Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities
EPA
developed
the
following
costing
modules
for
assessing
model­
facility
compliance
costs
for
the
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA):

1.
Fish
handling
and
return
system
(
impingement
only)
2.
Fine
mesh
traveling
screens
with
fish
handling
and
return
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
3.
New
larger
intake
structure
with
fine
mesh,
handling
and
return
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
4.
Passive
fine
mesh
screens
at
shoreline
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
5.
Fish
barrier
net
(
impingement
only)
6.
Gunderboom
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
7.
Relocate
intake
to
submerged
offshore
with
passive
fine
mesh
screen
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
8.
Velocity
cap
at
inlet
of
offshore
submerged
(
impingement
only)
9.
Passive
fine
mesh
screen
at
inlet
of
offshore
submerged
(
impingement
&
entrainment)
10.
Add/
modify
shoreline
tech
for
submerged
offshore
(
impingement
only
or
I&
E)
11.
Add
double­
entry,
single­
exit
with
fine
mesh
and
fish
handling
and
return
(
impingement
&
entrainment)

The
derivation
and
background
for
each
of
these
technology
modules
is
presented
in
public
record
under
the
item
titled,
"
316(
b)
Phase
II
NODA
Cost
Modules."

For
the
main
NODA
option,
each
model
facility
had
three
potential
compliance
actions:
(
1)
no
impingement
and
entrainment
controls,
(
2)
impingement
controls
only,
or
(
3)
impingement
controls
plus
entrainment
controls.
A
facility
qualifies
for
compliance
action
(
1)
if
it
has
recirculating
cooling
systems
in
place.
Figures
1
and
2
at
the
end
of
this
document
provide
a
decision
tree
for
assigning
compliance
actions
(
2)
and
(
3)
to
the
in­
scope
Phase
II
model
facilities.
The
following
files
included
in
the
public
record
present
a
roadmap
of
technology
upgrades
for
those
facilities
and
intakes
receiving
compliance
actions
(
2)
and
(
3):

 
316b_
Phase2_
DQ_
MainOpt_
Estuary.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
estuarine
and
tidal
river
facilities
responding
to
the
detailed
questionnaire)
 
316b_
Phase2_
DQ_
MainOpt_
FreshRiver.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
freshwater
river
and
stream
facilities
responding
to
the
detailed
questionnaire)
 
316b_
Phase2_
DQ_
MainOpt_
Lake_
Ocean_
GL.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
freshwater
lake
and
reservoir,
Great
Lake,
and
ocean
facilities
responding
to
the
detailed
questionnaire)
 
316b_
Phase2_
STQ_
MainOpt_
Estuary.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
estuarine
and
tidal
river
facilities
responding
to
the
short­
technical
questionnaire)
 
316b_
Phase2_
STQ_
MainOpt_
FreshRiver.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
freshwater
river
and
stream
facilities
responding
to
the
short­
technical
questionnaire)
 
316b_
Phase2_
STQ_
MainOpt_
Estuary.
xls
(
compliance
actions
for
freshwater
lake
and
reservoir,
Great
Lake,
and
ocean
facilities
responding
to
the
short­
tech.
questionnaire)

Of
the
modules
listed
above,
numbers
1,
5,
8,
and
in
some
cases
10
are
dedicated
to
impingement
controls
alone.
The
Agency
generally
applied
the
remainder
of
the
technology
modules
(
including
number
10
in
some
instances)
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
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

2
model
facility
to
upgrade
the
existing
impingement
controls
in
addition
to
the
entrainment
upgrade.
The
Agency
learned
through
its
research
subsequent
to
the
February
2002
proposal
that
in
most
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
screen
technology
module
documentation).
The
Agency
assigned
entrainment
only
(
with
no
additional
impingement
upgrade
costs)
requirements
to
a
few
unique
situations
for
the
main
option
in
the
NODA.
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
finemesh
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
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
satellite
photos
and
overhead
maps,
where
available.
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
and
detailed
questionnaire
respondents
was
the
level
to
which
the
Agency
developed
costs.
The
short­
technical
questionnaire
responses
did
not
provide
significant
intake­
level
data,
outside
of
intake
identification
information
and
velocity.
For
instance,
for
the
short­
technical
questionnaire,
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
short­
technical
questionnaires.
Necessarily,
the
Agency
utilized
this
facility­
level
information
for
the
short­
technical
respondents
and
treated
the
facility
as
though
it
were
a
single
intake
with
the
characteristics
reported
for
the
facility.
For
the
detailed
questionnaire
facilities,
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
applied
at
each
model­
facility.
For
those
facilities
utilizing
recirculating
cooling
systems
in­
place,
the
Agency
assigned
no
compliance
actions
as
they
met
the
standards
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
conservatively
estimate
the
compliance
costs,
as
the
Agency's
methodology
utilizes
flow
as
the
independent
variable.
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
then
categorized
facilities
by
questionnaire
type
(
that
is,
short­
technical
questionnaire
and
detailed
questionnaire
respondents).
Following
the
questionnaire
division,
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
only
intake
technology
(
outside
of
recirculating
cooling)
that
qualifies
to
meet
the
requirements
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

3
at
baseline
is
a
fine
mesh
screening
system.
Few
intakes
have
fine
mesh
in­
place
at
baseline.
Therefore,
in
the
case
of
entrainment
requirements,
most
facilities
with
the
requirement
would
receive
technology
upgrades.
The
methodology
for
choosing
these
entrainment
technologies
is
explained
further
on
in
this
discussion.
For
the
case
of
impingement
requirements,
there
are
a
variety
of
intake
technologies
that
qualify
to
meet
the
requirements
at
baseline.
The
intake
types
meeting
impingement
requirements
at
baseline
include
the
following:
barrier
net
(
the
only
fish
diversion
system
which
qualifies),
passive
intakes
(
of
a
variety
of
types),
and
fish
handling
and
return
systems.
A
significant
number
of
intakes
(
facilities)
have
impingement
technologies
inplace
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
credits,
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
crosssectional
area,
where
applicable
(
specific
to
detailed
questionnaire
respondents
only).
The
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
examines
whether
or
not
the
intake
has
an
onshore
terminus
(
or
well)
and
assesses
the
characteristics
of
the
onshore
system.

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
commercially
available
satellite
images
and
maps
where
available.
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
degree
of
navigational
traffic
in
the
near
vicinity
of
the
intake,
the
potential
for
an
intake
modification
to
protrude
into
the
waterbody
(
such
as
a
near­
shore
t­
screen)
and
whether
a
protrusion
might
be
tolerated,
the
possibility
of
installing
a
barrier
net
system,
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
a
crosswalk
and
breakdown
of
the
application
of
the
technology
modules.
The
crosswalk
provides
specific
factors
that
EPA
considered
in
the
application
of
each
module.
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
almost
exclusively
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
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

4
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
Traveling
Screen
cost
module,
page
5)

Module
2
­
Add
Fine
Mesh
Travelling
Screens
with
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).
Note:
in
addition
to
adding
fine­
mesh
screens
that
this
technology
also
replaces
the
fish
handling
and
return
system
of
the
intake.
Note:
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.
Note:
for
those
facility
with
existing
screens
and
fish
handling
and
return
and
only
entrainment
reduction
is
required
only
fine
mesh
screen
overlay
panels
is
applied..
See
the
documentation
for
this
particular
module
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
above
roughly
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
roughly
1
ft/
sec
or
below.
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
after
construction
complete.
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
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.
In
these
cases,
the
Agency
may
have
applied
this
module
to
allow
for
proper
operation.

Module
4
­
Add
Passive
Fine
Mesh
Screens
at
Shoreline:
This
technology
applies
mostly
for
the
case
of
entrainment
and
impingement
upgrades.
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
is
slightly
more
flexible
in
its
location
than
Module
3
and
that
Module
4
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.
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.
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

5
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
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
velocities
when
applying
barrier
nets.
Instead,
the
Agency
focused
on
the
configuration
of
the
intake
and
its
adjoining
shorelines.

Module
6
­
Gunderboom:
The
Agency
did
not
apply
this
module
for
any
of
the
intakes/
facilities
for
the
Notice
of
Data
Availability.

Module
7
­
Relocate
Intake
to
Submerged
Offshore
with
Passive
Screen:
The
Agency
applied
this
costing
module
to
address
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements.
The
Agency
applied
this
module,
generally,
to
any
waterbody
for
which
there
was
a
clear
advantage
to
its
implementation.
What
the
Agency
defined
as
an
advantage
for
this
module
generally
related
to
the
fact
that
an
onshore
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.
Additionally,
the
Agency
relied
on
this
module
to
represent
situations
where
there
was
not
one
module
that
stood
out
as
the
clear
choice
solution.
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
rare,
as
most
submerged
offshore
intakes
had
at
least
passive
offshore
intake
inlets.
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
requirments.
As
a
general
rule,
the
Agency
has
reservations
about
the
ability
of
a
velocity
cap
system
to
meet
the
numerical
requirements
of
the
impingement
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.

Module
9
­
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.
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
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

6
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
discusssion
of
this
module,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
Agency
treated
the
existance
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
Notice
of
Data
Availability.
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
that
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
more
expensive,
and
therefore,
likely
more
applicable
for
a
wider
range
of
applications.

Module
11
­
Add
Double­
Entry,
Single­
Exit
with
Fine
Mesh,
Handling
and
Return:
The
doubleentry
single­
exit
screen
provides
a
way
for
facilities
with
limited
ability
to
expand
the
size
of
their
intakes
to
lower
the
intake
velocity
(
that
is,
increase
the
cross­
sectional
area
of
the
intake
screens)
without
expanding
the
foot
print
of
the
intake.
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
when
the
intake
velocity
was
above
roughly
1
ft/
sec.

The
Agency
compiled
a
breakdown
of
the
application
of
each
module
by
compliance
requirement
and
waterbody
type.
These
results
are
presented
in
Tables
1
 
3.

Table
1.
Technology
Module
Applications
for
Facilities
with
Impingement
Requirements
Only
Waterbody
Type
Module
Lake/
Res.
Great
Lake
Ocean
Estuary
River/
Stream
All
Waterbodies
1
44
1
4
26
42
117
2
0
0
0
1
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
6
7
5
31
1
0
14
13
59
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
1
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
1
0
2
3
Table
2.
Module
Applications
for
both
Entrainment
&
Impingement
Requirements
Waterbody
Type
Module
Lake/
Res.
Great
Lake
Ocean
Estuary
River/
Stream
All
Waterbodies
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

7
Waterbody
Type
Module
Lake/
Res.
Great
Lake
Ocean
Estuary
River/
Stream
All
Waterbodies
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
13
2
23
34
72
3
0
7
0
10
4
21
4
0
5
1
13
42
61
5
+
0
2
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
1
4
10
17
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
12
11
2
6
31
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
17
5
19
15
56
Note:
Module
"
5+"
represents
the
application
of
module
5
combined
with
another
module.

Table
3.
Module
Applications
for
All
Requirements
and
All
Waterbody
Types
Module
All
Waterbodies
1
118
2
76
3
23
4
68
5
63
6
0
7
17
8
9
9
31
10
0
11
59
Examples
of
the
Application
of
Technology
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
Agency
determined
that
the
intake
is
at
the
terminus
of
the
canal
by
examining
the
satellite
imagery
and
overhead
maps,
using
the
reported
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
intake.
The
detailed
questionnaire
reports
that
the
existing
intake
is
a
coarse­
mesh
traveling
screen
with
a
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

8
fish
diversion
system
in­
place.
The
Agency
determined
that
the
reported
fish
diversion
technology
in­
place
was
a
fish­
bypass
technology
using
the
satellite
imagery.
The
reported
mean
intake
velocity
is
1.5
ft/
s,
and
the
Agency
calculated
the
approximate
canal
approach
velocity
as
1.4
ft/
s
based
on
the
canal
cross­
sectional
area
and
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.
Based
on
the
above
factors,
the
Agency
determines
that
the
best
technology
for
this
model
intake
application
is
a
double­
entry,
single­
exit
traveling
screen
with
fine­
mesh
overlay
and
a
fish
handling
and
return
system.
The
reason
that
the
Agency
utilized
a
double­
entry,
single­
exit
system
in
this
case
is
that
the
velocity
of
the
intake
is
significantly
above
1
ft/
s.
The
double­
entry,
single­
exit
systems
provide
increased
surface
area
(
compared
to
a
single­
entry,
single­
exit
system)
without
significantly
enlarging
the
horizontal
footprint
of
the
intake.
Therefore,
for
the
case
of
a
canal
terminus,
where
enlarging
an
intake's
width
cam
be
impractical,
the
double­
entry,
single­
exit
system
allows
the
intake
velocity
to
be
lowered
to
level
that
is
in
keeping
with
current
practice
for
fine­
mesh,
entrainment
controlling
systems.
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.
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
Agency
determined
that
the
intake
is
at
the
terminus
of
the
cove
by
examining
the
satellite
imagery
and
overhead
maps,
using
the
reported
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
intake.
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
railroad
access
and
highway
access
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.
In
addition,
the
Agency
determined
that
a
barrier
net
system
would
address
the
impingement
requirements
imposed
on
the
intake.
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.
Another
alternative
would
be
to
use
the
double­
entry,
single­
exit
screen
as
in
the
above
canal
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

9
example.
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.
A
fish
handling
and
return
system
in
this
case
would
be
difficult
to
implement
due
to
the
orientation
of
the
deep
cove.
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.
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
100
feet.
The
intake
is
located
on
a
straight
section
of
river,
and
an
approximately
15
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
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.
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
velocity
cap
crib
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
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

10
observations
of
the
satellite
imagery,
the
Agency
was
also
unable
to
identify
an
onshore
well.
Based
on
its
characteristics,
the
facility
requires
an
entrainment
technology
upgrade.
The
existing
intake
 
a
velocity
cap
system
 
is
insufficient
to
meet
the
entrainment
requirements.
The
facility
reports
no
other
impingement
or
entrainment
technologies
in­
place.
The
reported
mean
intake
velocity
is
1.0
ft/
s.
The
Agency
is
unable
to
verify
or
disprove
the
length
of
the
submerged
offshore
intake
with
overhead
maps
and
satellite
photos,
as
it
did
for
the
cases
of
canal
and
cove
distances.
However,
the
distance
of
the
intake
offshore
may
not
be
relevant
for
certain
costing
modules.
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
constructed
at
the
inlet
of
the
offshore,
submerged
intake
piping.
The
reason
that
the
Agency
utilized
an
inlet
t­
screen
system
in
this
case
is
that,
to
the
best
of
its
knowledge,
the
Agency
determined
there
is
no
onshore
technology
in
use.
Had
an
onshore
technology
been
reported
or
observed
for
the
facility,
the
Agency
could
have
considered
upgrades
to
that
technology
system
(
such
as
replacing
coarse­
mesh
screen
overlays
with
fine­
mesh,
etc.).
However,
the
Agency
opted
to
utilize
a
technology
that
would
work
for
the
description
of
the
facility
in
its
possession.
With
the
construction
of
a
properly
sized
replacement
intake,
the
velocity
can
be
maintained
at
a
low
level
(
1
ft/
s)
for
entrainment
and
impingement
controls,
and
the
natural
currents
of
the
Ocean
can
be
utilized
to
aid
the
operation
of
the
intake.
In
this
case,
the
Agency
determines
that
the
debris
loading
potential
near
the
intake
is
high.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
this
intake
is
in
a
coastal
Ocean
setting.

No
costs
for
impingement
controls.
Does
the
facility
have
impingement
controls
in­
place?
Yes
No
Facility
will
incur
costs
for
impingement
controls
Impingement:
Non­
Recirculating
Facilities
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

11
Figure
1.
Impingement
Controls
Flowchart
for
Model
Facility
Compliance
Costs
Facility
will
incur
costs
for
entrainment
controls.
No
No
costs
for
entrainment
controls.
Does
the
facility
have
entrainment
controls
in­
place?
Yes
No
Entrainment:
Non­
Recirc.
Facilities
Does
the
facility
withdraw
from
a
Lake
or
Reservoir?
Yes
No
costs
for
entrainment
controls.

Does
the
facility
withdraw
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
Great
Lake?
Yes
No
Continue
to
Next
Page 
Technology
Costing
Modules
Applied
to
Model
Facilities,
cont.

12
Figure
2.
Entrainment
Controls
Flowchart
for
Model
Facility
Compliance
Costs
Figure
2
(
cont.).
Entrainment
Controls
Flowchart
for
Model
Facility
Compliance
Costs
Facility
will
incur
costs
for
entrainment
controls
Does
the
Facility
withdraw
>
500
MGD
from
an
Ocean?
Yes
No
Facility
will
incur
costs
for
entrainment
controls
Entrainment:
Continued
from
Previous
Page
Is
the
intake
flow
greater
than
5
%
of
the
freshwater
river/
stream
flow?
Yes
No
No
costs
for
entrainment
controls.
