1
316b
Phase
II
Cost
Module
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)
/
Water
Depth
(
Ft)
/
Open
Area
(
decimal
%)
2
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
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
3
°
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,
the
median
water
depth
value
of
18
feet
is
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
1.5
to
obtained
the
screen
well
depth
(
i.
e.,
27
feet).

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)
Well
Depth
to
be
Costed
0­
12
ft
10
ft
>
12­
30
ft
25
ft
>
30­
60
ft
50
ft
>
60­
90
ft
75
ft
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
4
Table
2­
2
Compliance
Action
Scenarios
and
Corresponding
Cost
Components
Compliance
Action
Cost
Component
Included
in
EPA
Cost
Estimates
Existing
Technology
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Return
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Return
Add
Fine
Mesh
Only
(
Scenario
A)
New
Screen
Unit
NA
No
Add
Fine
Mesh
Screen
Overlay
NA
Yes
Fish
Buckets
NA
No
Add
Spray
Water
Pumps
NA
No
Add
Fish
Flume
NA
No
Add
Fish
Handling
Only
(
Scenario
B)
New
Screen
Unit1
Yes
NA
Add
Fine
Mesh
Screen
Overlay2
No
NA
Fish
Buckets
Yes
NA
Add
Spray
Water
Pumps
Yes
NA
Add
Fish
Flume
Yes
NA
Add
Fine
Mesh
With
Fish
Handling
(
Scenario
C
and
Dual­
Flow
Traveling
Screens)
New
Screen
Unit
Yes
NA
Add
Fine
Mesh
Screen
Overlay
Yes3
NA
Fish
Buckets
Yes
NA
Add
Spray
Water
Pumps
Yes
NA
Add
Fish
Flume
Yes
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.
5
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.

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
½
­
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.

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
6
mesh
(
e.
g.,
1/
8­
inch
by
½
­
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
Phase
I,
as
described
above
the
corresponding
water
depth,
design
flow,
and
throughscreen
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
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
7
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
2
5
10
14
10
$
69,200
$
80,100
$
102,500
$
147,700
25
$
88,600
$
106,300
$
145,000
$
233,800
50
$
133,500
$
166,200
$
237,600
$
348,300
75
$
178,500
$
228,900
$
308,500
$
451,800
100
$
245,300
$
291,600
$
379,300
$
549,900
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
(
Ft)

Well
Depth
(
Ft)
2
5
10
14
10
$
138,400
$
160,200
$
205,000
$
295,400
25
$
177,200
$
212,600
$
290,000
$
467,600
50
$
267,000
$
332,400
$
475,200
$
696,600
75
$
357,000
$
457,800
$
617,000
$
903,600
100
$
490,600
$
583,200
$
758,600
$
1,099,800
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
(
Ft)
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
Table
2­
4
Equipment
Costs
for
Traveling
Screens
with
Fish
Handling
for
Saltwater
Environments
2002
Dollars
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
8
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
2
5
10
14
10
$
15,000
$
18,000
$
21,000
$
25,000
25
$
22,500
$
27,000
$
31,500
$
37,000
50
$
30,000
$
36,000
$
42,000
$
50,000
75
$
37,500
$
45,000
$
52,500
$
62,500
100
$
45,000
$
54,000
$
63,000
$
75,000
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
(
Ft)
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
$
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
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)
9
°
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:

2
ft
=
a
single
2­
ft
screen
5
ft
=
a
single
5­
ft
screen
10
ft
=
a
single10­
ft
screen
20
ft
=
two
10­
ft
screens
30
ft
=
three
10­
ft
screens
40
ft
=
four
10­
ft
screens
50
ft
=
five
10­
ft
screens
60
ft
=
six
10­
ft
screens
70
ft
=
five
14­
ft
screens
84
ft
=
six
14­
ft
screens
98
ft
=
seven
14­
ft
screens
112
ft
=
eight
14­
ft
screens
126
ft
=
nine
14­
ft
screens
140
ft
=
ten
14­
ft
screens.

Any
widths
greater
than
140
feet
are
divided
and
the
costs
for
the
divisions
are
summed.
10
Centrifug
al
Pump
Flow
(
gpm)
Costs
for
Centrifugal
Pumps
­
Installed
(
1999
Dollars)
Pump
Costs
Adjusted
to
July
2002
Retrofit
Cost
&
Indirect
Costs
Total
Installed
Cost
10
$
800
$
872
$
262
$
1,134
50
$
2,250
$
2,453
$
736
$
3,189
75
$
2,500
$
2,725
$
818
$
3,543
100
$
2,800
$
3,052
$
916
$
3,968
500
$
3,700
$
4,033
$
1,210
$
5,243
1,000
$
4,400
$
4,796
$
1,439
$
6,235
2,000
$
9,000
$
9,810
$
2,943
$
12,753
4,000
$
18,000
$
19,620
$
5,886
$
25,506
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
7
presents
the
costs
for
adding
pumps
for
the
added
fish
spray
volume.

Table
2­
7
Fish
Spray
Pump
Equipment
and
Installation
Costs
11
The
costs
in
Table
2­
7
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.

Fish
Return
Flume
In
the
case
of
the
fish
return
flume,
the
total
volume
of
water
to
be
carried
was
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/
ftlength
was
developed
based
on
the
unit
cost
of
a
12­
inch
reinforced
fiberglass
pipe
at
$
70/
ft
installed
(
Costworks
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
(
Costworks
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/
in.
dia./
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
12
Total
Screen
Width
(
ft)
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Fish
Spray
Flow
at
30
gpm/
ft
(
gpm)
60
150
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2520
2940
3360
3780
4200
Pump
Costs
$
3,400
$
3,900
$
4,400
$
5,500
$
6,700
$
8,100
$
9,500
$
11,100
$
12,800
$
15,300
$
18,000
$
21,000
$
24,100
$
27,500
Total
Wash
Flow
at
60
gpm/
ft
(
gpm)
120
300
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
5040
5880
6720
7560
8400
Pipe
Dia
at
1.5
fps
(
In)
6.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
23.0
25.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
35.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
Flume
Costs
at
$
10.15
$
18,272
$
24,362
$
36,543
$
48,724
$
60,905
$
70,041
$
76,131
$
85,267
$
91,358
$
100,493
$
106,584
$
115,720
$
121,810
$
127,901
Flume
Cost
per
Ft
Added
$
61
$
81
$
122
$
162
$
203
$
233
$
254
$
284
$
305
$
335
$
355
$
386
$
406
$
426
intake
water
depth
above
the
water
surface,
EPA
has
concluded
in
most
cases
there
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
8
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
Brayton
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
8.

Table
2­
8
Spray
Pump
and
Flume
Costs
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
9
through
2­
14
(
at
the
end
of
this
document)
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.
13
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
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
Doley
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
15
and
2­
16
present
the
estimated
annual
number
of
labor
hours
required
to
operate
and
maintain
a
"
typical"
traveling
screen.
14
Well
Depth
feet
2
5
10
14
10
100
150
175
200
25
120
175
200
225
50
130
200
225
250
75
140
225
250
275
100
150
250
275
300
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
Well
Depth
feet
2
5
10
14
10
78
78
117
117
25
168
168
252
252
50
318
318
477
477
75
468
468
702
702
100
618
618
927
927
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
Well
Depth
feet
2
5
10
14
10
78
78
117
117
25
168
168
252
252
50
318
318
477
477
75
468
468
702
702
100
618
618
927
927
Basket
Screening
Panel
Width
(
Ft)
Table
2­
15
Basic
Annual
O&
M
Labor
Hours
for
Coarse
Mesh
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
Table
2­
16
Basic
Annual
O&
M
Labor
Hours
for
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
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
17
presents
the
estimated
annual
labor
hours
for
placement
and
removal
of
the
fine
mesh
overlay
screens.

Table
2­
17
Total
Annual
O&
M
Hours
for
Fine
Mesh
Overlay
Screen
Placement
and
Removal
15
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
18.
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
19
and
2­
20
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.
16
Screen
Width
Well
Depth
Motor
Power
Electric
Power
Operating
Hours
Annual
Power
Annual
Power
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
Operating
Hours
Annual
Power
Annual
Power
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
Ft
Ft
Hp
Kw
Kwh
$
0.04
Kwh
$
0.04
2
10
0.5
0.414
8,064
3,342
$
134
1,680
696
$
28
2
25
1
0.829
8,064
6,684
$
267
1,680
1,393
$
56
2
50
2.7
2.210
8,064
17,824
$
713
1,680
3,713
$
149
2
75
5
4.144
8,064
33,421
$
1,337
1,680
6,963
$
279
2
100
6.7
5.512
8,064
44,450
$
1,778
1,680
9,260
$
370
5
10
0.75
0.622
8,064
5,013
$
201
1,680
1,044
$
42
5
25
1.5
1.243
8,064
10,026
$
401
1,680
2,089
$
84
5
50
4
3.316
8,064
26,737
$
1,069
1,680
5,570
$
223
5
75
7.5
6.217
8,064
50,131
$
2,005
1,680
10,444
$
418
5
100
10.0
8.268
8,064
66,674
$
2,667
1,680
13,891
$
556
10
10
1
0.829
8,064
6,684
$
267
1,680
1,393
$
56
10
25
3.5
2.901
8,064
23,395
$
936
1,680
4,874
$
195
10
50
10
8.289
8,064
66,842
$
2,674
1,680
13,925
$
557
10
75
15
12.433
8,064
100,262
$
4,010
1,680
20,888
$
836
10
100
20.0
16.536
8,064
133,349
$
5,334
1,680
27,781
$
1,111
14
10
2
1.658
8,064
13,368
$
535
1,680
2,785
$
111
14
25
6.25
5.181
8,064
41,776
$
1,671
1,680
8,703
$
348
14
50
15
12.433
8,064
100,262
$
4,010
1,680
20,888
$
836
14
75
20
16.578
8,064
133,683
$
5,347
1,680
27,851
$
1,114
14
75
26.6
22.048
8,064
177,799
$
7,112
1,680
37,041
$
1,482
Power
Costs
­
Fine
Mesh
Power
Costs
­
Coarse
Mesh
Screen
Width
Flow
Rate
Total
Head
Hydraulic­
Hp
Brake­
Hp
Power
Requirem
ent
Annual
Hours
Annual
Power
Total
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
Annual
Hours
Annual
Power
Total
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
ft
gpm
ft
Hp
Hp
Kw
hr
Kwh
$
0.04
hr
Kwh
$
0.04
2
60
277
4.20
6.0
4.5
8064
36,072
$
1,443
1680
7,515
$
301
5
150
277
10.49
15.0
11.2
8064
90,179
$
3,607
1680
18787
$
751
10
300
277.1
20.98
30.0
22.4
8064
180,359
$
7,214
1680
37575
$
1,503
14
420
277
29.37
42.0
31.3
8064
252,502
$
10,100
1680
52605
$
2,104
Fine
Mesh
Coarse
Mesh
Table
2­
18
Screen
Drive
Motor
Power
Costs
Table
2­
19
Wash
Water
Power
Costs
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
17
Screen
Width
Flow
Rate
Total
Head
Hydraulic­
Hp
Brake­
Hp
Power
Requirem
ent
Annual
Hours
Annual
Power
Total
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
Annual
Hours
Annual
Power
Total
Costs
at
$/
Kwh
of
ft
gpm
ft
Hp
Hp
Kw
hr
Kwh
$
0.04
hr
Kwh
$
0.04
2
120
277
8.39
12.0
8.9
8064
72,143
$
2,886
1680
15,030
$
601
5
300
277
20.98
30.0
22.4
8064
180,359
$
7,214
1680
37575
$
1,503
10
600
277
41.97
60.0
44.7
8064
360,717
$
14,429
1680
75149
$
3,006
14
840
277
58.76
83.9
62.6
8064
505,004
$
20,200
1680
105209
$
4,208
Fine
Mesh
Coarse
Mesh
Table
2­
20
Wash
Water
and
Fish
Spray
Power
Costs
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Parts
Replacement
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
21
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
22
through
­
27
(
at
the
end
of
this
document)
present
the
O&
M
costs
for
the
cost
scenarios
shown
in
Table
2­
21.
Figures
2­
7
through
2­
12
present
the
graphic
plots
of
the
O&
M
costs
shown
in
these
tables
with
bestfit
second­
order
equations
of
the
plots.
These
equations
are
used
in
the
estimation
of
O&
M
costs
for
the
various
technology
applications.

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.
18
Table
2­
21
Mix
of
O&
M
Cost
Components
for
Various
Scenarios
Baseline
Without
Fish
Handling
Baseline
Without
Fish
Handling
Baseline
with
Fish
Handling
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
Baseline
with
Fish
Handling
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
Mesh
Type
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
or
Smooth
Top
Coarse
or
Smooth
Top
Smooth
Top
&
Fine
Smooth
Top
&
Fine
Fish
Handling
None
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water
Type
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Screen
Operation
5
hrs/
day
5
hrs/
day
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Basic
Labor
100­
300
hrs
100­
300
hrs
200­
600
hrs
200­
600
hrs
200­
600
hrs
200­
600
hrs
Screen
Overlay
Labor
None
None
None
None
Yes
Yes
Screen
Motor
Power
5
hrs/
day
5
hrs/
day
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Debris
Spray
Pump
Power
5
hrs/
day
5
hrs/
day
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Fish
Spray
Pump
Power
None
None
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Parts
Replacement
­
%
Equipment
Costs
3%
3%
6%
6%
6%
6%

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
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
28
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.
19
Well
Depth
Baseline
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
Baseline
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
Baseline
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Baseline
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
O&
M
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Ft
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
10
1.32
1.41
1.29
1.40
1.28
1.39
25
1.35
1.46
1.33
1.46
1.32
1.44
50
1.39
1.51
1.39
1.53
1.36
1.49
75
1.41
1.53
1.43
1.57
1.38
1.51
100
1.42
1.55
1.45
1.60
1.40
1.53
Table
2­
28
Nuclear
Facility
O&
M
Cost
Factors
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
20
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
dualflow
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
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
throughflow
screen.
°
For
a
screen
well
depth
of
greater
than
40
ft
add
5%
to
the
cost
of
a
similarly
sized
throughflow
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
29
below
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
21
Table
2­
29
Capital
Cost
Factors
for
Dual­
Flow
Screens
Screen
Depth
Capital
Cost
Factor1
10
Ft
1.2
25
Ft
1.15
50
Ft
1.1
75
Ft
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)

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).

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.

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.
22
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
estuarine/
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&
M
Costs
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.

References
Doley,
T.
SAIC
Memorandum
to
the
316b
Record
regarding
Development
of
Power
Plant
Intake
Maintenance
Personnel
hourly
compensation
rate.
2002
Gathright,
Trent.
Brackett
Green.
Telephone
contact
with
John
Sunda,
SAIC,
regarding
estimates
for
traveling
Screen
O&
M.
September
10,
2002
&
October
23,
2002.

Gathright,
Trent.
Brackett
Green.
Telephone
contact
with
John
Sunda
regarding
screen
velocities
and
dual­
flow
screens..
August
21,
2002
Gathright,
Trent.
Brackett
Green.
Telephone
contact
with
John
Sunda
regarding
submission
of
questions
and
velocity
limits.
July
26,
2002
Gathright,
Trent.
Brackett
Green.
Answers
to
questions
about
traveling
screens,
Submitted
by
email
September
11,
2002
Gathright,
Trent.
Brackett
Green.
Telephone
contact
with
John
Sunda
regarding
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
dual­
flow
screens.
November
21,
2002.

Petrovs,
Henry.
US
Filter
(
USF).
Telephone
contact
with
John
Sunda
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.
23
PSE&
G.
Permit
Demonstration
Supporting
Documentation.
Section
describing
Feasibility
Study
of
Intake
Technology
Modification.
2001.
24
25
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
7,989
$
9,079
$
11,853
$
23,706
$
35,559
$
47,412
$
59,265
$
71,117
$
81,865
$
98,237
$
114,610
$
143,806
$
147,356
$
163,729
25'­
0
$
11,162
$
12,932
$
17,952
$
35,905
$
53,857
$
71,810
$
89,762
$
107,714
$
134,162
$
160,994
$
187,827
$
242,278
$
241,492
$
268,324
50'­
0
$
17,707
$
20,977
$
30,295
$
60,590
$
90,885
$
121,180
$
151,475
$
181,769
$
206,825
$
248,189
$
289,554
$
383,198
$
372,284
$
413,649
75'­
0
$
24,262
$
29,302
$
40,467
$
80,935
$
121,402
$
161,870
$
202,337
$
242,804
$
273,987
$
328,784
$
383,582
$
515,318
$
493,177
$
547,974
100'­
0
$
32,997
$
37,627
$
50,630
$
101,260
$
151,890
$
202,520
$
253,150
$
303,779
$
338,450
$
406,139
$
473,829
$
643,118
$
609,209
$
676,899
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
14,909
$
17,089
$
22,103
$
44,206
$
66,309
$
88,412
$
110,515
$
132,617
$
155,715
$
186,857
$
218,000
$
249,143
$
280,286
$
311,429
25'­
0
$
20,022
$
23,562
$
32,452
$
64,905
$
97,357
$
129,810
$
162,262
$
194,714
$
251,062
$
301,274
$
351,487
$
401,699
$
451,912
$
502,124
50'­
0
$
31,057
$
37,597
$
54,055
$
108,110
$
162,165
$
216,220
$
270,275
$
324,329
$
380,975
$
457,169
$
533,364
$
609,559
$
685,754
$
761,949
75'­
0
$
42,112
$
52,192
$
71,317
$
142,635
$
213,952
$
285,270
$
356,587
$
427,904
$
499,887
$
599,864
$
699,842
$
799,819
$
899,797
$
999,774
100'­
0
$
57,527
$
66,787
$
88,560
$
177,120
$
265,680
$
354,240
$
442,800
$
531,359
$
613,400
$
736,079
$
858,759
$
981,439
$
1,104,119
$
1,226,799
Table
2­
9
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
A
­
Adding
Fine
Mesh
Without
Fish
Handling
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
10
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
A
­
Adding
Fine
Mesh
Without
Fish
Handling
Saltwater
Environments
26
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
FOne
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
105,872
$
126,362
$
164,443
$
301,224
$
438,105
$
572,141
$
703,131
$
837,367
$
967,658
$
1,151,993
$
1,333,484
$
1,518,320
$
1,700,210
$
1,882,401
25'­
0
$
132,772
$
161,562
$
217,443
$
407,224
$
597,105
$
784,141
$
968,131
$
1,155,367
$
1,460,658
$
1,743,593
$
2,023,684
$
2,307,120
$
2,587,610
$
2,868,401
50'­
0
$
185,172
$
230,462
$
320,543
$
613,424
$
906,405
$
1,196,541
$
1,483,631
$
1,773,967
$
2,095,658
$
2,505,593
$
2,912,684
$
3,323,120
$
3,730,610
$
4,138,401
75'­
0
$
237,672
$
302,162
$
401,943
$
776,224
$
1,150,605
$
1,522,141
$
1,890,631
$
2,262,367
$
2,675,658
$
3,201,593
$
3,724,684
$
4,251,120
$
4,774,610
$
5,298,401
100'­
0
$
311,972
$
373,862
$
483,243
$
938,824
$
1,394,505
$
1,847,341
$
2,297,131
$
2,750,167
$
3,228,658
$
3,865,193
$
4,498,884
$
5,135,920
$
5,770,010
$
6,404,401
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
FOne
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
175,072
$
206,462
$
266,943
$
506,224
$
745,605
$
982,141
$
1,215,631
$
1,452,367
$
1,706,158
$
2,038,193
$
2,367,384
$
2,699,920
$
3,029,510
$
3,359,401
25'­
0
$
221,372
$
267,862
$
362,443
$
697,224
$
1,032,105
$
1,364,141
$
1,693,131
$
2,025,367
$
2,629,658
$
3,146,393
$
3,660,284
$
4,177,520
$
4,691,810
$
5,206,401
50'­
0
$
318,672
$
396,662
$
558,143
$
1,088,624
$
1,619,205
$
2,146,941
$
2,671,631
$
3,199,567
$
3,837,158
$
4,595,393
$
5,350,784
$
6,109,520
$
6,865,310
$
7,621,401
75'­
0
$
416,172
$
531,062
$
710,443
$
1,393,224
$
2,076,105
$
2,756,141
$
3,433,131
$
4,113,367
$
4,934,658
$
5,912,393
$
6,887,284
$
7,865,520
$
8,840,810
$
9,816,401
100'­
0
$
557,272
$
665,462
$
862,543
$
1,697,424
$
2,532,405
$
3,364,541
$
4,193,631
$
5,025,967
$
5,978,158
$
7,164,593
$
8,348,184
$
9,535,120
$
10,719,110
$
11,903,401
Table
2­
11
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
B
­
Adding
Fish
Handling
and
Return
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
12
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
B
­
Adding
Fish
Handling
and
Return
Saltwater
Environments
27
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
FOne
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
112,772
$
134,362
$
174,743
$
321,824
$
469,005
$
613,341
$
754,631
$
899,167
$
1,041,658
$
1,240,793
$
1,437,084
$
1,636,720
$
1,833,410
$
2,030,401
25'­
0
$
141,672
$
172,162
$
231,943
$
436,224
$
640,605
$
842,141
$
1,040,631
$
1,242,367
$
1,577,658
$
1,883,993
$
2,187,484
$
2,494,320
$
2,798,210
$
3,102,401
50'­
0
$
198,572
$
247,062
$
344,343
$
661,024
$
977,805
$
1,291,741
$
1,602,631
$
1,916,767
$
2,269,658
$
2,714,393
$
3,156,284
$
3,601,520
$
4,043,810
$
4,486,401
75'­
0
$
255,572
$
325,062
$
432,843
$
838,024
$
1,243,305
$
1,645,741
$
2,045,131
$
2,447,767
$
2,901,658
$
3,472,793
$
4,041,084
$
4,612,720
$
5,181,410
$
5,750,401
100'­
0
$
336,472
$
403,062
$
521,143
$
1,014,624
$
1,508,205
$
1,998,941
$
2,486,631
$
2,977,567
$
3,503,658
$
4,195,193
$
4,883,884
$
5,575,920
$
6,265,010
$
6,954,401
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
FOne
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10'­
0
$
188,872
$
222,462
$
287,543
$
547,424
$
807,405
$
1,064,541
$
1,318,631
$
1,575,967
$
1,854,158
$
2,215,793
$
2,574,584
$
2,936,720
$
3,295,910
$
3,655,401
25'­
0
$
239,172
$
289,062
$
391,443
$
755,224
$
1,119,105
$
1,480,141
$
1,838,131
$
2,199,367
$
2,863,658
$
3,427,193
$
3,987,884
$
4,551,920
$
5,113,010
$
5,674,401
50'­
0
$
345,472
$
429,862
$
605,743
$
1,183,824
$
1,762,005
$
2,337,341
$
2,909,631
$
3,485,167
$
4,185,158
$
5,012,993
$
5,837,984
$
6,666,320
$
7,491,710
$
8,317,401
75'­
0
$
451,972
$
576,862
$
772,243
$
1,516,824
$
2,261,505
$
3,003,341
$
3,742,131
$
4,484,167
$
5,386,658
$
6,454,793
$
7,520,084
$
8,588,720
$
9,654,410
$
10,720,401
100'­
0
$
606,272
$
723,862
$
938,343
$
1,849,024
$
2,759,805
$
3,667,741
$
4,572,631
$
5,480,767
$
6,528,158
$
7,824,593
$
9,118,184
$
10,415,120
$
11,709,110
$
13,003,401
Table
2­
13
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
C
­
Adding
Fine
Mesh
with
Fish
Handling
and
Return
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
14
Total
Capital
Costs
for
Scenario
C
­
Adding
Fine
Mesh
with
Fish
Handling
and
Return
Saltwater
Environments
28
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
5,419
$
8,103
$
10,223
$
20,445
$
30,668
$
40,891
$
51,113
$
61,336
$
62,805
$
75,367
$
87,928
$
100,489
$
113,050
$
125,611
25
$
6,433
$
9,499
$
11,880
$
23,760
$
35,640
$
47,520
$
59,400
$
71,280
$
75,667
$
90,800
$
105,933
$
121,067
$
136,200
$
151,333
50
$
7,591
$
11,483
$
14,741
$
29,482
$
44,223
$
58,964
$
73,705
$
88,446
$
89,781
$
107,737
$
125,693
$
143,650
$
161,606
$
179,562
75
$
8,786
$
13,687
$
16,865
$
33,729
$
50,594
$
67,458
$
84,323
$
101,187
$
101,216
$
121,459
$
141,702
$
161,946
$
182,189
$
202,432
100
$
10,597
$
15,833
$
18,985
$
37,970
$
56,956
$
75,941
$
94,926
$
113,911
$
112,279
$
134,735
$
157,191
$
179,647
$
202,103
$
224,558
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ftEight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
6,400
$
9,247
$
11,694
$
23,388
$
35,083
$
46,777
$
58,471
$
70,165
$
73,433
$
88,120
$
102,806
$
117,493
$
132,179
$
146,866
25
$
7,577
$
10,971
$
13,842
$
27,684
$
41,526
$
55,368
$
69,210
$
83,052
$
92,834
$
111,401
$
129,968
$
148,535
$
167,101
$
185,668
50
$
9,389
$
13,772
$
18,175
$
36,349
$
54,524
$
72,698
$
90,873
$
109,047
$
113,498
$
136,186
$
158,884
$
181,582
$
204,279
$
226,977
75
$
11,238
$
16,957
$
21,116
$
42,231
$
63,347
$
84,462
$
105,578
$
126,693
$
129,829
$
155,794
$
181,760
$
207,726
$
233,691
$
259,657
100
$
14,357
$
20,084
$
24,054
$
48,107
$
72,161
$
96,215
$
120,269
$
144,322
$
144,979
$
173,975
$
202,971
$
231,967
$
260,963
$
289,958
Table
2­
22
Baseline
O&
M
Costs
for
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
23
Baseline
O&
M
Costs
for
Traveling
Screens
Without
Fish
Handling
Saltwater
Environments
29
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
15,391
$
24,551
$
35,231
$
70,462
$
105,693
$
140,924
$
176,155
$
211,386
$
230,185
$
276,221
$
322,258
$
368,295
$
414,332
$
460,369
25
$
18,333
$
28,378
$
40,504
$
81,009
$
121,513
$
162,018
$
202,522
$
243,027
$
271,971
$
326,365
$
380,759
$
435,154
$
489,548
$
543,942
50
$
22,295
$
34,696
$
49,853
$
99,707
$
149,560
$
199,413
$
249,267
$
299,120
$
328,293
$
393,952
$
459,611
$
525,269
$
590,928
$
656,587
75
$
26,441
$
41,449
$
57,499
$
114,998
$
172,498
$
229,997
$
287,496
$
344,995
$
376,302
$
451,563
$
526,823
$
602,084
$
677,344
$
752,605
100
$
31,712
$
47,927
$
65,126
$
130,251
$
195,377
$
260,503
$
325,628
$
390,754
$
424,831
$
509,797
$
594,763
$
679,729
$
764,695
$
849,661
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
19,543
$
29,357
$
41,381
$
82,762
$
124,143
$
165,524
$
206,905
$
248,286
$
274,495
$
329,393
$
384,292
$
439,191
$
494,090
$
548,989
25
$
23,649
$
34,756
$
49,204
$
98,409
$
147,613
$
196,818
$
246,022
$
295,227
$
342,111
$
410,533
$
478,955
$
547,378
$
615,800
$
684,222
50
$
30,305
$
44,668
$
64,109
$
128,219
$
192,328
$
256,437
$
320,547
$
384,656
$
432,783
$
519,340
$
605,897
$
692,453
$
779,010
$
865,567
75
$
37,151
$
55,183
$
76,009
$
152,018
$
228,028
$
304,037
$
380,046
$
456,055
$
511,842
$
614,211
$
716,579
$
818,948
$
921,316
$
1,023,685
100
$
46,430
$
65,423
$
87,884
$
175,767
$
263,651
$
351,535
$
439,418
$
527,302
$
589,801
$
707,761
$
825,721
$
943,681
$
1,061,641
$
1,179,601
Table
2­
24
Baseline
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
O&
M
Totals
for
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
25
Baseline
&
Scenario
B
Compliance
O&
M
Totals
for
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Saltwater
Environments
30
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
17,529
$
26,688
$
38,437
$
76,874
$
115,311
$
153,747
$
192,184
$
230,621
$
246,214
$
295,456
$
344,699
$
393,942
$
443,184
$
492,427
25
$
22,936
$
32,982
$
47,409
$
94,819
$
142,228
$
189,637
$
237,046
$
284,456
$
306,495
$
367,794
$
429,093
$
490,392
$
551,691
$
612,990
50
$
31,008
$
43,409
$
62,923
$
125,846
$
188,769
$
251,693
$
314,616
$
377,539
$
393,642
$
472,371
$
551,099
$
629,828
$
708,556
$
787,285
75
$
39,264
$
54,272
$
76,734
$
153,468
$
230,202
$
306,936
$
383,670
$
460,404
$
472,476
$
566,972
$
661,467
$
755,962
$
850,458
$
944,953
100
$
48,645
$
64,861
$
90,525
$
181,051
$
271,576
$
362,102
$
452,627
$
543,153
$
551,830
$
662,195
$
772,561
$
882,927
$
993,293
$
1,103,659
Total
Width
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
84
98
112
126
140
Well
Depth
(
Ft)
One
2
ft
One
5
ft
One
10
ft
Two
10
ft
Three
10
ft
Four
10
ft
Five
10
ft
Six
10
ft
Five
14
ft
Six
14
ft
Seven
14
ft
Eight
14
ft
Nine
14
ft
Ten
14
ft
10
$
21,681
$
31,494
$
44,587
$
89,174
$
133,761
$
178,347
$
222,934
$
267,521
$
290,524
$
348,628
$
406,733
$
464,838
$
522,942
$
581,047
25
$
28,252
$
39,360
$
56,109
$
112,219
$
168,328
$
224,437
$
280,546
$
336,656
$
376,635
$
451,962
$
527,289
$
602,616
$
677,943
$
753,270
50
$
39,018
$
53,381
$
77,179
$
154,358
$
231,537
$
308,717
$
385,896
$
463,075
$
498,132
$
597,759
$
697,385
$
797,012
$
896,638
$
996,265
75
$
49,974
$
68,006
$
95,244
$
190,488
$
285,732
$
380,976
$
476,220
$
571,464
$
608,016
$
729,620
$
851,223
$
972,826
$
1,094,430
$
1,216,033
100
$
63,363
$
82,357
$
113,283
$
226,567
$
339,850
$
453,134
$
566,417
$
679,701
$
716,800
$
860,159
$
1,003,519
$
1,146,879
$
1,290,239
$
1,433,599
Table
2­
26
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
O&
M
Totals
for
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Freshwater
Environments
Table
2­
27
Scenario
A
&
C
Compliance
O&
M
Totals
for
Traveling
Screens
With
Fish
Handling
Saltwater
Environments
