176
AUTO 183
AUTO 185
$
$ 6,650,155
$
$
$110,716,357
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7,092,806
$
$ 23,985,660
$
$
$ 52,842,026
$
$
$
$ 5,297,741
$
$
$
$
$
$ 238,035
$
$
$ 3,421,735
(D
J>
$
$
$
$
$
$ 492,266
$ 15,890,363
$
$
$
$
$
column 9
column 10 column 11
Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Costs Downtime and Standards
Pilot Study on which
Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Estimates
are Based
$ - $
$ 290,459 $
$ - $
$ - $
$4,933,578 $
$ 276,073 $
4) "" 4)
$ - $
$ - $
$ 153,333 $
$ 150,000 $
4) "" 4)
4) "4)
$ - $
$ 204,745 $
$ - $
$ - $
$ - $
$ 867,072 $
$ - $
$ 150,000 $
$ 574,212 $
$ 150,331 $
$2,351,844 3
$ - $
$ - $
$ 150,000 $
$ 651,167 $
$ 210,724 $
4) "4)
$ - $
$ 821,067 $
$ - $
$ - $
$ 193,608 $
$ - $
$ 955,845 $
$ 150,000 $
$ - $
$ - $
$ - $
$
$ - $
$ 260,480 $
$ - $
$ 150,000 $
$ - $
$ - $
$ - $
$ - $
-
559,082
-
-
9,315,779
22,022
-
-
-
12,231
11,965
-
-
-
16,332
-
-
-
640,749
-
1,944,883
45,804
11,992
4,445,953
-
-
11,965
478,869
16,809
-
-
65,496
-
19,182
15,444
-
351,992
11,965
-
-
-
-
-
60,448
1,280,547
11,965
-
-
-
-
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
2
12
1
1
12
11
5
5
1
11
2
5
1
5
2
4
2
1
12
1
4
2
2
4
5
2
2
12
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
5
14
2
1
9
5
1
1
12
7
2
1
1
1
5
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
0.8639
3.6581
1.1604
1.1604
3.6581
0.7352
0.1286
0.1286
1.1604
0.7352
0.8639
0.1286
1.1604
0.1286
0.8639
2.5787
0.8639
1.1604
3.6581
1.1604
2.5787
0.8639
0.8639
2.5787
0.1286
0.8639
0.8639
3.6581
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
3.4562
0.8639
0.1286
6.9559
0.8639
1.1604
5.973
0.1286
1.1604
1.1604
3.6581
2.504
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
3-18
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2 column 8 column 9 column 10 column 11
Facility ID Intake ID Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards
Net Pilot Study on which
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
AUTO 187
AUTO 190
AUTO 191
AUTO 192
AUTO 193
AUTO 196
AUTO 197
AUT0202
AUT0203
AUT0205
AUT0208
AUT0222
AUT0227
AUT0228
AUT0229
AUT0238
AUT0242
AUT0244
AUT0245
AUT0254
AUT0255
AUT0261
AUT0264
AUT0266
AUT0268
AUT0273
AUT0277
AUT0278
AUT0284
AUT0292
AUT0295
AUT0297
AUT0298
AUT0299
AUT0302
AUT0305
AUT0308
AUT0309
AUT0314
AUT0319
AUT0321
AUTOS 31
AUTOS 3 3
AUT0337
AUT0341
AUT0345
AUT0349
AUTOS 51
AUT0358
AUT0361
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$c c
4> - q)
$ M>
S'^'noooo (t1 (t1 I/C/IT^/I
3,278,888 Jb - JP 264,234
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ 3,544,915 $ - $ 285,672
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ 43,525,468 $2,160,384 $ 3,679,892
$C C
4> -J)
$C C
4> -J)
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ 186,802 $ - $ 15,054
$ - $ 647,624 $ 51,660
$ M>
$ M>
$ 5,005,800 $ - $ 403,399
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$C C
4> -J)
$ 15,622,548 $ 227,612 $ 1,277,121
$*t *t
M> M>
$ 49,751,104 $4,326,108 $ 4,354,352
$ 3,407,223 $ - $ 274,576
$c c
4> -J)
$c c
4> -4)
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ 700,911 $ - $ 56,484
$C C
4> -J)
$ 893,934 $ - $ 72,039
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
5
9
9
1
3
8
1
9
1
1
4
8
1
2
2
1
1
1
11
1
8
2
12
2
1
2
4
11
1
1
4
2
5
12
1
14
7
5
1
2
11
5
1
5
1
1
1
o
J
1
3
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
0.1286
5.973
5.973
1.1604
3.4562
0.3315
1.1604
5.973
1.1604
1.1604
2.5787
0.3315
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.7352
1.1604
0.3315
0.8639
3.6581
0.8639
1.1604
0.8639
2.5787
0.7352
1.1604
1.1604
2.5787
0.8639
0.1286
3.6581
1.1604
6.9559
2.504
0.1286
1.1604
0.8639
0.7352
0.1286
1.1604
0.1286
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
3.4562
1.1604
3.4562
3-19
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2 column 8 column 9
column 10 column 11
Facility ID Intake ID Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards
Net Pilot Study on which
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
AUT0362
AUT0364
AUT0365
AUT0368
AUT0370
AUT0379
AUTOS 81
AUTOS 84
AUTOS 85
AUTOS 87
AUTOS 98
AUTOS 99
AUT0401
AUT0404
AUT0408
AUT0416
AUT0423
AUT0427
AUT0431
AUT0434
AUT0435
AUT0441
AUT0446
AUT0449
AUT0472
AUT0476
AUT0483
AUT0489
AUT0490
AUT0493
AUT0496
AUT0499
AUT0501
AUTOS 13
AUTOS 17
AUTOS 18
AUT0522
AUT0523
AUT0529
AUT0534
AUT0535
AUT0539
AUT0541
AUT0547
AUT0551
AUT0552
AUT0553
AUT0554
AUT0557
AUT0564
$ M>
$ 4>
$ M>
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ 506,182 $ - $
$ M>
$ 1,445,463 $ - $
$ - $ 533,808 $
$ 6,440,309 $ - $
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ 3,259,312 $ - $
$ 803,968 $ - $
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ M>
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ 1,404,150 $ - $
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ - $ 274,363 $
$c c
4> - q)
$ 3,548,991 $ - $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$*c *c
M> M>
$*c *c
M> M>
$*c *c
M> M>
$ 36,923,245 $ - $
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ 604,316 $ - $
$ 2,343,730 $ 1,412,165 $
$ 27,152,758 $ 169,037 $
$ 17,882,815 $ - $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$ M>
$ M>
$ 1,498,242 $ - $
$ M>
$ 15,236,406 $ - $
-
-
-
-
-
-
40,791
-
116,485
42,581
519,001
-
-
262,656
64,789
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
113,155
-
-
-
21,886
-
286,000
11,965
-
-
-
2,975,512
-
-
-
-
-
-
48,700
301,520
2,201,627
1,441,112
11,965
-
-
120,738
-
1,227,847
I
I
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
1
1
2
1
1
5
4
2
4
2
4
8
5
4
4
2
9
8
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
11
1
4
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
9
1
1
o
5
12
12
4
11
5
1
o
J
5
7
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
2.5787
0.8639
2.5787
0.8639
2.5787
0.3315
0.1286
2.5787
2.5787
0.8639
5.973
0.3315
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
2.5787
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
0.7352
1.1604
2.5787
0.8639
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
2.5787
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
5.973
1.1604
1.1604
3.4562
3.6581
3.6581
2.5787
0.7352
0.1286
1.1604
3.4562
0.1286
2.504
3-20
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
AUT0567
AUT0568
AUT0570
AUT0577
AUT0583
AUT0585
AUT0588
AUT0590
AUT0599
AUT0600
AUT0601
AUT0603
AUT0607
AUT0611
AUT0612
AUT0613
AUT0617
AUT0619
AUT0620
AUT0621
AUT0623
AUT0625
AUT0630
AUT0631
AUT0635
AUT0638
AUT0639
DMU3244 1
DMU3244 2
DMU3310
DNU2003
DNU2010
DNU2011
DNU2013
DNU2014
DNU2017
DNU2018
DNU2021
DNU2025
DNU2032 Units 1 & 2
DNU2032 Unit 3
DNU2032 Unit 4
DNU2038
DUT0062 1
DUT0062 2
DUT0576 5&6
DUT0576 7
DUT0576 CT
OUT 1002 Screenhouse 1
DUT1002 Screenhouse 2
columns column 9 column 10 column 11
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards
Net Pilot Study on which
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ 4,139,441 $ - $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$c c
4> - q)
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$ 9,610,528 $ - $
$ 1,102,473 $ - $
$ - $ 180,701 $
$c c
4> - q)
$ - $ 307,205 $
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$ - $ 150,000 $
$ 3,693,163 $ 456,845 $
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$c c
M> M>
$ 2,161,531 $1,247,332 $
$c c
M> M>
$ - $ 222,140 $
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$ - q)
$ 974,792 $ - $
$ 193,002 $ - $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$ - $ 236,083 $
$<£ <£
4> - q)
$ - q)
$<£ tf;
4> - q)
$<£
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ 543,834 $ - $
$ 5,223,420 $ 273,533 $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$ - q)
$ - q)
$C C
M> M>
$ - $ 779,937 $
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$ - q)
$ - q)
$ 5,279,493 $ - $
$ 5,279,493 $ - $
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$c c
M> M>
$ - q)
333,583
11,965
-
-
774,478
88,844
14,414
-
24,505
-
-
11,965
334,061
-
-
-
273,688
-
17,720
-
-
-
78,555
15,553
11,965
18,832
-
-
-
-
-
43,826
442,756
11,965
11,965
-
-
-
62,215
-
-
-
-
425,455
425,455
-
-
-
-
-
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
4
2
1
7
4
4
11
1
4
1
2
2
12
1
13
1
12
2
11
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
4
12
11
11
13
11
1
2
5
5
5
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
2.5787
0.8639
1.1604
2.504
2.5787
2.5787
0.7352
1.1604
2.5787
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
3.6581
1.1604
7.0567
1.1604
3.6581
0.8639
0.7352
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
3.4562
3.4562
0.8639
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
2.5787
3.6581
0.7352
0.7352
7.0567
0.7352
1.1604
0.8639
0.1286
0.1286
0.1286
0.8639
2.5787
2.5787
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
3-21
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1003
DUT1006
DUT1006
DUT1007
DUT1008
DUT1011
DUT1012
DUT1014
DUT1022
DUT1023
DUT1023
OUT 1029
OUT 1029
OUT 1029
DUT1029
OUT 1031
OUT 1031
OUT 103 3
DUT1034
DUT1036
DUT1038
OUT 1041
DUT1043
DUT1044
OUT 1047
DUT1048
DUT1048
DUT1050
DUT1051
DUT1057
DUT1062
OUT 1066
DUT1067
DUT1067
OUT 1067
OUT 1068
OUT 1072
OUT 1084
DUT1085
OUT 1086
OUT 1086
DUT1088
DUT1088
DUT1093
OUT 1097
DUT1098
DUT1100
DUT1100
DUT1103
column 2
Intake ID
Unit 1/2
Unit 3/4
CWS #535
DWS #536
CRS
CRNuc
CRN
HCT
1
2
HI-1
HI-2
1
2
3
Unitl
Unit 2
#4
#5
Units 1 & 2
Units 3 & 4
Unitl
Screenhouse
columns column 9 column 10 column 11
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards
Net Pilot Study on which
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ 236,360 $ - $ 19,047
$ M>
$ M>
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$C C
4> - q)
$c c
4> - q)
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ M>
$ - $
$ 4,830,432 $ - $ 389,267
$
$
$ - $
$ 21,796,254 $ 667,692 $ 1,809,743
$ - $
$ 5,399,114 $ - $ 435,095
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ - $ 504,175 $ 40,218
$C C
4> - q)
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ 4,783,541 $ - $ 385,488
$ M>
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ 7,997,712 $ - $ 644,507
$ M>
$ 845,987 $ - $ 68,175
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$C C
4> - q)
$ M>
$ - $ 243,540 $ 19,427
$ M>
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ - $
$ 1,601,167 $ - $ 129,032
$C C
4> - q)
$ - $ 237,372 $ 18,935
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
4
1
1
11
2
1
1
2
1
3
o
6
3
2
11
11
4
4
11
2
1
1
1
5
5
7
1
1
5
1
4
5
o
J
5
5
5
11
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
9
6
1
5
5
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
2.5787
1.1604
1.1604
0.7352
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
1.1604
3.4562
3.4562
3.4562
0.8639
0.7352
0.7352
2.5787
2.5787
0.7352
0.8639
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
0.1286
2.504
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
1.1604
2.5787
0.1286
3.4562
0.1286
0.1286
0.1286
0.7352
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
0.8639
2.504
2.504
5.973
5.0065
1.1604
0.1286
0.1286
3-22
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1
Facility ID
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1103
DUT1109
DUT1111
DUT1111
DUT1112
DUT1113
DUT1113
DUT1116
DUT1118
DUT1122
DUT1123
DUT1123
DUT1123
DUT1132
DUT1133
DUT1138
DUT1140
DUT1140
DUT1145
DUT1146
DUT1152
DUT1156
DUT1157
DUT1157
DUT1165
DUT1165
DUT1169
DUT1173
DUT1179
DUT1185
DUT1186
DUT1186
DUT1187
DUT1187
DUT1189
DUT1189
DUT1198
DUT1202
DUT1202
DUT1206
DUT1206
DUT1206
DUT1209
DUT1209
DUT1211
column 2 column 8 column 9 column 10 column 11
Intake ID Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards
Net Pilot Study on which
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
Unit 2 $ - $ - $
Screenhouse
Hvdc Lake Intake $ - $ - $
Hvdc Separator $ - $ - $
Dike
River Intake $ - $ - $
$ - $ 150,000 $
Unitl&2 $ - $ - $
Unit3 $ - $ 150,000 $
$C C
M> M>
System 27 $ - $ - $
System 67 $ - $ - $
$ - $ 291,604 $
$<£ <£
4> -4)
$<£ <£
4> -4)
6 $ - $
7 $ - $
8 $ 1,136,010 $ - $
$ - $ 403,601 $
$ - $ 150,000 $
$<£ <£
4> -4)
Mc2-4 $ - $ - $
Mc5&6 $ - $ - $
$ 1,565,614 $ 273,068 $
$C C
M> M>
$C C
M> M>
$ 9,287,608 $ - $
6 4> 4>
7 C - ij) - ij)
1 $ - $
2 $ 9,426,676 $ - $
$ 1,896,934 $ - $
$C C
M> M>
$C C
M> M>
$ 1,266,125 $ - $
Unit 4 $ - $ - $
Unit5 $ - $ - $
Mt2&3 $ - $ - $
Mt6-8 $ - $ - $
Unit6&8 $ - $ - $
Unit 7 $ - $ - $
$ 268,118 $ - $
Power Plant $ - $ - $
Filtration Plant $ - $ - $
1 4> 4>
"} *t C C
^ 14) 4> 4)
"5
Plant a $ - $
Plant B $ 5,849,051 $ - $
$ - $3,326,419 $
-
-
-
-
11,965
-
11,965
-
-
-
23,261
-
-
-
-
91,547
32,195
11,965
-
-
-
147,950
-
-
748,455
-
-
-
759,662
152,867
-
-
102,032
-
-
-
-
-
-
21,607
-
-
-
-
-
-
471,354
265,345
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
column 12
EPA
Modeled
Technology
5
8
8
1
2
11
11
1
1
8
11
5
5
3
6
3
2
11
1
1
1
12
2
1
7
4
4
o
6
3
2
1
7
1
1
5
5
5
5
3
11
9
2
2
2
11
3
11
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
0.1286
0.3315
0.3315
1.1604
0.8639
0.7352
0.7352
1.1604
1.1604
0.3315
0.7352
0.1286
0.1286
3.4562
5.0065
3.4562
0.8639
0.7352
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
3.6581
0.8639
1.1604
2.504
2.5787
2.5787
3.4562
3.4562
0.8639
1.1604
2.504
1.1604
1.1604
0.1286
0.1286
0.1286
0.1286
3.4562
0.7352
5.973
0.8639
0.8639
0.8639
0.7352
3.4562
0.7352
3-23
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
DUT1212
DUT1214
DUT1217 Unit 1
DUT1217 Unit 6-8
DUT1217 Unit 4
DUT1219
DUT1223 1
DUT1223 2
DUT1227 1 & 2
DUT1227 3
DUT1229
DUT1238 A
DUT1238 B
DUT1248
DUT1249
DUT1250
DUT1252
DUT1258 Screen House
No.l
DUT1258 Screen House
No.2
DUT1258 Screen House
No.3
DUT1259
DUT1261 U12
DUT1261 U34
DUT1265
DUT1268
OUT 1269
DUT1270
OUT 1271
DUT1272 Mol & 2
DUT1272 Mo3
DUT1273
DUT1274
OUT 1275
OUT 1276
DUT1278
columns column 9 column 10 column 11 column 12
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance EPA
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards Modeled
Net Pilot Study on which Technology
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ 4>
$ 7,829,721 $ - $ 630,969
$ M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ - $ 289,194 $ 23,069
$ - $
$ 376,088 $ 179,011 $ 44,587
$ M>
$ M>
$ M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ 17,224,807 $ - $ 1,388,085
$ M>
*C *C
4> 4>
$ - $
$ 4,429,893 $ - $ 356,989
$ 81,723 $ - $ 6,586
$ - $
$ 1,650,821 $ - $ 133,034
$ - $ 150,000 $ 11,965
$ - $2,112,610 $ 168,521
$ - $ 304,315 $ 24,275
$c c
4> -J)
$ 4,337,253 $ 1,512,343 $ 470,162
$ M>
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> -4)
$ - $ 680,886 $ 54,314
$C C
4> -J)
$C C
4> -J)
I
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I
I&E
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I
I&E
I
I
I
I
I
I&E
I
1
4
13
2
12
12
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
7
1
o
J
3
3
o
J
2
4
2
11
11
5
7
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
1.1604
2.5787
7.0567
0.8639
3.6581
3.6581
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
0.8639
0.8639
0.1286
0.1286
2.504
1.1604
3.4562
3.4562
3.4562
3.4562
0.8639
2.5787
0.8639
0.7352
0.7352
0.1286
2.504
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
1.1604
0.8639
0.7352
1.1604
Facilities Receiving No EPA Technology Upgrade Costs
AUT0010
AUT0013
AUT0018
AUT0022
AUT0033
AUT0036
AUT0041
AUT0047
AUT0050
AUT0054
AUT0067
$*t *t
M> M>
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$c c
4> -4)
$ M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$*t *t
M> M>
$c c
4> -4)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3-24
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
AUT0068
AUT0071
AUT0072
AUT0073
AUT0077
AUT0079
AUT0080
AUT0083
AUT0087
AUT0091
AUT0093
AUT0097
AUT0101
AUTO 104
AUT0111
AUT0114
AUT0125
AUT0126
AUT0129
AUTO 152
AUTO 156
AUTO 157
AUT0160
AUT0163
AUT0170
AUT0173
AUT0178
AUT0181
AUTO 182
AUTO 199
AUT0201
AUT0215
AUT0216
AUT0221
AUT0226
AUT0230
AUT0232
AUT0235
AUT0240
AUT0241
AUT0246
AUT0248
AUT0257
AUT0260
AUT0270
AUT0275
AUT0276
AUT0285
AUT0286
AUT0287
columns column 9 column 10 column 11 column 12
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance EPA
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards Modeled
Net Pilot Study on which Technology
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3-25
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
AUT0296
AUT0300
AUT0304
AUT0307
AUTOS 10
AUTOS 15
AUT0343
AUT0344
AUT0350
AUT0355
AUT0356
AUT0359
AUT0363
AUT0373
AUTOS 80
AUTOS 88
AUTOS 90
AUTOS 94
AUTOS 96
AUTOS 97
AUT0403
AUT0405
AUT0406
AUT0411
AUT0415
AUT0419
AUT0424
AUT0433
AUT0440
AUT0443
AUT0444
AUT0453
AUT0455
AUT0459
AUT0462
AUT0463
AUT0467
AUT0473
AUT0477
AUT0478
AUT0481
AUT0482
AUT0492
AUT0500
AUT0507
AUT0512
AUT0515
AUT0521
AUT0531
AUT0536
columns column 9 column 10 column 11 column 12
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance EPA
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards Modeled
Net Pilot Study on which Technology
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3-26
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
AUT0537
AUT0538
AUT0540
AUT0544
AUT0546
AUT0555
AUT0559
AUT0561
AUT0571
AUT0573
AUT0575
AUT0580
AUT0582
AUT0595
AUT0602
AUT0604
AUT0606
AUT0608
AUT0618
AUT0636
AUT0637
AUT0755
DNU2002
DNU2005
DNU2006
DNU2015
DNU2031
DNU2047
DUT1010
OUT 10 13
OUT 1021
OUT 1026
DUT1027
DUT1032
DUT1039
DUT1046
DUT1049
DUT1053
DUT1056
DUT1070
DUT1071
DUT1078
DUT1081
DUT1087
DUT1092
DUT1104
DUT1105
DUT1106
DUT1117
DUT1120
columns column 9 column 10 column 11 column 12
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance EPA
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards Modeled
Net Pilot Study on which Technology
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3-27
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Tabe 3-2, continued: Costs Considered by EPA in Establishing Performance Standards ($2002)
column 1 column 2
Facility ID Intake ID
DUT1129
DUT1130
DUT1142
DUT1143
DUT1148
DUT1149
DUT1153
DUT1154
DUT1155
DUT1161
DUT1167
DUT1170
DUT1172
DUT1174
DUT1175
DUT1176
DUT1177
DUT1183
DUT1188
DUT1191
OUT 11 92
OUT 11 94
OUT 11 99
OUT 1201
OUT 12 13
OUT 1220
OUT 1222
OUT 1224
OUT 1225
OUT 1228
OUT 123 3
DUT1234
DUT1235
OUT 123 9
DUT1243
DUT1254
DUT1257
DUT1262
columns column 9 column 10 column 11 column 12
Net Revenue Pilot Study Annualized Performance EPA
Losses from Costs Downtime and Standards Modeled
Net Pilot Study on which Technology
Construction Costs2'4 EPA Cost
Downtime Estimates
are Based
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
$ - $ - $ - n/a
column 13
Design Flow
Adjustment Slope
(m)1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
'The design flow adjustment slope (m) represents the slope that corresponds to the particular facility using the technology in
column 3.
2Discount rate = 7%
Amortization period for capital costs = 10 years
Amortization period for downtime and pilot study costs = 30 years
Note: Depending on the data provided, some facilities with multiple intakes were costed separately for each intake. In such
cases, the facility should calculate the costs considered by EPA for each intake using the steps below and sum. Note that
some costs (eg construction downtime) are assigned evenly to each intake for convenience.
3-28
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3 -3: Facility
Facility ID
AUT0001
AUT0002
AUT0004
AUT0010
AUT0011
AUT0012
AUT0013
AUT0014
AUT0015
AUT0016
AUT0018
AUT0019
AUT0020
AUT0021
AUT0022
AUT0024
AUT0027
AUT0033
AUT0036
AUT0041
AUT0044
AUT0047
AUT0049
AUT0050
AUT0051
AUT0053
AUT0054
AUT0057
AUT0058
AUT0064
AUT0066
AUT0067
AUT0068
AUT0071
AUT0072
AUT0073
AUT0078
AUT0079
AUT0080
AUT0083
AUT0084
AUT0085
AUT0092
AUT0093
AUT0095
AUT0097
AUT0101
AUT0106
AUT0110
AUT0111
AUT0114
AUT0120
AUTO 123
ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility Name
Cane Run
Chesapeake
Hennepin
Bowen
Shawville
Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Montville
Williams
Northport
Cholla
R M Heskett Station
Charles Poletti
B L England
B C Cobb
St Johns River Power
Bull Run
Lake Hubbard
Muscatine
Edgewater
Edwin I Hatch
Hunters Point
Michoud
Chalk Point
Wyandotte
Suwannee River
Nelson Dewey
Flint Creek
Thomas Fitzhugh
Mercer
Decordova
Fermi Nuclear
Henry D King
Scattergood
Oswego
Sioux
Lake Catherine
Missouri City
Eagle Mountain
Lone Star
Schiller
Salem Nuclear
Point Beach Nuclear
Linden
Perry Nuclear
Tyrone
Little Gypsy
Lakeside
Cheswick
C P Crane
Cape Fear
Kewaunee Nuclear
Norwalk Harbor
Warren
3-29
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3-3: Facility ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility ID
Facility Name
AUT0125
AUT0127
AUT0129
AUT0130
AUT0131
AUT0134
AUT0137
AUT0139
AUT0142
AUT0143
AUT0146
AUT0148
AUT0149
AUT0151
AUTO 152
AUTO 156
AUTO 157
AUTO 160
AUT0161
AUT0163
AUTO 168
AUTO 170
AUT0171
AUT0173
AUT0174
AUT0175
AUT0176
AUT0178
AUT0181
AUTO 182
AUTO 183
AUTO 185
AUTO 187
AUTO 190
AUT0191
AUTO 192
AUTO 193
AUTO 196
AUTO 197
AUT0201
AUT0202
AUT0203
AUT0205
AUT0208
AUT0215
AUT0216
AUT0221
AUT0222
AUT0226
AUT0227
AUT0228
AUT0229
Beaver Valley Nuclear
Lake Road
Susquehanna Nuclear
Elmer W Stout
Hammond
Mount Tom
Mitchell
Albany
Lauderdale
Wood River
Meredosia
Tanners Creek
Thomas Hill
Decker Creek
Duck Creek
Waterford 1 & 2
Pulliam
L V Sutton
Valley
Belle River
E F Barrett
O W Sommers
New Madrid
Fort Calhoun Nuclear
Herbert a Wagner
R E Burger
Martin Lake
Mt Storm
Prairie Creek
Arsenal Hill
Schuylkill
Gallatin
North Anna Nuclear
Ginna
J H Campbell
R W Miller
Joliet 29
Southside
Austin-dt
Cope
Donald C Cook Nuclear
Riverside
Joliet 9
New Castle
Coleto Creek
Fort St Vrain
Polk
Marion
Sooner
Silver Lake
High Bridge
Dan E Karn
3-30
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3 -3: Facility
Facility ID
AUT0230
AUT0232
AUT0235
AUT0238
AUT0240
AUT0241
AUT0242
AUT0244
AUT0245
AUT0246
AUT0248
AUT0254
AUT0255
AUT0257
AUT0260
AUT0261
AUT0264
AUT0266
AUT0268
AUT0270
AUT0273
AUT0275
AUT0276
AUT0277
AUT0278
AUT0284
AUT0285
AUT0286
AUT0287
AUT0292
AUT0295
AUT0296
AUT0297
AUT0298
AUT0299
AUT0300
AUT0302
AUT0304
AUT0305
AUT0307
AUT0308
AUT0309
AUT0310
AUTOS 14
AUTOS 15
AUTOS 19
AUT0321
AUTOS 31
AUTOS 3 3
AUT0337
AUT0341
AUT0343
AUT0344
ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility Name
Mcwilliams
V H Braunig
Sam Rayburn
North Lake
Lee
J B Sims
Quad Cities Nuclear
Elk River
Avon Lake
Canaday
Sam Bertron
Chamois
Cooper
Gerald Gentleman
Marshall
Dale
Indian Point 3 Nucler
North Omaha
Cutler
Possum Point
Stanton
Seabrook Nuclear
River Rouge
Dubuque
Morgantown
Handley
Conners Creek
Welsh
Horseshoe Lake
Harris Nuclear
Jack Mcdonough
W H Zimmer
Quindaro
Harllee Branch
Chesterfield
Eckert Station
US DOE SRS (D-area)
Lansing
Kahe
Rodemacher
WSLee
Wilkes
A B Paterson
Philip Sporn
Sabine
Cliffside
J E Corette
Lake Creek
Hamilton
Johnsonville
Montrose
John E Amos
Weston
3-31
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3 -3: Facility
Facility ID
AUT0345
AUT0349
AUT0350
AUTOS 51
AUT0355
AUTOS 56
AUT0358
AUT0359
AUT0361
AUT0362
AUT0363
AUT0364
AUT0365
AUT0368
AUT0370
AUT0373
AUT0379
AUTOS 80
AUTOS 81
AUTOS 84
AUTOS 85
AUTOS 87
AUTOS 88
AUTOS 90
AUTOS 94
AUTOS 96
AUTOS 97
AUTOS 98
AUTOS 99
AUT0401
AUT0403
AUT0404
AUT0405
AUT0406
AUT0408
AUT0411
AUT0415
AUT0416
AUT0419
AUT0423
AUT0424
AUT0427
AUT0431
AUT0433
AUT0434
AUT0435
AUT0440
AUT0441
AUT0443
AUT0444
AUT0446
AUT0449
ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility Name
Summer Nuclear
Mcguire Nuclear
Clinton Nuclear
Portland
Limerick Nuclear
Byron Nuclear
H T Pritchard
Hookers Point
Hawthorn
Teche
Wansley
Dresden Nuclear
Arkwright
Kaw
Deepwater
Valmont
Lake Pauline
Will County
Healy
Somerset
Hutsonville
Haynes
Lewis Creek
Fort Churchill
Nebraska City
Bremo Power Station
George Neal North
latan
Boomer Lake
Fort Myers
Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Mitchell
Fisk
Merom
Cameo
Roseton
Rochester 7
Noblesville
Brunswick Nuclear
James a Fitzpatrick
Davis-besse
Blount Street
San Angelo
Mistersky
Paradise
Shiras
Eaton
Piqua
Milton L Kapp
Gibbons Creek
Richard H. Gorsuch
Big Brown
3-32
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3-3: Facility
Facility ID
AUT0453
AUT0455
AUT0459
AUT0462
AUT0463
AUT0467
AUT0472
AUT0473
AUT0476
AUT0477
AUT0478
AUT0481
AUT0482
AUT0483
AUT0489
AUT0490
AUT0492
AUT0493
AUT0496
AUT0499
AUT0500
AUT0501
AUT0507
AUTOS 12
AUTOS 13
AUTOS 15
AUTOS 17
AUTOS 18
AUT0521
AUT0522
AUT0523
AUT0529
AUT0531
AUT0534
AUT0535
AUT0536
AUT0537
AUT0538
AUT0539
AUT0540
AUT0541
AUT0544
AUT0546
AUT0547
AUT0551
AUT0552
AUT0553
AUT0554
AUT0555
AUT0557
AUT0561
AUT0564
AUT0567
ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility Name
Four Corners
Seminole
Vogtle Nuclear
Warrick
Rex Brown
Vero Beach
Miami Fort
Palisades Nuclear
Trinidad
Fair Station
Dansby
Powerlane
Gen J M Gavin
Shawnee
Nearman Creek
Buck
Collins
E S Joslin
Indian River
Bay Front
Big Cajun 2
Jack Watson
Crawford
J K Spruce
Waterford #3 Nuclear
Rockport
Humboldt Bay
James River
Menasha
Jefferies
Walter C Beckjord
Gould Street
Braidwood Nuclear
Crisp
Urquhart
Rush Island
Dallman
Genoa
Edge Moor
J P Madgett
Indian Point Nuclear
Eddy stone
Watts Bar Nuclear
Muskingum River
Allen S King
Kingston
Hunlock Pwr Station
Potomac River
Zuni
Sayreville
J T Deely
Kyger Creek
F B Culley
3-33
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3-3: Facility ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility ID
Facility Name
AUT0568
AUT0570
AUT0571
AUT0573
AUT0575
AUT0577
AUT0580
AUT0582
AUT0583
AUT0585
AUT0588
AUT0590
AUT0599
AUT0600
AUT0601
AUT0602
AUT0603
AUT0604
AUT0606
AUT0607
AUT0608
AUT0611
AUT0612
AUT0613
AUT0617
AUT0618
AUT0619
AUT0620
AUT0621
AUT0623
AUT0625
AUT0630
AUT0631
AUT0635
AUT0637
AUT0638
AUT0639
DMU3244
DMU3310
DNU2002
DNU2011
DNU2013
DNU2014
DNU2015
DNU2017
DNU2018
DNU2021
DNU2025
DNU2031
DNU2032
DNU2038
DNU2047
Northside
Peach Bottom Nuclear
Baxter Wilson
San Onofre Nuclear
Trenton Channel
Middletown
Sixth Street
E W Brown
Dave Johnston
Burlington
Monticello
C D Mcintosh Jr
Kearny
Kincaid
Bridgeport Harbor
Mason Steam
Astoria
C R Huntley
Hmp&l Station 2
Moss Landing
Pilgrim Nuclear
New Boston
Huntington Beach
Morro Bay
Ravenswood
New Haven Harbor
William F Wyman
Dunkirk
Contra Costa
Kendall Square
Encina
Lovett
Salem Harbor
Aes Hickling
Ormond Beach
Mandalay
Pittsburg
University of Notre Dame Power Plant
University of Iowa - Main Power Plant
Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P.
Long Beach Generation
Maine Energy Recovery Company
Baltimore Resco
Southern Energy-Canal
Westchester Resco Co.
Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership
Morgantown
Sparrows Point Div Bethlehem Steel Corp
Ch Resources - Beaver Falls
Duke Energy South Bay
Saugus Resco
El Segundo Power
3-34
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3-3: Facility ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility ID
Facility Name
DUT0062
DUT0576
OUT 1002
DUT1003
OUT 1006
OUT 1007
OUT 1008
OUT 1011
DUT1012
DUT1014
OUT 1021
OUT 1022
OUT 1023
OUT 1026
OUT 1029
OUT 1031
OUT 103 3
DUT1034
DUT1036
OUT 103 8
DUT1041
OUT 1043
OUT 1044
OUT 1046
DUT1047
OUT 1048
OUT 1049
DUT1050
OUT 1051
DUT1056
DUT1057
OUT 1062
OUT 1066
OUT 1067
OUT 1068
OUT 1070
OUT 1072
OUT 1084
DUT1085
OUT 1086
DUT1088
DUT1093
OUT 1097
DUT1098
DUT1100
DUT1103
DUT1109
DUT1111
DUT1112
DUT1113
DUT1116
DUT1117
DUT1118
Leland Olds Station
Sam O. Purdom Generating Station
Monroe
Peru
Martins Creek
Presque Isle
Far Rockaway
Stryker Creek
Grand Tower
Dolphus M Grainger
Alma
Comanche Peak Nuclea
Oyster Creek Nuclear
Delaware
Crystal River
Merrimack
J C Weadock
South Oak Creek
Allen
North Texas
Elmer Smith
Ray Olinger
Tradinghouse
Labadie
Elrama
Holly Street
Joppa Steam
Browns Ferry Nuclear
Havana
Webster
Wateree
Fayette Power Prj
F J Gannon
Paint Creek
Harbor
Millstone
Graham
Fort Phantom
Petersburg
Valley
Seward
Bailly
Rock River
Blackhawk
Sewaren
Milton R Young
Riverside
E D Edwards
Lieberman
Sequoyah Nuclear
Waiau
Columbia
Cooper
3-35
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3 -3: Facility
Facility ID
DUT1122
DUT1123
DUT1132
DUT1133
DUT1138
DUT1140
DUT1142
DUT1143
DUT1145
DUT1146
DUT1148
OUT 11 52
DUT1153
OUT 11 54
DUT1155
OUT 11 56
DUT1157
DUT1161
DUT1165
DUT1167
DUT1169
DUT1170
DUT1172
DUT1173
DUT1174
DUT1175
DUT1179
OUT 11 85
OUT 11 86
OUT 11 87
OUT 11 89
DUT1191
OUT 11 92
OUT 11 94
OUT 11 98
OUT 1202
OUT 1206
OUT 1209
OUT 12 11
DUT1212
OUT 12 13
DUT1214
DUT1217
OUT 12 19
OUT 1223
OUT 1225
OUT 1227
OUT 1228
OUT 1229
OUT 123 5
OUT 123 8
OUT 1248
ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility Name
Edgewater
Waukegan
Cumberland
J R Whiting
Harbor
Morgan Creek
Victoria
East River
Honolulu
Devon
Council Bluffs
Coffeen
Mill Creek
Mcclellan
P H Robinson
John Sevier
Sterlington
Robert E Ritchie
Big Bend
Ninemile Point
Hudson
Carl Bailey
Barney M Davis
Logansport
Arkansas Nuclear One
Fox Lake
Pirkey
Cromby
Glenwood
Mountain Creek
Larsen Memorial
Monroe
Meramec
Gerald Andrus
O H Hutchings
Manitowoc
Indian River
Widows Creek
Surry Nuclear
JM Stuart
Riverside
Charles R Lowman
Deepwater
Port Washington
Nueces Bay
Burlington
Sibley
Willow Glen
Riverton
Riverside
Cedar Bayou
Knox Lee
3-36
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Table 3-3: Facility ID and Facility Name for All Facilities Not Claiming Survey Information CBI
Facility ID Facility Name
OUT 1249
DUT1250
DUT1252
DUT1258
DUT1259
OUT 1261
OUT 1265
OUT 1268
OUT 1269
OUT 1270
OUT 1271
OUT 1272
OUT 1273
DUT1274
OUT 1275
OUT 1276
OUT 1278
Oak Creek
Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Muskogee
St Clair
James De Young
Green River
River Crest
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Dean H Mitchell
Pueblo
Michigan City
Monticello
Sim Gideon
P L Bartow
Anclote
Animas
Newton
4.0
COST CORRECTION
Derivation of the cost correction equation and technology module slopes.
Rather than providing the detailed costing equations that EPA used to calculate annualized capital and net O&M costs for
facilities to use each of the modeled technologies, EPA has provided the simplified formula (equation 1), which collapses the
results of those equations for the particular facility and technology into a single result (yepa) and then allows the facility to
adjust this result to reflect its actual design intake flow, using a technology specific slope for a facility like yours that is
derived from the costing equations. This allows facilities to perform the flow adjustment in a straightforward and transparent
manner. The Agency analyzed each of the cooling water intake structures (facilities) predicted to implement each technology
module with respect to its annual capital plus net O&M costs, normalized by design intake flow. The Agency then performed
a best-fit for each technology, as presented in figures 3-1 through 3-13.
Derivation of the correction factor for impingement mortality and/or entrainment requirements.
In calculating compliance costs, EPA projected what performance standards would be applicable to the facility based on
available data. However, because of both variability and uncertainty in the underlying parameters that determine which
performance standards apply (e.g., capacity utilization rate, mean annual flow), it is possible that in some cases the
performance standards that EPA projected are not correct. The adjustment factor of 2.148 was determined by taking the ratio
of median compliance costs for facilities to meet impingement mortality and entrainment performance standards over median
compliance costs for facilities to meet impingement mortality performance standards only. While using this adjustment factor
will not necessarily yield the exact compliance costs that EPA would have calculated had it had current information, EPA
believes the results are reasonable for determining whether a facility's actual compliance costs are "significantly greater than"
the costs considered by EPA for a like facility in establishing the applicable performance standards. EPA believes it is
preferable to provide a simple and transparent methodology for making this adjustment that yields reasonably accurate results,
rather than a much more complex methodology that would be difficult to use and understand (for the facility, permit writer,
and public), even if the more complex methodology would yield slightly more accurate results. DCN 6-3588 in the
confidential business information docket provides the calculations upon which the correction factor is based.
3-37
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Fig. 3-1. Module 1, Add fish handling and return system to traveling screens
$3,000,000
o $2,500,000 -
< $2,000,000 -
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
<
'S3
Fig. 3-3. Module 3, Add new, larger intake in front of existing intake
$7,000,000
o $6,000,000 -
Tc
$5,000,000 -
$4,000,000 -
^ $3,000,000 -
•5.
" $2,000,000 -
"D
(D
1 $1,000,000 -
c
c
<
y = 3.4562x
R2 = 0.5712
400,000 800,000 1,200,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
1,600,000 2,000,000
Fig. 3-4. Module 4, Add passive fine-mesh screen near shoreline w/1.75 mm mesh
$7,000,000
o $6,000,000 -
(D
I $5,000,000 -
'55
? $4,000,000 -
•g
^ $3,000,000 -
" $2,000,000 -
"D
(D
1 $1,000,000 -
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
2,000,000 2,500,000
3-39
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Fig. 3-5. Module 5, Add fish net barrier system
$600,000
1 $500,000
CD
$400,000 -
§ $300,000
o
In
H $200,000
o
"S
i $100,000
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
OS
0
"CD
E:
'55
i
O
M
Q_
CD
0
.N
CD
c
c
$1,400,000 -,
$1,200,000 -
$1,000,000 -
$800,000 -
$600,000 -
$400,000 -
$200,000 -
Fig. 3-6. Module 6, Add Aquatic filter barrier system
y = 5.0065x
R2 = 0.988 ./*
^^^
S'
^^^
./^
./'
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
3-40
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
o
1
Q_
CO
O
T3
Fig. 3-7.
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$-
Module 7, Relocate to submerged offshore w/ passive fine-mesh screen inlet &
1.75 mm mesh
y = 2.504x
R2 = 0.2881
200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
$180,000
| $160,000 -
| $140,000 -
$120,000 -
O
"CO
^
I
$100,000 -
$80,000 -
$60,000 -
$40,000 -
$20,000 -
Fig. 3-8. Module 8, Add velocity cap inlet to offshore intake
y = 0.3315x
R2 = 0.9215
100,000 200,000 300,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
400,000 500,000
3-41
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Fig. 3-9. Module 9, Add passive fine-mesh screen to offshore intake w/1.75 mm mesh
$18,000,000
s $16,000,000 -
=3
5 $14,000,000 -
| $12,000,000 -
z $10,000,000 -
$8,000,000 -
$6,000,000 -
$4,000,000 -
$2,000,000 -
y = 5.973x
R2 = 0.8082
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
2,500,000
Fig. 3-10. Module 11, Add dual-entry, single-ex it traveling screens (with fine- mesh)
$3,000,000
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
2,500,000
3-42
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
Fig. 3-11. Module 12, Add passive fine-mesh screen near shoreline w/ 0.76 mm mesh
$12,000,000
i $10,000,000 -
o
Tc
1 $8,000,000 -
<
? $6,000,000 -
(/>
O
3| $4,000,000 -
Tg $2,000,000 -
N
In
1 $-
y = 3.6581 x
R2 = 0.8459
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
Fig. 3-12. Module 13, Add passive fine-mesh screen to offshore intake w/ 0.76 mm mesh
$1,600,000
§ $1,400,000 -
| $1,200,000 -
1 $1,000,000 -
$800,000 -
$600,000 -
$400,000 -
$200,000 -
$-
y = 7.0567x
R2 = 0.8559
40,000 80,000 120,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
160,000
200,000
3-43
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Cost to Cost Test
OS
O
"ffi
1
ro
Fig. 3-13. Module 14, Relocate to submerged offshore w/ passive fine-mesh screen inlet
& 0.76 mm mesh
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
y = 6.9559x
R2 = 0.6849
150,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 750,000 900,000
Design Intake Flow (gpm)
3-44
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Chapter 4: Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure
Technologies
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the data compiled by the Agency on the performance of the range of technologies currently used to
minimize impingement and entrainment (I&E) at power plants nationwide.
1.0 DATA COLLECTION OVERVIEW
To support the section 316(b) rule for existing facilities, the Agency compiled data on the performance of the range of
technologies currently used to minimize impingement and entrainment (I&E) at power plants nationwide. The goal of this
data collection and analysis effort was to determine whether specific technologies could be shown to provide a consistent
level of proven performance. The information compiled was used to compare specific regulatory options and their associated
costs and benefits, as well as provide stakeholders with a comprehensive summary of previous studies designed to assess the
efficacy of the various technologies. It provided the supporting information for the rule and alternative regulatory options
considered during the development process and final action by the Administrator.
Throughout this chapter, baseline technology performance refers to the performance of conventional, wide-mesh traveling
screens that are not intended to prevent impingement and/or entrainment. The term alternative technologies generally refer to
those technologies, other than closed-cycle recirculating cooling systems, that can be used to minimize impingement and/or
entrainment. Overall, the Agency has found that performance and applicability vary to some degree based on site-specific
and seasonal conditions. The Agency has also determined, however, that alternative technologies can be used effectively on
a widespread basis if properly designed, operated, and maintained.
1.1 SCOPE OF DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
The Agency has compiled readily available information on the nationwide performance of I&E-reduction technologies. This
information has been obtained through the following:
• Literature searches and associated collection of relevant documents on facility-specific performance.
• Contacts with governmental (e.g., TVA) and non-governmental entities (e.g., EPRI) that have undertaken national
or regional data collection efforts/performance studies.
• Meetings with and visits to the offices of EPA regional and state agency staff as well as site visits to operating
power plants.
It is important to recognize that the Agency did not use a systematic approach to data collection; that is, the Agency did not
obtain all the facility performance data available nor did it obtain the same amount and detail of information for every facility.
The Agency is not aware of such an evaluation ever being performed nationally. The most recent national data compilation
was conducted by EPRI in 2000; see Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes, Status Report. The findings of that report are
cited extensively in the following subsections. EPRI's analysis, however, was primarily a literature collection and review
effort and was not intended to be an exhaustive compilation and analysis of all available data. Through this evaluation, EPA
worked to build on the EPRI review by reviewing primary study documents cited by EPRI as well as through the collection
and reviewing of additional data.
1.2 TECHNOLOGY DATABASE
In an effort to document and further assess the performance of various technologies and operational measures designed to
minimize the impacts of cooling water withdrawals, EPA compiled a database of documents to allow analyses of the efficacy
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
of a specific technology or suite of technologies. The data collected and entered into this database came from materials
ranging from brief journal articles to the more intensive analyses found in historical section 316(b) demonstration reports and
technology evaluations. In preparing this database, EPA assembled as much documentation as possible within the available
timeframe to support future Agency decisions. It should be noted that the data may be of varying quality. EPA did not
validate all database entries. However, EPA did evaluate the general quality and thoroughness of the study. Information
entered into the database includes some notation of the limitations the individual studies might have for use in further
analyses (e.g., no biological data or conclusions).
EPA's intent in assembling this information was fourfold. First, the Agency sought to develop a categorized database
containing a comprehensive collection of available literature regarding technology performance. The database is intended to
allow, to the extent possible, a rigorous compilation of data supporting the determination that the proposed performance
standards are considered best technology available. Second, EPA used the data to demonstrate that the technologies chosen
as compliance technologies for costing purposes are reasonable and can meet the performance standards. Third, the
availability of a user-friendly database will allow EPA, state permit writers, and the public to more easily evaluate potential
compliance options and facility compliance with performance standards. Fourth, EPA attempted to evaluate the technology
efficacy data against objective criteria to assess the general quality and thoroughness of each study. This evaluation might
assist in further analysis of conclusions made using the data.
Basic information from each document was recorded in the database (e.g., type of technology evaluated, facility at which it
was tested). In addition to basic document information, the database contains two types of information: (1) general facility
information and (2) detailed study information.
For those documents that refer to a specific facility (or facilities), basic technical information was included to enable EPA to
classify facilities according to general categories. EPA collected locational data (e.g., waterbody type, name, state), as well
as basic cooling water intake structure configuration information. Each technology evaluated in the study is also recorded,
along with specific details regarding its design and operation. Major categories of technologies include modified traveling
screens, wedgewire screens, fine-mesh screens, velocity caps, barrier nets, and behavioral barriers. (Data identifying the
technologies present at a facility, as well as the configuration of the intake structure, refer to the configuration when the study
was conducted and do not necessarily reflect the present facility configuration.)
Information on the type of study, along with any study results, is recorded in the second part of the database. EPA identifies
whether the study evaluates the technology with respect to impingement mortality reduction (or avoidance), entrainment
survival, or entrainment exclusion (or avoidance). Some studies address more than one area of concern, and that is noted.
EPA records basic biological data used to evaluate the technology, if such data are provided. These data include target or
commercially/recreationally valuable species, species type, life history stage, size, sample size, and raw numbers of impinged
and/or entrained organisms. Finally, EPA records any overall conclusions reached by the study, usually presented as a
percentage reduction or increase, depending on the area of focus. Including this information for each document allows EPA
and others to readily locate and compare documents addressing similar technologies. Each document is reviewed according
to five areas of data quality where possible: (1) applicability and utility, (2) soundness, (3) clarity and completeness, (4)
uncertainty and variability, and (5) evaluation and review. Because the compiled literature comes from many different
sources and was developed under widely varying standards, EPA reviewed all documents in the database against all five
criteria.
To date, EPA has collected 153 documents for inclusion in the database. The Agency did not exclude from the database any
document that addressed technology performance in relation to impingement and entrainment, regardless of the overall
quality of the data.
1.3 DATA LIMITATIONS
Because EPA did not undertake a systematic data collection effort with consistent data collection procedures, there is
significant variability in the information available from different data sources. This variability leads to the following data
limitations:
• Some facility data include all the major species and associated life stages present at an individual facility, whereas
others include only data for selected species and/or life stages. The identification of important species can be a valid
method for determining the overall effectiveness of a technology if the criteria used for selection are valid. In some
studies, target species are identified but no reason for their selection is given.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
• Many of the data were collected in the 1970s and early 1980s when existing facilities were required to complete
their initial 316(b) demonstrations. In addition, the focus of these studies was not the effectiveness of a particular
technology but rather the overall performance of a facility in terms of rates of impingement and entrainment.
• Some facility data includes only initial survival results, whereas other facilities have 48- to 96-hour survival data.
These longer-term survival data are relevant because some technologies can exhibit significant latent mortality after
initial survival.
• Analytical methods and collection procedures, including quality assurance/quality control protocols, are not always
present or discussed in summary documentation. Where possible, EPA has reviewed study methods and parameters
to determine qualifications, if any, that must be applied to the final results.
• Some data come from laboratory and pilot-scale testing rather than full-scale evaluations. Laboratory studies offer
unique opportunities to control and alter the various inputs to the study but might not be able to mimic the real-world
variables that could be present at an actual site. Although EPA recognizes the value of laboratory studies and does
not discount their results, in situ evaluations remain the preferred method for gauging the effectiveness of a
technology.
• Survival rates calculated in individual studies can vary as to their true meaning. In some instances, the survival
rate for a given species (initial or latent) has been corrected to account for the mortality rate observed in a control
group. Other studies explicitly note that no control groups have been used. These data are important because overall
mortality, especially for younger and more fragile species, can be adversely affected by the collection and
observation process-factors that would not affect mortality under unobserved conditions.
EPA recognizes that the practicality or effectiveness of alternative technologies might not be uniform under all conditions.
The chemical and physical nature of the waterbody, facility intake requirements, climatic conditions, and biology of the area
all affect feasibility and performance. Despite the above limitations, however, EPA has concluded that significant general
performance expectations can be inferred for the range of technologies and that one or more technologies (or groups of
technologies) can provide significant impingement and/or entrainment protection at most sites. In addition, in EPA's view
many of the technologies have the potential for even greater applicability and higher performance when facilities optimize
their use.
The remainder of this chapter is organized by groups of technologies. A brief description of conventional, once-through
traveling screens is provided for comparison purposes. Fact sheets describing each technology, available performance data,
and design requirements and limitations are provided in Attachment A. It is important to note that this chapter does not
provide descriptions of all potential cooling water intake structure (CWIS) technologies. (ASCE 1982 generally provides
such an all-inclusive discussion.) Instead, EPA has focused on those technologies that have shown significant promise at the
laboratory, pilot-scale, or full-scale levels in consistently minimizing impingement and/or entrainment. In addition, this
chapter does not identify every facility where alternative technologies have been used but rather only those where some
measure of performance in comparison to conventional screens has been made. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion
of how the location of intakes (as well as the timing of water withdrawals) can also be used to limit potential impingement
and/or entrainment effects. Habitat restoration projects are an additional means to comply with this rule. Such projects,
however, have not had widespread application at existing facilities. Because the nature, feasibility, and likely effectiveness of
such projects would be highly site-specific, EPA has not attempted to quantify their expected performance level in this
document.
1.4 CONVENTIONAL TRAVELING SCREENS
For impingement control technologies, performance is compared to conventional (unmodified) traveling screens, the baseline
technology. These screens are the most commonly used intake technology at older existing facilities, and their operational
performance is well established. In general, these technologies are designed to prevent debris from entering the cooling water
system, not to minimize I&E. The most common intake designs include front-end trash racks (usually consisting of fixed
bars) to prevent large debris from entering the system. The traveling screens are equipped with screen panels mounted on an
endless belt that rotates through the water vertically. Most conventional screens have 3/8-inch mesh that prevents smaller
debris from clogging the condenser tubes. The screen wash is typically high-pressure (80 to 120 pounds per square inch
[psi]). Screens are rotated and washed intermittently, and fish that are impinged often die because they are trapped on the
stationary screens for extended periods. The high-pressure wash also frequently kills fish, or they are re-impinged on the
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
screens. Approximately 89 percent of all existing facilities within the scope of this rule use conventional traveling screens.
1.5 CLOSED-CYCLE WET COOLING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Although flow reduction serves the purpose of reducing both impingement and entrainment, flow reduction requirements
function foremost as a reliable entrainment reduction technology. Throughout this chapter, EPA compares the performance
of entrainment-reducing technologies to that of recirculating wet cooling towers. To evaluate the feasibility of regulatory
options with flow reduction requirements and to allow comparison of costs and benefits of alternatives, EPA determined the
likely range in flow reductions between wet, closed-cycle cooling systems and once through systems. In closed-cycle
systems, certain chemicals will concentrate as they continue to be recirculated through the tower. Excess buildup of such
chemicals, especially total dissolved solids, affects the tower's performance. Therefore, some water (blowdown) must be
discharged and make-up water added periodically to the system. An additional question that EPA has considered is the
feasibility of constructing salt-water make-up cooling towers. For the development of the New Facility 316(b) rule, EPA
contacted Marley Cooling Tower (Marley), which is one of the largest cooling tower manufacturers in the world. Marley
provided a list of facilities (Marley 2001) that have installed cooling towers that use marine or otherwise high total dissolved
solids/brackish make-up water. It is important to recognize the facilities listed represent only a selected group of facilities for
which Marley has constructed cooling towers worldwide.
2.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
2.1 MODIFIED TRAVELING SCREENS AND FISH HANDLING AND RETURN SYSTEMS
Technology Overview
Conventional traveling screens can be modified so that fish impinged on the screens can be removed with minimal stress and
mortality. Ristroph screens have water-filled lifting buckets that collect the impinged organisms and transport them to a fish
return system. The buckets are designed such that they will hold approximately 2 inches of water once they have cleared the
surface of the water during the normal rotation of the traveling screens. The fish bucket holds the fish in water until the
screen rises to a point at which the fish are spilled onto a bypass, trough, or other protected area (Mussalli, Taft, and Hoffman
1978). Fish baskets are another modification of a conventional traveling screen and may be used in conjunction with fish
buckets. Fish baskets are separate framed screen panels attached to vertical traveling screens. An essential feature of
modified traveling screens is continuous operation during periods when fish are being impinged. Conventional traveling
screens typically operate intermittently. (EPRI 2000, 1989; Fritz 1980). Removed fish are typically returned to the source
waterbody by sluiceway or pipeline. ASCE (1982) provides guidance on the design and operation offish return systems.
Technology Performance
A wide range of facilities nationwide have used modified screens and fish handling and return systems to minimize
impingement mortality. Although many factors influence the overall performance of a given technology, modified screens
with a fish return capability have been deployed with success under varying waterbody conditions. In recent years, some
researchers, primarily Fletcher (1996), have evaluated the factors that affect the success of these systems and described how
they can be optimized for specific applications. Fletcher cited the following as key design factors:
• Shaping fish buckets or baskets to minimize hydrodynamic turbulence within the bucket or basket.
• Using smooth-woven screen mesh to minimize fish descaling.
• Using fish rails to keep fish from escaping the buckets or baskets.
• Performing fish removal prior to high-pressure washing for debris removal.
• Optimizing the location of spray systems to provide a more gentle fish transfer to sloughs.
• Ensuring proper sizing and design of return troughs, sluiceways, and pipes to minimize harm.
2.1.1 EXAMPLE STUDIES
Salem Generating Station
Salem Generating Station, on the Delaware Bay estuary in New Jersey, converted 6 of its 12 conventional traveling screen
assemblies to a modified design that incorporated improved fish buckets constructed of a lighter composite material (which
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
improved screen rotation efficiency), smooth-woven mesh material, an improved spray wash system (both low- and high-
pressure), and flap seals to improve the delivery of impinged fish from the fish buckets to the fish return trough.
The initial study period consisted of 19 separate collection events during mid-summer 1996. The configuration of the facility
at the time of the study (half of the screens had been modified) allowed for a direct comparison of the effectiveness of the
modified and unmodified screens on impingement mortality rates. The limited sampling timeframe enabled the analysis of
only the species present in numbers sufficient to support any statistical conclusions. 1,082 juvenile weakfish were collected
from the unmodified screens while 1,559 were collected from the modified structure. Analysts held each sample group
separately for 48 hours to assess overall mortality due to impingement on the screens. Results showed that use of the
modified screens had increased overall survival by as much as 20 percent over the use of the unmodified screens.
Approximately 58 percent of the weakfish impinged on the unmodified screens survived, whereas the new screens had a
survival rate approaching 80 percent. Both rates were based on 48-hour survival and not adjusted for the mortality of control
samples.
Water temperature and fish length are two independent factors cited in the study as affecting overall survival. Researchers
noted that survival rates decreased somewhat as the water temperature increased, possibly as a result of lower levels of
dissolved oxygen. Survival rates decreased to a low of 56 percent for the modified screens when the water temperature
reached its maximum of SOT. At the same temperature, the survival rate on the unmodified screens were 35 percent.
Differences in survival rates were also attributable to the size of the fish impinged. In general, small fish (< 50 mm) fared
better on both the modified and unmodified screens than large fish (> 50 mm). The survival rates of the two size categories
did not differ significantly for the modified screens (85 percent survival for small, 82 percent for large), although a more
pronounced difference was evident on the unmodified screens (74 percent survival for small, 58 percent for large).
Salem Generating Station conducted a second series of impingement sampling from 1997 to 1998. By that time all screen
assemblies had been modified to include fish buckets and a fish return system as described above. Additional modifications
to the system sought to enhance the chances of survival of fish impinged against the screens. One modification altered the
fish return slide to reduce the stress on fish being delivered to the collection pool. Flap seals were improved to better seal
gaps between the fish return and debris trough, thus preventing debris from affecting returning fish. Researchers used a
smaller mesh screen in the collection pools during the 1997-1998 sampling events than had been used during the 1995
studies. The study notes that the larger mesh used in 1995 might have enabled smaller fish to escape the collection pool.
Since smaller fish typically have a higher mortality rate due to physical stress than larger fish, the actual mortality rates may
have been greater than those found in the 1995 study.
The second impingement survival study analyzed samples collected from October through December 1997 and April through
September 1998. Samples were collected twice per week and analyzed for survival at 24- and 48-hour intervals. Six
principal species were identified as constituting the majority of the impinged fish during the sampling periods: weakfish,
white perch, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, andAlosa spp. Fish were sorted by species and size, classified by their
condition, and placed in holding tanks.
For most species, survival rates varied noticeably depending on the season. For white perch, survival was above 90 percent
throughout the sample period (as high as 98 percent in December). Survival rates for weakfish varied from a low of 18
percent in July to a high of 88 percent in September. Although the number of weakfish collected in September was
approximately one-fifth of the number collected in July, a possible explanation for the variation in survival rates is the
modifications to the collection system described above, which were implemented during the study period. Similarly, bay
anchovy fared worst during the warmer months, dropping to a 20 percent survival rate in July while achieving a 72 percent
rate during November. Rates for Atlantic croaker varied from 58 percent in April to 98 percent in November. Spot were
collected in only one month (November) and had a survival rate of 93 percent. The survival rate for thsAlosa spp. (alewife,
blueback herring, and American shad) remained relatively consistent, ranging from 82 percent in April to 78 percent in
November.
For all species in the study, with the exception of weakfish, survival rates improved markedly with the use of the modified
screen system when compared to data from 1978-1982, when the unmodified system was still in use.
Mystic Station
Mystic Station, on the Mystic River in Massachusetts, converted one of its two conventional traveling screen assemblies to a
modified system incorporating fish collection buckets and a return system in 1981 to enable a side-by-side comparison of
impingement survival. Fish buckets were attached to each of the screen panels. Low-pressure spray (10 psi) nozzles were
installed to remove fish from the buckets and into the collection trough. The screen system was modified to include a two-
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
speed motor with a four-speed transmission to enable various rotation speeds for the traveling screens.
The goal of the study was to determine the optimal screen rotation speed and rotation interval that could achieve the greatest
survival rate without affecting the screen performance. The study analyzes 2-, 4- and 8-hour rotation intervals as well as
continuous rotation. Samples were collected from October 7, 1980 to April 27, 1981. Fish collected from the screens were
sorted several times per week, classified, and placed into holding tanks for 96 hours to observe latent mortality.
Results from the study indicated that impingement of the various species was highly seasonal in nature. Data from Unit 7
during the sample period indicate that in terms of both biomass and raw numbers, the majority of fish are present in the
vicinity, and thus susceptible to impingement, during the fall and early winter. Almost 50 percent of i\\& Alosa spp. were
collected during one week in November, while 75 percent of the smelt were collected in a 5-week period in late fall.
Likewise, nearly 60 percent of the winter flounder were collected in January. These data suggest that optimal rotation speeds
and intervals, whatever they might be, might not be necessary throughout the year.
Continuous rotation of the screens, regardless of speed, resulted in a virtual elimination of impingement mortality for winter
flounder. For all other species, survival generally increased with screen speed and rotation interval, with the best 96-hour
survival rate (50 percent) occurring at a continuous rotation at 15 ft/sec. The overall survival rate is affected by the high
latent mortality ofAlosa spp. in the sample. The study speculates that the overall survival rates would be markedly higher
under actual (unobserved) operating conditions, given the high initial survival for large Alosa spp. Fragile species such as
Alosa can be adversely affected by the stresses of collection and monitoring and might exhibit an abnormally higher mortality
rate as a result.
Indian Point Unit 2
Indian Point is located on the eastern shore of the Hudson River in New York. In 1985, the facility modified the intake for
Unit 2 to include a fish lifting trough fitted to the face of the screen panels. Two low-pressure (10 psi) spray nozzles removed
collected fish into a separate fish return sluiceway. A high-pressure spray flushed other debris into a debris trough. The new
screen also incorporated a variable speed transmission, enabling the rotation of the screen panels at speeds of up to 20 ft/min.
For the study period, screens were continuously rotated at a speed of 10 ft/min.
The sampling period lasted from August 15, 1985 to December 7, 1985. Fish were collected from both the fish trough and
the debris trough, though survival rates are presented for the fish collected from the fish trough only. The number of fish
collected from the debris trough was approximately 45 percent of the total collected from the fish trough; the survival rate of
these fish is unknown. Control groups were not used to monitor the mortality associated with natural environmental factors
such as salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Collected fish were held in observation tanks for 96 hours to determine a
latent survival rate.
White perch composed the majority (71 percent) of the overall sample population. Survival rates ranged from 63 percent in
November to 90 percent in August. It should be noted that during the month with the greatest abundance (December), the
survival rate was 67 percent. This generally represents the overall survival rate for this species because 75 percent of white
perch collected during the sample period were collected during December. Weakfish were the next most abundant species,
with an overall survival rate of 94 percent. A statistically significant number of weakfish were collected only during the
month of August. Atlantic tomcod and blueback herring were reported to have survival rates of 73 percent and 65 percent,
respectively. Additional species present in small numbers had widely varying survival rates, from a low of 27 percent for
alewife to a high of over 95 percent for bluegill and hogchoker.
A facility-wide performance level is not presented for Indian Point, but a general inference can be obtained from the survival
rates of the predominant species. A concern is raised, however, by the exclusion offish collected from the debris trough.
Their significant number might affect the overall mortality of each species. Because the fish in the debris trough have been
subjected to high-pressure spray washes as well as any large debris removed from the screens, mortality rates for these fish
are likely to be higher, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of the technology as deployed. The experiences of other
facilities suggest that modifications to the system might be able to increase the efficiency of moving impinged fish to the fish
trough. In general, species survival appeared greater during late summer than in early winter. Samples were collected during
one 5-month period. It is not known from the study how the technology would perform in other seasons.
Roseton Generating Station
Roseton Generating Station is located on the eastern shore of the Hudson River in New York. In 1990, the facility replaced
two of eight conventional traveling screens with dual-flow screens that included water-retaining fish buckets, a low-pressure
(10 psi) spray system, smooth-woven mesh screen panels, and a separate fish return trough. The dual-flow screens were also
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
equipped with variable speed motors to achieve faster rotational speeds. For the study period, screens were continuously
rotated at a speed of 10.2 ft/minute.
Impingement samples were collected during two periods in 1990: May 9 to August 30 and September 30 to November 29. A
total of 529 paired samples were collected for the first period and 246 paired samples for the second period. Initial mortality
was recorded at the Roseton facility. Collected samples were not held on site but rather transported to the fish laboratory at
Danskammer Point, where they were observed for latent mortality. Latent mortality observations were made at 48- and 96-
hour intervals. A control study using a mark-recapture method was conducted simultaneously to measure the influence, if
any, that water quality factors and collection and handling procedures might have had on overall mortality rates. Based on
the results of this study, the post-impingement survival rates did not need to be adjusted for a deviation from the control
mortality.
Blueback herring, bay anchovy, American shad, and alewife composed the majority of the sample population in both
sampling periods. Latent survival rates ranged from 0 percent to 6 percent during the summer and were somewhat worse
during the fall. The other two predominant species, white perch and striped bass, fared better, having survival rates as high as
53 percent. Other species that composed less than 2 percent of the sample population survived at considerably higher rates
(98 percent for hogchoker).
It is unclear why the more fragile species (alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and bay anchovy) had such high
mortality rates. The study notes that debris had been collecting in the fish return trough and was disrupting the flow of water
and fish to the collection tanks. Water flow was increased through the trough to prevent accumulation of debris. No
information is presented to indicate the effect of this modification. Also noted is the effect of temperature on initial survival.
An overall initial survival rate of 90 percent was achieved when the ambient water temperature was 54°F. Survival rates
decreased markedly as water temperature increased, and the lowest initial survival rate (6 percent) was recorded at the highest
temperature.
Surry Power Station
Surry Power Station is located on the James River in Virginia. Each of the two units has 3/8-inch mesh Ristroph screens with
a fish return trough. A combined spray system removes impinged organisms and debris from the screens. Spray nozzle
pressures range from 15 to 20 psi. During the first several months of testing, the system was modified to improve fish
transfer to the sluiceway and increase the likelihood of post-impingement survival. A flap seal was added to prevent fish
from falling between the screen and return trough during screen washing. Water volume in the return trough was increased to
facilitate the transfer of fish to the river, and a velocity-reduction system was added to the trough to reduce the speed of water
and fish entering the sample collecting pools.
Samples were collected daily during a 6-month period from May to November 1975. Initial mortality was observed and
recorded after a 15-minute period during which the water and fish in the collection pools were allowed to settle. The average
survival rate for the 58 different species collected was 93 percent, although how this average was calculated was not noted.
Bay anchovy and the Alosa spp. constituted the majority of the sample population and generally had the lowest initial
survival rates at 83 percent. The study does not indicate whether control samples were used and whether mortality rates were
adjusted accordingly. A noticeable deficiency of the study is the lack of latent mortality analysis. Consideration of latent
mortality, which could be high for the fragile species typically impinged at Surry Power Station, might significantly reduce
the overall impingement survival rate.
Arthur Kill Station
The Arthur Kill Station is located on the Arthur Kill estuary in New York. To fulfill the terms of a consent order,
Consolidated Edison modified two of the station's dual-flow intake screens to include smooth mesh panels, fish-retention
buckets, flap seals to prevent fish from falling between screen panels, a low-pressure spray wash system (10 psi), and a
separate fish return sluiceway. One of the modified screens had mesh of 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch while the other had 1/4-inch by
1/2-inch while the six unmodified screens all had 1/8-inch by 1/8-inch mesh. Screens were continuously rotated at 20 ft/min
during the sampling events.
The sampling period lasted from September 1991 to September 1992. Weekly samples were collected simultaneously from
all screens, with the exception of 2 weeks when the facility was shut down. Each screen sample was held separately in a
collection tank where initial mortality was observed. A 24-hour survival rate was calculated based on the percentage offish
alive after 24 hours versus the total number collected. Because a control study was not performed, final survival rates have
not been adjusted for any water quality or collection factors. The study did not evaluate latent survival beyond the 24-hour
period.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Atlantic herring, blueback herring and bay anchovy typically composed the majority (> 90 percent) of impinged species
during the course of the study period. Bay anchovy alone accounted for more than 72 percent of the sample population.
Overall performance numbers for the modified screens are greatly influenced by the survival rates for these three species. In
general, the unmodified screens demonstrated a substantially lower impingement survival rate when compared to the modified
screens. The average 24-hour survival for fish impinged on the unmodified screens was 15 percent. Fish impinged on the
larger mesh (1/4") and smaller mesh (1/8") modified screens had survival average 24-hour survival rates of 92 percent and 79
percent, respectively. Most species with low survival rates on the unmodified screens showed a marked improvement on the
modified screens. Bay anchovy showed a 24-hour survival rate increase from 1 percent on the unmodified screens to 50
percent on the modified screens.
The study period at the Arthur Kill station offered a unique opportunity to conduct a side-by-side evaluation of modified and
unmodified intake structures. The results for 24-hour post-impingement survival clearly show a marked improvement for all
species that had fared poorly on the conventional screens. The study notes that lower survival rates for fragile species such as
Atlantic herring might have been adversely affected by the collection tanks and protocols. Larger holding tanks appeared to
improve the survival of these species, suggesting that the reported survival rates may underrepresent the rate that would be
achieved under normal (unobserved) conditions, though by how much is unclear.
Dunkirk Steam Station
Dunkirk Steam Station is located on the southern shore of Lake Erie in New York. In 1998 a modified dual-flow traveling
screen system was installed on Unit 1 for an impingement mortality reduction study. The new system incorporated an
improved fish bucket design to minimize turbulence caused by flow through the screen face, as well as a nose cone on the
upstream wall of the screen assembly. The nose cone was installed to reduce the flow and velocity variations that had been
observed across the screen face.
Samples were collected during the winter months of 1998/1999 and evaluated for 24-hour survival. Four species (emerald
shiner, juvenile gizzard shad, rainbow smelt, and spottail shiner) compose nearly 95 percent of the sample population during
this period. All species exhibited high 24-hour survival rates; rainbow smelt fared worst at 83 percent. The other three
species had survival rates of better than 94 percent. Other species were collected during the sampling period but were not
present in numbers significant enough to warrant a statistical analysis.
The results presented above represent one season of impingement sampling. Species not in abundance during cooler months
might be affected differently by the intake structure. Sampling continued beyond the winter months, but EPA has not yet
been reviewed by EPA.
Kintigh Station
Kintigh Station is located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in New York. The facility operates an offshore intake in the
lake with traveling screens and a fiberglass fish return trough. Fish are removed from the screens and deposited in the return
trough by a low-pressure spray wash (10 psi). It is noted that the facility also operates with an offshore velocity cap. This
does not directly affect the survival rate of fish impinged against the screen but might alter the distribution of species subject
to impingement on the screen.
Samples were collected seasonally and held for observation at multiple intervals up to 96 hours. Most species exhibited a
high variability in their rate of survival depending on the season. Rainbow smelt had a 96-hour survival rate of 95 percent in
the spring and a 22 percent rate in the fall. (The rate was 1.5 percent in summer but the number of samples was small.)
Alewife composed the largest number among the species in the sample population. Survival rates were generally poor (0
percent to 19 percent) for spring and summer sampling before the system was modified 1989. After the screen assembly had
been modified to minimize stress associated with removal from the screen and return to the waterbody, alewife survival rates
increased to 45 percent. Survival rates were not adjusted for possible influence from handling and observation stresses
because no control study was performed.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is located on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. The facility used to
have conventional traveling screens on its intake screen assemblies. Screens were rotated for 10 minutes every hour or when
triggered by a set pressure differential across the screen surface. A spray wash system removed impinged fish and debris into
a discharge trough. The original screens have since been converted to a dual-flow design. The data discussed in the 1975-
1981 study period are related to the older conventional screen systems.
Sampling periods were determined to account for the varying conditions that might exist due to tides and time of day.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Impingement and survival rates were estimated monthly based on the number and weights of the individual species in the
sample collection. No control studies accompanied the impingement survival evaluation although total impingement data and
estimated mortalities were provided for comparative purposes. Latent survival rates were not evaluated for this study; only
initial survival was included.
Five species typically constituted over 90 percent of the sample population in the study years. Spot, Atlantic menhaden,
Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, and hogchoker had composite initial survival rates of 84, 52, 54, 68 and 99 percent,
respectively. Other species generally had survival rates greater than 75 percent, but these data are less significant to the
facility-wide survival rate given their low percentage of the overall sample population (< 8 percent). Overall, the facility
showed an initial survival rate of 73 percent for all species.
It is notable that the volume of impingement data collected by Calvert Cliffs NPP (over 21 years) has enabled the facility to
anticipate possible large impingement events by monitoring fluctuations in the thermal and salinity stratification of the
surrounding portion of the Chesapeake Bay. When possible, operational changes during these periods (typically mid to late
summer) might allow the facility to reduce cooling water intake volume, thereby reducing the potential for impingement
losses. The facility has also studied ways to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen levels in the intake canal to assist fish
viability and better enable post-impingement survival and escape.
Huntley Steam Station
Huntley Steam Station is located on the Niagara River in New York. The facility recently replaced four older conventional
traveling screens with modified Ristroph screens on Units 67 and 68. The modified screens are fitted with smoothly woven
coarse mesh panels on a rotating belt. A fish collection basket is attached to the screen face of each screen panel. Bucket
contents are removed by low-pressure spray nozzles into a fish return trough. High-pressure sprays remove remaining fish
and debris into a separate debris trough. The study does not contain the rotation interval of the screen or the screen speed at
the time of the study.
Samples were collected over five nights in January 1999 from the modified-screen fish return troughs. All collected fish were
sorted according to initial mortality. Four targeted species (rainbow smelt, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, and alewife) were
sorted according to species and size and held to evaluate 24-hour survival rates. Together, the target species accounted for
less than 50 percent of all fish impinged on the screens. (An additional 6,364 fish were not held for latent survival
evaluation.) Of the target species, rainbow smelt and emerald shiners composed the greatest percentage with 57 and 37
percent, respectively.
Overall, the 24-hour survival rate for rainbow smelt was 84 percent; some variation was evident for juveniles (74 percent) and
adults (94 percent). Emerald shiner were present in the same general life stage and had a 24-hour survival rate of 98 percent.
Gizzard shad, both juvenile and adult, fared poorly, with an overall survival of 5 percent for juveniles and 0 percent for
adults. Alewife were not present in large numbers (n = 30) and had an overall survival rate of 0 percent.
The study notes the low survival rates for alewife and gizzard shad and posits the low water temperature as the principal
factor. At the Huntley facility, both species are near the northern extreme of their natural ranges and are more susceptible to
stresses associated with extremes in water conditions. The water temperatures at the time of collection were among the
coldest of the year. Laboratory evaluations conducted on these species at the same temperatures showed high degrees of
impairment that would likely adversely affect post-impingement survival. A control evaluation was performed to determine
whether mortality rates from the screens would need to be adjusted for waterbody or collection and handling factors. No
discrepancies were observed, and therefore no corrections were made to the final results. Also of note in the study is the
inclusion of a spray wash collection efficiency evaluation. The spray wash and fish return system were evaluated to
determine the proportion of impinged fish that were removed from the buckets and deposited in the fish trough instead of the
debris trough. All species had suitable removal efficiencies.
2.1.2 SUMMARY
Studies conducted at steam electric power generating facilities over the past three decades have built a sizable record
demonstrating the performance potential for modified traveling screens that include some form of fish return. Comprehensive
studies, such as those cited above, have shown that modified screens can achieve an increase in the post-impingement
survival of aquatic organisms that come under the influence of cooling water intake structures. Hardier species, as might be
expected, have exhibited survival rates as high as 100 percent. More fragile species, which are typically smaller and more
numerous in the source waterbody, understandably have lower survival rates. Data indicates, however, that with fine tuning,
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
modified screen systems can increase survival rates for even the most susceptible species and bring them closer to the
performance standards established under the final rule.
2.2 CYLINDRICAL WEDGEWIRE SCREENS
Technology Overview
Wedgewire screens are designed to reduce entrainment and impingement by physical exclusion and by exploitation of
hydrodynamics and the natural flushing action of currents present in the source waterbody. Physical exclusion occurs when
the mesh size of the screen is smaller than the organisms susceptible to entrainment. Screen mesh sizes range from 0.5 to 10
mm, with the most common slot sizes in the 1.0 to 2.0 mm range. Hydrodynamic exclusion results from maintenance of a
low through-slot velocity, which, because of the screen's cylindrical configuration, is quickly dissipated. This allows
organisms to escape the flow field (Weisberd et al. 1984). The name of these screens arises from the triangular or wedge-
shaped cross section of the wire that makes up the screen. The screen is composed of wedgewire loops welded at the apex of
their triangular cross section to supporting axial rods presenting the base of the cross section to the incoming flow (Pagano et
al. 1977). Wedgewire screens are also referred to as profile screens, Johnson screens, or "vee wire".
General understanding of the efficacy of cylindrical wedgewire screens holds that in order to achieve the optimal reduction in
impingement and entrainment, certain conditions must be met. First, the slot size must be small enough to physically prevent
the entrainment of the organisms identified as warranting protection. Larger slot sizes might be feasible in areas where eggs,
larvae, and some classes of juveniles are not present in significant numbers. Second, a low through-slot velocity must be
maintained to minimize the hydraulic zone of influence surrounding the screen assembly. A general rule of thumb holds that
a lower through-slot velocity, when combined with other optimal factors, will achieve significant reductions in entrainment
and impingement. Third, a sufficient ambient current must be present in the source waterbody to aid organisms in bypassing
the structure and to remove other debris from the screen face. A constant current also aids the automated cleaning systems
that are now common to cylindrical wedgewire screen assemblies.
2.2.1 EXAMPLE STUDIES
Laboratory Evaluation (EPRI2003)
EPRI recently published (May 2003) the results of a laboratory evaluation of wedgewire screens under controlled conditions
in the Alden Research Laboratory Fish Testing Facility. A principal aim of the study was to identify the important factors
that influence the relative rates of impingement and entrainment associated with wedgewire screens. The study evaluated
characteristics such as slot size, through-slot velocity, and the velocity of ambient currents that could best carry organisms
and debris past the screen. When each of the characteristics was optimized, wedgewire screen use became increasingly
effective as an impingement reduction technology; in certain circumstances it could be used to reduce the entrainment of eggs
and larvae. EPRI notes that large reductions in impingement and entrainment might occur even when all characteristics are
not optimized. Localized conditions unique to a particular facility, which were not represented in laboratory testing, might
also enable successful deployment. The study cautions that the available data are not sufficient to determine the biological
and engineering factors that would need to be optimized, and in what manner, for future applications of wedgewire screens.
Slot sizes of 0.5, 1.0, and2.0 mm were each evaluated at two different through-slot velocities (0.15 and 0.30 m/s) and three
different channel velocities (0.08, 0.15, and 0.30 m/s) to determine the impingement and entrainment rates offish eggs and
larvae. Screen porosities increase from 24.7 percent for the 0.5 mm screens to 56.8 percent for 2.0 mm screens. The study
evaluated eight species (striped bass, winter flounder, yellow perch, rainbow smelt, common carp, white sucker, alewife, and
bluegill) because of their presence in a variety of waterbody types and their history of entrainment and impingement at many
facilities. Larvae were studied for all species except alewife, while eggs were studied for striped bass, white sucker, and
alewife. (Surrogate, or artificial, eggs of a similar size and buoyancy substituted for live striped bass eggs.)
Individual tests followed a rigorous protocol to count and label all fish eggs and larvae prior to their introduction into the
testing facility. Approach and through-screen velocities in the flume were verified, and the collection nets used to recapture
organisms that bypassed the structure or were entrained were cleaned and secured. Fish and eggs were released at a point
upstream of the wedgewire screen selected to deliver the organisms at the centerline of the screens, which maximized the
exposure of the eggs and larvae to the influence of the screen The number of entrained organisms was estimated by counting
all eggs and larvae captured on the entrainment collection net. Impinged organisms were counted by way of a plexiglass
window and video camera setup.
4-10
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
In addition to the evaluations conducted with biological samples, Alden Laboratories developed a Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) model to evaluate the hydrodynamic characteristics associated with wedgewire screens. The CFD model
analyzed the effects of approach velocity and through-screen velocities on the velocity distributions around the screen
assemblies. Using the data gathered from the CFD evaluation, engineers were able to approximate the "zone of influence"
around the wedgewire screen assembly under different flow conditions and estimate any influence on flow patterns exerted by
multiple screen assemblies located in close proximity to each other.
The results of both the biological evaluation and the CFD model evaluation support many of the conclusions reached by other
wedgewire screen studies, as well as in situ anecdotal evidence. In general, the lower impingement rates were achieved with
larger slot sizes (1.0 to 2.0 mm), lower through-screen velocities, and higher channel velocities. Similarly, the lowest
entrainment rates were seen with low through-screen velocities and higher channel velocities, although the lowest entrainment
rates were achieved with smaller slot sizes (0.5 mm). Overall impingement reductions reached as high as 100 percent under
optimal conditions, and entrainment reductions approached 90 percent. It should be noted that the highest reductions for
impingement and entrainment were not achieved under the same conditions. Results from the biological evaluation generally
agree with the predictions from the CFD model: the higher channel velocities, when coupled with lower through-screen
velocities, would result in the highest rate of protection for the target organisms.
JH Campbell
JH Campbell is located on Lake Michigan in Michigan, with the intake for Unit 3 located approximately 1,000 meters from
shore at a depth of 10.7 meters. The cylindrical intake structure has 9.5-mm mesh wedgewire screens and withdraws
approximately 400 MOD. Raw impingement data are not available, and EPA is not aware of a comprehensive study
evaluating the impingement reduction associated with the wedgewire screen system. Comparative analyses using the
impingement rates at the two other intake structures (on shore intakes with conventional traveling screens) have shown that
impingement of emerald shiner, gizzard shad, smelt, yellow perch, and alewife associated with the wedgewire screen intake
has been effectively reduced to insignificant levels. Maintenance issues have not been shown to be problematic at JH
Campbell because of the far offshore location in deep water and the periodic manual cleaning using water jets to reduce
biofouling. Entrainment has not been shown to be of concern at the intake structure because of the low abundance of
entrainable organisms in the immediate vicinity of the wedgewire screens.
Eddystone Generating Station
Eddy stone Generating Station is located on the tidal portion of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. Units 1 and 2 were
retrofitted to include wide-mesh wedgewire screens and currently withdraw approximately 500 MOD from the Delaware
River. Pre-deployment data showed that over 3 million fish were impinged on the unmodified intake structures during a
single 20-month period. An automatic air burst system has been installed to prevent biofouling and debris clogging from
affecting the performance of the screens. EPA has not been able to obtain biological data for the Eddystone wedgewire
screens but EPRI indicates that fish impingement has been eliminated.
2.2.2 OTHER FACILITIES
Other plants with lower intake flows have installed wedgewire screens, but there are limited biological performance data for
these facilities. The Logan Generating Station in New Jersey withdraws 19 MGD from the Delaware River through a 1-mm
wedgewire screen. Entrainment data show 90 percent less entrainment of larvae and eggs than conventional screens. No
impingement data are available. Unit 1 at the Cope Generating Station in South Carolina is a closed-cycle unit that withdraws
about 6 MGD through a 2-mm wedgewire screen; however, no biological data are available. Performance data are also
unavailable for the Jeffrey Energy Center, which withdraws about 56 MGD through a 10-mm screen from the Kansas River in
Kansas. The system at the Jeffrey Plant has operated since 1982 with no operational difficulties. Finally, the American
Electric Power Corporation has installed wedgewire screens at the Big Sandy (2 MGD) and Mountaineer (22 MGD) facilities,
which withdraw water from the Big Sandy and Ohio rivers, respectively. Again, no biological test data are available for these
facilities.
Wedgewire screens have been considered or tested for several other large facilities. In situ testing of 1- and 2-mm wedgewire
screens was performed in the St. John River for the Seminole Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in Florida in the late 1970s.
This testing showed virtually no impingement and 99 and 62 percent reductions in larvae entrainment for the 1-mm and 2-mm
screens, respectively, over conventional screen (9.5-mm) systems. In 1982 and 1983 the State of Maryland conducted testing
1-, 2-, and 3-mm wedgewire screens at the Chalk Point Generating Station, which withdraws water from the Patuxent River in
Maryland. The 1-mm wedgewire screens were found to reduce entrainment by 80 percent. No impingement data were
available. Some biofouling and clogging were observed during the tests. In the late 1970s, Delmarva Power and Light
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
conducted laboratory testing of fine-mesh wedgewire screens for the proposed 1,540 MW Summit Power Plant. This testing
showed that entrainment offish eggs (including striped bass eggs) could effectively be prevented with slot widths of 1 mm or
less, while impingement mortality was expected to be less than 5 percent. Actual field testing in the brackish water of the
proposed intake canal required the screens to be removed and cleaned as often as once every 3 weeks.
Applicability to Large-Capacity Facilities
EPA believes that cylindrical wedgewire screens can be successfully employed by large intake facilities under certain
circumstances. Although many of the current installations of this technology have been at smaller-capacity facilities, EPA
does not believe that the increased capacity demand of a large intake facility, in and of itself, is a barrier to deployment of this
technology. Large water withdrawals can be accommodated by multiple screen assemblies in the source waterbody. The
limiting factor for a larger facility may be the availability of sufficient accessible space near the facility itself because
additional screen assemblies obviously consume more space on the waterbody floor and might interfere with navigation or
other uses of the waterbody. Consideration of the impacts in terms of space and placement must be evaluated before selecting
wedgewire screens for deployment.
Applicability in High-Debris Waterbodies
As with any intake structure, the presence of large debris poses a risk of damage to the structure if not properly managed.
Cylindrical wedgewire screens, because of their need to be submerged in the water current away from shore, might be more
susceptible to debris interaction than other onshore technologies. Vendor engineers indicated that large debris has been a
concern at several of their existing installations, but the risk associated with it has been effectively minimized by selecting the
optimal site and constructing debris diversion structures. Significant damage to a wedgewire screen is most likely to occur
from fast-moving submerged debris. Because wedgewire screens do not need to be sited in the area with the fastest current, a
less damage-prone area closer to shore or in a cove or constructed embayment can be selected, provided it maintains a
minimum ambient current around the screen assembly. If placement in the main channel is unavoidable, deflecting structures
can be employed to prevent free-floating debris from contacting the screen assembly. Typical installations of cylindrical
wedgewire place them roughly parallel to the direction of the current, exposing only the upstream nose to direct impacts with
debris traveling downstream. EPA has noted several installations where debris-deflecting nose cones have been installed to
effectively eliminate the damage risk associated with large debris.
Apart from the damage that large debris can cause, smaller debris, such as household trash or organic matter, can build up on
the screen surface, altering the through-slot velocity of the screen face and increasing the risk of entrainment and/or
impingement of target organisms. Again, selection of the optimal location in the waterbody might be able to reduce the
collection of debris on the structure. Ideally, cylindrical wedgewire is located away from areas with high submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) and out of known debris channels. Proper placement alone may achieve the desired effect, although
technological solutions also exist to physically remove small debris and silt. Automated air-burst systems can be built into
the screen assembly and set to deliver a short burst of air from inside and below the structure. Debris is removed from the
screen face by the air burst and carried downstream and away from the influence of the intake structure. Improvements to the
air burst system have eliminated the timed cleaning cycle and replaced it with one tied to a pressure differential monitoring
system.
Applicability in High Navigation Waterbodies
Wedgewire screens are more likely to be placed closer to navigation channels than other onshore technologies, thereby
increasing the possibility of damage to the structure itself or to a passing commercial ship or recreational boat. Because
cylindrical wedgewire screens need to be submerged at all times during operation, they are typically installed closer to the
waterbody floor than the surface. In a waterbody of sufficient depth, direct contact with recreational watercraft or small
commercial vessels is unlikely. EPA notes that other submerged structures (e.g., pipes, transmission lines) operate in many
different waterbodies and are properly delineated with acceptable navigational markers to prevent accidents associated with
trawling, dropping anchor, and similar activities. Such precautions would likely be taken for a submerged wedgewire screen
as well.
2.2.3 SUMMARY
Cylindrical wedgewire screens have been effectively used to mitigate impingement and, under certain conditions, entrainment
impacts at many different types of facilities over the past three decades. Although not yet widely used at steam electric power
plants, the limited data for Eddystone and Campbell indicate that wide mesh screens, in particular, can be used to minimize
impingement. Successful use of the wedgewire screens at Eddystone, as well as at Logan in the Delaware River (high debris
flows), suggests that the screens can have widespread applicability. This is especially true for facilities that have relatively
4-12
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
low intake flow requirements (closed-cycle systems). Nevertheless, the lack of more representative full-scale plant data
makes it impossible to conclusively say that wedgewire screens can be used in all environmental conditions. For example,
there are no full-scale data available specifically for marine environments where biofouling and clogging are significant
concerns. Technological advances have been made to address such concerns. Automated cleaning systems can now be built
into screen assemblies to reduce the disruptions debris buildup can cause. Likewise, vendors have been experimenting with
different screen materials and coatings to reduce the on-screen growth of vegetation and other organisms (zebra mussels).
Fine-mesh wedgewire screens (0.5 - 1 mm) also have the potential for use to control both impingement and entrainment.
EPA is not aware of the installation of any fine-mesh wedgewire screens at any power plants with high intake flows (> 100
MOD). However, such screens have been used at some power plants with lower intake flow requirements (25 to 50 MOD),
which would be comparable to a very large power plant with a closed-cycle cooling system. With the exception of Logan,
EPA has not identified any full-scale performance data for these systems. They could be even more susceptible to clogging
than wide-mesh wedgewire screens (especially in marine environments). It is unclear whether clogging would simply
necessitate more intensive maintenance or preclude their day-to-day use at many sites. Their successful application at Logan
and Cope and the historical test data from Florida, Maryland, and Delaware at least suggest promise for addressing both fish
impingement and entrainment of eggs and larvae. However, based on the fine-mesh screen experience at Big Bend Units 3
and 4, it is clear that frequent maintenance would be required. Therefore, relatively deep water sufficient to accommodate the
large number of screen units would preferably be close to shore (readily accessible). Manual cleaning needs might be
reduced or eliminated through use of an automated flushing (e.g., microburst) system.
2.3 FINE-MESH SCREENS
Technology Overview
Fine-mesh screens are typically mounted on conventional traveling screens and are used to exclude eggs, larvae, and juvenile
forms offish from intakes. These screens rely on gentle impingement of organisms on the screen surface. Successful use of
fine-mesh screens is contingent on the application of satisfactory handling and return systems to allow the safe return of
impinged organisms to the aquatic environment (Pagano et al. 1977; Sharma 1978). Fine-mesh screens generally include
those with mesh sizes of 5 mm or less.
Technology Performance
Similar to fine-mesh wedgewire screens, fine-mesh traveling screens with fish return systems show promise for control of
both impingement and entrainment. However, they have not been installed, maintained, and optimized at many facilities.
2.3.1 EXAMPLE FACILITIES
Big Bend
The most significant example of long-term use of fine-mesh screens has been at the Big Bend Power Plant in the Tampa Bay
area. The facility has an intake canal with 0.5-mm mesh Ristroph screens that are used seasonally on the intakes for Units 3
and 4. During the mid-1980s when the screens were initially installed, their efficiency in reducing I&E mortality was highly
variable. The operator, Florida Power & Light (FPL) evaluated different approach velocities and screen rotational speeds. In
addition, FPL recognized that frequent maintenance (manual cleaning) was necessary to avoid biofouling. By 1988, system
performance had improved greatly. The system's efficiency in screening fish eggs (primarily drums and bay anchovy)
exceeded 95 percent, with 80 percent latent survival for drum and 93 percent for bay anchovy. For larvae (primarily drums,
bay anchovies, blennies, and gobies), screening efficiency was 86 percent, with 65 percent latent survival for drums and 66
percent for bay anchovy. (Note that latent survival in control samples was also approximately 60 percent). Although more
recent data are generally not available, the screens continue to operate successfully at Big Bend in an estuarine environment
with proper maintenance.
2.3.2 OTHER FACILITIES
Although egg and larvae entrainment performance data are not available, fine-mesh (0.5-mm) Passavant screens (single
entry/double exit) have been used successfully in a marine environment at the Barney Davis Station in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Impingement data for this facility show an overall 86 percent initial survival rate for bay anchovy, menhaden, Atlantic
croaker, killfish, spot, silverside, and shrimp.
4-13
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Additional full-scale performance data for fine-mesh screens at large power stations are generally not available. However,
some data are available from limited use or study at several sites and from laboratory and pilot-scale tests. Seasonal use of
fine mesh on two of four screens at the Brunswick Power Plant in North Carolina has shown 84 percent reduction in
entrainment compared to the conventional screen systems. Similar results were obtained during pilot testing of 1-mm screens
at the Chalk Point Generating Station in Maryland. At the Kintigh Generating Station in New Jersey, pilot testing indicated
that 1-mm screens provided 2 to 35 times the reduction in entrainment over conventional 9.5-mm screens. Finally, Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) pilot-scale studies performed in the 1970s showed reductions in striped bass larvae entrainment of up
to 99 percent for a 0.5-mm screen and 75 and 70 percent for 0.97-mm and 1.3-mm screens, respectively. A full-scale test by
TVA at the John Sevier Plant showed less than half as many larvae entrained with a 0.5-mm screen than with 1- and 2-mm
screens combined.
2.3.3 SUMMARY
Despite the lack of full-scale data, the experiences at Big Bend (as well as Brunswick) show that fine-mesh screens can
reduce entrainment by 80 percent or more. This reduction is contingent on optimized operation and intensive maintenance to
avoid biofouling and clogging, especially in marine environments. It might also be appropriate to use removable fine mesh
that is installed only during periods of egg and larval abundance, thereby reducing the potential for clogging and wear and
tear on the systems.
2.4 FISH NET BARPJERS
Technology Overview
Fish net barriers are wide-mesh nets that are placed in front of the entrance to intake structures. The size of the mesh needed
is a function of the species present at a particular site and varies from 4 mm to 32 mm (EPRI 2000). The mesh must be sized
to prevent fish from passing through the net, which could cause them to be gilled. Relatively low velocities are maintained
because the area through which the water can flow is usually large. Fish net barriers have been used at numerous facilities
and lend themselves to intakes where the seasonal migration offish and other organisms requires fish diversion facilities at
only specific times of the year.
Technology Performance
Barrier nets can provide a high degree of impingement reduction by preventing large fish from entering the vicinity of the
intake structure. Because of typically wide openings, they do not reduce entrainment of eggs and larvae. A number of barrier
net systems have been used or studied at large power plants.
2.4.1 EXAMPLE STUDIES
JPPulliam Station
The JP Pulliam Station is located on the Fox River in Wisconsin. Two separate nets with 6-mm mesh are deployed on
opposite sides of a steel grid supporting structure. The operation of a dual net system facilitates the cleaning and maintenance
of the nets without affecting the overall performance of the system. Under normal operations, nets are rotated at least two
times per week to facilitate cleaning and repair. The nets are typically deployed when the ambient temperature of the intake
canal exceeds 37°F. This usually occurs between April 1 and December 1.
Studies undertaken during the first 2 years after deployment showed an overall net deterrence rate of 36 percent for targeted
species (noted as commercially or recreationally important, or forage species). Improvements to the system in subsequent
years consisted of a new bulkhead to ensure a better seal along the vertical edge of the net and additional riprap along the
base of the net to maintain the integrity of the seal along the bottom of the net. The improvements resulted in a deterrence
rate of 98 percent for some species; no species performed at less than 85 percent. The overall effectiveness for game species
was better than 90 percent while forage species were deterred at a rate of 97 percent or better.
JR Whiting Plant
The JR Whiting Plant is located on Maumee Bay of Lake Erie in Michigan. A 3/8-inch mesh barrier net was deployed in
1980 as part of a best technology available determination by the Michigan Water Resources Commission. Estimates of
impingement reductions were based on counts of fish impinged on the traveling screens inside the barrier net. Counts in
years after the deployment were compared to data from the year immediately prior to the installation of the net when over 17
4-14
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
million fish were impinged. Four years after deployment, annual impingement totals had fallen by 98 percent.
Bowline Point
Bowline Point is located on the Hudson River in New York. A 150-foot long, 0.95-cm mesh net has been deployed in a V-
shaped configuration around the intake pump house. The area of the river in which the intake is located has currents that are
relatively stagnant, thus limiting the stresses to which the net might be subjected. Relatively low through-net velocities (0.5
ft/s) have been maintained across a large portion of the net because of low debris loadings. Debris loads directly affecting the
net were reduced by including a debris boom outside the main net. An air bubbler was also added to the system to reduce the
buildup of ice during cold months.
The facility has attempted to evaluate the reduction in the rate of impingement by conducting various studies of the fish
populations inside and outside the barrier net. Initial data were used to compare impingement rates from before and after
deployment of the net and showed a deterrence of 91 percent for targeted species (white perch, striped bass, rainbow smelt,
alewife, blueback herring, and American shad). In 1982 a population estimate determined that approximately 230,000 striped
bass were present in the embayment outside the net area. A temporary mesh net was deployed across the embayment to
prevent fish from leaving the area. A 9-day study found that only 1.6 percent of the estimated 230,000 fish were ultimately
impinged on the traveling screens. A mark-recapture study that released individual fish inside and outside the barrier net
showed similar results, with more than 99 percent offish inside the net impinged and less than 3 percent offish outside the
net impinged. Gill net capture studies sought to estimate the relative population densities offish species inside and outside
the net. The results agreed with those of previous studies, showing that the net was maintaining a relatively low density of
fish inside the net as compared to the outside.
2.4.2 SUMMARY
Barrier nets have clearly proven effective for controlling impingement (i.e., more than 80 percent reductions over
conventional screens without nets) in areas with limited debris flows. Experience has shown that high debris flows can cause
significant damage to net systems. Biofouling can also be a concern but it can be addressed through frequent maintenance.
In addition, barrier nets are also often used only seasonally where the source waterbody is subject to freezing. Fine-mesh
barrier nets show some promise for entrainment control but would likely require even more intensive maintenance. In some
cases, the use of barrier nets might be further limited by the physical constraints and other uses of the waterbody.
2.5 AQUATIC MICROFILTRATION BARRIERS
Technology Overview
Aquatic microfiltration barrier systems are barriers that employ a filter fabric designed to allow water to pass into a cooling
water intake structure but exclude aquatic organisms. These systems are designed to be placed some distance from the
cooling water intake structure within the source waterbody and act as a filter for the water that enters the cooling water
system. These systems can be floating, flexible, or fixed. Because these systems usually have such a large surface area, the
velocities maintained at the face of the permeable curtain are very low. One company, Gunderboom, Inc., has a patented full-
water-depth filter curtain composed of polyethylene or polypropylene fabric that is suspended by flotation billets at the
surface of the water and anchored to the substrate below. The curtain fabric is manufactured as a matting of minute unwoven
fibers with an apparent opening size of 20 microns. Gunderboom systems also employ an automated "air burst" system to
periodically shake the material and pass air bubbles through the curtain system to clean off of sediment buildup and release
any other material back into the water column.
Technology Performance
EPA has determined that microfiltration barriers, including the Gunderboom, show significant promise for minimizing
entrainment. EPA acknowledges, however, that the Gunderboom technology is currently "experimental in nature." At this
juncture, the only power plant where the Gunderboom has been used at a full-scale level is the Lovett Generating Station
along the Hudson River in New York, where pilot testing began in the mid-1990s. Initial testing at that facility showed
significant potential for reducing entrainment. Entrainment reductions of up to 82 percent were observed for eggs and larvae,
and these levels were maintained for extended month-to-month periods during!999 through 2001. At Lovett, some
operational difficulties have affected long-term performance. These difficulties, including tearing, overtopping, and
plugging/clogging, have been addressed, to a large extent, through subsequent design modifications. Gunderboom, Inc.
specifically has designed and installed a microburst cleaning system to remove particulates. Each of the challenges
encountered at Lovett could be of significantly greater concern at marine sites with higher wave action and debris flows.
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Gunderboom systems have been otherwise deployed in marine conditions to prevent migration of particulates and bacteria.
They have been used successfully in areas with waves up to 5 feet. The Gunderboom system is being tested for potential use
at the Contra Costa Plant along the San Joaquin River in Northern California.
An additional question related to the utility of the Gunderboom and other microfiltration systems is sizing and the physical
limitations and other uses of the source waterbody. With a 20-micron mesh, 100,000 and 200,000 gpm intakes would require
filter systems 500 and 1,000 feet long (assuming a 20-foot depth). In some locations, this may preclude the successful
deployment of the system because of space limitations or conflicts with other waterbody uses.
2.6 LOUVER SYSTEMS
Technology Overview
Louver systems consist of series of vertical panels placed at 90 degree angles to the direction of water flow (Hadderingh
1979). The placement of the louver panels provides both changes in both the flow direction and velocity, which fish tend to
avoid. The angles and flow velocities of the louvers create a current parallel to the face of the louvers that carries fish away
from the intake and into a fish bypass system for return to the source waterbody.
Technology Performance
Louver systems can reduce impingement losses based on fishes' abilities to recognize and swim away from the barriers.
Their performance, i.e., guidance efficiency, is highly dependant on the length and swimming abilities of the resident species.
Because eggs and early stages of larvae cannot swim away, they are not affected by the diversions and there is no associated
reduction in entrainment.
Although louver systems have been tested at a number of laboratory and pilot-scale facilities, they have not been used at
many full-scale facilities. The only large power plant facility where a louver system has been used is San Onofre Units 2 and
3 (2,200 MW combined) in Southern California. The operator initially tested both louver and wide mesh, angled traveling
screens during the 1970s. Louvers were subsequently selected for full-scale use at the intakes for the two units. In 1984 a
total of 196,978 fish entered the louver system with 188,583 returned to the waterbody and 8,395 impinged. In 1985, 407,755
entered the louver system; 306,200 were returned and 101,555 impinged. Therefore, the guidance efficiencies in 1984 and
1985 were 96 and 75 percent, respectively. However, 96-hour survival rates for some species, i.e., anchovies and croakers,
was 50 percent or less. The facility has also encountered some difficulties with predator species congregating in the vicinity
of the outlet from the fish return system. Louvers were originally considered for use at San Onofre because of 1970s pilot
testing at the Redondo Beach Station in California, where maximum guidance efficiencies of 96 to 100 percent were
observed.
EPRI (2000) indicated that louver systems could provide 80-95 percent diversion efficiency for a wide variety of species
under a range of site conditions. These findings are generally consistent with the American Society of Civil Engineers'
(ASCE) findings from the late 1970s, which showed that almost all systems had diversion efficiencies exceeding 60 percent
with many more than 90 percent. As indicated above, much of the EPRI and ASCE data come from pilot/laboratory tests and
hydroelectric facilities where louver use has been more widespread than at steam electric facilities. Louvers were specifically
tested by the Northeast Utilities Service Company in the Holyoke Canal on the Connecticut River for juvenile clupeids
(American shad and blueback herring). The overall guidance efficiency was found to be 75 to 90 percent. In the 1970s
Alden Research Laboratory observed similar results for Hudson River species, including alewife and smelt. At the Tracy
Fish Collection Facility along the San Joaquin River in California, testing was performed from 1993 and 1995 to determine
the guidance efficiency of a system with primary and secondary louvers. The results for green and white sturgeon, American
shad, splittail, white catfish, delta smelt, chinook salmon, and striped bass showed mean diversion efficiencies ranging from
63 percent (splittail) to 89 percent (white catfish). Also in the 1990s, an experimental louver bypass system was tested at the
USGS Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center in Massachusetts. This testing showed guidance efficiencies for Connecticut
River species of 97 percent for a "wide array" of louvers and 100 percent for a "narrow array." Finally, at the T.W. Sullivan
Hydroelectric Plant along the Williamette River in Oregon, the louver system is estimated to be 92 percent effective in
diverting spring chinook, 82 percent for all Chinook, and 85 percent for steelhead. The system has been optimized to reduce
fish injuries such that the average injury occurrence is only 0.44 percent.
Overall, the above data indicate that louvers can be highly effective (more than 70 percent) in diverting fish from potential
impingement. Latent mortality is a concern, especially where fragile species are present. Similar to modified screens with
fish return systems, operators must optimize louver system design to minimize fish injury and mortality.
4-16
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
2.7 ANGLED AND MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS
Technology Overview
Angled traveling screens use standard through-flow traveling screens in which the screens are set at an angle to the incoming
flow. Angling the screens improves the fish protection effectiveness because the fish tend to avoid the screen face and move
toward the end of the screen line, assisted by a component of the inflow velocity. A fish bypass facility with independently
induced flow must be provided (Richards 1977). Modular inclined screens (MISs) are a specific variation on angled traveling
screens, in which each module in the intake consists of trash racks, dewatering stop logs, an inclined screen set at a 10 to 20
degree angle to the flow, and a fish bypass (EPRI1999).
Technology Performance
Angled traveling screens with fish bypass and return systems work similarly to louver systems. They also provide only
potential reductions in impingement mortality because eggs and larvae will not generally detect the factors that influence
diversion. Like louver systems, they were tested extensively at the laboratory and pilot scales, especially during the 1970s
and early 1980s. Testing of angled screens (45 degrees to the flow) in the 1970s at San Onofre showed poor to good
guidance (0 to 70 percent) for northern anchovies and moderate to good guidance (60 to 90 percent) for other species. Latent
survival varied by species: fragile species had only 25 percent survival, while hardy species showed greater than 65 percent
survival. The intake for Unit 6 at the Oswego Steam plant along Lake Ontario in New York has traveling screens angled at
25 degrees. Testing during 1981 through 1984 showed a combined diversion efficiency of 78 percent for all species, ranging
from 53 percent for mottled sculpin to 95 percent for gizzard shad. Latent survival testing results ranged from 22 percent for
alewife to nearly 94 percent for mottled sculpin.
Additional testing of angled traveling screens was performed in the late 1970s and early 1980s for power plants on Lake
Ontario and along the Hudson River. This testing showed that a screen angled at 25 degrees was 100 percent effective in
diverting 1- to 6- inch-long Lake Ontario fish. Similar results were observed for Hudson River species (striped bass, white
perch, and Atlantic tomcod). One-week mortality tests for these species showed 96 percent survival. Angled traveling
screens with a fish return system have been used on the intake from Brayton Point Unit 4. Studies that evaluated the angled
screens from 1984 through 1986 showed a diversion efficiency of 76 percent with a latent survival of 63 percent. Much
higher results were observed excluding bay anchovy.
Finally, 1981 full-scale studies of an angled screen system at the Danskammer Station along the Hudson River in New York
showed diversion efficiencies of 95 to 100 percent with a mean of 99 percent. Diversion efficiency combined with latent
survival yielded a total effectiveness of 84 percent. Species included bay anchovy, blueback herring, white perch, spottail
shiner, alewife, Atlantic tomcod, pumpkinseed, and American shad.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Alden Research Laboratories conducted a range of tests on a variety of angled screen
designs. Alden specifically performed screen diversion tests for three northeastern utilities. In initial studies for Niagara
Mohawk, diversion efficiencies were found to be nearly 100 percent for alewife and smolt. Followup tests for Niagara
Mohawk confirmed 100 percent diversion efficiency for alewife with mortalities only 4 percent higher than those in control
samples. Subsequent tests by Alden for Consolidated Edison, Inc. using striped bass, white perch, and tomcod also found
nearly 100 percent diversion efficiency with a 25 degree angled screen. The 1-week mean mortality was only 3 percent.
Alden performed further tests during 1978 to 1990 to determine the effectiveness of fine-mesh, angled screens.
In 1978, tests were performed with striped bass larvae using both 1.5- and 2.5-mm mesh and different screen materials and
approach velocity. Diversion efficiency was found to clearly be a function of larvae length. Synthetic materials were also
found to be more effective than metal screens. Subsequent testing using only synthetic materials found that 1-mm screens can
provide post larvae diversion efficiencies of greater than 80 percent. The tests found, however, that latent mortality for
diverted species was also high. Finally, EPRI tested MIS in a laboratory in the early 1990s. Most fish had diversion
efficiencies of 47 to 88 percent. Diversion efficiencies of greater than 98 percent were observed for channel catfish, golden
shiner, brown trout, Coho and Chinook salmon, trout fry and juveniles, and Atlantic salmon smolts. Lower diversion
efficiency and higher mortality were found for American shad and blueback herring, but the mortalities were comparable to
control mortalities. Based on the laboratory data, an MIS system was pilot-tested at a Niagara Mohawk hydroelectric facility
on the Hudson River. This testing showed diversion efficiencies and survival rates approaching 100 percent for golden
shiners and rainbow trout. High diversion and survival were also observed for largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow
perch, and bluegill. Lower diversion efficiency and survival were found for herring.
In October 2002, EPRI published the results of a combined louver/angled screen assembly study that evaluated the diversion
efficiencies of various configurations of the system. In 1999, fish guidance efficiency was evaluated with two bar rack
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
configurations (25- and 50-mm spacings) and one louver configuration (50-mm clearance), with each angled at 45 degrees to
the approach flow. In 2000, the same species were evaluated with the 50-mm bar racks and louvers angled at 15 degrees to
the approach flow. Diversion efficiencies were evaluated at various approach velocities ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 m/s.
Guidance efficiency was lowest, generally lower than 50 percent, for the 45 degree louver/bar rack array, with efficiencies
distributed along a bell shaped curve according to approach velocity. For the 45 degree array, diversion efficiency was best at
0.6 m/s, with most species approaching 50 percent. All species except one (lake sturgeon) experienced higher diversion
efficiencies with the louver/bar rack array set at 15 degrees to the approach flow. With the exception of lake sturgeon,
species were diverted at 70 percent or better at most approach velocities.
Similar to louvers, angled screens show potential to minimize impingement by greater than 80 to 90 percent. More
widespread full-scale use is necessary to determine optimal design specifications and verify that they can be used on a
widespread basis.
2.8 VELOCITY CAPS
Technology Description
A velocity cap is a device that is placed over a vertical inlet at an offshore intake. This cover converts vertical flow into
horizontal flow at the entrance to the intake. The device works on the premise that fish will avoid rapid changes in horizontal
flow but are less able to detect and avoid vertical velocity vectors. Velocity caps have been installed at many offshore intakes
and have usually been successful in minimizing impingement.
Technology Performance
Velocity caps can reduce the number of fish drawn into intakes based on the concept that they tend to avoid rapid changes in
horizontal flow. They do not provide reductions in entrainment of eggs and larvae, which cannot distinguish flow
characteristics. As noted in ASCE (1981), velocity caps are often used in conjunction with other fish protection devices, such
as screens with fish returns. Therefore, there are somewhat limited data on their performance when used alone. Facilities that
have velocity caps include the following:
• Oswego Steam Units 5 and 6 in New York (combined with angled screens on Unit 6).
• San Onofre Units 2 and 3 in California (combined with louver system).
• El Segundo Station in California
• Huntington Beach Station in California
• Edgewater Power Plant Unit 5 in Wisconsin (combined with 9.5-mm wedgewire screen)
• Nanticoke Power Plant in Ontario, Canada
• Nine Mile Point in New York
• Redondo Beach Station in California
• Kintigh Generation Station in New York (combined with modified traveling screens)
• Seabrook Power Plant in New Hampshire
• St. Lucie Power Plant in Florida
• Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan
At the Huntington Beach and Segundo stations in California, velocity caps have been found to provide 80 to 90 percent
reductions in fish entrapment. At Seabrook, the velocity cap on the offshore intake has minimized the number of pelagic fish
entrained except for pollock. Finally, two facilities in England each have velocity caps on one of two intakes. At the
Sizewell Power Station, intake B has a velocity cap, which reduces impingement about 50 percent compared to intake A.
Similarly, at the Dungeness Power Station, intake B has a velocity cap, which reduces impingement about by 62 percent
compared to intake A.
2.9 POROUS DIKES AND LEAKY DAMS
Technology Overview
Porous dikes, also known as leaky dams or dikes, are filters that resemble a breakwater surrounding a cooling water intake.
The core of the dike consists of cobble or gravel that permits free passage of water. The dike acts as both a physical and a
behavioral barrier to aquatic organisms. Tests conducted to date have indicated that the technology is effective in excluding
juvenile and adult fish. The major problems associated with porous dikes come from clogging by debris and silt, ice buildup,
4-18
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
and colonization by fish and plant life.
Technology Performance
Porous dike technologies work on the premise that aquatic organisms will not pass through physical barriers in front of an
intake. They also operate with low approach velocity, further increasing the potential for avoidance. They will not, however,
prevent entrainment by nonmotile larvae and eggs. Much of the research on porous dikes and leaky dams was performed in
the 1970s. This work was generally performed in a laboratory or on a pilot level, and the Agency is not aware of any full-
scale porous dike or leaky dam systems currently used at power plants in the United States. Examples of early study results
include:
• Studies of porous dike and leaky dam systems by Wisconsin Electric Power at Lake Michigan plants showed
generally lower I&E rates than those for other nearby onshore intakes.
• Laboratory work by Ketschke showed that porous dikes could be a physical barrier to juvenile and adult fish and a
physical or behavioral barrier to some larvae. All larvae except winter flounder showed some avoidance of the rock
dike.
• Testing at the Brayton Point Station showed that densities of bay anchovy larvae downstream of the dam were
reduced by 94 to 99 percent. For winter flounder, downstream densities were lower by 23 to 87 percent.
Entrainment avoidance for juvenile and adult finfish was observed to be nearly 100 percent. As indicated in the above
examples, porous dikes and leaky dams show potential for use in limiting the passage of adult and juvenile fish and, to some
degree, motile larvae. However, the lack of more recent, full-scale performance data makes it difficult to predict their
widespread applicability and specific levels of performance.
2.10 BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS
Technology Overview
Behavioral devices are designed to enhance fish avoidance of intake structures or to promote attraction to fish diversion or
bypass systems. Specific technologies that have been considered include:
• Light Barriers: Light barriers consist of controlled application of strobe lights or mercury vapor lights to lure fish
away from the cooling water intake structure or deflect natural migration patterns. This technology is based on
research that shows that some fish species avoid light; however, it is also known that some species are attracted by
light.
• Sound Barriers: Sound barriers are noncontact barriers that rely on mechanical or electronic equipment that
generates various sound patterns to elicit avoidance responses in fish. Acoustic barriers are used to deter fish from
entering cooling water intake structures. The most widely used acoustical barrier is a pneumatic air gun or "popper."
• Air bubble barriers: Air bubble barriers consist of an air header with jets arranged to provide a continuous curtain
of air bubbles over a cross sectional area. The general purpose of air bubble barriers is to repel fish that might
attempt to approach the face of a CWIS.
Technology Performance
Many studies have been conducted and reports prepared on the application of behavioral devices to control I&E, see, for
example, EPPJ 2000. For the most part, these studies have been inconclusive or have shown no significant reduction in
impingement or entrainment. As a result, the full-scale application of behavioral devices has been limited. Where data are
available, performance appears to be highly dependent on the types and sizes of species and environmental conditions. One
exception might be the use of sound systems to divert alewife. In tests at the Pickering Station in Ontario, poppers were
found to be effective in reducing alewife I&E by 73 percent in 1985 and 76 percent in 1986. No impingement reductions
were observed for rainbow smelt and gizzard shad. Testing of sound systems in 1993 at the James A. Fitzpatrick Station in
New York showed similar results, i.e., 85 percent reductions in alewife I&E through use of a high-frequency sound system.
At the Arthur Kill Station, pilot- and full-scale high-frequency sound tests showed comparable results for alewife to those for
Fitzpatrick and Pickering. Impingement of gizzard shad was also three times lower than that without the system. No
deterrence was observed for American shad or bay anchovy using the full-scale system. In contrast, sound provided little or
no deterrence for any species at the Roseton Station in New York. Overall, the Agency expects that behavioral systems
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
would be used in conjunction with other technologies to reduce I&E and perhaps targeted toward an individual species (e.g.,
alewife).
2.11 OTHER TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
Use of variable speed pumps can provide for greater system efficiency and have reduced flow requirements (and associated
entrainment) by 10 to 30 percent. EPA Region 4 estimated that use of variable speed pumps at the Canaveral and Indian
River stations in the Indian River estuary would reduce entrainment by 20 percent. Presumably, such pumps could be used in
conjunction with other technologies to meet the performance standards.
Perforated pipes draw water through perforations or elongated slots in a cylindrical section placed in the waterway. Early
designs of this technology were not efficient, velocity distribution was poor; and the pipes were specifically designed to
screen out detritus, not to protect fish (ASCE 1982). Inner sleeves were subsequently added to perforated pipes to equalize
the velocities entering the outer perforations. These systems have historically been used at locations requiring small amounts
of make-up water; experience at steam electric plants is very limited (Sharma 1978). Perforated pipes are used on the intakes
for the Amos and Mountaineer stations along the Ohio River, but I&E performance data for these facilities are unavailable.
In general, EPA projects that perforated pipe system performance should be comparable to that of wide mesh wedgewire
screens (e.g., at Eddystone Units 1 and 2 and Campbell Unit 3).
At the Pittsburg Plant in California, impingement survival was studied for continuously rotated screens versus intermittent
rotation. Ninety-six-hour survival for young-of-year white perch was 19 to 32 percent for intermittent screen rotation versus
26 to 56 percent for continuous rotation. Striped bass latent survival increased from 26 to 62 percent when continuous
rotation was used. Similar studies were also performed at Moss Landing Units 6 and 7, where no increased survival was
observed for hardy and very fragile species; there was, however, a substantial increase in impingement survival for surfperch
and rockfish.
Facilities might be able to use recycled cooling water to reduce their intake flow needs. The Brayton Point Station has a
"piggyback" system in which the entire intake requirements for Unit 4 can be met by recycled cooling water from Units 1
through 3. The system has been used sporadically since 1993, and it reduces the make-up water needs (and thereby
entrainment) by 29 percent.
2.12 INTAKE LOCATION
Beyond design alternatives for CWISs, an operator might be able to relocate CWISs offshore or in others areas that minimize
I&E (compared to conventional onshore locations). In conjunction with offshore inlet technologies such as cylindrical
wedgewire t-screens or velocity caps, the relocated offshore intake could be quite effective at reducing impingement and/or
entrainment effects. However, the action of relocating at existing facilities is costly due to significant civil engineering
works. It is well known that there are certain areas within every waterbody with increased biological productivity, and
therefore where the potential for I&E of organisms is higher.
In large lakes and reservoirs, the littoral zone (the shore zone areas where light penetrates to the bottom) serves as the
principal spawning and nursery area for most species of freshwater fish and is considered one of the most productive areas of
the waterbody. Fish of this zone typically follow a spawning strategy wherein eggs are deposited in prepared nests, on the
bottom, or are attached to submerged substrates where they incubate and hatch. As the larvae mature, some species disperse
to the open water regions, whereas many others complete their life cycle in the littoral zone. Clearly, the impact potential for
intakes located in the littoral zone of lakes and reservoirs is high. The profundal zone of lakes and reservoirs is the deeper,
colder area of the waterbody. Rooted plants are absent because of insufficient light, and for the same reason, primary
productivity is minimal. A well-oxygenated profundal zone can support benthic macroinvertebrates and cold-water fish;
however, most of the fish species seek shallower areas to spawn (either in littoral areas or in adjacent streams and rivers).
Use of the deepest open water region of a lake or reservoir (e.g., within the profundal zone) as a source of cooling water
typically offers lower I&E impact potential than use of littoral zone waters.
As with lakes and reservoirs, rivers are managed for numerous benefits, which include sustainable and robust fisheries.
Unlike lakes and reservoirs, the hydrodynamics of rivers typically result in a mixed water column and overall unidirectional
flow. There are many similarities in the reproductive strategies of shoreline fish populations in rivers and the reproductive
strategies of fish within the littoral zone of lakes and reservoirs. Planktonic movement of eggs, larvae, post larvae, and early
4-20
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
juvenile organisms along the shore zone is generally limited to relatively short distances. As a result, the shore zone
placement of CWISs in rivers might potentially impact local spawning populations of fish. The impact potential associated
with entrainment might be diminished if the main source of cooling water is recruited from near the bottom strata of the open
water channel region of the river. With such an intake configuration, entrainment of shore zone eggs and larvae, as well as
the near-surface drift community of ichthyoplankton, is minimized. Impacts could also be minimized by controlling the
timing and frequency of withdrawals from rivers. In temperate regions, the number of entrainable or impingeable organisms
of rivers increases during spring and summer (when many riverine fishes reproduce). The number of eggs and larvae peak at
that time, whereas entrainment potential during the remainder of the year can be minimal.
In estuaries, species distribution and abundance are determined by a number of physical and chemical attributes, including
geographic location, estuary origin (or type), salinity, temperature, oxygen, circulation (currents), and substrate. These
factors, in conjunction with the degree of vertical and horizontal stratification (mixing) in the estuary, help dictate the spatial
distribution and movement of estuarine organisms. With local knowledge of these characteristics, however, the entrainment
effects of a CWIS could be minimized by adjusting the intake design to areas (e.g., depths) least likely to affect concentrated
numbers and species of organisms.
In oceans, nearshore coastal waters are typically the most biologically productive areas. The euphotic zone (zone light
available for photosynthesis) typically does not extend beyond the first 100 meters (328 feet) of depth. Therefore, inshore
waters are generally more productive due to photosynthetic activity and due to the input from estuaries and runoff of nutrients
from land.
There are only limited published data quantifying the locational differences in I&E rates at individual power plants. Some
information, however, is available for selected sites. For example,
• For the St. Lucie plant in Florida, EPA Region 4 permitted the use of a once through cooling system instead of
closed-cycle cooling by locating the outfall 1,200 feet offshore (with a velocity cap) in the Atlantic Ocean. This
approach avoided impacts on the biologically sensitive Indian River estuary.
• In Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs on the Great Lakes, with Special Reference to the D.C. Cook Nuclear-
Plant, Southeastern Lake Michigan (1976), researchers noted that larval abundance is greatest within the area from
the 12.2-m (40-ft) contour to shore in Lake Michigan and that the abundance of larvae tends to decrease as one
proceeds deeper and farther offshore. This finding led to the suggestion of locating CWISs in deep waters.
• During biological studies near the Fort Calhoun Power Station along the Missouri River, results of transect studies
indicated significantly higher fish larvae densities along the cutting bank of the river, adjacent to the station's intake
structure. Densities were generally were lowest in the middle of the channel.
3.0 CONCLUSION
As suggested by the technology studies evaluated in this chapter, the technologies presented can substantially reduce
impingement mortality and entrainment. With proper design, installation, and operation and maintenance, a facility can
realize marked reductions. However, EPA recognizes that there is a high degree of variability in the performance of each
technology, which is in part due to the site-specific environmental conditions at a given facility. EPA also recognizes that
much of the data cited in this document was collected under a variety of performance standards and study protocols that have
arisen over the years since EPA promulgated its last guidance in 1977.
EPA believes that these technologies can meet the performance standards established in today's final rule. While EPA
acknowledges that site-specific factors may affect the efficacy of impingement and entrainment reduction technologies, EPA
believes that there are a reasonable number of options available from which most facilities may choose to meet the
performance standards. EPA also believes that, in cases where one technology can not meet the performance standards alone,
a combination of additional intake technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures can be employed to meet
the performance standards.
4-21
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
4-22
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
REFERENCES
American Electric Power Corporation. March, 1980. Philip Sporn Plant 316(b) Demonstration Document.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1982. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. Task Committee on Fish-
Handling Capability of Intake Structures of the Committee on Hydraulic Structures of the Hydraulic Division of the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Bailey et. al. Undated. Studies of Cooling Water Intake Structure Effects at PEPCO Generating Stations.
CK Environmental. June, 2000. Letter from Charles Kaplan, CK Environmental, to Martha Segall, Terra Tech, Inc. June 26,
2000.
Duke Energy, Inc. April, 2000. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project. 316(b) Resource Assessment.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1979. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Continuously Operating Fine Mesh Traveling Screen for
Reducing Ichthvoplankton Entrainment at the Indian Point Generating Station. Prepared for Consolidated Edison, Inc.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI). 1993. EEI Power Statistics Database. Prepared by the Utility Data Institute for the Edison
Electric Institute.
Ehrler, C. and Raifsnider, C. April, 1999. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Intake Wedgewire Screens." Presented at EPRI
Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1999. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report.
EPRI. March, 1989. Intake Technologies: Research Status. Publication GS-6293.
EPRI. 1985. Intake Research Facilities Manual.
ESSA Technologies, Ltd. June, 2000. Review of Portions of NJPDES Renewal Application for the PSE&G Salem
Generating Station.
Fletcher, I. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems.
Florida Power and Light. August, 1995. Assessment of the Impacts of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant on Sea Turtle
Species Found in the Inshore Waters of Florida.
Fritz, E.S. 1980. Cooling Water Intake Screening Devices Used to Reduce Entrainment and Impingement. Topical Briefs:
Fish and Wildlife Resources and Electric Power Generation, No. 9.
Hadderingh, R.H. 1979. "Fish Intake Mortality at Power Stations, the Problem and its Remedy." In: Hydrological Bulletin,
13(2-3).
Hutchison, J.B., andMatousek, J.A. Undated. Evaluation of a Barrier Net Used to Mitigate Fish Impingement at a Hudson
River Power Pant Intake. American Fisheries Society Monograph.
Jude, D. J. 1976. "Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs on the Great Lakes, with Special Reference to the D.C. Cook Nuclear
Plant, Southeastern Lake Michigan." In: Jensen, L.D. (Ed.), Third National Workshop on Entrainment & Impingement:
Section 316(b) - Research and Compliance.
Ketschke, B.A. 1981. "Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Screening Ability of a Porous Dike." In: P.B. Dorn and
Johnson (Eds.). Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water Systems.
King, R.G. 1977. "Entrainment of Missouri River Fish Larvae through Fort Calhoun Station." In: Jensen, L.D. (Ed.), Fourth
National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement.
Lifton, W.S. Undated. Biological Aspects of Screen Testing on the St. John's River. Palatka. Florida.
4^23
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Marley Cooling Tower. August 2001. Electronic Mail from Robert Fleming, Marley Cooling Tower to Ron Rimelman, Tetra
Tech, Inc. August 9, 2001.
Micheletti, W. September, 1987. "Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Systems." In: EPRI Journal.
Mussalli, Y.G., Taft, E.P., and Hofmann, P. February, 1978. "Biological and Engineering Considerations in the Fine
Screening of Small Organisms from Cooling Water Intakes." In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Larval Exclusion Systems
for Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes, Sponsored by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL Publication No. ANL/ES-66).
Mussalli, Y.G., Taft, E.P, and Larsen, J. November, 1980. "Offshore Water Intakes Designated to Protect Fish." In: Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the America Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 106, No HY11.
Northeast Utilities Service Company. January, 1993. Feasibility Study of Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce
Winter Flounder Entrainment at Millstone Units 1-3.
Orange and Rockland Utilities and Southern Energy Corp. 2000. Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom Evaluation Program.
1999.
PG&E. March 2000. Diablo Canyon Power Plant. 316(b) Demonstration Report.
Pagano, R. and Smith, W.H.B. November, 1977. Recent Developments in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms at the
Intakes Steam-Electric Power Plants.
Pisces Conservation, Ltd. 2001. Technical Evaluation of USEPA's Proposed Cooling Water Intake Regulations for New
Facilities. November 2000.
Richards, R.T. December, 1977. "Present Engineering Limitations to the Protection of Fish at Water Intakes". In: Fourth
National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement.
Ringger, T.J. April, 1999. "Baltimore Gas and Electric, Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 1975-1999." Presented at EPRI Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference.
Sharma, R.K. February, 1978. "A Synthesis of Views Presented at the Workshop." In: Larval Exclusion Systems For Power
Plant Cooling Water Intakes.
Taft, E.P. April, 1999. "Alden Research Laboratory, Fish Protection Technologies: A Status Report." Presented at EPRI
Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference.
Taft, E.P. March, 1999. PSE&G Renewal Application. Appendix F. Salem Generation Station.
Taft, E.P. et. al. 1981. "Laboratory Evaluation of the Larval Fish Impingement and Diversion Systems." In: Proceedings of
Advanced Intake Technology.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1976. A State of the Art Report on Intake Technologies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4. May, 1983. 316a and 316b Finding for Cape Canaveral/Orlando
Utilities Plants at Canaveral Pool.
EPA, Region 4. September, 1979. Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Generating Plant. Historical Summary and Review of
Section 316(b) Issues.
University of Michigan. 1985. Impingement Losses at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant During 1975-1982 with a
Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations.
Versar, Inc. April, 1990. Evaluation of the Section 316 Status of Delaware Facilities with Cooling Water Discharges.
Prepared for State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources.
Weisberg, S.B., Jacobs, F., Burton, W.H., and Ross, R.N. 1983. Report on Preliminary Studies Using the Wedge Wire Screen
4-24
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies
Model Intake Facility. Prepared for State of Maryland, Power Plant Siting Program.
4-25
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Attachment A to Chapter 4
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE TECHNOLOSY FACT SHEETS
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No. 1: Single-Entry, Single-Exit
Vertical Traveling Screens (Conventional
Traveling Screens)
Description:
The single-entry, single-exit vertical traveling screens (conventional traveling screens) consist
of screen panels mounted on an endless belt; the belt rotates through the water vertically. The
screen mechanism consists of the screen, the drive mechanism, and the spray cleaning system.
Most of the conventional traveling screens are fitted with 3/8-inch mesh and are designed to
screen out and prevent debris from clogging the pump and the condenser tubes. The screen
mesh is usually supplied in individual removable panels referred to as " baskets" or "trays".
The screen washing system consists of a line of spray nozzles operating at a relatively high
pressure of 80 to 120 pounds per square inch (psi). The screens are usually designed to rotate
at a single speed. The screens are rotated either at predetermined intervals or when a
predetermined differential pressure is reached across the screens based on the amount of debris
in the intake waters.
Because of this intermittent operation of the conventional traveling screens, fish can become
impinged against the screens during the extended period of time while the screens are stationary
and eventually die. When the screens are rotated the fish are removed from the water and then
subjected to a high pressure spray; the fish may fall back into the water and become re-
impinged or they may be damaged (EPA, 1976, Pagano et al, 1977).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
• The conventional traveling screens are the most common screening device presently
used at steam electric power plants. Sixty percent of all the facilities use this
technology at their intake structure (EEI, 1993).
Research/Operation Findings:
• The conventional single-entry single screen is the most common device resulting in
impacts from entrainment and impingement (Fritz, 1980).
Design Considerations:
• The screens are usually designed structurally to withstand a differential pressure across
their face of 4 to 8 feet of water.
• The recommended normal maximum water velocity through the screen is about 2.5 feet
per second (ft/sec). This recommended velocity is where fish protection is not a factor
to consider.
• The screens normally travel at one speed (10 to 12 feet per minute) or two speeds (2.5
to 3 feet per minute and 10 to 12 feet per minute). These speeds can be increased to
handle heavy debris load.
A-2
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No. 1: Single-Entry, Single-Exit
Vertical Traveling Screens (Conventional
Traveling Screens)
Advantages:
Limitations:
Conventional traveling screens are a proven "off-the-shelf technology that is readily
available.
Impingement and entrainment are both major problems in this unmodified standard
screen installation, which is designed for debris removal not fish protection.
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. Task Committee on Fish-Handling
Capability of Intake Structures of the Committee on Hydraulic Structures of the Hydraulic Division of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 1982.
EEI Power Statistics Database. Prepared by the Utility Data Institute for the Edison Electric Institute.
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Fritz, E.S. Cooling Water Intake Screening Devices Used to Reduce Entrainment and Impingement.
Topical Briefs: Fish and Wildlife Resources and Electric Power Generation, No. 9. 1980.
Pagano R. and W.H.B. Smith. Recent Developments in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms at the
Intakes of Steam-Electric Power Plants. MITRE Corporation Technical Report 7671. November 1977.
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location. Design.
Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April 1976.
A-3
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No. 2: Modified Vertical
Traveling Screens
Description:
Modified vertical traveling screens are conventional traveling screens fitted with a collection
"bucket" beneath the screen panel. This intake screening system is also called a bucket screen,
Ristroph screen, or a Surry Type screen. The screens are modified to achieve maximum
recovery of impinged fish by maintaining them in water while they are lifted to a release point.
The buckets run along the entire width of the screen panels and retain water while in upward
motion. Atthe uppermost point of travel, water drains from the bucket but impinged organisms
and debris are retained in the screen panel by a deflector plate. Two material removal systems
are often provided instead of the usual single high pressure one. The first uses low-pressure
spray that gently washes fish into a recovery trough. The second system uses the typical high-
pressure spray that blasts debris into a second trough. Typically, an essential feature of this
screening device is continuous operation which keeps impingement times relatively short
(Richards, 1977; Mussalli, 1977; Pagano et al., 1977; EPA , 1976).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
Facilities which have tested the screens include: the Surry Power Station in Virginia (White
et al, 1976) (the screens have been in operation since 1974), the Madgett Generating Station in
, Wisconsin, the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 in New York, the Kintigh
(formerly Somerset) Generating Station in New Jersey, the Bowline Point Generating Station
(King et al, 1977), the Roseton Generating Station in New York, the Danskammer Generating
Station in New York (King et al, 1977), the Hanford Generating Plant on the Columbia River
in Washington (Page et al, 1975; Fritz, 1980), the Salem Genereating on the Delaware River
in New Jersey, and the Monroe Power Plant on the Raisin River in Michigan.
Research/Operation Findings:
Modified traveling screens have been shown to have good potential for alleviating impingement
mortality. Some information is available on initial and long-term survival of impinged fish
(EPRI, 1999; ASCE, 1982; Fritz, 1980). Specific research and operation findings are listed
below:
• In 1986, the operator of the Indian Point Station redesigned fish troughs on the Unit
2 intake to enhance survival. Impingement injuries and mortality were reduced from
53 to 9 percent for striped bass, 64 to!4 percent for white perch, 80 to 17 percent for
Atlantic tomcod, and 47 to 7 percent for pumpkinseed (EPRI, 1999).
• The Kintigh Generating Station has modified traveling screens with low pressure
sprays and a fish return system. After enhancements to the system in 1989, survivals
of generally greater than 80 percent have been observed for rainbow smelt, rock bass,
spottail shiner, white bass, white perch, and yellow perch. Gizzard shad survivals
have been 54 to 65 percent and alewife survivals have been 15 to 44 percent (EPRI,
1999).
A-4
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No. 2: Modified Vertical
Traveling Screens
Long-term survival testing was conducted at the Hanford Generating Plant on the
Columbia River (Page et al, 1975; Fritz, 1980). In this study, 79 to 95 percent of the
impinged and collected Chinook salmon fry survived for over 96 hours.
Impingement data collected during the 1970s from Dominion Power's Surry Station
indicated a 93.8 percent survival rate of all fish impinged. Bay anchovies had the
lowest survival rate of 83 percent. The facility has modified Ristroph screens with
low pressure wash and fish return systems (EPRI 1999).
At the Arthur Kill Station, 2 of 8 screens are modified Ristroph type; the remaining
six screens are conventional type. The modified screens have fish collection troughs,
low pressure spray washes, fish flap seals, and separate fish collection sluices. 24-
hour survival for the unmodified screens averages 15 percent, while the two modified
screens have 79 and 92 percent average survival rates (EPRI 1999).
Design Considerations:
Advantages:
The same design considerations as for Fact Sheet No. 1: Conventional Vertical
Traveling Screens apply (ASCE, 1982).
Traveling screens are a proven "off-the-shelf technology that is readily available. An
essential feature of such screens is continuous operation during periods where fish are
being impinged compared to conventional traveling screens which operate on an
intermittent basis
Limitations:
• The continuous operation can result in undesirable maintenance problems (Mussalli,
1977).
• Velocity distribution across the face of the screen is generally very poor.
Latent mortality can be high, especially where fragile species are present.
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. Task Committee on Fish-Handling
Capability of Intake Structures of the Committee on Hydraulic Structures of the Hydraulic
Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 1982.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report.
1999.
EPRI. Intake Technologies: Research Status. Electric Power Research Institute GS-6293. March 1989.
A-5
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No. 2: Modified Vertical
Traveling Screens
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, design.
Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse
Environmental Impact. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April 1976.
Fritz, E.S. Cooling Water Intake Screening Devices Used to Reduce Entrainment and Impingement.
Topical Briefs: Fish and Wildlife Resources and Electric Power Generation, No. 9, 1980.
King, L.R., J.B. Hutchinson, Jr. and T.G. Huggins. "Impingement Survival Studies on White Perch,
Striped Bass, and Atlantic Tomcod at Three Hudson Power Plants". In Fourth National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen (Editor) Ecological Analysts, Inc.,
Melville, NY. Chicago, December 1977.
Mussalli, Y.G., "Engineering Implications of New Fish Screening Concepts". In Fourth National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen (Editor). Ecological Analysts, Inc.,
Melville, N.Y. Chicago, December 1977, pp 367-376.
Pagano, R. and W.H.B. Smith. Recent Developments in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms at the
Intakes Steam-Electric Power Plants. MITRE Technical Report 7671. November 1977.
Richards, R.T. "Present Engineering Limitations to the Protection of Fish at Water Intakes". In Fourth
National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, pp 415-424. L.D. Jensen (Editor).
Ecological Analysts, Inc., Melville, N.Y. Chicago, December 1977.
White, J.C. and M.L. Brehmer. "Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Traveling Fish Screens".
In Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen (Editor). Ecological
Analysts, Inc., Melville, N.Y. 1976.
A-6
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Sheet No. 3: Inclined Single-Entry, Single-
Exit Traveling Screens (Angled
Screens)
Description:
Inclined traveling screens utilize standard through-flow traveling screens where the screens are
set at an angle to the incoming flow as shown in the figure below. Angling the screens improves
the fish protection effectiveness of the flush mounted vertical screens since the fish tend to
avoid the screen face and move toward the end of the screen line, assisted by a component of
the inflow velocity. A fish bypass facility with independently induced flow must be provided.
The fish have to be lifted by fish pump, elevator, or conveyor and discharged to a point of
safety away from the main water intake (Richards, 1977).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
Angled screens have been tested/used at the following facilities: the Brayton Point Station Unit
4 in Massachusetts; the San Onofre Station in California; and at power plants on Lake Ontario
and the Hudson River (ASCE, 1982; EPRI, 1999).
Research/operation Findings:
• Angled traveling screens with a fish return system have been used on the intake for
Brayton Point Unit 4. Studies from 1984 through 1986 that evaluated the angled
screens showed a diversion efficiency of 76 percent with latent survival of 63 percent.
Much higher results were observed excluding bay anchovy. Survival efficiency for the
major taxa exhibited an extremely wide range, from 0.1 percent for bay anchovy to 97
percent for tautog. Generally, the taxa fell into two groups: a hardy group with
efficiency greater than 65 percent and a sensitive group with efficiency less than 25
percent (EPRI, 1999).
• Southern California Edison at its San Onofre steam power plant had more success with
angled louvers than with angled screens. The angled screen was rejected for full-scale
use because of the large bypass flow required to yield good guidance efficiencies in the
test facility.
Design Considerations:
Many variables influence the performance of angled screens. The following recommended
preliminary design criteria were developed in the studies for the Lake Ontario and Hudson
River intakes (ASCE, 1982):
• Angle of screen to the waterway: 25 degrees
• Average velocity of approach in the waterway upstream of the screens: 1 foot per
second
• Ratio of screen velocity to bypass velocity: 1:1
A-7
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Sheet No. 3: Inclined Single-Entry, Single-
Exit Traveling Screens (Angled
Screens)
Advantages:
Limitations:
Minimum width of bypass opening: 6 inches
The fish are guided instead of being impinged.
The fish remain in water and are not subject to high pressure rinsing.
Higher cost than the conventional traveling screen
Angled screens need a stable water elevation.
Angled screens require fish handling devices with independently induced flow
(Richards, 1977).
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. Task Committee on Fish-Handling
Capability of Intake Structures of the Committee on Hydraulic Structures of the Hydraulic Division of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 1982.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report.
1999.
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location. Design.
Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April 1976.
Richards, R.T. "Present Engineering Limitations to the Protection of Fish at Water Intakes". In Fourth
National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen (Editor). Ecological Analysts, Inc.,
Melville, NY. Chicago. December 1977. pp 415-424.
A-8
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No.4: Fine Mesh Screens
Mounted on Traveling Screens
Description:
Fine mesh screens are used for screening eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish from cooling water
intake systems. The concept of using fine mesh screens for exclusion of larvae relies on gentle
impingement on the screen surface or retention of larvae within the screening basket, washing
of screen panels or baskets to transfer organisms into a sluiceway, and then sluicing the
organisms back to the source waterbody (Sharma, 1978). Fine mesh with openings as small as
0.5 millimeters (mm) has been used depending on the size of the organisms to be protected.
Fine mesh screens have been used on conventional traveling screens and single-entry, double-
exit screens. The ultimate success of an installation using fine mesh screens is contingent on the
application of satisfactory handling and recovery facilities to allow the safe return of impinged
organisms to the aquatic environment (Pagano et al, 1977).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
The Big Bend Power Plant along Tampa Bay area has an intake canal with 0.5-mm mesh
Ristroph screens that are used seasonally on the intakes for Units 3 and 4. At the Brunswick
Power Plant in North Carolina, fine mesh used seasonally on two of four screens has shown
84 percent reduction in entrainment compared to the conventional screen systems.
Research/Operation Findings:
During the mid-1980s when the screens were initially installed at Big Bend, their
efficiency in reducing impingement and entrainment mortality was highly variable.
The operator evaluated different approach velocities and screen rotational speeds.
In addition, the operator recognized that frequent maintenance (manual cleaning)
was necessary to avoid biofouling. By 1988, system performance had improved
greatly. The system's efficiency in screening fish eggs (primarily drums and bay
anchovy) exceeded 95 percent with 80 percent latent survival for drum and 93
percent for bay anchovy. For larvae (primarily drums, bay anchovies, blennies,
and gobies), screening efficiency was 86 percent with 65 percent latent survival for
drum and 66 percent for bay anchovy. Note that latent survival in control samples
was also approximately 60 percent (EPRI, 1999).
At the Brunswick Power Plant in North Carolina, fine mesh screen has led to 84
percent reduction in entrainment compared to the conventional screen systems.
Similar results were obtained during pilot testing of 1-mm screens at the Chalk
Point Generating Station in Maryland. At the Kintigh Generating Station in New
Jersey, pilot testing indicated 1-mm screens provided 2 to 35 times reductions in
entrainment over conventional 9.5-mm screens (EPRI, 1999).
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) pilot-scale studies performed in the 1970s
showed reductions in striped bass larvae entrainment up to 99 percent using a 0.5-
mm screen and 75 and 70 percent for 0.97-mm and 1.3-mm screens. A full-scale
A-9
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No.4: Fine Mesh Screens
Mounted on Traveling Screens
test by TVA at the John Sevier Plant showed less than half as many larvae
entrained with a 0.5-mm screen than 1.0 and 2.0-mm screens combined (TVA,
1976).
• Preliminary results from a study initiated in 1987 by the Central Hudson and Gas
Electric Corporation indicated that the fine mesh screens collect smaller fish
compared to conventional screens; mortality for the smaller fish was relatively high,
with similar survival between screens for fish in the same length category (EPRI,
1989).
Design Considerations:
Biological effectiveness for the whole cycle, from impingement to survival in the source
water body, should be investigated thoroughly prior to implementation of this option. This
includes:
• The intake velocity should be low so that if there is any impingement of larvae on
the screens, it is gentle enough not to result in damage or mortality.
• The wash spray for the screen panels or the baskets should be low-pressure so as not
to result in mortality.
• The sluiceway should provide smooth flow so that there are no areas of high
turbulence; enough flow should be maintained so that the sluiceway is not dry at any
time.
• The species life stage, size and body shape and the ability of the organisms to
withstand impingement should be considered with time and flow velocities.
• The type of screen mesh material used is important. For instance, synthetic meshes
may be smooth and have a low coefficient of friction, features that might help to
minimize abrasion of small organisms. However, they also may be more susceptible
to puncture than metallic meshes (Mussalli, 1977).
Advantages:
Limitations:
There are indications that fine mesh screens reduce entrainment.
Fine mesh screens may increase the impingement offish, i.e., they need to be used
in conjunction with properly designed and operated fish collection and return
systems.
Due to the small screen openings, these screens will clog much faster than those
with conventional 3/8-inch mesh. Frequent maintenance is required, especially in
marine environments.
A-10
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Intake Screening Systems
Fact Sheet No.4: Fine Mesh Screens
Mounted on Traveling Screens
References:
Bruggemeyer, V., D. Condrick, K. Durrel, S. Mahadevan, and D. Brizck. "Full Scale Operational
Demonstration of Fine Mesh Screens at Power Plant Intakes". In Fish Protection at Steam and
Hydroelectric Power Plants. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5664-SR, March 1988, pp 251-265.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status
Report. 1999.
EPRI. Intake Technologies: Research Status. Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI GS-6293.
March 1989.
Pagano, R., and W.H.B. Smith. Recent Developments in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms
at the Intakes Steam-Electric Power Plants. MITRE Corporation Technical Report 7671. November
1977.
Mussalli, Y.G., E.P. Taft, and P. Hofmann. "Engineering Implications of New Fish Screening
Concepts". In Fourth Workshop on Larval Exclusion Systems For Power Plant Cooling Water
Intakes. San-Diego, California, February 1978, pp 367-376.
Sharma, R.K., "A Synthesis of Views Presented at the Workshop". In Larval Exclusion Systems For
Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes. San-Diego, California, February 1978, pp 235-237.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TV A). A State of the Art Report on Intake Technologies. 1976.
A-ll
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive Intake Systems Fact Sheet No. 5: Wedgewire Screens
Description:
Wedgewire screens are designed to reduce entrainment by physical exclusion and by exploiting
hydrodynamics. Physical exclusion occurs when the mesh size of the screen is smaller than the
organisms susceptible to entrainment. Hydrodynamic exclusion results from maintenance of a
low through-slot velocity, which, because of the screen's cylindrical configuration, is quickly
dissipated, thereby allowing organisms to escape the flow field (Weisberd et al, 1984). The
screens can be fine or wide mesh. The name of these screens arise from the triangular or
"wedge" cross section of the wire that makes up the screen. The screen is composed of
wedgewire loops welded at the apex of their triangular cross section to supporting axial rods
presenting the base of the cross section to the incoming flow (Pagano et al, 1977). A cylindrical
wedgewire screen is shown in the figure below. Wedgewire screens are also called profile
screens or Johnson screens.
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
Wide mesh wedgewire screens are used at two large power plants, Eddystone and Campbell.
Smaller facilities with wedgewire screens include Logan and Cope with fine mesh and Jeffrey
with wide mesh (EPPJ 1999).
Research/Operation Findings:
• In-situ observations have shown that impingement is virtually eliminated when
wedgewire screens are used (Hanson, 1977; Weisberg et al, 1984).
• At Campbell Unit 3, impingement of gizzard shad, smelt, yellow perch, alewife, and
shiner species is significantly lower than Units 1 and 2 that do not have wedgewire
screens (EPPJ, 1999).
• The cooling water intakes for Eddystone Units 1 and 2 were retrofitted with
wedgewire screens because over 3 million fish were reportedly impinged over a 20-
month period. The wedgewire screens have generally eliminated impingement at
Eddystone (EPPJ, 1999).
• Laboratory studies (Heuer and Tomljanovitch, 1978) and prototype field studies
(Lifton, 1979;DelmarvaPowerandLight, 1982; Weisberg etal, 1983) have shown that
fine mesh wedgewire screens reduce entrainment.
• One study (Hanson, 1977) found that entrainment offish eggs (striped bass), ranging
in diameter from 1.8 mm to 3.2 mm, could be eliminated with a cylindrical wedgewire
screen incorporating 0.5 mm slot openings. However, striped bass larvae, measuring
5.2 mm to 9.2 mm were generally entrained through a 1 mm slot at a level exceeding
75 percent within one minute of release in the test flume.
A-12
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive Intake Systems
Fact Sheet No. 5: Wedgewire Screens
At the Logan Generating Station in New Jersey, monitoring shows shows 90 percent
less entrainment of larvae and eggs through the 1 mm wedgewire screen then
conventional screens. In situ testing of 1 and 2-mm wedgewire screens was performed
in the St. John River for the Seminole Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in Florida in
the late 1970s. This testing showed virtually no impingement and 99 and 62 percent
reductions in larvae entrainment for the 1-mm and 2-mm screens, respectively, over
conventional screen (9.5 mm) systems (EPRI, 1999).
Design Considerations:
Advantages:
Limitations:
To minimize clogging, the screen should be located in an ambient current of at least 1
feet per second (ft/sec).
A uniform velocity distribution along the screen face is required to minimize the
entrapment of motile organisms and to minimize the need of debris backflushing.
In northern latitudes, provisions for the prevention of frazil ice formation on the screens
must be considered.
Allowance should be provided below the screens for silt accumulation to avoid
blockage of the water flow (Mussalli et al, 1980).
Wedgewire screens have been demonstrated to reduce impingement and entrainment
in laboratory and prototype field studies.
The physical size of the screening device is limiting in most passive systems, thus,
requiring the clustering of a number of screening units. Siltation, biofouling and frazil
ice also limit areas where passive screens such as wedgewire can be utilized.
Because of these limitations, wedgewire screens may be more suitable for closed-cycle
make-up intakes than once-through systems. Closed-cycle systems require less flow
and fewer screens than once-through intakes; back-up conventional screens can
therefore be used during maintenance work on the wedge-wire screens (Mussalli et al,
1980).
References:
Delmarva Ecological Laboratory. Ecological Studies of the Nanticoke River and Nearby Area. Vol
II. Profile Wire Studies. Report to Delmarva Power and Light Company. 1980.
EEI Power Statistics Database. Prepared by the Utility Data Institute for the Edison Electric Institute.
Washington, D.C., 1993.
A-13
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive Intake Systems Fact Sheet No. 5: Wedgewire Screens
Electric Power Research Institute (EPPJ). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status
Report. 1999.
Hanson, B.N., W.H. Bason, B.E. Beitz and K.E. Charles. "A Practical Intake Screen which
Substantially Reduces the Entrainment and Impingement of Early Life stages of Fish". In Fourth
National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen (Editor). Ecological Analysts,
Inc., Melville, NY. Chicago, December 1977, pp 393-407.
Heuer, J.H. and D.A. Tomljanovitch. "A Study on the Protection of Fish Larvae at Water Intakes
Using Wedge-Wire Screening". In Larval Exclusion Systems For Power Plant Cooling Water
Intakes. R.K. Sharmer and J.B. Palmer, eds, Argonne National Lab., Argonne, IL. February 1978, pp
169-194.
Lifton, W.S. "Biological Aspects of Screen Testing on the St. Johns River, Palatka, Florida". In
Passive Screen Intake Workshop. Johnson Division UOP Inc., St. Paul, MN. 1979.
Mussalli, Y.G., E.P. Taft III, and J. Larsen. "Offshore Water Intakes Designated to Protect Fish".
Journal of the Hydraulics Division. Proceedings of the America Society of Civil Engineers. Vol.
106, No HY11, November 1980, pp 1885-1901.
Pagano R. and W.H.B. Smith. Recent Developments in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms
at the Intakes Steam-Electric Power Plants. MITRE Corporation Technical Report 7671. November
1977.
Weisberg, S.B., F. Jacobs, W.H. Burton, and R.N. Ross. Report on Preliminary Studies Using the
Wedge Wire Screen Model Intake Facility. Prepared for State of Maryland, Power Plant Siting
Program. Prepared by Martin Marietta Environmental Center, Baltimore, MD. 1983.
Weisberg, S.B., W.H. Burton, E.A., Ross, and F. Jacobs. The effects od Screen Slot Size. Screen
Diameter, and Through-Slot Velocity on Entrainment of Estuarine Ichthyoplankton Through
Wedge-Wire Screens. Martin Marrietta Environmental Studies, Columbia MD. August 1984.
A-14
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive Intake Systems || Fact Sheet No. 6: Perforated Pipes
Description:
Perforated pipes draw water through perforations or slots in a cylindrical section placed in the
waterway. The term "perforated" is applied to round perforations and elongated slots as shown in
the figure below. The early technology was not efficient: velocity distribution was poor, it served
specifically to screen out detritus, and was not used for fish protection (ASCE, 1982). Inner sleeves
have been added to perforated pipes to equalize the velocities entering the outer perforations. Water
entering a single perforated pipe intake without an internal sleeve will have a wide range of entrance
velocities and the highest will be concentrated at the supply pipe end. These systems have been used
at locations requiring small amounts of water such as make-up water. However, experience at steam
electric plants is very limited (Sharma, 1978).
Testing Facilities And/or Facilities Using the Technology:
Nine steam electric units in the U.S. use perforated pipes. Each of these units uses closed-cycle
cooling systems with relatively low make-up intake flow ranging from 7 to 36 MGD (EEI,
1993).
Research/Operation Findings:
• Maintenance of perforated pipe systems requires control of biofouling and removal of
debris from clogged screens.
• For withdrawal of relatively small quantities of water, up to 50,000 gpm, the perforated
pipe inlet with an internal perforated sleeve offers substantial protection for fish. This
particular design serves the Washington Public Power Supply System on the Columbia
River (Richards, 1977).
• No information is available on the fate of the organisms impinged at the face of such
screens.
Design Considerations:
The design of these systems is fairly well established for various water intakes (ASCE, 1982).
Advantages:
The primary advantage is the absence of a confined channel in which fish might become trapped.
Limitations:
Clogging, frazil ice formation, biofouling and removal of debris limit this technology to small
flow withdrawals.
REFERENCES:
A-15
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive Intake Systems || Fact Sheet No. 6: Perforated Pipes
American Society of Civil Engineers. Task Committee on Fish-handling of Intake Structures of the
Committee of Hydraulic Structures. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. ASCE, New
York,N.Y. 1982.
EEI Power Statistics Database. Prepared by the Utility Data Institute for the Edison Electric Institute.
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Richards, R.T. 1977. "Present Engineering Limitations to the Protection of Fish at Water Intakes". In
Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen Editor, Chicago, December
1977, pp 415-424.
Sharma, R.K. "A Synthesis of Views Presented at the Workshop". In Larval Exclusion Systems For
Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes. San-Diego, California, February 1978, pp 235-237.
A-16
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive intake Systems
Fact Sheet No. 7: Porous Dikes/Leaky
Dams
Description:
Porous dikes, also known as leaky dams or leaky dikes, are filters resembling a breakwater
surrounding a cooling water intake. The core of the dike consists of cobble or gravel, which
permits free passage of water. The dike acts both as a physical and a behavioral barrier to
aquatic organisms and is depicted in the figure below. The filtering mechanism includes a
breakwater or some other type of barrier and the filtering core (Fritz, 1980). Tests conducted
to date have indicated that the technology is effective in excluding juvenile and adult fish.
However, its effectiveness in screening fish eggs and larvae is not established (ASCE, 1982).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
• Two facilities which are both testing facilities and have used the technology are: the
Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Wisconsin and the Baily Generating Station in Indiana
(EPRI, 1985). The Brayton Point Generating Station in Massachusetts has also tested
the technology.
Research/Operation Findings:
Schrader and Ketschke (1978) studied a porous dike system at the Lakeside Plant on
Lake Michigan and found that numerous fish penetrated large void spaces, but for most
fish accessibility was limited.
The biological effectiveness of screening of fish larvae and the engineering
practicability have not been established (ASCE, 1982).
The size of the pores in the dike dictates the degree of maintenance due to biofouling
and clogging by debris.
Ice build-up and frazil ice may create problems as evidenced at the Point Beach
Nuclear Plant (EPRI, 1985).
Design Considerations:
The presence of currents past the dike is an important factor which may probably
increase biological effectiveness.
The size of pores in the dike determines the extent of biofouling and clogging by debris
(Sharma, 1978).
Filtering material must be of a size that permits free passage of water but still prevents
entrainment and impingement.
A-17
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Passive intake Systems
Fact Sheet No. 7: Porous Dikes/Leaky
Dams
Advantages:
Limitations:
Dikes can be used at marine, fresh water, and estuarine locations.
The major problem with porous dikes comes from clogging by debris and silt, and from
fouling by colonization offish and plant life.
Backflushing, which is often used by other systems for debris removal, is not feasible
at a dike installation.
Predation of organisms screened at these dikes may offset any biological effectiveness
(Sharma, 1978).
REFERENCES:
American Society of Civil Engineers. Task Committee on Fish-handling of Intake Structures of the
Committee of Hydraulic Structures. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. ASCE, New
York, N.Y. 1982.
EPPJ. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl
River, New York for Electric Power Research Institute. EPPJ CS-3976. May 1985.
Fritz. E.S. Cooling Water Intake Screening Devices Used to Reduce Entrainmentand Impingement. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Topical Briefs: Fish and Wildlife Resources and Electric Power Generation, No
9. July 1980.
Schrader, B.P. and B.A. Ketschke. "Biological Aspects of Porous-Dike Intake Structures". In Larval
Exclusion Systems For Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes, San-Diego, California, August 1978, pp 51 -
63.
Sharma, R.K. "A Synthesis of Views Presented at the Workshop". In Larval Exclusion Systems For
Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes. San-Diego, California, February 1978, pp 235-237.
A-18
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
Description:
Louver systems are comprised of a series of vertical panels placed at an angle to the direction of the
flow (typically 15 to 20 degrees). Each panel is placed at an angle of 90 degrees to the direction of
the flow (Hadderingh, 1979). The louver panels provide an abrupt change in both the flow direction
and velocity (see figure below). This creates a barrier, which fish can immediately sense and will
avoid. Once the change in flow/velocity is sensed by fish, they typically align with the direction of
the current and move away laterally from the turbulence. This behavior further guides fish into a
current created by the system, which is parallel to the face of the louvers. This current pulls the fish
along the line of the louvers until they enter a fish bypass or other fish handling device at the end
of the louver line. The louvers may be either fixed or rotated similar to a traveling screen. Flow
straighteners are frequently placed behind the louver systems.
These types of barriers have been very successful and have been installed at numerous irrigation
intakes, water diversion proj ects, and steam electric and hydroelectric facilities. It appears that this
technology has, in general, become accepted as a viable option to divert juvenile and adult fish.
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
Louver barrier devices have been tested and/or are in use at the following facilities: the California
Department of Water Resource's Tracy Pumping Plant; the California Department of Fish and
Game's Delta Fish Protective Facility in Bryon; the Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center in
Massachusetts, and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California (EPA, 1976; EPRI,
1985; EPRI, 1999). In addition, three other plants also have louvers at their facilities: the Ruth Falls
Power Plant in Nova Scotia, the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station on Lake Erie, and T.W.
Sullivan Hydroelectric Plant in Oregon. Louvers have also been tested at the Ontario Hydro
Laboratories in Ontario, Canada (Ray et al, 1976).
Research/Operation Findings:
Research has shown the following generalizations to be true regarding louver barriers:
1) the fish separation performance of the louver barrier decreases with an increase in the velocity
of the flow through the barrier; 2) efficiency increases with fish size (EPA, 1976; Hadderingh,
1979); 3) individual louver misalignment has a beneficial effect on the efficiency of the barrier;
4) the use of center walls provides the fish with a guide wall to swim along thereby improving
efficiency (EPA, 1976); and 5) the most effective slat spacing and array angle to flow depends upon
the size, species and ability of the fish to be diverted (Ray et al, 1976).
In addition, the following conclusions were drawn during specific studies:
• Testing of louvered intake structures offshore was performed at a New York facility. The
louvers were spaced 10 inches apart to minimize clogging. The array was angled at 11.5
percent to the flow. Center walls were provided for fish guidance to the bypass. Test
species included alewife and rainbow smelt. The mean efficiency predicted was between
22 and 48 percent (Mussalli 1980).
A-19
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
During testing at the Delta Facility's intake in Byron California, the design flow was 6,000
cubic feet per second (cfs), the approach velocity was 1.5 to 3.5 feet per second (ft/sec), and
the bypass velocities were 1.2 to 1.6 times the approach velocity. Efficiencies were found
to drop with an increase in velocity through the louvers. For example, at 1.5 to 2 ft/sec the
efficiency was 61 percent for 15 millimeter long fish and 95 percent for 40 millimeter fish.
At 3.5 ft/sec, the efficiencies were 35 and 70 percent (Ray et al. 1976).
The efficiency of a louver device is highly dependent upon the length and swimming
performance of a fish. Efficiencies of lower than 80 percent have been seen at facilities
where fish were less than 1 to 1.6 inches in length (Mussalli, 1980).
In the 1990s, an experimental louver bypass system was tested at the USGS' Conte
Anadromous Fish Research Center in Massachusetts. This testing showed guidance
efficiencies for Connecticut River species of 97 percent for a "wide array" of louvers and
100 percent for a "narrow array" (EPRI, 1999).
At the Tracy Fish Collection Facility located along the San Joaquin River in California,
testing was performed from 1993 and 1995 to determine the guidance efficiency of a
system with primary and secondary louvers. The results for green and white sturgeon,
American shad, splittail, white catfish, delta smelt, Chinook salmon, and striped bass
showed mean diversion efficiencies ranging from 63 (splittail) to 89 percent (white
catfish) (EPRI, 1999).
In 1984 at the San Onofre Station, a total of 196,978 fish entered the louver system with
188,583 returned to the waterbody and 8,395 impinged. In 1985, 407,755 entered the
louver system with 306,200 returned and 101,555 impinged. Therefore, the guidance
efficiencies in 1984 and 1985 were 96 and 75 percent, respectively. However, 96-hour
survival rates for some species, i.e., anchovies and croakers, were 50 percent or less.
Louvers were originally considered for use at San Onofre because of 1970s pilot testing
at the Redondo Beach Station in California where maximum guidance efficiencies of 96-
100 percent were observed. (EPRI, 1999)
At the Maxwell Irrigation Canal in Oregon, louver spacing was 5.0 cm with a 98 percent
efficiency of deflecting immature steelhead and above 90 percent efficiency for the same
species with a louver spacing of 10.8 cm.
At the Ruth Falls Power Plant in Nova Scotia, the results of a five-year evaluation for
guiding salmon smelts showed that the optimum spacing was to have wide bar spacing at
the widest part of the louver with a gradual reduction in the spacing approaching the
bypass. The site used abypass:approach velocity ratio of 1.0 : 1.5 (Ray et al, 1976).
Coastal species in California were deflected optimally (Schuler and Larson, 1974 in Ray
et al, 1976) with 2.5 cm spacing of the louvers, 20 degree louver array to the direction of
flow and approach velocities of 0.6 cm per second.
At the T.W. Sullivan Hydroelectric Plant along the Williamette River in Oregon, the
A-20
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
louver system is estimated to be 92 percent effective in diverting spring Chinook, 82
percent for all Chinook, and 85 percent for steelhead. The system has been optimized to
reduce fish injuries such that the average injury occurrence is only 0.44 percent (EPRI,
1999).
Design Considerations:
The most important parameters of the design of louver barriers include the following:
• The angle of the louver vanes in relation to the channel velocity ,
• The spacing between the louvers which is related to the size of the fish,
• Ratio of bypass velocity to channel velocity,
• Shape of guide walls,
• Louver array angles, and
• Approach velocities.
Site-specific modeling may be needed to take into account species-specific considerations and
optimize the design efficiency (EPA, 1976; O'Keefe, 1978).
Advantages:
• Louver designs have been shown to be very effective in diverting fish (EPA, 1976).
Limitations:
• The costs of installing intakes with louvers may be substantially higher than other
technologies due to design costs and the precision required during construction.
• Extensive species-specific field testing may be required.
• The shallow angles required for the efficient design of a louver system require a long line
of louvers increasing the cost as compared to other systems (Ray et al, 1976).
• Water level changes must be kept to a minimum to maintain the most efficient flow
velocity.
A-21
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
• Fish handling devices are needed to take fish away from the louver barrier.
• Louver barriers may, or may not, require additional screening devices for removing solids
from the intake waters. If such devices are required, they may add a substantial cost to the
system (EPA, 1976).
• Louvers may not be appropriate for offshore intakes (Mussalli, 1980).
References:
Chow, W., I.P. Murarka, R.W. Broksen. "Entrainment and Impingement in Power Plant Cooling
Systems." Literature Review. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 53 (6)(1981):965-973.
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location. Design. Construction.
and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.
April 1976.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report. 1999.
EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River,
New York for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS-3976. May 1985.
Hadderingh, R.H. "Fish Intake Mortality at Power Stations, the Problem and its Remedy." N.V. Kema,
Arnheem, Netherlands. Hvdrological Bulletin 13(2-3) (1979): 83-93.
Mussalli, Y.G., E.P. Taft, and P. Hoffman. "Engineering Implications of New Fish Screening Concepts,"
In Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and impingement. L.D. Jensen (Ed.), Ecological Analysts, Inc.
Melville, NY. Chicago, Dec. 1977.
Mussalli, Y.G., E.P Taft III and J. Larson. "Offshore Water Intakes Designed to Protect Fish." Journal of
the Hydraulics Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 106Hyll (1980):
1885-1901.
O'Keefe, W., Intake Technology Moves Ahead. Power. January 1978.
Ray, S.S. and R.L. Snipes and D.A. Tomljanovich. A State-of-the-Art Report on Intake Technologies.
Prepared for Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. by the Tennessee Valley Authority. EPA 600/7-76-
020. October 1976.
A-22
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
Uziel, Mary S. "Entrainment and Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes." Literature Review. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation. 52 (6) (1980): 1616-1630.
Additional References:
Adams, S.M.etal. Analysis of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station- Intake Related Studies. Report
to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Oak Ridge National Lab. Oak Ridge TN (1979).
Bates, D.W. and R. Vinsonhaler, "The Use of Louvers for Guiding Fish." Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 86
(1956):39-57.
Bates, D.W., and S.G., Jewett Jr., "Louver Efficiency in Deflecting Downstream Migrant Steelhead," Trans.
Am. Fish Soc. 90(3)(1961):336-337.
Cada, G.G., and A.T. Szluha. "A Biological Evaluation of Devices Used for Reducing Entrainment and
Impingement Losses at Thermal Power Plants." In International Symposium on the Environmental Effects
of Hydraulic Engineering Works. Environmental Sciences Division, Publication No. 1276. Oak Ridge Nat'1.
Lab., Oak Ridge TN (1978).
Cannon, J.B., et al. "Fish Protection at Steam Electric Power Plants: Alternative Screening Devices."
ORAL/TM-6473. Oak Ridge Nat'l. Lab. Oak Ridge, TN (1979).
Downs, D.I., and K.R. Meddock, "Design of Fish Conserving Intake System," Journal of the Power Division.
ASCE. Vol. 100, No. P02, Proc. Paper 1108 (1974): 191-205.
Ducharme, L.J.A. "An Application of Louver Deflectors for Guiding Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Smolts
from Power Turbines." Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29 (1974): 1397-1404.
Hallock, R.J., R.A. Iselin, and D.H.J. Fry, Efficiency Tests of the Primary Louver Systems. Tracy Fish
Screen. 1966-67." Marine Resources Branch, California Department of Fish and Game (1968).
Katapodis, C. etal. A Study of Model and Prototype Culvert Baffling for Fish Passage. Fisheries and Marine
Service, Tech. Report No. 828. Winnipeg, Manitoba (1978).
Kerr, J.E., "Studies on Fish Preservation at the Contra Costa Steam Plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co,"
California Fish and Game Bulletin No. 92 (1953).
Marcy, B.C., andM.D. Dahlberg. Review of Best Technology Available for Cooling Water Intakes. NUS
Corporation. Pittsburgh, PA (1978).
NUS Corp./'Review of Best Technology Available for Cooling Water Intakes." Los Angeles Dept. of Water
& Power Report, Los Angeles CA (1978).
A-23
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems || Fact Sheet No. 8: Louver Systems
Schuler, V. J., "Experimental Studies In Guiding Marine Fishes of Southern California with Screens and
Louvers," Ichthyol. Assoc.. Bulletin 8 (1973).
Skinner, J.E. "A Functional Evaluation of Large Louver Screen Installation and Fish Facilities Research on
California Water Diversion Projects." In: L.D. Jensen, ed. Entrainment and Intake Screening. Proceedings
of the Second Entrainment and Intake Screening Workshop. The John Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland. February 5-9,1973. pp 225-249 (Edison Electric Institute and Electric Power Research Institute,
EPRI Publication No. 74-049-00-5 (1974).
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Studies to Alleviate Potential Fish Entrapment Problems -
Final Report. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,
Syracuse, New York, May 1972.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. Final Report. Indian Point Flume Study. Prepared for
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, IN. July 1976.
Taft, E.P., and Y.G. Mussalli, "Angled Screens and Louvers for Diverting Fish at Power Plants,"
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Hydraulics Division. Vol 104
(1978):623-634.
Thompson, J.S., and Paulick, G.J. An Evaluation of Louvers and Bypass Facilities for Guiding Seaward
Migrant Salmonid Past Mayfield Dam in West Washington. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia,
Washington (1967).
Watts, F.J., "Design of Culvert Fishways." University of Idaho Water Resources Research Institute Report.
Moscow, Idaho (1974).
A-24
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 9: Velocity Cap
Description:
A velocity cap is a device that is placed over vertical inlets at offshore intakes (see figure
below). This cover converts vertical flow into horizontal flow at the entrance into the intake.
The device works on the premise that fish will avoid rapid changes in horizontal flow. Fish do
not exhibit this same avoidance behavior to the vertical flow that occurs without the use of such
a device. Velocity caps have been implemented at many offshore intakes and have been
successful in decreasing the impingement offish.
Testing Facilities And/or Facilities Using the Technology:
The available literature (EPA, 1976;Hanson, 1979; and Paganoetal, 1977) states that velocity
caps have been installed at offshore intakes in Southern California, the Great Lakes Region, the
Pacific Coast, the Caribbean and overseas; however, exact locations are not specified.
Velocity caps are known to have been installed at the El Segundo, Redondo Beach, and
Huntington Beach Steam Electric Stations and the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station in
Southern California (Mussalli, 1980; Pagano etal, 1977; EPRI, 1985).
Model tests have been conducted by a New York State Utility (ASCE, 1982) and several
facilities have installed velocity caps in the New York State /Great Lakes Area including the
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, the Oswego Steam Electric Station, and the Kintigh
Generating Station (EPRI, 1985).
Additional known facilities with velocity caps include the Edgewater Generation Station in
Wisconsin, the Seabrook Power Plant in New Hampshire, and the Nanticoke Thermal
Generating Station in Ontario, Canada (EPRI, 1985).
Research/Operation Findings:
Horizontal velocities within a range of 0.5 to 1.5 feet per second (ft/sec) did not
significantly affect the efficiency of a velocity cap tested at a New York facility;
however, this design velocity may be specific to the species present at that site
(ASCE, 1982).
Preliminary decreases in fish entrapment averaging 80 to 90 percent were seen at the
El Segundo and Huntington Beach Steam Electric Plants (Mussalli, 1980).
Performance of the velocity cap may be associated with cap design and the total
volumes of water flowing into the cap rather than to the critical velocity threshold of
the cap (Mussalli, 1980).
Design Considerations:
• Designs with rims around the cap edge prevent water from sweeping around the
A-25
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 9: Velocity Cap
edge causing turbulence and high velocities, thereby providing more uniform
horizontal flows (EPA, 1976; Mussalli, 1980).
Site-specific testing should be conducted to determine appropriate velocities to
minimize entrainment of particular species in the intake (ASCE, 1982).
Most structures are sized to achieve a low intake velocity between 0.5 and 1.5 ft/sec
to lessen the chances of entrainment (ASCE, 1982).
Design criteria developed for a model test conducted by Southern California Edison
Company used a velocity through the cap of 0.5 to 1.5 ft/sec; the ratio of the
dimension of the rim to the height of the intake areas was 1.5 to 1 (ASCE, 1982;
Schuler, 1975).
Advantages:
• Efficiencies of velocity caps on West Coast offshore intakes have exceeded 90
percent (ASCE, 1982).
Limitations:
• Velocity caps are difficult to inspect due to their location under water (EPA, 1976).
• In some studies, the velocity cap only minimized the entrainment offish and did not
eliminate it. Therefore, additional fish recovery devices are be needed in when
using such systems (ASCE, 1982; Mussalli, 1980).
• Velocity caps are ineffective in preventing passage of non-motile organisms and
early life stage fish (Mussalli, 1980).
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY. 1982.
EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl
River, New York for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS-3976. May 1985.
Hanson, C.H., et al. "Entrapment and Impingement of Fishes by Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes:
An Overview." Marine Fisheries Review. October 1977.
Mussalli, Y.G., E.P Taft III and J. Larson. "Offshore Water Intakes Designed to Protect Fish." Journal
of the Hydraulics Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 106 Hyl 1
(1980): 1885-1901.
Pagano R. and W.H.B. Smith. Recent Development in Techniques to Protect Aquatic Organisms at the
Water Intakes of Steam Electric Power Plants. Prepared for Electricite' de France. MITRE Technical
A-26
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 9: Velocity Cap
Report 7671. November 1977.
Ray, S.S. and R.L. Snipes and D.A. Tomljanovich. A State-of-the-Art Report on Intake Technologies.
Prepared for Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. by the Tennessee Valley Authority. EPA 600/7-
76-020. October 1976.
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location. Design.
Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. April 1976.
Additional References:
Maxwell, W.A. Fish Diversion for Electrical Generating Station Cooling Systems a State of the Art
Report. Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Report SNE-123, NUS Corporation, Dunedin, FL. (1973)
78p.
Weight, R.H. "Ocean Cooling Water System for 800 MW Power Station." J. Power Div., Proc. Am.
Soc. Civil Engr. 84(6)(1958): 1888-1 to 1888-222.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. Studies to Alleviate Fish Entrapment at Power Plant
Cooling Water Intakes. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester
Gas and Electric Corporation, November 1976.
Richards, R.T. "Power Plant Circulating Water Systems - A Case Study." Short Course on the
Hydraulics of Cooling Water Systems for Thermal Power Plants. Colorado State University. June 1978.
A-27
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 10: Fish Barrier Nets
Description:
Fish barrier nets are wide mesh nets, which are placed in front of the entrance to an intake
structure (see figure below). The size of the mesh needed is a function of the species that are
present at a particular site. Fish barrier nets have been used at numerous facilities and lend
themselves to intakes where the seasonal migration of fish and other organisms require fish
diversion facilities for only specific times of the year.
Testing Facilities And/or Facilities Using the Technology:
The Bowline Point Generating Station, the J.P. Pulliam Power Plant in Wisconsin, the
Ludington Storage Plant in Michigan, and the Nanticoke Thermal Generating Station in Ontario
use barrier nets (EPRI, 1999).
Barrier Nets have been tested at the Detroit Edison Monroe Plant on Lake Erie and the Chalk
Point Station on the Patuxent River in Maryland (ASCE, 1982; EPRI, 1985). The Chalk Point
Station now uses barrier nets seasonally to reduce fish and Blue Crab entry into the intake canal
(EPRI, 1985). The Pickering Generation Station in Ontario evaluated rope nets in 1981
illuminated by strobe lights (EPRI, 1985).
Research/Operation Findings:
• At the Bowline Point Generating Station in New York, good results (91 percent
impingement reductions) have been realized with a net placed in a V arrangement
around the intake structure (ASCE, 1982; EPRI, 1999).
• In 1980, a barrier net was installed at the J.R. Whiting Plant (Michigan) to protect
Maumee Bay. Prior to net installation, 17,378,518 fish were impinged on
conventional traveling screens. With the net, sampling in 1983 and 84 showed
421,978 fish impinged (97 percent effective), sampling in 1987 showed 82,872 fish
impinged (99 percent effective), and sampling in 1991 showed 316,575 fish impinged
(98 percent effective) (EPRI, 1999).
• Nets tested with high intake velocities (greater than 1.3 feet per second) at the Monroe
Plant have clogged and subsequentially collapsed. This has not occurred at facilities
where the velocities are 0.4 to 0.5 feet per second (ASCE, 1982).
• Barrier nets at the Nanticoke Thermal Generating Station in Ontario reduced intake of
fish by 50 percent (EPRI, 1985).
• The J.P Pulliam Generating Station in Wisconsin uses dual barrier nets (0.64
centimeters stretch mesh) to permit net rotation for cleaning. Nets are used from April
to December or when water temperatures go above 4 degrees Celsius. Impingement has
been reduced by as much as 90 percent. Operating costs run about $5,000 per year, and
nets are replaced every two years at $2,500 per net (EPRI, 1985).
• The Chalk Point Station in Maryland realized operational costs of $5,000-10,000 per
A-28
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 10: Fish Barrier Nets
year with the nets being replaced every two years (EPRI, 1985). However, crab
impingement has been reduced by 84 percent and overall impingrment liability has
been reduced from $2 million to $140,000 (EPRI, 1999).
• The Ludington Storage Plant (Michigan) provides water from Lake Michigan to a
number of power plant facilities. The plant has a 2.5-mile long barrier net that has
successfully reduced impingement and entrainment. The overall net effectiveness for
target species (five salmonids, yellow perch, rainbow smelt, alewife, and chub) has
been over 80 percent since 1991 and 96 percent since 1995. The net is deployed from
mid-April to mid-October, with storms and icing preventing use during the remainder
of the year (EPRI, 1999).
Design Considerations:
• The most important factors to consider in the design of a net barrier are the site-specific
velocities and the potential for clogging with debris (ASCE, 1982).
• The size of the mesh must permit effective operations, without excessive clogging.
Designs at the Bowline Point Station in New York have 0.15 and 0.2 inch openings in
the mesh nets, while the J.P. Pulliam Plant in Wisconsin has 0.25 inch openings
(ASCE, 1982).
Advantages:
• Net barriers, if operating properly, should require very little maintenance.
• Net barriers have relatively little cost associated with them.
Limitations:
• Net barriers are not effective for the protection of the early life stages of fish or
zooplankton (ASCE, 1982).
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. American Society of Civil Engineers
(1982).
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report.
1999.
EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl
River, New York for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS-3976. May 1985.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers. 1977 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies at the Bowline
Point Generating Stations. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Pearl River, NY. 1978.
A-29
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 11: Aquatic Filter Barrier
Systems
Description:
Aquatic filter barrier systems are barriers that employ a filter fabric designed to allow for passage
of water into a cooling water intake structure, but exclude aquatic organisms. These systems are
designed to be placed some distance from the cooling water intake structure within the source
waterbody and act as a filter for the water that enters into the cooling water system. These
systems may be floating, flexible, or fixed. Since these systems generally have such a large
surface area, the velocities that are maintained at the face of the permeable curtain are very low.
One company, Gunderboom, Inc., has a patented full-water-depth filter curtain comprised of
polyethylene or polypropylene fabric that is suspended by flotation billets at the surface of the
water and anchored to the substrate below. The curtain fabric is manufactured as a matting of
minute unwoven fibers with an apparent opening size of 20 microns. The Gunderboom
Marine/Aquatic Life Exclusion System (MLES)™ also employs an automated "air burst"™
technology to periodically shake the material and pass air bubbles through the curtain system to
clean it of sediment buildup and release any other material back in to the water column.
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities Using the Technology:
• Gunderboom MLES ™ have been tested and are currently installed on a seasonal
basis at Unit 3 of the Lovett Station in New York. Prototype testing of the
Gunderboom system began in 1994 as a means of lowering ichthyoplankton
entrainment at Unit 3. This was the first use of the technology at a cooling water
intake structure. The Gunderboom tested was a single layer fabric. Material
clogging resulted in loss of filtration capacity and boom submergence within 12
hours of deployment. Ichthyoplankton monitoring while the boom was intact
indicated an 80 percent reduction in entrainable organisms (Lawler, Matusky, and
Skelly Engineers, 1996).
• A Gunderboom MLES ™ was effectively deployed at the Lovett Station for 43
days in June and July of 1998 using an Air-Burst cleaning system and newly
designed deadweight anchoring system. The cleaning system coupled with a
perforated material proved effective at limiting sediment on the boom, however it
required an intensive operational schedule (Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers,
1998).
• A 1999 study was performed on the Gunderboom MLES ™ at the Lovett Station in
New York to qualitatively determine the characteristics of the fabric with respect to
the impingement of ichthyoplankton at various flow regimes. Conclusions were
that the viability of striped bass eggs and larvae were not affected (Lawler,
Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, 1999).
• Ichthyoplankton sampling at Unit 3 (with Gunderboom MLES ™ deployed) and
Unit 4 (without Gunderboom) in May through August 2000 showed an overall
effectiveness of approximately 80 percent. For juvenile fish, the density at Unit 3
was 58 percent lower. For post yolk-sac larvae, densities were 76 percent lower.
For yolk-sac larvae, densities were 87 percent lower (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
A-30
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 11: Aquatic Filter Barrier
Systems
Engineers 2000).
Research/operation Findings:
Extensive testing of the Gunderboom MLES ™ has been performed at the Lovett Station in
New York. Anchoring, material, cleaning, and monitoring systems have all been
redesigned to meet the site-specific conditions in the waterbody and to optimize the
operations of the Gunderboom. Although this technology has been implemented at only
one cooling water intake structure, it appears to be a promising technology to reduce
impingement and entrainment impacts. It is also being evaluated for use at the Centre
Costa Power Plant in California.
Design Considerations:
The most important parameters in the design of a Gunderboom ® Marine/Aquatic Life
Exclusion System include the following (Gunderboom, Inc. 1999):
• Size of booms designed for 3-5 gpm per square foot of submerged fabric. Flows
greater than 10-12 gallons per minute.
• Flow-through velocity is approximately 0.02 ft/s.
• Performance monitoring and regular maintenance.
Advantages:
Can be used in all waterbody types.
All larger and nearly all other organisms can swim away from the barrier because
of low velocities.
Little damage is caused to fish eggs and larvae if they are drawn up against the
fabric.
Modulized panels may easily be replaced.
Easily deployed for seasonal use.
Biofouling appears to be controllable through use of the sparging system.
Impinged organisms released back into the waterbody.
Benefits relative to cost appear to be very promising, but remain unproven to date.
Installation can occur with no or minimal plant shutdown.
A-31
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 11: Aquatic Filter Barrier
Systems
Limitations:
Currently only a proven technology for this application at one facility.
Extensive waterbody-specific field testing may be required.
May not be appropriate for conditions with large fluctuations in ambient flow and
heavy currents and wave action.
High level of maintenance and monitoring required.
Recent studies have asserted that biofouling can be significant.
Higher flow facilities may require very large surface areas; could interfere with
other waterbody uses.
References:
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, "Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom Evaluation
Program - 1995" Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Pearl River, New York, June
1996.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, "Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom System Evaluation
Program - 1998" Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Pearl River, New York,
December 1998.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, " Lovett Gunderboom Fabric Ichthyoplankton Bench Scale
Testing" Southern Energy Lovett. New York, November 1999.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, "Lovett 2000 Report" Prepared for Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc. Pearl River, New York, 2000.
A-32
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
Description:
Sound barriers are non-contact barriers that rely on mechanical.or electronic equipment that
generates various sound patterns to elicit avoidance responses in fish. Acoustic barriers are
used to deter fish from entering industrial water intakes and power plant turbines.
Historically, the most widely-used acoustical barrier is a pneumatic air gun or "popper."
The pneumatic air gun is a modified seismic device which produces high-amplitude,
low-frequency sounds to exclude fish. Closely related devices include "fishdrones" and
"fishpulsers" (also called "hammers"). The fishdrone produces a wider range of sound
frequencies and amplitudes than the popper. The fishpulser produces a repetitive sharp
hammering sound of low-frequency and high-amplitude. Both instruments have ahd
limited effectiveness in the field (EPRI, 1995; EPRI, 1989; Hanson, et al., 1977; EPA,
1976; Taft, etal., 1988; ASCE, 1992).
Researchers have generally been unable to demonstrate or apply acoustic barriers as fish
deterrents, even though fish studies showed that fish respond to sound, because the
response varies as a function offish species, age, and size as well as environmental factors
at specific locations. Fish may also acclimate to the sound patterns used (EPA, 1976; Taft
et al., 1988; EPRI, 1995; Ray at al., 1976; Hadderingh, 1979; Hanson et al., 1977; ASCE,
1982).
Since about 1989, the application of highly refined sound generation equipment originally
developed for military use (e.g., sonar in submarines) has greatly advanced acoustic barrier
technology. Ibis technology has the ability to generate a wide array of frequencies, patterns,
and volumes, which are monitored and controlled by computer. Video and computer
monitoring provide immediate feedback on the effectiveness of an experimental sound
pattern at a given location. In a particular environment, background sounds can be
accounted for, target fish species or fish populations can quickly be characterized, and the
most effective sound pattern can be selected (Menezes, at al., 1991; Sonalysts, Inc.).
Testing Facilities and/or Facilities with Technology in Use:
No fishpulsers and pneumatic air guns are currently in use at power plant water intakes.
Research facilities that have completed studies or have on-going testing involving
fishpulsers or pneumatic air guns include the Ludington Storage Plant on Lake Michigan;
Nova Scotia Power; the Hells Gate Hydroelectric Station on the Black River; the Annapolis
Generating Station on the Bay of Fundy; Ontario Hydro's Pickering Nuclear Generating
station; the Roseton Generating Station in New York; the Seton Hydroelectric Station in
British Columbia; the Surry Power Plant in Virginia; the Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Station Unit 3 in New York; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Savannah River
(EPRI, 1985; EPRI, 1989; EPRI, 1988; and Taft, et al., 1998).
Updated acoustic technology developed by Sonalysts, Inc. has been applied at the James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York on Lake Ontario; the Vernon Hydroelectric
plant on the Connecticut River (New England Power Company, 1993; Menezes, et al.,
1991; personal communication with Sonalysts, Inc., by SAIC, 1993); and in a quarry in
A-33
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
Verplank, New York (Dunning, et al., 1993).
Research/operation Findings:
• Most pre-1976 research was related to fish response to sound rather than on field
applications of sound barriers (EPA, 1976; Ray et al., 1976; Uziel, 1980; Hanson,
etal., 1977).
• Before 1986, no acoustic barriers were deemed reliable for field use. Since 1986,
several facilities have tried to use pneumatic poppers with limited successes. Even
in combination with light barriers and air bubble barriers, poppers and fishpulsers,
were ineffective for most intakes (Taft and Downing, 1988; EPRI, 1985; Patrick, et
al., 1988; EPRI, 1989; EPRI, 1988; Taft, et al., 1988; McKinley and Patrick, 1998;
Chow, 1981).
• A 1991 full-scale 4-month demonstration at the James A. FitzPatrick (JAF) Nuclear
Power Plant in New York on Lake Ontario showed that the Sonalysts, Inc.
FishStartle System reduced alewife impingement by 97 percent as compared to a
control power plant located 1 mile away. (Ross, et al., 1993; Menezes, et al., 1991).
JAF experienced a 96 percent reduction compared to fish impingement when the
acoustic system was not in use. A 1993 3-month test of the system at JAF was
reported to be successful, i.e., 85 percent reduction in alewife impingement.
(Menezes, et al., 1991; EPRI, 1999).
• In tests at the Pickering Station in Ontario, poppers were found to be effective in
reducing alewife impingement and entrainment by 73 percent in 1985 and 76
percent in 1986. No benefits were observed for rainbow smelt and gizzard shad.
Sound provided little or no deterrence for any species at the Roseton Generating
Station in New York.
• During marine construction of Boston's third Harbor Tunnel in 1992, the Sonalysts,
Inc. FishStartle System was used to prevent shad, blueback herring, and alewives
from entering underwater blasting areas during the fishes' annual spring migration.
The portable system was used prior to each blast to temporarily deter fish and
allow periods of blasting as necessary for the construction of the tunnel (personal
communication to SAIC from M. Curtin, Sonalysts, Inc., September 17, 1993).
• In fall 1992, the Sonalysts, Inc. FishStartle System was tested in a series of
experiments conducted at the Vernon Hydroelectric plant on the Connecticut River.
Caged juvenile shad were exposed to various acoustical signals to see which signals
elicited the strongest reactions. Successful in situ tests involved applying the signals
with a transducer system to divert juvenile shad from the forebay to a bypass pipe.
Shad exhibited consistent avoidance reactions to the signals and did not show
evidence of acclimation to the source (New England Power Company, 1993).
Design Considerations:
A-34
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD
Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems
Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
Advantages:
Limitations:
Sonalysts Inc.'s FishStartle system uses frequencies between 15 hertz tolSO
kilohertz at sound pressure levels ranging from 130 to 206+ decibels referenced to
one micropascal (dB//uPa). To develop a site-specific FishStartle program, a test
program using frequencies in the low frequency portion of the spectrum between
25 and 3300 herz were used. Fish species tested by Sonalysts, Inc. include white
perch, striped bass, atlantic tomcod, spottail shiner, and golden shiner (Menezes et
al., 1991).
Sonalysts' FishStartle system used fixed programming contained on Erasable
Programmable Read Only Memory (EPROM) micro circuitry. For field
applications, a system was developed using IBM PC compatible software.
Sonalysts' FishStartle system includes a power source, power amplifiers, computer
controls and analyzer in a control room, all of which are connected to a noise
hydrophone in the water. The system also uses a television monitor and camera
controller that is linked to an underwater light and camera to count fish and
evaluate their behavior.
One Sonalysts, Inc. system has transducers placed 5 m from the bar rack of the
intake.
At the Seton Hydroelectric Station in British Columbia, the distance from the water
intake to the fishpulser was 350 m (1150 ft); at Hells Gate, a fishpulser was
installed at a distance of 500 feet from the intake.
The pneumatic gun evaluated at the Roseton intake had a 16.4 cubic cm (1.0 cubic
inch) chamber connected by a high pressure hose and pipe assembly to an Air
Power Supply Model APS-F2-25 air compressor. The pressure used was a line
pressure of 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) (EPRI, 1988).
The pneumatic air gun, hammer, and fishpulser are easily implemented at low
costs.
Behavioral barriers do not require physical handling of the fish.
The pneumatic air gun, hammer, and fishpulser are not considered reliable.
Sophisticated acoustic sound generating system require relatively expensive
systems, including cameras, sound generating systems, and control systems. No
cost information is available since a permanent system has yet to be installed.
Sound barrier systems require site-specific designs consisting of relatively high
technology equipment that must be maintained at the site.
A-35
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
References:
ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. American Society of Civil
Engineers. New York, NY. 1982. pp. 69-73.
Chow, W., Isbwar P. Murarka, Robert W. Brocksen. Electric Power Research Institute,
Entrainment and Impingement in Power Plant Cooling Systems. June 1981.
Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, P. Geoghegan, J.J. Reichle, J. K. Menezes, and J.K. Watson. Ale wives
Avoid High Frequency Sound. 1993.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status
Report. 1999.
EPRI. Field Testing of Behavioral Barriers for Fish Exclusion at Cooling Water Intake Svtems:
Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Electric Power Research Institute. March
1989a.
EPRI. Intake Technologies: Research S . Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl
River, for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI GS-6293. March 1989.
EPRI. Field Testing of Behavioral Barriers for Fish Exclusion at Cooling Water Intake Systems:
Central Hudson Gas and Electric CoMany. Roseton Generating Statoni. Electric Power Research
Institute. September 1988.
EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. 1985. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Enginem,
Pearl River, for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS-3976. May 1985.
Hadderingh, R. H. "Fish Intake Mortality at Power Stations: The Problem and Its Remedy."
Netherlands Hvdrobiological Bulletin . 13(2-3), 83-93, 1979.
Hanson, C. H., J.R. White, and H.W. Li. "Entrapment and Impingement of Fishes by Power Plant
Cooling Water Intakes: An Overview." from Fisheries Review. MFR Paper 1266. October 1977.
McKinley, R.S. and P.H. Patrick. 'Use of Behavioral Stimuli to Divert Sockeye Salmon Smolts at
the Seton Hydro-Electric Station, British Columbia." In the Electric Power Research Institute
Proceedings Fish Protection at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants. March 1988.
Menezes, Stephen W. Dolat, Gary W. Tiller, and Peter J. Dolan. Sonalysts, Inc. Waterford,
Connecticut. The Electronic FishStartle System. 1991.
New England_Power Company. Effect of Ensonification on Juvenile American Shad Movement
and Behavior at Vernon Hydroelectric Station, 1992. March 1993.
Patrick, P.H., R.S. McKinley, and W.C. Micheletti. "Field Testing of Behavioral Barriers for
Cooling Water Intake Structures-Test Site 1-Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, 1985/96.* In
the Electric Power Research Institute Proceedings Fish Protection at Steam and Hydroelectri Power
Plants. March 1988.
A-36
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
Personal Communication, September 17, 1993, letter and enclosure from MJ. Curtin (Sonalysts,
Inc.) to D. Benelmouffok (SAIC).
Ray, S.S., R.L. Snipes, and D. A Tomljanovich. *A State-of-the-Art Report on Intake
Technologies.- TVA PRS-16 and EPA 6OOn-76-020. October 1976.
Sonalysts, Inc. "FishStartle System in Action: Acoustic Solutions to Environmental Problems" (on
video tape). 215 Parkway North, Waterfbrd, CT 06385.
Taft, E. P., and J.K. Downing. -Comparative Assessment of Fish Protection Alternatives fbr Fossil
and Hydroelectric Facilities.' In the Electric Power Research Institute Proceedingso Fish Protection
at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants. March 1998.
Taft, E.P, J. K. Downing, and C. W. Sullivan. "Laboratory and Field Evaluations of Fish Protection
Systems for Use at Hydroelectric Plants Study Update." In the Electric Power Research Institute's
Proceedings: Fish Protection at Stearn and Hydroelectric Power Plants. March 1988.
U.S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location. D
Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures fbr Minimizing Adverse
Environmental Impact. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division,
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. April 1976.
Uziel, Mary S., "Entrainment and Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes." Journal WPCF. Vol. 52,
No.6. June 1980.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:
Blaxter, J.H.S., and D.E. Hoss. "Startle Response in Herring: the Effect of Sound Stimulus
Frequency, Size of Fish and Selective Interference with the Acoustical-lateralis System. " Journal
of the Marine Biolozical Association of the United Kingdom. 61:971-879. 1981.
Blaxter, JJ.S., J.A.B. Gray, and E.J. Denton. "Sound and Startle Response in Herring Shoals." £_
Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 61:851-869. 1981.
Burdic, W.S. Underwater Acoustic System Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
1984.
Burner, C.J., and H.L. Moore. "Attempts to Guide Small Fish with Underwater Sound. "U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 403. 1962. p. 29.
C.H. Hocutt. "Behavioral Barriers and Guidance Systems." In Power Plants: Effects on Fish and
Shellfish Behavior. C.H. Hocutt, J.R Stauffer, Jr., J. Edinger, L. Hall, Jr., and R Morgan, II
(Editors). Academic Press. New York, NY. 1980. pp. 183-205.
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation. 'Alternative Fish Protective Techniques:
Pneumatic Guns and Rope. Nets." EP-83-12. March 1984.
A-37
-------
§ 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - TDD Attachment A to Chapter 4
Fish Diversion or Avoidance Systems Fact Sheet No. 12: Sound Barriers
Fay, R.R. Hearing in Invertebrates* A Psvchg2-hysics Data Boo . HUI-Fay Associates. Winnetka,
Illinois. 1988.
Frizzell, L.A., *Biological Effects of Acoustic Cavitation." In Ultrasound Its Chemical. Physical
and Biological Effects. K.S. Suslick (Editor). VCH Publishers, Inc. New York. 1988. pp. 297-319.
Haymes, G.T., and P.H. Patrick. "Exclusion of Adult Alewife (Alosa pseuoharengus), Using
Low-Frequency Sound for Application of Water Intakes.' Can. J. Fish. Aamatics Srd. 43:855862.
1986.
Micheletti, Coal Combustion Systems Division. "Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake
Systems." EM Journal. September 1987.
Micheletti, Coal Combustion Systems Division. wFish Protection at Cooling Water Intake
Systems." EPRI Journal. September 1997.
Patrick, P.H., R.S. McKinley, A. E. Christie, and J.G. Holsapple. "Fish Protection: Sonic
Deterrents.' In the EPRI Proceeding: Fish Protection at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants.
March 1988.
Platt, C., and A.N. Popper. "Find Structure and Function of the Ear." In Hearing and Sound
Communication in Fishes. W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper and R.R. Ray (Editors). SpringerVerlag.
New York.
Ross, Q.E., D. J. Dunning, R. Thorne, J. Menezes, G. W. Tiller, and J. K. Watson. Response of
Alewives to High Frequency Sound at a Power Plant Intake on Lake Ontario. 1993.
Schwarz, A.L., and G.L. Greer. "Responses, of Pacific Herring, Clultea harengus Rallasi. to Some
Undervrater Sounds." Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 41:1193-1192. 1984.
Smith, E.J., and J.K. Andersen. "Attempts to Alleviate Fish Losses from Allegheny Reservoir,
Pennsylvania and New York, Using Acoustic." North American Journal of Fisheries Management
vol 4(3), 1994. pp. 300-307.
Thorne, R.E. "Assessment of Population Density by Hydroacoustics." In Journal of Biological
Oceanography. Vol. 2. 1983. pp. 252-262.
A-38
------- |