Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements · Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements . Alcoa Power Generating Inc., a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation . Alcoa

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements

Alcoa Power Generating Inc., a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation

Alcoa Warrick Power Plant

Project No. 85014

Final 1/31/18

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20160315005408/en/514375/4/REF_Alcoa_logo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.alcoa.com/press-release/aa/alcoas-future-value-add-company-be-named-arconic&docid=oXitk09maOIqbM&tbnid=Y1mWnH4nmnQQlM:&vet=10ahUKEwjC3rL2za_XAhVI4WMKHRw-A5MQMwhFKAAwAA..i&w=480&h=416&bih=675&biw=1536&q=alcoa%20logo&ved=0ahUKEwjC3rL2za_XAhVI4WMKHRw-A5MQMwhFKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements

prepared for

Alcoa Power Generating Inc., a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation

Newburgh, IN

Alcoa Warrick Power Plant Project No. 85014

Final 1/31/18

prepared by

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri

COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Table of Contents

Alcoa Warrick Operations TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Final Rule Requirements...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Final Rule Applicability ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Source Waterbody Description ............................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Hydrologic and Geomorphological Features ....................................................... 2-4 2.3 Hydraulic Zone of Influence ................................................................................ 2-8 2.4 Locational Maps................................................................................................... 2-8

3.0 COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA ........................................... 3-1 3.1 Configuration ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Latitude and Longitude ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Operations ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 Flow Distribution and Water Balance.................................................................. 3-4 3.5 Engineering Drawings ......................................................................................... 3-4

4.0 SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL DATA ........................................ 4-1 4.1 Unavailable Data .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Species and Relevant Abundances in the Vicinity of the CWIS ......................... 4-1

4.2.1 ORSANCO Ohio River Main Stem Data ............................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Fish Community Characterization in Ohio River (2005 – 2006) ......... 4-1

4.3 Species and Life Stages Most Susceptible to Impingement ................................ 4-1 4.3.1 1976 – 1977 Impingement Study at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant ......... 4-0 4.3.2 2005 – 2006 Impingement Study at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant ......... 4-0 4.3.3 Impingement Characterization Study at 15 Power Plants on the

Ohio River............................................................................................. 4-1 4.4 Species and Life Stages Susceptible to Entrainment ........................................... 4-0

4.4.1 Warrick Generating Station 1979 Entrainment Study at AWPP .......... 4-0 4.4.2 Desktop Analysis .................................................................................. 4-1

4.5 Primary Period of Reproduction, Larval Recruitment, and Period of Peak Abundance for Relevant Taxa ............................................................................. 4-5

4.6 Seasonal and Daily Activities .............................................................................. 4-0 4.7 Protected Species Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment ........................ 4-0

4.7.1 Spottail Darter ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.7.2 Sheepnose Mussel ................................................................................. 4-2

4.8 Public Participation or Consultation with Federal or State Agencies .................. 4-3 4.9 Field Studies......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.10 Protective Measures and Stabilization Activities Implemented .......................... 4-3 4.11 New Fragile Species ............................................................................................ 4-3



4.12 Incidental Take Exemption or Authorization ...................................................... 4-3

5.0 COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA ................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Cooling Water System Description ..................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Operation In Relation To Intake Structure ............................................ 5-1 5.1.2 Proportion of Design Intake Flow Used in the System......................... 5-1 5.1.3 Distribution of Water Reuse ................................................................. 5-1 5.1.4 Reductions in Total Water Withdrawals ............................................... 5-2 5.1.5 Cooling Water Used in a Manufacturing Process ................................. 5-2 5.1.6 Proportion of the Source Waterbody Withdrawn ................................. 5-2 5.1.7 Number of Days of the Year the Cooling Water System is in

Operation and Seasonal Changes .......................................................... 5-3 5.2 Design and Engineering Calculations .................................................................. 5-3 5.3 Description of Existing Impingement and Entrainment Technologies or

Operational Measures .......................................................................................... 5-3

6.0 CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Summary of Impingement Mortality Compliance Options ................................. 6-1 6.2 Evaluation of Feasible IM Compliance Options .................................................. 6-2

6.2.1 Modified Traveling Screens with Fish Handling and Return System ................................................................................................... 6-0

6.2.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 6-2

7.0 ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES ................................................... 7-1 7.1 Entrainment Studies ............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Technology Efficacy ............................................................................................ 7-1

8.0 OPERATIONAL STATUS ................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Unit Operating Status ........................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Completed, Approved or Scheduled Uprates....................................................... 8-2 8.3 Plans or Schedules for Unit Decommissioning or Replacement ......................... 8-2 8.4 Current and Future Production Schedules ........................................................... 8-2 8.5 Plans or Schedules for New Units ....................................................................... 8-2

9.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................ 9-1

- ENGINEERING DRAWINGS - WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM - MODIFIED TRAVELING SCREEN SKETCHES



LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 1-1: § 316(b) Final Rule Permit Application Requirements at 40 CFR § 122.21(r) ................................................................................................................. 1-2

Table 1-2: Report Organization ............................................................................................... 1-1 Table 3-1: Through-screen Velocity for the Traveling Screens at the Alcoa Warrick

Power Station ......................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Average and Range of Annual Intake Rates at Warrick Generation Station ......... 3-3 Table 3-3: Average and Range of Monthly Intake Rates for Warrick Generation

Station ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1: List of Fish Species in the Vicinity of the AWPP CWIS ....................................... 4-0 Table 4-2: Number, Biomass, and Relative Abundance of Fish Collected Near

AWPP (2005 – 2007) ............................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-3: 1976 – 1977 Impingement Study Results at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant ............. 4-0 Table 4-4: 2005 – 2006 Impingement Study Results at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant ............. 4-0 Table 4-5: Location and Characteristics of the 15 Power Plants Studied during the

ORERP Impingement Study (2005 – 2007) ........................................................... 4-2 Table 4-6: Number, Biomass and Relative Abundance of Fish and Shellfish

Collected at the 15 Power Plants Studied during the ORERP Impingement Study (2005 – 2007) ............................................................................................... 4-0

Table 4-7: Early Life History Information of Most Abundant Species and Susceptibility to Entrainment ................................................................................. 4-0

Table 4-8: Protected Species in Warrick County, Indiana, Potentially Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment ............................................................................... 4-1

Table 5-1: Proportion of the Source Waterbody Withdrawn on a Monthly Basis .................. 5-3 Table 6-1: Evaluation of § 316(b) Compliance Alternatives ................................................... 6-0 Table 8-1: Commercial Operation Date and Age of Each Unit ............................................... 8-1 Table 8-2: Unit Capacity Utilization (2010 – 2014) ................................................................ 8-1



LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 1-1: Location Map ......................................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 2-1: Seasonal Monthly Temperature in the Ohio River at Markland Dam (May

– October) ............................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Long-Term Seasonal Temperature in the Ohio River at Markland Dam

(May – October) ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3: Seasonal Monthly Conductivity in the Ohio River at Newburgh Dam

(2003 – 2015) ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-4: Long-term Conductivity in the Ohio River at Newburgh Dam (2003 –

2015) ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-5: Bathymetric Map of the Ohio River in the Vicinity of the Warrick Power

Station ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-6: Flow in the Ohio River at the AWPP (October 1983 – September 2014) ............. 2-6 Figure 2-7: Annual Variation in Flow in the Ohio River at the AWPP .................................... 2-6 Figure 2-8: Flow Duration Curve for the Ohio River at the AWPP (October 1983 –

September 2015) .................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-9: Ohio River Locks and Dams (L&Ds) .................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-10: The Ohio River in the Vicinity of Warrick Generating Station ............................. 2-9 Figure 3-1: Actual Intake Flows (January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2014) ............................... 3-3 Figure 4-1: Species Composition of Fish Collected in the Ohio River (2003 – 2015) ............. 4-0 Figure 4-2: Species Composition of Fish Collected in the Newburgh Lock and Dam

(2003 – 2015) ......................................................................................................... 4-0 Figure 4-3: Species Composition of Three Most Commonly Impinged Fish Collected

at 15 Power Plants on the Ohio River (2005 – 2007) ............................................. 4-5

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final List of Abbreviations

Alcoa Warrick Operations i Burns & McDonnell

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name

ºC degrees Celsius

§ Section

µm micrometer

µS microSiemens

AIF actual intake flow

APGI Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

AWPP Alcoa Warrick Power Plant

BO Biological Opinion

BTA best technology available

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

cm centimeter

CWA Clean Water Act

CWIS cooling water intake structures

DIF design intake flow

EA EA Engineering, Science and Technology

EM entrainment mortality

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

fps feet per second

GIS Geographic Information System


Alcoa Warrick Operations ii Burns & McDonnell


gpm gallons per minute

GPS Global Positioning System

HP high pressure

HZI hydraulic zone of influence

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management

IDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources

IM impingement mortality

IP intermediate pressure

IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation

km kilometer

MDC Missouri Department of Conservation

MGD million gallons per day

MIS Modular Inclined Screens

mm millimeters

MW megawatt

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources

ORERP Ohio River Ecological Research Program

ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

psig pounds per square inch

RM river mile


Alcoa Warrick Operations iii Burns & McDonnell


SO2 sulfur dioxide

TESS USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System

TL total length

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

YOY young-of-the-year

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Introduction

Alcoa Warrick Operations 1-1 Burns & McDonnell

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Final Rule Requirements On August 15, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for

Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities

(EPA, 2014a). The Final Rule establishes requirements under Section (§) 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) to ensure that location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures

(CWIS) reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. The

purpose of this action is to reduce impingement and entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms at

CWIS used by power generation and manufacturing facilities to withdraw cooling water. The Final Rule

became effective on October 14, 2014. EPA defines impingement, impingement mortality (IM), and

entrainment as the following:

• Impingement occurs when any life stage of fish and shellfish is pinned against the outer part of an

intake structure or against a screening device during intake water withdrawal. Impingement may

also occur when an organism is near a screen but unable to swim away from the intake structure

because of the water velocity at the CWIS.

• IM is the death of fish or shellfish due to impingement. Impingement may cause harm to the

organism which results in mortality at some time after impingement. EPA has defined IM as the

death of those organisms collected or retained by a sieve with a maximum opening of 0.56 inch.

• Entrainment occurs when any life stage of fish and shellfish is drawn into the intake water flow

entering and passing through a CWIS and into a cooling system.

The regulations apply to facilities that use CWIS to withdraw water from waters of the U.S. and have or

require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Final Rule establishes

requirements for facilities that are designed to withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) of

water from waters of the U.S. and use at least 25 percent or more of the water withdrawn exclusively for

cooling purposes.

The Final Rule requires that certain permit application requirements, consisting of data and studies, be

provided by affected facilities to the Director (i.e., permitting authority) as part of the NPDES permit

renewal application. The applicable permit application requirements as described in Title 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR 40) § 122.21(r) of the Final Rule are dependent upon the cooling system type,

design intake flow (DIF) and actual intake flow (AIF) (Table 1-1).



Table 1-1: § 316(b) Final Rule Permit Application Requirements at 40 CFR § 122.21(r)

Submittal Requirement Existing Units with Closed-cycle Cooling

Existing Units with Once-through Coolinga New Unit at

Existing Facility §122.21(r) Description

DIF > 2 MGD, AIF ≤ 125 MGD

AIF > 125 MGD

(2) Source water physical data

X X X X

(3) Cooling water intake structure data

X X X X

(4) Source water baseline biological characterization data

X Applicable provisionsb

Applicable provisionsb

Applicable provisionsb

(5) Cooling water system data

X X X X

(6) Chosen method of compliance with IM standard

X X X Applicable provisionsb

(7) Entrainment performance studies

X X Applicable provisionsb

(8) Operational status X X X X (9) Entrainment

characterization study If > 125 MGDc X If > 125

MGDc (10) Comprehensive

technical feasibility & cost evaluation study

If > 125 MGDc X If > 125 MGDc

(11) Benefits valuation study If > 125 MGDc X If > 125 MGDc

(12) Non-water quality & other impacts study

If > 125 MGDc X If > 125 MGDc

(13) Peer review If > 125 MGDc X If > 125 MGDc

(14) Method of compliance for new units

X

(a) AIF = actual intake flow over the previous 5 years; DIF = design intake flow; MGD = million gallons per day (b) Specific provisions within that permit requirement may apply and are based on the selected compliance option. (c) Facility may request alternative requirements or the permitting authority has the discretion to reduce or waive some or all of the information if the facility complies with the best technology available (BTA) standards for entrainment using a closed-cycle recirculating system.

1.2 Final Rule Applicability The Alcoa Warrick Power Plant (AWPP) is a division of Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), a wholly-

owned subsidiary of Alcoa Inc. AWPP is a four-unit, 823-megawatt (MW), coal-fueled, steam-electric

power station located in Newburgh, Indiana (Figure 1-1). The facility uses once-through (open-cycle)



condenser cooling with the Ohio River as the source and receiver of cooling water. APGI wholly owns

three of the four generating stations, which were placed into service in the early 1960s. The largest unit,

known as Unit 4, is jointly owned by APGI and Vectren Inc., a utility company.

AWPP is a base-load station that generates a continuous supply of electricity throughout the year to

power the Alcoa Warrick Operations manufacturing facility. In addition to electrical power, the power

plant also provides potable water, steam, and high temperature water across the plant. These services are

critical to the various production processes throughout the Warrick Operations manufacturing facility.

The Final Rule applies to AWPP due to the following:

• AWPP has a NPDES permit and is a point source for industrial discharge of wastewater. The

NPDES permit effective date is August 31, 2013, and the permit expiration date is July 31, 2018.

• AWPP uses one CWIS in a once-through cooling water system. The Ohio River is the source and

receiver of the once-through cooling water system. The total DIF at AWPP is 400,000 gallons per

minute (gpm) or 576 MGD. The DIF of 576 MGD at AWPP is therefore greater than the 2 MGD

criteria. The AIF is 518.0 MGD based on data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. This

time period was selected because it is most representative of the intake flows when the smelter is

in operation.

• AWPP uses approximately 91 percent of the water withdrawn from the Ohio River for cooling

water purposes; therefore, the percentage of flow withdrawn from the Ohio River is used

exclusively for cooling purposes is greater than 25 percent criteria.

Because AWPP is subject to the Final Rule, has a DIF that is greater than 2 MGD, and an AIF greater

than 125 MGD, AWPP is required to prepare permit application requirements §122.21(r)(2) through (13)

(as shown in Table 1-1) for submittal to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).


Source: ESRI and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Issued: 11/17/2015

Path: R:\Alcoa\82017_316a-b\GIS\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Warrick_Plant_Figure1_11172015.mxd sdhall 11/17/2015Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 Esri

NORTH2,000 0 2,0001,000

Scale in Feet

Figure 1-1Location Map

Alcoa Warrick Power Plant Warrick County, Indiana

Cooling WaterDischarge

Power Block

Alcoa WarrickPower Plant

Cooling WaterIntake Structure

Indiana

Kentucky

IN-66

French Island Trl

Ohio Rive

r NO 2 R

d

Arnold Rd

Darlington Rd

Bates

Rd

Ohio River NO 1 Rd

Vana

da R

d

Coun

ty Rd

-400

Ray LnDarlington Rd

INIL

KY

OH

MI



1.3 Report Organization The report elements contained in this document are intended to meet the 40 CFR 122.21(r) permitting

requirements (2) through (13) for AWPP. Table 1-2 shows the organization of this report.

Table 1-2: Report Organization

Section Relevant

Permit Requirement Report Chapter Title Chapter 2 § 122.21(r)(2) Source Water Physical Data Chapter 3 § 122.21(r)(3) Cooling Water Intake Structure Data Chapter 4 § 122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data Chapter 5 § 122.21(r)(5) Cooling Water System Data Chapter 6 § 122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method of Compliance with Impingement Mortality

Standard Chapter 7 § 122.21(r)(7) Entrainment Performance Studies Chapter 8 § 122.21(r)(8) Operational Status Chapter 9 § 122.21(r)(9) Entrainment Characterization Study Chapter 10 § 122.21(r)(10) Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation

Study Chapter 11 § 122.21(r)(11) Benefits Valuation Study Chapter 12 § 122.21(r)(12) Non-Water Quality Environmental and Other Impacts

Assessment Chapter 13 § 122.21(r)(13) Peer Review Chapter 14 NA Literature Cited Appendix A NA Engineering Drawings Appendix B NA Water Balance Diagram Appendix C NA Fish Handling and Return System Drawings

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Source Water Physical Data


2.0 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA

This chapter provides the following permit application requirements in the Final Rule under

§ 122.21(r)(2), Source Water Physical Data:

i. A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by the facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports the determination of the water body type where each cooling water intake structure is located;

ii. Identification and characterization of the source waterbody’s hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods used to conduct any physical studies to determine the intake’s area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies; and

iii. Locational maps

2.1 Source Waterbody Description The Ohio River is formed by the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers, and is the major

river artery of the east-central United States. The Ohio River contributes more water to the Mississippi

River than any other tributary, and has 10 tributaries itself. The river is 981 miles (1,582 kilometers [km])

long and flows through or borders six states: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West

Virginia. A total of 20 dams and 49 power generating facilities operate on the Ohio River, and it is the

source of drinking water for more than 5 million people within the Ohio River Basin (Ohio River Valley

Water Sanitation Commission [ORSANCO], 2015a).

Data on temperature and conductivity of the water in the Ohio River main stem were collected as part of

ORSANCO’s fish population studies and available online (ORSANCO, 2015b) (Figure 2-1 through

Figure 2-4). Daily temperature data were available from May to October from 2006 to 2015, while

conductivity data were available intermittently from July to November from 2003 to 2015. Water

temperature was reported as daily averages at Markland Dam on the Ohio River. Cooling water intake

temperature data from the AWPP was not considered representative of the Ohio River because the water

temperature at the AWPP CWIS is affected by cooling water discharge from Vectren’s F.B Culley

Generating Station, which is a 369-MW power plant located approximately 600 meters upstream.

Water temperature demonstrated typical seasonal variation, with the lowest temperatures in the winter and

highest temperatures in summer. Average monthly water temperature from May to October ranged from a

peak of 29.1 degrees Celsius (°C) in August to the low of 19.9 °C in October (Figure 2-1). Ambient water

temperature in the Ohio River is presumably near 0 °C in the winter months. The available temperature

data indicate a slight decrease in temperature over this 9-year period (Figure 2-2).



Figure 2-1: Seasonal Monthly Temperature in the Ohio River at Markland Dam (May – October)

Source: ORSANCO, 2006-2015; temperature data at Markland Dam (www.orsanco.org/temperature)

Figure 2-2: Long-Term Seasonal Temperature in the Ohio River at Markland Dam (May – October)

Source: ORSANCO, 2006-2015; temperature data at Markland Dam (www.orsanco.org/temperature)

Conductivity is a function of the concentration of dissolved solids (i.e., salts). Conductivity from May to

October ranged from 280 to 746 microSiemens per centimeter (µS/cm) (Figure 2-3) and averaged 482

µS/cm. The available conductivity data indicate a relatively stable trend over this 4-year period (Figure

2-4). The observed values of conductivity in the Ohio River are indicative of a freshwater river system.

10

15

20

25

30

35

May June July August September October

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)Range

Mean

10

15

20

25

30

35

28 M

ay 2

005

10 O

ct 2

006

22 F

eb 2

008

6 Ju

l 200

9

18 N

ov 2

010

1 Ap

r 201

2

14 A

ug 2

013

27 D

ec 2

014

10 M

ay 2

016

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

ºC

Long-term Trend



Figure 2-3: Seasonal Monthly Conductivity in the Ohio River at Newburgh Dam (2003 – 2015)

Source: ORSANCO main stem fish population data 2003-2015 at Newburgh Dam (www.orsanco.org)

Figure 2-4: Long-term Conductivity in the Ohio River at Newburgh Dam (2003 – 2015)

Source: ORSANCO main stem fish population data 2003-2015 at Newburgh Dam [www.orsanco.org]

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

Range

Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 Se

p 20

02

14 J

an 2

004

28 M

ay 2

005

10 O

ct 2

006

22 F

eb 2

008

6 Ju

l 200

9

18 N

ov 2

010

1 Ap

r 201

2

14 A

ug 2

013

27 D

ec 2

014

10 M

ay 2

016

Con

duct

ivity

(uS/

cm)

Daily Mean

Long-term Trend



Bathymetric mapping was completed to establish the physical dimensions of the study area for use in

steady-state modeling, estimating the relative size of the thermal plume, and evaluating potential

interaction of the thermal plume with benthic communities. The bathymetric map of the AWPP study area

was created from depth and location data collected on 9 March 2016 with a Global Positioning System

(GPS) and a Seafloor Systems Hydrolite® integrated depth sounder. The depth sounder had 1-centimeter

precision, and the GPS used real-time differential correction to achieve sub-meter horizontal accuracy.

The bathymetric mapping system collected depth/latitude/longitude data points at approximately 1-second

intervals while the boat was piloted systematically through the study area. On the day of the survey, the

river flow was approximately 178,363 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the water surface elevation at the

Newburgh Lock and Dam was approximately 358.6 feet above sea level (0.6 feet above normal pool

elevation).

The bathymetric data were extrapolated to a 5- by 5-meter (m) matrix of depth values using the Hypack®

software, which contains a proprietary triangulated irregular network algorithm that is optimized for

bathymetric mapping. The matrix was then imported into the Esri ArcGIS® Geographic Information

System (GIS), and the 3-D Analyst® extension was used to produce the depth contours. The bathymetric

mapping revealed a relatively symmetrical channel that tends to be slightly deeper in the navigational

channel located along the northern (right descending) shoreline (Figure 2-5). When the bathymetry at

AWPP was mapped (March 9, 2016), the river had a width of 3,353 feet and an average depth of 20.6 feet

based on a cross-sectional area of 68,908 square feet.

2.2 Hydrologic and Geomorphological Features The AWPP is located on the right descending bank of the Ohio River between river mile (RM) 773 and

RM 774 near Newburgh, Indiana. Flows recorded in Newburgh, Indiana, were adjusted by multiplying

the flows by 1.031 to estimate flows at AWPP. Flow in the Ohio River at AWPP from October 1, 1983,

through January 31, 2015, ranged from 2,629 cfs on September 4, 2010, to 757,785 cfs on March 8, 1997,

and averaged 138,774 cfs. The data available indicate a long-term trend of increasing flow over the 31-

year period of record (Figure 2-6). Flows were typically highest in late February and early March and

lowest in early September (Figure 2-7). The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile flows in the Ohio

River at the AWPP are 23,507; 45,570; 100,419; 194,859; and 301,052 cfs, respectively (Figure 2-8).


Source: Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Issued: 12/5/2017

Path: Z:\Clients\ENS\Alcoa\90566_Alcoa316a\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\VDR\Bathy_withXS.mxd bjoneill 12/5/2017 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

NORTH

1,000 0 1,000500

Scale in Feet

Figure 2-5Bathymetric Map and

Cross-Section Transect Alcoa Warrick Power Plant

Warrick County, Indiana

355345

350

340

355340

355345

350340

335

330

335

330

350

345

335335

335

340335

335

335

335

330

355335

345340

350 345

3550 10050

Feet

325.0 - 330330 - 335335 - 340340 - 345

345 - 350350 - 355355 - 358.8

Transect LineElevation in feet - Water Surface Elevation 358.6 feet



Figure 2-6: Flow in the Ohio River at the AWPP (October 1983 – September 2014)

Source: USGS station no. 03303280 in Cannelton, Indiana (www.usgs.gov)

Figure 2-7: Annual Variation in Flow in the Ohio River at the AWPP

Source: USGS station no. 03303280 in Cannelton, Indiana (www.usgs.gov)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000Fl

ow (c

fs)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Flow

(cfs

)

Range

Average



Figure 2-8: Flow Duration Curve for the Ohio River at the AWPP (October 1983 – September 2015)

Source: USGS gaging station 03303280 at Cannelton, Indiana (www.usgs.gov)

Significant changes have been made to the Ohio River to accommodate for navigation. A total of 20 dams

are on the Ohio River, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Figure 2-9). This series

of dams starts at Emsworth Locks and Dam in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and ends at the Olmsted Locks

and Dam in Olmsted, Illinois. The dams have greatly changed the flow of the river, creating a series of

slow moving pools rather than a free flowing river.

AWPP is immediately upstream from the Newburgh Locks and Dam, located on the Ohio River near

Newburgh, Indiana, at RM 776.1. The dam consists of a gated section 1,152.5 feet long, a fixed weir

section 1,123 feet long, and a sheet pile cell connection on the left back (USACE, 2015). The gated

section has nine tainter gates; each gate is 110 feet wide and 32 feet high. Two adjacent parallel lock

chambers are located on the right descending bank, or Indiana side, of the river. The main lock chamber

has clear dimensions of 110 by 600 feet. The upper pool maintained above the dam extends upstream for

a distance of 55.4 miles to the Cannelton Locks and Dam at RM 720.7 (USACE, 2015). The upper pool

elevation is 358 feet above mean seal level, and the lower pool elevation is 342 feet.

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Flow

(cfs

)



Figure 2-9: Ohio River Locks and Dams (L&Ds)

Source: USACE, 2015. (http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/Ops/Navigation/OhioRiverProfileNewOldLocks.jpg)

2.3 Hydraulic Zone of Influence The hydraulic zone of influence (HZI) refers to the portion of the source water body hydraulically

affected by the CWIS withdrawal of water as defined by EPA (2001) in the preamble to the Phase I rule

for new facilities. The HZI extends to the approximate boundary where hydraulic velocities from the

CWIS fall below the ambient hydraulic velocities in the water body resulting from river currents or tides.

The HZI is based on the ambient hydraulic characteristics of the source water body and the facility

withdrawal rate. No physical studies have been performed to determine the AWPP HZI.

2.4 Locational Maps AWPP is located on the south bank of the Ohio River in Warrick County, Indiana (Figure 1-1 and Figure

2-10).


Source: Esri and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Issued: 12/8/2015

Path: \\espsrv\data\Projects\Alcoa\82017_316a-b\GIS\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Warrick_Plant_Figure2_Updated.mxd cronchetti 12/8/2015Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User CommunityCopyright:© 2014 Esri

NORTH3,000 0 3,0001,500

Scale in Feet

Figure 2-10The Ohio Riverin the Vicinity of

Alcoa Warrick Power PlantWarrick County, Indiana

Newburgh Lock and Dam

Indiana

Kentucky

Alcoa WarrickPower Plant

Ohio River

Ohio River

INIL

KY

OH

MI

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Cooling Water Intake Structure Data


3.0 COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA


§ 122.21(r)(3), Cooling Water Intake Structure Data:

i. A narrative description of the configuration of each cooling water intake structure and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column;

ii. Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each cooling water intake structure;

iii. A narrative description of the operation of each of cooling water intake structure, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable;

iv. A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and

v. Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure

3.1 Configuration The AWPP CWIS, located parallel with the shoreline of the Ohio River, consists of an intake inlet, six

intake bays, six through-flow traveling water screens, and eight circulating water pumps. The intake inlet,

consisting of nine concrete caissons on each side, is approximately 120 feet long and 40 feet wide at the

entrance. A floating, grated trash boom is employed at the entrance of the intake canal to physically

exclude large debris from damaging the traveling screens. The traveling water screens are 10-foot wide

with 1/4-inch, woven-wire mesh. Behind the traveling screens are eight circulating water pumps. Two

pumps are nominally rated at 86,000 gpm each, and six pumps are nominally rated at 42,000 gpm each.

When head loss from operating all eight pumps at once is accounted for, the DIF is 400,000 gpm or 576

MGD. Engineering drawings of the CWIS are provided in Appendix A.

The AWPP uses a fish and debris collection and return system at its CWIS. The organisms and debris are

washed down a rectangular open sluice to an open channel that discharges to the Ohio River 350 feet

downstream of the CWIS. Engineering drawings of the fish and debris collection and return system are

provided in Appendix A.

The minimum effective submergence depth was estimated to be approximately 32 feet, based on the flat

pool and the crest height of the Newburgh Lock and Dam. Based on the design intake rate of 576 MGD

and the minimum submergence depth, the maximum design through screen velocity was calculated to be

0.74 feet per second (fps) (Table 3-1).



Table 3-1: Through-screen Velocity for the Traveling Screens at the Alcoa Warrick Power Station

Parametera Units Value Design intake rate gpm 400,000 Number of screens 6 Flow per screen cfs 148.53 Minimum water surface elevation (ASL, NGVD29)b feet 357.46 Screen bay bottom elevation (ASL, NGVD29) feet 325.00 Screen bottom seal height feet 1.00 Screen submergence depth feet 31.46 Screen width feet 10.00 Available screen area feet² 314.60 Mesh open height inches 0.250 Mesh open width inches 0.250 Screen material thickness inches 0.064 Percent open area % 63.39% Screen unit open area feet² 199.4 Approach velocity fps 0.47 Through-screen velocity Clean fps 0.74

(a) MGD = million gallons per day, cfs = cubic feet per second, ASL = above sea level, NGVD29 = National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929, fps = feet per second

(b) Based on USACE data from Newburgh Lock and Dam (http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Navigation/LocksandDams/ NewburghLocksand Dam.aspx)

3.2 Latitude and Longitude The AWPP CWIS is located at 37°54' 44.71" north latitude and 87°19' 59.27" west longitude.

3.3 Operations AWPP is a base-load station that generates a continuous supply of electricity throughout the year to

power the Alcoa Warrick Operations manufacturing facility. In addition to electrical power, the power

plant also provides potable water, steam, and high temperature water across the plant. These services are

critical to the various production processes throughout the Warrick Operations manufacturing facility.

Intake flows for the once-through cooling system were estimated using discharge rates in lieu of intake

flow. Hourly discharge rates were obtained for the 5-year period of January 1, 2010, through December

31, 2014 (Figure 3-1). The maximum intake rate recorded was 576 MGD. The average annual AIF was

541.1, 540.8, 536.5, 505.9, and 465.7 MGD for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively (Table

3-2). Based on the 5-year period of January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, the AIF at AWPP is



518.0 MGD. This time period was selected because it is most representative of the intake flows when the

smelter is in full operation.

The average monthly AIF ranged from 473.7 MGD in February to 575.3 MGD in August (Table 3-3).

The average daily intake rates were 488.8 MGD in the spring (March through May), 556.9 MGD in the

summer (June through August), 543.5 MGD in the fall (September through November), and 482.5 MGD

in the winter (December, January, and February). Diel variation in the intake flow rates (i.e., hourly intake

rate measurements) did not exist because AWPP is a baseload facility.

Figure 3-1: Actual Intake Flows (January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2014)

Source: Alcoa Warrick Operations, AWPP Intake Flow Data (2010 – 2014)

Table 3-2: Average and Range of Annual Intake Rates at Warrick Generation Station

Year Intake Rates (MGD)a

Average Minimum Maximum 2010 541.1 453.6 576.0 2011 540.8 514.8 576.0 2012 536.5 410.4 576.0 2013 505.9 410.4 576.0 2014 465.7 349.2 576.0

Average 518.0 Source: Alcoa Warrick Operations, AWPP Intake Flow Data (2010 – 2014) (a) MGD= million gallons per day

340

380

420

460

500

540

580

Mill

ion

Gal

lons

Per

Day

(MG

D)



Table 3-3: Average and Range of Monthly Intake Rates for Warrick Generation Station

Month Intake Rates (MGD)a

Average Minimum Maximum January 482.8 349.2 514.8 February 473.7 349.2 514.8 March 484.8 349.2 576.0 April 486.7 349.2 514.8 May 494.8 410.4 576.0 June 540.2 453.6 576.0 July 554.7 471.6 576.0 August 575.3 471.6 576.0 September 567.4 514.8 576.0 October 544.8 453.6 576.0 November 518.1 410.4 576.0 December 490.2 410.4 576.0 Average 518.0 349.2 576.0

Source: Alcoa Warrick Operations, AWPP Intake Flow Data (2010 – 2014) (a) MGD= million gallons per day

3.4 Flow Distribution and Water Balance AWPP uses 91 percent of the water withdrawn from the Ohio River for condenser cooling. The remaining

9 percent is used for auxiliary equipment cooling. A water balance diagram at AWPP is provided in

Appendix B.

3.5 Engineering Drawings Engineering drawings of the CWIS are provided in Appendix A.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Source Water Baseline Biological Data


4.0 SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL DATA


§122.21(r)(4), Source Water Baseline Biological Data:

i. A list of the below data that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data; ii. A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the

vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; iii. Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement

and entrainment. Species evaluated must include the forage base as well as those most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries;

iv. Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa;

v. Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure;

vi. Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structures;

vii. Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan; and

viii. If you supplement the information requested in paragraph (r)(4)(i) of this section with data collected using field studies, supporting documentation must include a description of all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling, and data analysis including a description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sampled and evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish); and sampling and data analysis methods.

ix. Identification of protective measures and stabilization activities that have been implemented, and a description of how these measures and activities affected the baseline water condition in the vicinity of the intake.

x. For the owner or operator of an existing facility, a list of fragile species, as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(m), at the facility. The applicant need only identify those species not already identified as fragile at 40 CFR 125.92(m).

xi. For the owner or operator of an existing facility that has obtained incidental take exemption or authorization for its cooling water intake structure(s) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, any information submitted in order to obtain that exemption or authorization may be used to satisfy the permit application information requirement of paragraph 40 CFR 125.95(f) if included in the application.

4.1 Unavailable Data Relevant data to characterize the biological community in the Ohio River were available and are provided

in the proceeding sections. Therefore, no data were identified that were unavailable to meet the permit

application requirements in the Final Rule under 40 CFR §122.21(r)(4).

4.2 Species and Relevant Abundances in the Vicinity of the CWIS The Ohio River supports a diverse assemblage of aquatic fauna. Fish and shellfish species diversity,

abundance, and spatial and temporal variation are dependent on numerous abiotic and biotic

environmental factors. Based on available information, 132 fish species were identified with the potential



to be near the CWIS (Table 4-1). These fish species were identified based on the following available

information sources:

• ORSANCO Ohio River main stem fish data (ORSANCO, 2015b)

• Fish Impingement Studies at the Warrick Power Station (WAPORA, 1978)

• Cooling Water Intake Structure Fish Impingement Study Warrick Electric Generating Station

(EA Engineering, Science and Technology [EA], 2007)

• Entrainment Studies at the AGC Station, Newburgh, Indiana (WAPORA, 1979)

The following summarizes pertinent information and data that are considered representative of the species

and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the CWIS. Impingement and entrainment studies are

summarized in Section 4.3 because the results of these studies indicate the species and life stages that are

susceptible to impingement and entrainment.

4.2.1 ORSANCO Ohio River Main Stem Data ORSANCO, established on June 30, 1948, is an interstate commission representing eight states (Illinois,

Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the federal

government that operates programs to improve water quality in the Ohio River and its tributaries. Fish

population studies have been a major component of ORSANCO monitoring activities throughout the

history of the organization. Fish community data collected from the Ohio River and various tributaries

were retrieved from ORSANCO’s website to characterize the fish community in the Ohio River and in the

vicinity of AWPP. Fish were collected using several sampling techniques including rotenone surveys at

lock chambers (1957-2005), boat electrofishing (1991-present), and benthic trawling (2006-2008). In

1990, ORSANCO added nighttime electrofishing to supplement lock chamber studies. Electrofishing is

now the primary sampling technique used by ORSANCO to study Ohio River fish populations.

Data were retrieved from ORSANCO from 2003 to 2015 to characterize the fish community in the Ohio

River and at the Newburgh Lock and Dam (ORSANCO, 2015b). A total of 60,060 fish representing 142

fish species were collected in the Ohio River at the 20 sampling locations from 2003 to 2015 (Figure 4-1).

At the Newburgh Lock and Dam, located approximately 2 RM downstream from AWPP, 2,881 fish

representing 111 fish species were collected (Figure 4-2). The most abundant species collected in the

combined Ohio River samples and at Newburgh Lock and Dam were channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), sauger

(Sander canadensis), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio), and



bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Species composition at the Newburgh Lock and Dam was also similar

among the most abundant species.



Table 4-1: List of Fish Species in the Vicinity of the AWPP CWIS

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Muskellunge Esox masquinongy American brook lamprey Lethenteron appendix Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans American eel Anguilla rostrata Northern madtom Noturus stigmosus Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina Northern pike Esox lucius Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Notropis sp Notropis sp Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus Ohio lamprey Ichthyomyzon bdellium Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Blackside darter Percina maculata Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus River chub Nocomis micropogon Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum River darter Percina shumardi Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Bluegill x green sunfish L. macrochirus x L. cyanellus River shiner Notropis blennius Bluegill x longear sunfish L. macrochirus x L. megalotis Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Bluegill x pumpkinseed L. macrochirus x L. gibbosus Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Sand shiner Notropis stramineus Bowfin Amia calva Sauger Sander canadensis Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Saugeye S. canadensis x S. vitreus Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Shoal chub Macrhybopsis hyostoma Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum



Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Carp x goldfish Cyprinus carpio x Carassius

auratus Shorthead/smallmouth redhorse M. macrolepidotum/M. breviceps

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Channel darter Percina copelandi Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi Silver lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Common carp Cyprinus carpio Silver shiner Notropis photogenis Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi Cypress minnow Hybognathus hayi Silverjaw minnow Notropis buccatus Dusky darter Percina sciera Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Smallmouth redhorse Moxostoma breviceps Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus Gilt darter Percina evides Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Stonecat Noturus flavus Golden shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucas Streamline chub Erimystax dissimilis Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Striped bass Morone saxatilis Goldfish Carassius auratus Striped mullet Mugil cephalus Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus



Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Gravel chub Erimystax x-punctatus Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides Tippecanoe darter Etheostoma tippecanoe Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus Hybrid striper Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops Variegate darter Etheostoma variatum Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum Walleye Sander vitreus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Warmouth Lepomis gulosus Logperch Percina caprodes Western blacknose dace Rhinichthys obtusus Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Longear x green sunfish L. megalotis x L. cyanellus White bass Morone chrysops Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus White crappie Pomoxis annularis Micropterus sp Micropterus sp White perch Morone americana Mississippi silverside Menidia audens White sucker Catostomus commersonii Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Mud darter Etheostoma asprigene Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Source: ORSANCO, 2015b; WAPORA, 1978; EA, 2007



Figure 4-1: Species Composition of Fish Collected in the Ohio River (2003 – 2015)

Source: ORSANCO, 2015

Figure 4-2: Species Composition of Fish Collected in the Newburgh Lock and Dam (2003 – 2015)

Source: ORSANCO, 2015

Channelcatfish,8.1 %

Freshwaterdrum,7.7 %

Gizzard shad, 7.2%

Sauger, 6.2 %

Smallmouth buffalo, 5.1 %

River carpsucker, 5.0 %

Bluegill, 4.2 %

Smallmouth bass, 3.8 %Spotted bass, 3.6

%Emerald shiner,

3.4 %Golden redhorse,

3.4 %

Flathead catfish,3.3 %

Longnose gar,3.0 %

Morone sp, 2.7 %

Common carp,2.5 %

Silver redhorse,2.2 %

Channel shiner,2.1 %

White bass, 2.1% 124 Other fish taxa, 24.5%

Channelcatfish,7.8%

Gizzardshad, 7.6%

Freshwater drum, 6.6%

River carpsucker, 6.3 %

Bluegill, 5.6 %

Sauger, 5.1%

Emerald shiner,4.7 %

Smallmouth buffalo, 4.4 %Morone spp.,

4.1%Flathead catfish,

4.0 %Largemouth bass,

3.5 %

Longnose gar,3.5 %

Spotted bass, 3.2%

Channel shiner,2.6 %

Common carp,2.6 %

Golden redhorse, 2.6 %

Smallmouth bass, 2.3 %

Spotfin shiner,2.1 %

Silver chub, 2.0%91 Other fish taxa, 20.9%



4.2.2 Fish Community Characterization in Ohio River (2005 – 2006) Sampling of the Ohio River fish community was conducted in the vicinity of AWPP during June, August,

and October 2005 as part of the impingement study at AWWP (EA, 2007). Five 500-meter electrofishing

reaches were established representing three sampling zones: upstream of AWPP, a zone immediately

downstream, and a zone further upstream outside the thermal influence of the discharge. Each zone was

electrofished at night along the shoreline using a boat-mounted electrofishing system. Shallow shoreline

areas within each electrofishing zone were sampled during the day with a 1/8-inch mesh, 30- by 6-foot

bag seine. The total seining effort was 33 meters per location. Fish collected by electrofishing were

individually weighed and measured for up to a maximum of 20 specimens per species per zone. All

specimens collected during seining were identified and counted.

Electrofishing and seining yielded a total of 49 taxa and 4,733 individuals (Table 4-2). Electrofishing and

seining combined was numerically dominated by emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides) (58 percent),

gizzard shad (8 percent), freshwater drum, quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus), and Carpoides species (each 4

percent); and sauger and river carpsucker (each 3 percent). The combined catch was dominated in terms

of biomass by small mouth buffalo (37 percent), river carpsucker (10 percent), common carp (Cyprinus

carpio), and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) (each 8 percent), bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)

(7 percent), black buffalo (Ictiobus niger) (6 percent), channel catfish (4 percent), and quillback,

freshwater drum and gizzard shad (each 3 percent). Electrofishing was dominated by gizzard shad (24

percent) and quillback (14 percent). Other common species included freshwater drum and river

carpsucker (each 8 percent), emerald shiner (7 percent), white bass (Morone chrysops)(6 percent), and

smallmouth buffalo (5 percent). Seining was dominated numerically by emerald shiner, accounting for 81

percent of the total catch. No state or federally listed species were collected.

4.3 Species and Life Stages Most Susceptible to Impingement Two impingement studies have been completed at AWPP and a collaborative impingement

characterization study was conducted at 15 power plants located along the Ohio River. These studies

identify the species and life stages most susceptible to impingement. The following subsections provide a

summary of methods and results of the impingement studies.



Table 4-2: Number, Biomass, and Relative Abundance of Fish Collected Near AWPP (2005 – 2007)

Species

Electrofishing Seining Gears Combined Number Biomass Number Biomass Number Biomass

# %a kilograms %a # % kilograms %a # %a kilograms %a Bigmouth buffalo 7 0.5 17.945 6.6 – – – – 7 0.1 17.945 6.5 Black buffalo 4 0.3 17.293 6.4 – – – – 4 0.1 17.293 6.3 Black crappie 2 0.1 0.078 0.0 – – – – 2 0.0 0.078 0.0 Blackstripe topminnow

– – – – 8 0.2 0.013 0.3 8 0.2 0.013 0.0

Blue sucker – – – – 13 0.4 0.013 0.3 13 0.3 0.013 0.0 Bluegill 48 3.3 2.988 1.1 1 0.0 0.008 0.2 49 1.0 2.996 1.1 Bluntnose minnow – – – – 1 0.0 0.001 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 0.0 Brook silverside – – – – 2 0.1 0.002 0.1 2 0.0 0.002 0.0 Bullhead minnow 12 0.8 0.040 0.0 32 1.0 0.040 1.0 44 0.9 0.080 0.0 Carpiodes sp. 47 3.3 0.247 0.1 158 4.8 0.484 12.6 205 4.3 0.731 0.3 Channel catfish 27 1.9 11.503 4.2 – – – – 27 0.6 11.503 4.2 Channel shiner 1 0.1 0.001 0.0 60 1.8 0.053 1.4 61 1.3 0.054 0.0 Common carp 11 0.8 20.898 7.7 – – – – 11 0.2 20.898 7.6 Emerald shiner 99 6.9 0.157 0.1 2,654 80 .5 2.219 57.9 2,753 58.2 2.376 0.9 Flathead catfish 25 1.7 21.861 8.0 1 0.0 0.125 3.3 26 0.5 21.986 8.0 Freshwater drum 111 7.7 8.407 3.1 74 2.2 0 5.8 185 3.9 8.629 3.1 Gizzard shad 345 24.0 8.383 3.1 26 0.8 0.153 4.0 371 7.8 8.536 3.1 Golden shiner – – – – 6 0.2 0. 009 0.2 6 0.1 0.009 0.0 Green sunfish – – – – 1 0.0 0.006 0.2 1 0.0 0.006 0.0 Ictiobus sp. – – – – 9 0.3 0.009 0.2 9 0.2 0.009 0.0 Johnny darter – – – – 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 0.0 Largemouth bass 28 1.9 3.506 1.3 – – – – 28 0.6 3.506 1.3 Lepomis hybrid – – – – 1 0.0 0.005 0.1 1 0.0 0.005 0.0 Longear sunfish 18 1.3 0.572 0.2 1 0.0 0. 041 1.1 19 0.4 0.613 0.2 Longnose gar 3 0.2 3.524 1.3 – – – – 3 0.1 3.506 1.3 Moon eye 2 0.1 0.032 0.0 3 0.1 0.003 0.1 5 0.1 0.035 0.0



Species

Electrofishing Seining Gears Combined Number Biomass Number Biomass Number Biomass

# %a kilograms %a # % kilograms %a # %a kilograms %a Morone sp. 4 0.3 0.055 0.0 1 0.0 0.013 0.3 5 0.1 0.068 0.0 Moxostoma Sp. – – – – 3 0.1 0.003 0.1 3 0.1 0.003 0.0 Northern hog sucker 4 0.3 0.118 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 0.0 5 0.1 0. 119 0.0 Quillback 205 14.3 8.853 3.3 – – – – 205 4.3 8.853 3.2 Rainbow darter 2 0.1 0.002 0.0 – – – – 2 0.0 0.002 0.0 Redear sunfish 1 0.1 0.094 0.0 – – – – 1 0.0 0.094 0.0 Redfin pickerel 1 0.1 0.001 0.0 1 0.0 0.003 0.1 2 0.0 0.004 0.0 River carpsucker 115 8.0 26.789 9.9 6 0.2 0.008 0.2 121 2.6 26.797 9.7 River shiner 1 0.1 0.002 0.0 91 2.8 0.161 4.2 92 1.9 0.163 0.1 Sauger 61 4.2 2.582 0.9 61 1.9 0 2.1 122 2.6 2.661 1.0 Shortnose gar 6 0.4 4.940 1.8 21 0.6 0.021 0.5 27 0.6 4.961 1.8 Silver chub 5 0.3 0.047 0.0 5 0.2 0.033 0.9 10 0.2 0.080 0.0 Skipjack herring 8 0.6 0.071 0.0 – – – – 8 0.2 0.071 0.0 Smallmouth bass 5 0.3 0.656 0.2 – – – – 5 0.1 0.656 0.2 Smallmouth buffalo 66 4.6 103.492 38.1 – – – – 66 1.4 103.492 37.5 Smallmouth redhorse 10 0.7 0.168 0.1 – – – – 10 0.2 0.168 0.1 Spotfin shiner 20 1.4 0.120 0.0 24 0.7 0.061 1.6 44 0.9 0.181 0.1 Spotted bass 3 0.2 0.037 0.0 23 0.7 0 0.8 26 0.5 0.068 0.0 Spotted gar 3 0.2 1.218 0.4 – – – – 3 0.1 1.218 0.4 Striped bass 46 3.2 1.334 0.5 3 0.1 0.006 0.2 49 1.0 1.340 0.5 Suckermouth minnow 2 0.1 0.006 0.0 2 0.1 0.004 0.1 4 0.1 0.010 0.0 Western mosquitofish – – – – 1 0.0 0. 001 0.0 1 o.o 0.001 0.0 White bass 80 5.6 3.798 1.4 – – – – 80 1.7 3.798 1.4 Total Fish 1,438 100.0 271.818 100.0 3,295 100 4 100 4,733 100.0 275.650 100.0

Source: EA, 2007 (a) 0.0 denotes values less than 0.05



4.3.1 1976 – 1977 Impingement Study at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant Impingement sampling was conducted weekly at AWPP from November 30, 1976, to December 30,

1977. Fish impingement was monitored for 24 continuous hours every seventh day for 12 months. Fish

collection baskets constructed of 3/16- to 1/4-inch mesh were placed in the screen wash trough. Fish

washed from the screens were collected in the baskets, identified to species, counted and weighed, and

examined for physical condition. Fish that were decayed or obviously dead upon impingement were not

counted.

A total of 36,246 fish were collected during the study period. Three species accounted for greater than 97

percent of the total impingement: gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and skipjack herring (Alosa

chrysochloris). Gizzard shad was the most dominant, comprising 69.0 percent of the fish impinged,

followed by freshwater drum (20.8 percent) and skipjack herring (7.5 percent) (Table 4-3). The majority

of the fish were small. Of the impinged fish, 98.8 percent were under 16 cm in length. The estimated

number of fish impinged during the study period was 435,806 individuals. The estimated number of

impinged fish for 1 year was 401,690 individuals.

4.3.2 2005 – 2006 Impingement Study at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant Impingement sampling was completed weekly at AWPP for 52 consecutive weeks from June 2005

through June 2006 (EA, 2007). The screens for each unit were backwashed and sampled separately for six

discrete samples. Sampling was conducted by placing a 1/4-inch mesh, fabricated dipnet into the

collection trough running under the traveling screens to capture impinged materials from the backwash.

All fish collected from each screen were identified to species and counted, and a voucher collection was

retained. All fish collected from the traveling screens were categorized as live or dead at the time of

collection. Only those classified as alive or fresh dead were considered impinged for this study.

Impingement sampling yielded 11,860 fish and shellfish representing 25 taxa and 19 species of fish.

Impingement (by number) was dominated by clupeids (gizzard shad, threadfin shad and Unidentified

Dorosoma sp.)(79.7 percent) and freshwater drum (17.8 percent), collectively accounting for 97.5 percent

of the impinged fish (Table 4-4). Gizzard shad alone accounted for 77.9 percent of the total impingement

by number and 80.7 percent of the biomass. Freshwater drum was the second most commonly impinged

species and comprised 17.8 percent of the total impingement. Recreationally important species such as

catfish (blue, channel and flathead), bass (white and striped), bluegill, and sauger were rare to uncommon.

Unionid mussels and crayfish accounted for 0.3 percent and 0.2 percent of the catch, respectively. No

State- or federally listed species were impinged during the study.



Table 4-3: 1976 – 1977 Impingement Study Results at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant

Species

Total Numberof Fish

Number of Fish per 24

Hours

Percent Composition

Total Mass (g)

Length (cm) Estimated

Number Impinged During Study

Period Number Weight 0-8 >8-16 >16-24 >24

Bigmouth buffalo 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40 0 1 0 0 9.2 Black bullhead 5 0.1 0.0 0.1 139 2 2 1 0 49.8 Black crappie 2 0.1 0.0 0.2 485 0 0 1 1 18.5 Blue catfish 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0 1 0 0 8.9 Bluegill 41 1.0 0.1 0.4 1,024 26 9 6 0 412.1 Carp 11 0.3 0.0 0.0 100 9 2 0 0 145.8 Carpsuckers 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 32 2 2 0 0 42.6 Catfishes family 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 1 0 0 9.3 Channel catfish 28 0.7 0.1 0.6 1,738 4 9 10 5 270.3 Crappies 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 15 4 0 0 0 43.8 Emerald shiner 528 13.3 1.5 0.2 550 511 17 0 0 5,322.5 Flathead catfish 5 0.1 0.0 0.0 42 2 3 0 0 47.5 Freshwater drum 7,545 189.5 20.8 7.1 19,726 5,886 1,638 7 14 113,050.5 Gizzard shad 24,998 627.9 69.0 82.4 228,338 9,214 15,478 235 71 284,953.3 Golden redhorse 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 1 0 0 8.9 Green sunfish 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 21 2 1 0 0 26.1 Largemouth bass 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 2 3 0 0 0 31.6 Longear sunfish 2 0.1 0.0 0.0 102 0 2 0 0 37.1 Longnose gar 4 0.1 0.0 0.4 1,108 0 1 0 3 54.9 Minnows family 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 17 4 0 0 0 30.9 Mooneye 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 84 0 0 1 0 8.2 Paddlefish 34 0.9 0.1 0.7 1,849 0 0 5 29 320.6 Quillback 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1 0 0 0 6.8



Species

Total Numberof Fish

Number of Fish per 24

Hours

Percent Composition

Total Mass (g)

Length (cm) Estimated

Number Impinged During Study

Period Number Weight 0-8 >8-16 >16-24 >24

Redear sunfish 2 0.1 0.0 0.0 90 1 1 0 0 18.1 River carpsucker 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 10.5 Sauger 27 0.7 0.1 0.5 1,251 2 15 9 1 272.8 Silver chub 11 0.3 0.0 0.0 124 6 5 0 0 107.5 Skipjack herring 2,704 67.9 7.5 5.5 15,297 87 2,612 4 1 27,537.1 Slender madtom 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 8.9 Smallmouth buffalo 2 0.1 0.0 0.4 1,137 0 1 0 1 16.2 Speckled chub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 1 0 0 9.2 Spotted bass 5 0.1 0.0 0.4 998 2 0 1 2 68.8 Suckers family 2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 2 0 0 0 24.5 Sunfish 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 12.1 Sunfish family 10 0.3 0.0 0.0 9 10 0 0 0 97.6 Threadfin shad 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0 1 0 0 11.6 Unidentifiable 5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 5 0 0 0 82.3 Warmouth 3 0.1 0.0 0.1 207 0 2 1 0 26.1 White bass 225 5.7 0.6 0.8 2,246 184 35 5 1 2,375.9 White crappie 15 0.4 0.0 0.1 321 12 2 0 1 184.5 Yellow bass 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 114 0 2 1 0 32.6 Total 36,246 910.4 – – 277,243 15,984 19,845 287 130 435,805.8

Source: WAPORA, 1978



Table 4-4: 2005 – 2006 Impingement Study Results at Alcoa Warrick Power Plant

Species

Number of Individuals Mass (grams)

Number Percent Kilograms Percent Blue catfish 1 0.01 0.009 0.01 Bluegill 17 0.14 0.237 0.27 Channel catfish 16 0.13 0.365 0.42 Crayfish 28 0.24 -- -- Emerald shiner 5 0.04 0.005 0.01 Flathead catfish 4 0.03 0.12 0.14 Freshwater drum 2115 17.83 11.739 13.59 Gizzard shad 9241 77.92 69.708 80.73 Largemouth bass 1 0.01 0.215 0.25 Longear sunfish 2 0.02 0.003 0 Northern madtom 1 0.01 0.004 0 River carpsucker 2 0.02 0.043 0.05 Sauger 6 0.05 0.116 0.13 Silver chub 1 0.01 0.017 0.02 Skipjack herring 73 0.62 0.729 0.84 Striped bass 7 0.06 0.468 0.54 Threadfin shad 13 0.11 0.095 0.11 Unid carpiodes 3 0.03 0.074 0.09 Unid dorosoma 123 1.04 0.074 0.09 Unid ictiobinae 17 0.14 0.013 0.02 Unid morone 121 1.02 0.149 0.17 Unionoid mussel 42 0.35 -- -- White bass 17 0.14 2.126 2.46 White perch 3 0.03 0.032 0.04 Yellow bass 1 0.01 0.007 0.01 Total Impingement 11,860 100 86.35 100 Total Fish Species 19

Source: EA, 2007



The majority of fish collected were young-of-the-year (YOY) and age 1. A total of 48 percent of the

impinged fish were classified as YOY, while only 0.5 percent of the fish were greater than 160

millimeters (mm). More than 90 percent of the Ictiobinae (suckers and buffaloes), skipjack herring,

unidentifiable shad and unidentifiable Morone spp. were YOY, and 76 percent of the freshwater drum

were YOY. Forty percent of the gizzard shad collected were YOY, while most of the gizzard shad

between YOY and those greater than 160 mm were probably Age 1 fish.

The Final Rule allows estimates of IM to exclude fragile species. Fragile species are those species of fish

and shellfish that are least likely to survive any form of impingement and defined as those with an

impingement survival rate of less than 30 percent. The Final Rule lists the gizzard shad as a fragile

species. Gizzard shad accounted for 77.9 percent of the total impingement by number. Therefore,

excluding gizzard shad would reduce the estimated annual IM estimate at AWPP by 77.9 percent.

4.3.3 Impingement Characterization Study at 15 Power Plants on the Ohio River A collaborative impingement characterization study as part of the Ohio River Ecological Research

Program (ORERP) was conducted from June 2005 to June 2007 at 15 power plants located along the

Ohio River between RM 77 and RM 946 (EPRI, 2009). Over the course of the 2-year period, the 15

plants were sampled 20 to 45 times. Table 4-5 provides summary information for the 15 facilities. During

the first year, each plant was sampled once every 4 weeks from June 19 to July 16, 2005 (Sampling

Period 1) and again from January 29 to June 18, 2006 (Sampling Periods 16-20). During the period July

17, 2005, to January 28, 2006 (Sampling Periods 2-15), each plant was sampled once every 2 weeks. The

same sampling schedule was followed during the second year from June 19, 2006, through June 18, 2007.

Sampling during each of these events was conducted over a 24-hour period. A collection basket was

deployed at the selected location at the CWIS. Impinged fish were collected using either “in-line” or “end

of pipe” baskets with a mesh size identical to or slightly smaller than the mesh of the traveling screens

(typically 3/8-inch).



Table 4-5: Location and Characteristics of the 15 Power Plants Studied during the ORERP Impingement Study (2005 – 2007)

Plant River Mile State Closest City

Number of Units

Generating Capacity

(MW)

Design Intake Flow

(gpm) Cardinal 77 OH Brilliant, OH 3 1,830 812,900 Kammer 111 WV Moundsville, WV 3 630 480,000 Willow Island 160 WV St. Marys, WV 4 243 160,139 Gorsuch 176 OH Marietta, OH 4 213 229,801 Philip Sporn 242 WV Racine, OH 5 1,050 721,000 Kyger Creek 260 OH Cheshire, OH 5 1,085 830,000 J.M. Stuart 406 OH Aberdeen, OH 4 1,830 661,111 W.C. Beckjord 453 OH New Richmond, OH 6 1,186 512,083 Tanners Creek 494 IN Lawrenceburg, IN 4 995 740,000 Clifty Creek 560 IN Madison, IN 6 1,306 996,000 Gallagher 609 IN Louisville, KY 4 637 308,400 Cane Run 617 KY Louisville, KY 3 550 364,388 Coleman 724 IN Tell City, IN 1 455 247,708 Elmer Smith 755 KY Owensboro, KY 2 445 212,000 Shawnee 946 KY Paducah, KY 10 1,750 1,046,524

Source: EPRI, 2009 MW – megawatts; gpm – gallons per minute

The 550 impingement sampling events conducted at the 15 power plants from June 2005 through June

2007 yielded a total of 2.9 million fish and shellfish representing 82 species of fish and three shellfish

taxa (Table 4-6). Impingement was numerically dominated by threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) (70

percent), gizzard shad (24 percent), and freshwater drum (4.5 percent), which accounted for 99 percent of

the total number collected during the 2-year study. The same three species accounted for 94 percent of the

total biomass collected (Table 4-5). All other taxa except skipjack herring (1.1 percent) accounted for less

than 1 percent of the total number and biomass collected.

Gizzard shad and freshwater drum were the two most abundant species at all plants except Shawnee (RM

946), where threadfin shad accounted for 92 percent of the total number collected (Figure 4-3). Threadfin

shad were also collected in relatively low numbers at two plants (Elmer Smith and Coleman) upstream of

Shawnee. Collectively, the two shad species and freshwater drum accounted for 90 (Cane Run) to 99

(Cardinal) percent of the total number of fish and shellfish collected at each plant.



Table 4-6: Number, Biomass and Relative Abundance of Fish and Shellfish Collected at the 15 Power Plants Studied during the ORERP Impingement Study (2005 – 2007)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Numbera Percent Weight (g)a Percent Freshwater Crayfishes Crayfish sp.b Cambaridae sp. 1,417 0.05 – – Swimming Crabs Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 1 < 0.005 – – Freshwater Mussels Unionid mussel sp. Unionidae sp. 56 < 0.005 – – Sturgeons Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 19 < 0.005 2,053 0.01 Paddlefishes Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 51 < 0.005 8,789 0.05 Gars

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 33 < 0.005 14,319 0.08 Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus 6 < 0.005 4,101 0.02

Bowfins Bowfin Amia calva 1 < 0.005 1,282 0.01 Mooneyes

Hiodon sp. Hiodon sp. 1 < 0.005 35 < 0.005 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides 6 < 0.005 1,130 0.01 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus 300 0.01 9,580 0.06

Herrings

Herring sp. Clupeidae sp. 12 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris 30,426 1.05 235,290 1.36 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 686,797 23.66 4,725,281 27.38 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 2,023,504 69.72 10,392,026 60.22 Shad sp. Dorosoma sp. 84 < 0.005 178 < 0.005

Carps and Minnows

Minnow sp. Cyprinidae sp. 9 < 0.005 21 < 0.005 Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 2 < 0.005 46 < 0.005 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 2 < 0.005 15 < 0.005 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 93 < 0.005 14,319 0.08 Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 10 < 0.005 45 < 0.005 Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 21 < 0.005 12,115 0.07 Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 3 < 0.005 13 < 0.005 Shoal chub Macrhybopsis hyostoma 1 < 0.005 1 < 0.005



Family Common Name Scientific Name Numbera Percent Weight (g)a Percent

Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 373 0.01 5,745 0.03 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 9 < 0.005 70 < 0.005 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 572 0.02 1,483 0.01 River shiner Notropis blennius 19 < 0.005 79 < 0.005 Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi 1 < 0.005 5 < 0.005 Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi 71 < 0.005 114 < 0.005 Hybrid shiner Notropis hybrid 1 < 0.005 3 < 0.005 Shiner sp. Notropis sp. 5 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus 2 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax 3 < 0.005 10 < 0.005 Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 3 < 0.005 33 < 0.005

Suckers

Sucker sp. Catostomidae sp. 3 < 0.005 1 < 0.005 River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 78 < 0.005 15,906 0.09 Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 200 0.01 10,602 0.06 Carpsucker sp. Carpiodes sp. 126 < 0.005 1,160 0.01 Carpsucker family sp. Carpiodes sp. 41 < 0.005 36 < 0.005 White sucker Catostomus commersonii 1 < 0.005 2 < 0.005 Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus 10 < 0.005 156 < 0.005 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans 16 < 0.005 149 < 0.005 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 326 0.01 34,112 0.2 Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1 < 0.005 4 < 0.005 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger 2 < 0.005 1,630 0.01 Buffalo sp. Ictiobus sp. 4 < 0.005 16 < 0.005 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 704 0.02 5,164 0.03 Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum 23 < 0.005 1,061 0.01 Smallmouth redhorse Moxostoma breviceps 23 < 0.005 2,200 0.01



Family Common Name Scientific Name Numbera Percent Weight (g)a Percent Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei 1 < 0.005 3 < 0.005

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum 40 < 0.005 2,297 0.01 Redhorse sp. Moxostoma sp. 8 < 0.005 107 < 0.005

Characins Pirapitinga Piaractus brachypomus 1 < 0.005 207 < 0.005 Catfish

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas 15 < 0.005 340 < 0.005 Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 10 < 0.005 206 < 0.005 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 3,075 0.11 28,682 0.17 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 5,709 0.2 62,441 0.36 Catfish sp. Ictalurus sp. 2 < 0.005 1 < 0.005 Stonecat Notoris flavus 1 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus 23 < 0.005 111 < 0.005 Northern madtom Noturus stigmosus 88 < 0.005 282 < 0.005 Madtom sp. Noturus sp. 2 < 0.005 – – Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 333 0.01 8,087 0.05

Pike Grass pickerel Esox americanus 1 < 0.005 8 < 0.005 Pirate Perch Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 5 < 0.005 34 < 0.005 Silversides

Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus 2 < 0.005 6 < 0.005 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 5 < 0.005 22 < 0.005

Needlefish Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 1 < 0.005 95 < 0.005 Temperate Bass

White perch Morone americana 283 0.01 2,922 0.02 White bass Morone chrysops 1,779 0.06 136,869 0.79 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis 3,852 0.13 46,894 0.27 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 119 < 0.005 6,887 0.04 Hybrid striper Morone chrysops x M saxatilis 40 < 0.005 6,957 0.04 Temperate bass sp. Morone sp. 2,674 0.09 10,801 0.06

Sunfish Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 16 < 0.005 285 < 0.005



Family Common Name Scientific Name Numbera Percent Weight (g)a Percent Sunfish (continued)

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 1 < 0.005 5 < 0.005 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 314 0.01 1,390 0.01 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 2 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 67 < 0.005 467 < 0.005 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 41 < 0.005 144 < 0.005 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 3,394 0.12 19,122 0.11 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis 158 0.01 997 0.01 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 9 < 0.005 619 0.00 Sunfish hybrid Lepomis hybrid 11 < 0.005 51 < 0.005 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 47 < 0.005 91 < 0.005 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 10 < 0.005 718 < 0.005 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus 48 < 0.005 3,959 0.02 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 33 < 0.005 4,627 0.03 White crappie Pomoxis annularis 194 0.01 5,905 0.03 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 49 < 0.005 2,304 0.01

Perch

Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides 1 < 0.005 7 < 0.005 Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum 2 < 0.005 4 < 0.005 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 19 < 0.005 233 < 0.005 Logperch Percina caprodes 50 < 0.005 362 < 0.005 Blackside darter Percina maculata 1 < 0.005 6 < 0.005 Dusky darter Percina sciera 10 < 0.005 70 < 0.005 River darter Percina shumardi 41 < 0.005 150 < 0.005 Sauger Sander canadensis 2,469 0.09 247,760 1.44 Walleye Sander vitreus 33 < 0.005 7,651 0.04 Saugeye Sander canadensis x S. vitreus 15 < 0.005 3,436 0.02 Walleye or sauger sp. Sander sp. 5 < 0.005 200 < 0.005



Family Common Name Scientific Name Numbera Percent Weight (g)a Percent Drum Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 131,779 4.54 1,140,907 6.61 Unidentified Unidentified – 23 < 0.005 – –

Total Shellfish and/or Fish 2,902,391 100 17,256,384 100 Total Shellfish Taxa 3

Total Fish Species 82

Source: EPRI, 2009 (a) Values for each sampling event per plant were flow-normalized to 24 hours. (b) sp. = species



Figure 4-3: Species Composition of Three Most Commonly Impinged Fish Collected at 15 Power Plants on the Ohio River (2005 – 2007)

Source: EPRI, 2009



Threadfin shad, gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and sauger collectively accounted for 68 percent (Cane

Run) to 97 percent (Shawnee) of the total biomass collected at each plant. Gizzard shad accounted for the

majority (54 to 92 percent) of the biomass at nine of the 15 plants, whereas freshwater drum were more

abundant than gizzard shad or threadfin shad at two plants (Cane Run and Coleman).

The majority of fish impinged at the 15 plants were small, often YOY and juveniles of common species in

the Ohio River or adults of smaller species such as emerald shiner. Of the 10 most common species, the

majority (85 to more than 99 percent) were less than 150 mm in length.

4.4 Species and Life Stages Susceptible to Entrainment To be susceptible to entrainment, a species’ early life stages (eggs and larvae) must occur in the same area

as the CWIS. The AWPP CWIS is located along the shoreline of the Ohio River and uses an intake inlet

approximately 120 feet long and 50 feet wide at the entrance to transfer water towards the traveling

screens. The water depth in front of the CWIS is 20 to 25 feet. The following provides a summary of an

entrainment study at AWPP in 1979 and the results of a desktop analysis of species susceptible to

entrainment.

4.4.1 Warrick Generating Station 1979 Entrainment Study at AWPP An ichthyoplankton entrainment study was conducted from March 22 to August 2, 1979, at AWPP to

characterize and estimate entrainment (WAPORA, 1979). Samples were collected each week on

randomly assigned days for a total of 20 sampling dates. Samples were collected from water taps installed

at the bases of the eight circulating water pumps. Intake water from the taps was filtered through 423

micrometer (µm) mesh plankton nets partially immersed in 200-liter drums. Water volume was measured

with a sealed-register water meter connected at the base of each drum. Sampling commenced at

approximately 1700 hours and the sampling duration was for 12 hours.

At total of 23,729 larvae representing 15 taxa (10 families) were collected during the study period. The

most abundant taxa were shads and herrings (Dorosoma spp. or Alosa spp.), representing 35.2 percent of

the total. Other dominant taxa included carpsuckers and buffaloes (Carpiodes spp. or Ictiobus spp.) (28.9

percent), freshwater drum (12.9 percent), and carp (9.1 percent). Other taxa collected in relatively low

abundances were paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), mooneye (Hiodon tergisus), goldeye (Hiodon

alosoides), emerald shiner, tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), Morone spp. (temperate basses), Lepomis

spp. (sunfishes), and Pomoxis spp. (crappie). For the 20 sampling dates during the study period, the

average daily (24-hour) density of ichthyoplankton entrainment was 1.4 organisms per cubic meter. The

average 24-hour estimated number of entrained ichthyoplankton was about 2 million. A total of



214,871,013 fish eggs and larvae were estimated to have been entrained during the study period.

Estimated entrainment was greatest in May and June (88,927,166 individuals and 89,112,060 individuals,

respectively).

4.4.2 Desktop Analysis Eight fish species are considered the dominant taxa based on the entrainment and impingement study at

AWPP, and fish studies on the Ohio River. A desktop analysis of the reproductive strategy and spawning

and larval habitat of the most abundant species was conducted to evaluate their susceptibility to

entrainment at the AWPP CWIS. The following provides key life history characteristics for gizzard shad,

freshwater drum, channel catfish, smallmouth buffalo, river carpsucker, emerald shiner, sauger, and

bluegill, including habitat preferences, patterns of abundance and distribution, and temporal activities

expected to occur near the AWPP CWIS.

4.4.2.1 Bluegill The bluegill is an important and abundant sport fish in the United States. Bluegill is generally considered

a littoral species; however, they may feed along the benthic zone or water surface. Bluegills typically

build nests in large groups or colonies and spawn multiple times between late May and August. Males

select an area in 1 to 4 feet of water and prepare a nest by sweeping out a saucer-shaped depression with

their tails (Clugston, 1966). Peak spawning usually occurs in June. The females lay between 10,000 and

60,000 eggs in the nest, which are guarded by the male (Ohio Department of Natural Resources [ODNR],

2015a; Ross, 2001). The eggs usually hatch in about 5 days. Shortly after yolk absorption, juveniles

migrate from the littoral zone to the open water, where they remain for 6 to 8 weeks. Juveniles then return

to the littoral zone, where they remain until maturity (Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Female bluegills

reach maturity in 2 to 5 years, while males are reproductively functional from 7 to 11 years (Boschung

and Mayden, 2004). Bluegills feed primarily on aquatic macroinvertebrates and crustaceans, with

foraging activity occurring mostly during the daylight hours and peaking in the early evening (Ross,

2001).

4.4.2.2 Channel Catfish Channel catfish is one of the most common fish species in the Ohio River and a major recreational and

commercial fish species in the in the Midwestern United States (Pflieger, 1997). This resident (i.e., non-

migratory) benthic species spawns in secluded areas, including undercut banks and other dark cavities of

logs and drift piles. Spawning takes place in the late spring and early summer when waters reach an

approximate temperature of 24 ºC (Missouri Department of Conservation [MDC], 2015). Fry remain in

the nest for about a week, guarded by the male, and then form aggregations near the bottom until maturity



(4 to 6 years). Schramm (2004) indicates channel catfish frequently occur in both channel border and

main channel habitats. Channel catfish typically occur in deep pools with low to moderate gradients, large

streams, and rivers, with adults seeking undercut banks, logs, or other refugia in the areas (Boschung and

Mayden, 2004). Channel catfish feed on a variety of items, including organic detritus, aquatic

macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, and fishes (Ross, 2001). During the summer, feeding occurs primarily

at night (Ross, 2001).

4.4.2.3 Emerald Shiner The emerald shiner is one of the most widely distributed fish species in North American and is common

in large rivers such as the Ohio River (Ross, 2001; Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Emerald shiners occur

most frequently in channel border and backwater habitats (Schramm, 2004). Emerald shiners are a pelagic

species that form schools near the water surface. Spawning occurs from May to July at night at the water

surface, and non-adhesive eggs sink to the bottom (Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Egg production has

been observed to range from 868 to 8,733 for females measuring 69 to 98 mm in total length (Ross,

2001). Larvae grow rapidly near the bottom and ascend to the water surface in a few days. Emerald

shiners reach maturity in 1 year and feed primarily on zooplankton and aquatic invertebrates (Ross,

2001). The emerald shiner is an important forage fish in the Ohio River (Boschung and Mayden, 2004).

4.4.2.4 Freshwater Drum Freshwater drum is a common resident species and an important sport and commercial fish species in the

Ohio River. They are well adapted and common throughout their range due to high fecundity, high age at

maturity, and long life span (Rypel et al., 2006). This species occupies a variety of habitats, especially in

large river systems, but occurs most frequently in channel border and backwater habitats (Boschung and

Mayden, 2004; Schramm, 2004). Spawning occurs over a period of 6 to 7 weeks in June and July when

water temperatures reach a minimum of 18 ºC (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970). Fecundity of females

measuring 307 to 386 mm long and 6 to 9 years old ranged from 34,000 to 66,500 eggs (Swedberg and

Walburg, 1970). The larvae remain near the surface, drifting for approximately 2 weeks, until they are

able to swim, at which point they migrate to the bottom where they remain until they are mature

(Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Freshwater drum reach maturity in 4 to 6 years. This species feeds

primarily on benthic macroinvertebrates, juvenile fish species, and mollusks (Ross 2001).

4.4.2.5 Gizzard Shad Gizzard shad represent an important prey for recreational species in the Ohio River (ODNR, 2015b). This

pelagic species occurs at or near the surface of littoral and limnetic waters during all life stages, including

during spawning. Gizzard shad spawn between April and May by broadcasting as many as 500,000 eggs



into the water column and over submerged objects such as rocks or logs near the shore (ODNR, 2015b).

Gizzard shad are highly opportunistic in their use of habitat and occur in freshwater, estuarine, and marine

waters, and occur in backwater, channel border, and main channel habitats (Schramm, 2004). Reared in

near-surface freshwater, larval gizzard shad are a dominate component of the Ohio River (Willis, 1987).

Gizzard shad are primarily filter feeders, feed on both the bottom and in the water column, and consume

algae, zooplankton, detritus, and bottom sediments containing benthic infauna (Pattillo et al., 1997).

4.4.2.6 River Carpsucker River carpsucker are abundant within the Ohio River, and second in abundance only to carp and gizzard

shad (Pflieger, 1997; MDC, 2015). River carpsucker are not regarded as a commercially important fish.

They are benthic feeding fish, typically found in large schools. The preferred habitat for river carpsucker

includes silt and sand bottom, and slow moving currents of backwaters. They occur most prevalently

within turbid water, and their diet mainly consists of algae, plants, and small invertebrates. Spawning

occurs from late spring to early summer at water temperatures of 21 to 24 °C (Ross, 2001). Limited

observations indicate spawning takes place at night in relatively shallow water. Fish congregate near the

surface, and the eggs are shed and fertilized in the water column. Fertilized eggs are adhesive. Young-of-

the-year river carpsucker play an important role as forage for larger piscivores such as largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides) and walleye (Sander vitreus). Following their first year of growth, juveniles

become too large to be considered prey for game fish (Pflieger, 1997; MDC, 2015).

4.4.2.7 Sauger Sauger is a native species to the Ohio River and its tributaries. This species is widely considered a

coolwater species and is typically associated with gently-sloped, main channel areas in deep, turbid water

(Bozek et al., 2011). Adult sauger are considered to be demersal in nature (Bozek et al., 2011), and have

been shown to be particularly well adapted to low light conditions (Pflieger, 1997). In the spring, sauger

can migrate long distances upstream or downstream to spawning grounds (Bozek et al., 2011). Females

lay between 15,000 and 40,000 eggs when water temperatures are near 10 °C (Smith, 2002). Strongly

adhesive eggs are broadcast over coarse substrates at water velocities from 0.33 to 0.98 meters per second

in mainstem river channels and tailwaters below dams (Bozek et al., 2011). In the Missouri River, sauger

eggs are common in rubble flats, especially where there is a covering of filamentous algae (Ross, 2001).

Eggs hatch after approximately 10 days. After hatching, larvae are transported downstream by current

flow (Ross, 2001). Larval sauger feed heavily on crustaceans (copepods and cladocerans) and switch to

primarily a fish diet 1 to 3 weeks after hatching (Ross, 2001). Adults feed almost exclusively on small

fish, including gizzard shad and emerald shiner (Wahl and Nielson, 1985).



4.4.2.8 Smallmouth Buffalo Smallmouth buffalo are widespread throughout the Midwest and are native to Ohio. This species can be

found in both the Ohio River and Lake Erie (ODNR, 2015). Smallmouth buffalo generally prefer deeper

pools with relatively clear water and stronger currents of large rivers (Pflieger, 1997). Spawning occurs

during April and May, when females migrate to backwaters and smaller streams and broadcast eggs over

a variety of substrates (ODNR, 2015c). Eggs are demersal and adhesive, scattered over aquatic vegetation

and gravel substrate (Jester, 1973). Spawning frequency of smallmouth buffalo is one seasonal peak per

year, with females producing up to 525,000 eggs (Fishbase.org, 2015). No parental care is given by

spawning adults, and eggs hatch within 1 to 2 weeks (ODNR, 2015c). Larval smallmouth buffalo begin

feeding when they are 8 to 9 mm total length (TL) and have terminal mouths, feeding near the water

surface (Ross, 2001). Adult and juvenile smallmouth buffalo are typically bottom feeders and primarily

feed on small crustaceans, algae, insect larvae, and zooplankton (Pflieger, 1997).

4.4.2.9 Desktop Analysis Results The susceptibility of fish eggs and larvae to entrainment was qualitatively assessed into three categories

(high, moderate, low) based on the physical attributes of the Ohio River in the vicinity of the AWPP

CWIS; egg, larvae, and juvenile sizes; reproductive strategy; and other key early life history

characteristics. Reproductive strategy was evaluated based on the following reproductive guild

descriptions from Balon (1981) and Simon (1999):

• Pelagophils: Fishes that are non-guarding, egg scattering, pelagic (open water) spawners. Eggs

are typically numerous and either float in the water column or move along the bottom. Free

embryo stages swim constantly.

• Litho-Psammophils: Fishes that deposit eggs over gravel or sand. Eggs are often adhesive. Both

guarding and non-guarding behavior is exhibited by adults.

• Phytophils: Fishes that are non-obligatory plant spawners that have adhesive eggs that attach to

aquatic vegetation or woody debris. Both guarding and non-guarding behavior is exhibited by

adults.

• Speleophils: Fishes that place their eggs in crevices, holes, under rocks, or in other types of

structure to protect them from predators.

Table 4-7 provides a summary of the desktop analysis and key life history characteristics of the eight

most dominant species.



The desktop assessment indicates that bluegill and channel catfish were considered to have low

susceptibility. Bluegills are lithophils, spawning on rock or gravel in nests that are guarded by the male

parent, which keeps the early life stages confined to a relatively small area. Channel catfish are

speleophils, spawning in holes or crevices that are guarded by the male parent, which keeps the early life

stages confined to a relatively small area.

River carpsucker, sauger, and smallmouth buffalo were considered to have moderate susceptibility

because they are lithopelagophils, open substratum spawners with no parental care and pelagic larvae.

These species have a preferred spawning substratum of clean sand, rock, or gravel.

Gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and emerald shiner were considered most susceptible to entrainment

because they are pelagophils and relatively indiscriminant broadcast spawners (Table 4-7). These species

are considered the most susceptible to entrainment because these species spawn in open-water, and the

planktonic eggs and larvae have no characteristics that would deter them from being pulled into the CWIS

along with the water in which they reside.

4.5 Primary Period of Reproduction, Larval Recruitment, and Period of Peak Abundance for Relevant Taxa Fish reproduction in the Ohio River is expected to occur from March through September (Table 4-7).

Peak abundance and reproduction generally occurs during the spring and summer. Egg recruitment (the

process of getting from an egg to YOY) peaks in the early spring for most species, while larval

recruitment occurs between late spring and early summer. Based on the ichthyoplankton entrainment data

collected from March 22 to August 2, 1979, at AWPP, peak periods of larval recruitment and abundance

occurred in May and June, with the highest abundance of carpsuckers or buffaloes (Carpiodes spp. or

Ictiobus spp.) in May and the highest abundance of shad and herring (Dorosoma spp. or Alosa spp.)

species in June.



Table 4-7: Early Life History Information of Most Abundant Species and Susceptibility to Entrainment

Common Name Spawning Period

Eggs Average Size

Reproductive Guild and Key Early Life History Information

Susceptibility to Entrainment

(total length in mm) a Size

(mm)a Demersal Adhesive Larval Juvenile

Bluegill Late May to early August (peaking in

June) at water temperatures between

20 and 26 °C

1.2–1.4 X X 2.0–6.0 13 to 75-100 Litho-Psammophil. Males build and guard nests in 2- to 3-foot deep water near shores over sand and gravel.

Low

Channel catfish Late spring or early summer at

temperatures between 16 and 24 °C

3.5–4 X X 15 to 250–405

9.8-15 Speleophil. Males build nests under banks or logs, or on open bottoms, which can be in water ranging from several inches to several feet deep. The female lays a gelatinous mass in the nest containing between 8,000 and 15,000 eggs. Males guard and fan water over nest during incubation and stay with young after hatching.

Low

Emerald shiner May to July at water temperatures between

20 to 23 ºC

3–3.3 X 4.0–6.0 15-30 Pelagophil. Pelagic, broadcast spawner. Spawns from May to mid-August at 2 to 6 meter depths. Eggs hatch on the bottom in 24 to 36 hours. No parental care is given by the adults.

High

Freshwater drum June and July when water temperatures

reach 18 ºC

1.2–1.7 3.2–4.4 15 to 250–300 Pelagophil. Pelagic, broadcast spawner. Eggs drift on the surface of the water until they hatch, approximately 2 weeks later. No parental care is given by the adults.

High

Gizzard shad April to June with a range from mid-March

to late August

0.8–1.1 X X 3.0–8.0 25 to 179–279 Pelagophil. Pelagic, broadcast spawner. High fecundity and spawns multiple times per season. Eggs sink slowly towards the bottom or drift with the current, adhering to any surface encountered. Eggs hatch within 3-4 days. No parental care is given by the adults.

High

River carpsucker April and late May at water temperatures

between 21 and 24 °C

1.7–2.1 X X 5.0–6.1 23 to 218–263 Lithopelagophil. Spawn in large groups in flowing water. Eggs are pelagic, broadcasted on the bottom over silt or sand substrate. No parental care is given by the adults.

Moderate

Sauger March to May 1.0–1.8 X X 4.6–9.6 18 to 130–223 Lithopelagophil. Strongly adhesive eggs are broadcast over coarse substrates in mainstem river channels and tailwaters below dams. Females lay between 15,000 and 40,000 eggs when water temperatures are near 10 °C. Eggs hatch after approximately 10 days. No parental care is given by the adults. Larvae are transported downstream by current flow.

Moderate

Smallmouth buffalo

April and May at water temperatures between

13.9 to 21.1 °C.

1.6–2.4 X X 5.0–9.0 30 to 400–450 Lithopelagophil. Spawning takes in areas of moderate flow in shallow water. Eggs are scattered over weeds and gravel bottoms and hatch in 1 to 2 weeks. No parental care is given by the adults.

Moderate

Sources: Balon, 1981; Becker 1983; Boschung and Mayden, 2004; Bozek et al., 2011; MDC, 2015; ODNR, 2015 (a, b, c); Pflieger, 1997; Ross, 2001; Simon, 1999; Smith 2002. (a) mm = millimeters



4.6 Seasonal and Daily Activities The most common fish species in the Ohio River do not exhibit significant daily or seasonal activities

outside of their normal foraging and spawning activities discussed in the above sections. They do not

endure long spawning runs, but can migrate to more suitable sections of the river for the purpose of

spawning (i.e., moving from the main channel to lower flow backwaters) or feeding.

Changes in river flow volume due to precipitation and weather affects the water surface elevation and

therefore the seasonal distribution of fish. Ohio River flow volume also affects seasonal fish distribution.

Flows were typically highest in late February and early March and lowest in early September (Figure

2-7). During higher flows, flow volumes provide a larger area of suitable habitat over which fish species

can disperse because of the inundation of backwaters and lower-gradient channel border areas. When the

waters recede to lower levels, fish species that are present in high abundance during the late summer and

fall migrate from the protected backwater to channel border habitats.

4.7 Protected Species Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment The EPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) on the development of the Final Rule. The Biological Opinion (BO), issued jointly by

the USFWS and NMFS, concluded that implementation of the Final Rule is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species evaluated in the BO (195 species

under USFWS jurisdiction and 71 species under NMFS jurisdiction) and is not likely to destroy or

adversely modify designated critical habitat for these species. However, the USFWS and NMFS added a

number of conditions to the Final Rule that expanded the reach of the ESA.

The Final Rule does not authorize the take of federally endangered or threatened species. Under the ESA,

take is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing,

or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct of endangered or threatened species. Federal

agencies comply with the ESA through consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, which applies to issued

NPDES permits through which the § 316(b) requirements are implemented. The Final Rule requires that

facilities identify all federally listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat that

are present in the “action area.” The “action area,” as defined by the USFWS and NMFS under Section 7,

includes all areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the operation of a facility’s CWIS and not

merely the immediate area involved in the action; this is because the USFWS and NMFS consider that the

effects of CWIS can extend well beyond the footprint of the CWIS.



Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species were identified using the following online

resources:

• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system (2015a)

• USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) (2015b)

• Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2015)

The majority of the identified protected species within the state of Indiana were terrestrial bird, reptile,

mammal, and vascular plant species that occur in habitats that are not in the vicinity of the AWPP CWIS.

None of their respective life stages would be subject to impingement or entrainment at AWPP; nor does

the AWPP CWIS have an impact on their critical habitat. Therefore, these protected species were not

considered for further evaluation.

One federally listed and one State-listed species were identified as having the potential to be found in the

vicinity of the AWPP CWIS (Table 4-8). Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) is the only federally

listed endangered species and was identified as potentially occurring in Warrick County, Indiana. Spottail

darter (Etheostoma squamiceps) was the only State species of concern identified as potentially occurring

in Warrick County, Indiana. The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center lists the spottail darter as a

classification S2/S3 (imperiled in state/rare or uncommon in state).

Table 4-8: Protected Species in Warrick County, Indiana, Potentially Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa

Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the CWIS

Susceptibility Impingement Entrainment

Spottail darter

Etheostoma squamiceps

S2/S3 Unlikely - Inhabits small to medium size streams of low to moderate gradient. Demersal spawner with males defending nests. Spawning occurs in March and April beneath flat rocks in pools or riffles with slow current. Not collected in ambient, impingement or entrainment studies at AWPP.

No No

Sheepnose mussel

Plethobasus cyphyus

FE Unlikely – Inhabits shallow, sandy or gravelly areas of medium to large sized rivers with moderate to strong current.

Low; Glochidia attached to fish host

No

Source: Bandoli et al., 1991; Kuehne and Barbour, 1983; Page, 1974; Page, 1985; Sietman, 2003; USFWS, 2012 (a) S2/S3 = imperiled in state/rare or uncommon in Indiana; FE = Federally Endangered



4.7.1 Spottail Darter Spottail darters range from northern Tennessee through western Kentucky, with the farthest northern

populations in southern Illinois and southwestern Indiana (Braasch and Mayden, 1985). The spottail

darter, an Indiana special concern species, is a small benthic fish found in a few small streams in the

extreme southwestern portion of Indiana (Bandoli et al., 1991). Spottail darters inhabit small to medium

size streams of low to moderate gradient and may be found in quiet pools beneath stones, brush, aquatic

vegetation, or undercut banks (Kuehne and Barbour, 1983). The spottail darter is an egg clusterer (Page,

1985), with males defending rocks and other solid benthic debris under which females attach their eggs.

Eggs are adhesive and about 1.8 mm in diameter, with up to 1,500 eggs per nest (Page, 1974). Spawning

occurs in March and April beneath flat rocks in pools or riffles with slow currents (Kuehne and Barbour,

1983). Females do not participate in nest site defense or egg maintenance. Newly spawned individuals

disperse, mostly downstream. However, most individuals return upstream, where spawning habitat is

common, and remain there. Spottail darters reach sexual maturity at age 1, and the typical individual lives

about 3 years, growing to sizes up to 7 cm. Males are larger than females and can become highly

territorial when breeding.

4.7.2 Sheepnose Mussel Sheepnose mussel typically inhabits shallow, sandy, or gravelly areas of medium to large sized rivers

where the current is moderate to strong. Adult mussels have shells that are about 5 inches in length,

slightly less in width, and somewhat inflated in shape. They are primarily sedentary, but can move using a

foot-shaped muscle that can extend from the shell (Sietman, 2003). Adults can live up to 30 years and will

spend the majority of their lives partially or completely buried in the substrate.

The life history of the sheepnose mussel is complicated and involves multiple life stages. Reproduction

begins when the males release sperm into the river current. Females siphon this sperm out of the water

column as they filter feed. Females have specialized gill chambers where the eggs grow into microscopic

larvae. When they become mature, these larvae, called glochidia, are released into the current in a mass of

mucus called a conglutinate. This discharge has been observed by researchers to occur in late July and

August (USFWS, 2012). The glochidia must then attach to the gills of a specific species of host fish

where it will mature into a juvenile mussel. The sauger is the only confirmed host (Fuller, 1974), although

recent investigations have successfully transferred sheepnose glochidia onto other common riverine fish

(USFWS, 2012). When a glochidia attaches to a host fish, it matures into a juvenile mussel within several

weeks, and then drops off.



4.8 Public Participation or Consultation with Federal or State Agencies No public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies has been undertaken in

development of the plan.

4.9 Field Studies No new field studies were conducted to generate the source water baseline biological characterization

data for AWPP. An impingement study was completed at AWPP from June 2005 through June 2006 (EA,

2007). A 2-year Entrainment Characterization Study was conducted from July 2015 through June 2017 as

required in § 122.21(r)(9) of the Final Rule. The methods and results are provided in Chapter 9 of this

report.

4.10 Protective Measures and Stabilization Activities Implemented No protective measures or stabilization activities have been implemented in the vicinity of the AWPP

CWIS.

4.11 New Fragile Species No new fragile species are being proposed for this evaluation at AWPP.

4.12 Incidental Take Exemption or Authorization Alcoa has not obtained an incidental take exemption or authorization for its AWPP CWIS from the

USFWS or NMFS.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Cooling Water System Data


5.0 COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA


§122.21(r)(5), Cooling Water System Data:

i. A narrative description of the following: • Operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to cooling water intake

structures; • The proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system including a

distribution of water used for contact cooling, non-contact cooling, and process uses; • A distribution of water reuse (to include cooling water reused as process water, process

water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling); • Description of reductions in total water withdrawals including cooling water intake flow

reductions already achieved through minimized process water withdrawals; • Description of any cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or

after it is used for cooling, including other recycled process water flows; • The proportion of the source waterbody withdrawn (on a monthly basis); • The number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal

changes in the operation of the system, if applicable; i. Design and engineering calculations and supporting data to support the description above;

ii. Description of existing impingement and entrainment technologies or operational measures and a summary of their performance, including but not limited to reductions in entrainment mortality due to intake location and reductions in total water withdrawals and usage.

5.1 Cooling Water System Description The following subsections describe the cooling water system.

5.1.1 Operation In Relation To Intake Structure The CWIS at AWPP primarily provides condenser cooling water for the generating units. AWPP is a

base-load station that generates a continuous supply of electricity throughout the year to power the Alcoa

Warrick Operations manufacturing facility. These services are critical to the various production processes

throughout the Warrick Operations manufacturing facility.

5.1.2 Proportion of Design Intake Flow Used in the System The CWIS at AWPP primarily serves the generating units and the cooling water system. Ninety-one

percent of the water withdrawn from the Ohio River goes directly to the condenser cooling water system.

5.1.3 Distribution of Water Reuse Water reuse does not occur at AWPP.



5.1.4 Reductions in Total Water Withdrawals The total design intake rate is 610 MGD. Based on the 3-year period of January 1, 2012, through

December 31, 2014, the AIF at AWPP is slightly lower than the DIF and varies little between months

(Table 3-3). Intake flows for the once-through cooling system were estimated using discharge rates in lieu

of intake flow. Hourly discharge rates were obtained for the 4-year period of January 1, 2010, through

December 31, 2014. Based on the 3-year period of January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014, the AIF

at AWPP is 518.0 MGD. Therefore, AWPP reduces water withdrawal of the Ohio River by approximately

15.1 percent as compared to operating a once-through system at DIF.

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑊𝑊𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = �1 − �518610

�� ∗ 100 = 15.1

5.1.5 Cooling Water Used in a Manufacturing Process This requirement is not applicable to AWPP.

5.1.6 Proportion of the Source Waterbody Withdrawn The AWPP is located on the right descending bank of the Ohio River between RM 773 and RM 774 near

Newburgh, Indiana. Flows recorded in Newburgh, Indiana, were adjusted by multiplying the flows by

1.031 to estimate flows at AWPP. Flow in the Ohio River at AWPP from October 1, 1983, through

January 31, 2015, ranged from 2,629 cfs on September 4, 2010, to 757,785 cfs on March 8, 1997, and

averaged 138,774 cfs.

The total design intake rate is 610 MGD or 943.7 cfs. Based on the 5-year period of January 1, 2010,

through December 31, 2014, the AIF at AWPP is 518.0 MGD. The average monthly AIF ranged from

473.7 MGD in February to 575.3 MGD in August (Table 3-3). Using the DIF, the proportion of the Ohio

River withdrawn by the CWIS ranges from 0.3 percent in February, March, and April to 1.8 percent in

September (Table 5-1). Using the AIF, the proportion of the Ohio River withdrawn by the CWIS ranges

from 0.3 percent in February, March, and April to 1.8 percent in September. This percentage indicates a

negligible volume of water withdrawn from the Ohio River.



Table 5-1: Proportion of the Source Waterbody Withdrawn on a Monthly Basis

Month Average Monthly River Flow (cfs)a

Station DIF (cfs)

Percent of River Using

DIFa Station AIF

(cfs)

Percent of River Using

AIFa January 187,054.7 943.7 0.5 747.0 0.4 February 216,705.4 943.7 0.4 732.8 0.3 March 249,893.9 943.7 0.4 750.0 0.3 April 216,870.3 943.7 0.4 753.0 0.3 May 185,870.5 943.7 0.5 765.4 0.4 June 110,793.4 943.7 0.8 835.6 0.8 July 70,572.5 943.7 1.3 858.2 1.2 August 50,899.6 943.7 1.8 890.0 1.7 September 49,766.5 943.7 1.8 877.8 1.8 October 56,812.7 943.7 1.6 842.8 1.5 November 101,857.0 943.7 0.9 801.5 0.8 December 168,656.3 943.7 0.5 758.3 0.4

(a) cfs= cubic feet per second; DIF= design intake flow; AIF= actual intake flow Source: USGS station no. 03303280 in Cannelton, Indiana (www.usgs.gov); Alcoa Warrick Operations, AWPP Intake Flow Data (2010 – 2014)

5.1.7 Number of Days of the Year the Cooling Water System is in Operation and Seasonal Changes The CWIS at AWPP primarily provides condenser cooling water for the generating units. AWPP is a

base-load station that generates a continuous supply of electricity throughout the year to power the Alcoa

Warrick Operations manufacturing facility. Based on the 5-year period of January 1, 2010, through

December 31, 2014, the cooling water system was operating 24-hours per day, 7 days per week (100

percent of the time) as these services are critical to the various production processes throughout the

Warrick Operations manufacturing facility. Therefore, the number of days the cooling water system is

365 days per year.

5.2 Design and Engineering Calculations The CWIS at AWPP primarily serves the cooling water system for the generating units; therefore, no

design and engineering calculations are required to partition water from the CWIS to multiple end uses.

5.3 Description of Existing Impingement and Entrainment Technologies or Operational Measures AWPP has two existing design features that reduce IM and entrainment. AWPP uses 1/4-inch mesh

traveling screens and a fish and debris collection and return system at its CWIS (Figure 3-1). The fish and

http://www.usgs.gov/



debris collection and return system collects and transfers the traveling screen spraywash, organisms, and

debris down a rectangular open sluice to an open channel that discharges to the Ohio River 350-feet

downstream of the CWIS. Other than the two aforementioned design features, AWPP does not employ

any other specialized technologies or operational measures to reduce IM or entrainment.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Chosen Method of Compliance, IM Standard


6.0 CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD

This chapter provides the appropriate permit application requirements in the Final Rule under

§122.21(r)(6), Chosen Method of Compliance with the IM Standard. The following subsections provide a

review of the IM compliance options in the Final Rule, evaluation of feasible IM compliance options and

technologies, and rationale for selection.

6.1 Summary of Impingement Mortality Compliance Options The Final Rule requires that existing facilities subject to the rule must comply with one of the following

seven options:

1. Operate a closed-cycle recirculating system as defined by the Final Rule (at §125.92)

2. Operate a CWIS that has a maximum design through-screen design intake velocity of 0.5 fps;

3. Operate a CWIS that has an actual through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 fps;

4. Operate an offshore velocity cap that is a minimum of 800 feet offshore;

5. Operate a modified traveling screen that the Director determines meets the definition of the rule

(at §125.92(s)) and that the Director determines is BTA for impingement reduction;

6. Operate any other combination of technologies, management practices, and operational measures

that the Director determines is BTA for impingement reduction; or

7. Achieve the specified IM performance standard of less than 24 percent.

IM Options 1, 2, and 4 are considered pre-approved technologies that require no demonstration or only a

minimal demonstration that the flow reduction and control measures are functioning as EPA envisioned.

IM Options 3, 5, and 6 require more detailed information be submitted to the Director before the Director

may specify it as the requirement to control IM. EPA considers IM Option 3 to be a streamlined

alternative. The facility must submit to the Director information that demonstrates that the maximum

intake velocity as water passes through the structural components of a screen measured perpendicular to

the screen mesh does not exceed 0.5 fps. For IM Option 5, the facility must submit a site-specific

impingement technology performance optimization study that must include 2 years of biological sampling

demonstrating that the operation of the modified traveling screens has been optimized to minimize IM. If

the facility does not already have this technology installed and chooses this option, the Director may

postpone this study until the modified traveling screens and fish return system are installed. Similar to IM

Option 5, for IM Option 6, the facility must submit a site-specific impingement study including 2 years of

biological data collection demonstrating that the operation of the system of technologies, operational



measures, and best management practices have been optimized to minimize IM. If this demonstration

relies in part on a credit for reductions in the rate of impingement already achieved by measures taken at

the facility, an estimate of those reductions and any relevant supporting documentation must be

submitted. The estimated reductions in rate of impingement must be based on a comparison of the system

to a once-through cooling system with a traveling screen whose point of withdrawal from the surface

water source is located at the shoreline of the source waterbody.

IM Option 7 requires that a facility achieve a 12-month IM performance of all life stages of fish and

shellfish of no more than 24 percent mortality, including latent mortality, for all non-fragile species that

are collected or retained in a sieve with a maximum opening dimension of 0.56 inch and kept for a

holding period of 18 to 96 hours. The Director may, however, prescribe an alternative holding period. The

12-month average of IM is calculated as the sum of total IM for the previous 12 months divided by the

sum of total impingement for the previous 12 months. A facility must choose to demonstrate compliance

with this requirement for the entire facility, or for each individual cooling water intake structure.

Biological monitoring must be completed at a minimum frequency of monthly.

6.2 Evaluation of Feasible IM Compliance Options Compliance options were evaluated using the following step-wise process:

1. Determine if the facility is already compliant with BTA for impingement and entrainment under

IM Options 1, 2, or 3.

2. Determine if the facility has low rates of impingement that could be considered de minimis by the

Director.

3. Determine if the facility is eligible for capacity exemption. The capacity factor must be less than

8 percent based on the average capacity factor over the past 3 years.

4. Evaluate the likely efficacy, technical feasibility, and relative costs of IM and entrainment

mortality (EM) reduction technologies and operational measures applicable to open-cycle cooling

systems (IM Options 4, 5, and 6).

5. Evaluate ceasing operations.

Based on the existing CWIS configuration, cooling water system, station operations, and existing rate of

impingement, AWPP is not already compliant with BTA for impingement and entrainment under IM

Options 1, 2, or 3 (step 1). The rates of impingement at AWPP are not likely low enough to warrant a

decision from IDEM that the rates are de minimis (step 2). AWPP’s capacity utilization rate is greater

than 8 percent (step 3). Alcoa cannot cease operations at AWPP because the plant provides electricity,



potable water, hot water, and steam to Alcoa’s Warrick manufacturing facility (step 5). Therefore, a

screening level evaluation of IM and EM reduction technologies and operational measures (step 4) was

conducted.

For step 4, a list of potential technologies and operational measures that might be employed to reduce IM

and EM at the CWIS was prepared.

Each technology or operational measure was screened against the following criteria:

• Commercially proven technology

• Conformance to site conditions and space availability

• Impact on station reliability, operation, and efficiency

• Efficacy (effectiveness in reducing IM and EM)

• Relative cost

• Environmental impacts (air, noise, water quality, water consumption, and permitting

requirements)

Table 6-1 provides a summary of the technical feasibility, efficacy, relative costs, and environmental

impacts of alternate technologies and operational measures. Based on a screening level analysis of the

options in Table 6-1, Modified Ristroph Screens with Fish Handling and Return System was the only

technology or operational measure recommended for further evaluation. The following provides a more

detailed assessment of this screening technology.



Table 6-1: Evaluation of § 316(b) Compliance Alternatives

Technology Description

Commercially Proven? Conformance to Site Conditions

Potential Impacts on Station Operation, Reliability, and

Efficiency Efficacy

(Reductions in IM and EM) Relative Costs Potential Environmental Impacts

Recommended for Further

Consideration? IM Compliance Option #1: Use of closed cycle recirculating system Closed-cycle Cooling

Yes. Uncertain. Likely technically feasible, but a detailed study including tower location, interferences, tie-ins to existing cooling systems, and site soil conditions would need to be completed.

• Partial or full facility shutdown • Operational challenges during construction. • Reduced plant output • Water treatment of blowdown

High reduction in IM and EM.

High capital cost and moderate O&M cost.

• Increased PM10 emissions. • Increased noise emissions. • Increased water consumption • Extensive permitting requirements and approvals.

No.

IM Compliance Option #2: Maximum design through-screen design intake velocity of 0.5 fps Expanded intake with additional traveling screens

Yes. Technically feasible as space appears to be available.

• Partial or full facility shutdown • Operational challenges during construction.

High to moderate reduction in IM. Uncertain reduction in EM.

High capital cost and low O&M cost.

Some in-water work would be required, likely under a USACE nationwide permit. Long-term impacts would be similar to existing.

No.

Deepen the mouth of the intake channel to achieve an intake velocity of < 0.5 fps

Yes. Not feasible. Would require deepening the opening by 23.1 feet. Would likely undermine the foundations of the caissons that make up the intake channel.

Not evaluated since technology did not conform to site conditions

High to moderate reduction in IM. No reduction in EM.

Low to moderate capital cost and low O&M cost.

In-water work would be required under a USACE nationwide permit.

No.

Dual flow, fine-mesh traveling screens with a TSV < 0.5 fps

Could potentially be installed at the location of the existing CWIS. Would require significant structural and mechanical modifications to existing CWIS.

• May require partial CWIS shutdown for construction. • Would likely increase debris load and require continuous screen rotation.

May increase IM (impinge previously entrained organisms). Low to moderate reduction in EM (dependent upon species life stage and mesh size).



No.

Wedgewire screens

Yes. Not feasible. Anticipated damage to screens from large debris in the Ohio River. Would conflict with commercial navigation on the river.

Not evaluated since technology did not conform to site conditions.


Low to moderate capital cost and moderate O&M cost.

In-water work would be required under a USACE nationwide permit. Long-term impacts would be similar to existing.

No.

Eicher screens and modular inclined screens (MIS)

No. Limited existing

installations.

Not feasible. Would require significant structural and mechanical modifications to existing CWIS.


Moderate reduction in IM and EM.



No.

IM Compliance Option #3: CWIS that has an actual through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 fps Barrier net or aquatic filter barrier

Yes. Not feasible. River level fluctuation, proximity to navigation channel, and high debris loading preclude use.


Dependent upon mesh size. High reduction in IM for barrier net. High potential for reduction in IM and EM for aquatic filter barrier.

High capital cost and high O&M cost.


No.

Barrier screen Yes. Not feasible. River level fluctuation, proximity to navigation channel, and high debris loading preclude use.


Low reduction in IM and EM.

Moderate capital cost and moderate O&M cost.


No.






Efficiency Efficacy



Consideration? Louvers/Angled bar racks

Yes. Not feasible. River level fluctuation precludes use.


Low reduction in IM, only. Additional technologies would be required to reduce EM.

Low capital cost and low O&M cost.


No.

Vertical and inclined plate screens

Yes. Plate screens could be placed at the entrance to the existing intake.

Would require partial or full facility shutdown for construction.




No.

IM Compliance Option #4: Operate an offshore velocity cap that is a minimum of 800 feet offshore Velocity caps Yes. Not feasible. The aerial dimensions of the

waterbody preclude use. Not evaluated since technology did not conform to site conditions

Moderate reduction in IM. Uncertain reduction in EM.



No.

IM Compliance Option #5: Operate a modified traveling screen that the Director determines meets the definition of the rule (at §125.92(s)) Modified traveling screens (with a fish handling and return system)

Yes for Ristroph

screens. Other technologies have limited

existing installations

and performance

data.

Could be installed at the location of the existing traveling screens. New traveling screens and retrofit of existing fish/debris return would be required.

• May require partial CWIS shutdown for construction. • Would require continuous screen rotation.

High reduction in IM, only. Additional technologies (such as fine mesh screens) would be required to reduce EM.

Moderate capital cost and low O&M cost. Monitoring costs for 2-year optimization study.

Long-term impacts would be similar to existing.

Yes. EPA considers this technology as

BTA for reducing IM.

Fine mesh traveling screens (with a fish handling & return system)

Yes but limited existing

installations.

Could be installed at the location of the existing traveling screens. New traveling screens and retrofit of existing fish/debris return would be required.

• May require partial CWIS shutdown for construction. • Would likely increase debris load and require continuous screen rotation.

May increase IM (impinge previously entrained organisms). Low to moderate reduction in EM (dependent upon species life stage and mesh size).

Moderate capital cost and low O&M cost. Monitoring costs for 2-year optimization study.

Long-term impacts would be similar to existing.

No.

IM Compliance Option #6: Operate any other combination of technologies, management practices and operational Behavioral Barriers Air bubble curtains

No. Not feasible. Ineffective due to the river level fluctuation, high turbidity, and low illumination in the waterbody.



Low capital cost and moderate O&M cost. Monitoring costs for 2-year optimization study.


No.

Infrasound/ Ultrasound

No. Not feasible. Ineffective due to the river level fluctuation, high turbidity, and low illumination in the waterbody.



Low capital cost and low O&M cost Monitoring costs for 2-year optimization study.]


No.






Efficiency Efficacy



Consideration? Strobe lights No. Not feasible. Ineffective due to the river level

fluctuation, high turbidity, and low illumination in the waterbody.



Low capital cost and low O&M cost. Monitoring costs for 2-year optimization study.


No.

Operational Modifications Alternative water source

Yes. Uncertain. Alternative water sources with sufficient capacity do not appear to be available at the site.

New water source would likely require treatment. Would require partial facility shutdown.


High capital cost and moderate O&M costs.

Dependent upon the water quality of the alternative water source and discharge limits.

No.

Seasonal and diurnal pumping operations

Yes. Yes. Pumps are already shutdown based on facility water needs.

None anticipated. Moderate to low reduction in IM and EM. Dependent upon timing and extent of over pumping, decrease in TSVs, and temporal variation of susceptible organisms.

Low capital cost and low O&M cost.

None anticipated. No.

Variable frequency drives (VFDs)

Yes. Existing pumps, space, and HVAC requirements would have to be evaluated.

Would require partial facility shutdown. Could reduce intake flows and provide long-term energy savings.

Moderate to low reduction in IM and EM. Dependent upon timing and extent of over pumping, decrease in TSVs, and temporal variation of susceptible organisms.

Low to moderate capital cost and low O&M cost.

None anticipated. No.

IM Compliance Option #7: Achieve the specified impingement mortality performance standard of less than 24 percent Existing condition: Trashracks, vertical traveling screens and debris/fish return

Yes. Equipment is already in place and operating. N/A Current impingement mortality is likely > 24 percent

Low to moderate. Long-term monitoring costs to demonstrate reduction.

N/A No. Existing CWIS is not

compliant with the Final Rule.

IM = impingement mortality; EM = entrainment mortality; O&M = operations and maintenance; TSV = through screen velocity



6.2.1 Modified Traveling Screens with Fish Handling and Return System Modified traveling screens are a commercially successful fish collection, handling, and return technology.

Ristroph screens collect and return impinged organisms to the source waterbody, but they do not reduce

the number of organisms impinged. This alternative involves installing new traveling screens with a fish

handling and return system at the CWIS. New traveling screens would need to be installed since the

existing screens are not suited for retrofitting with buckets. The new screens would be equipped with a

modified bucket system and a low-pressure spray that would gently wash the collected fish out of the

buckets and into a separate fish return trough. The return discharge would be routed away from the CWIS

to prevent secondary flow circulation and re-impingement.

The following is a description of the fish handling and return system that would be installed at AWPP.

Appendix C provides example figures of a typical modified traveling screen and the fish handling and

return system at AWPP.

• Each traveling water screen consists of a continuous series of screen baskets fitted with a smooth

top wire mesh screen deck.

• As the baskets are lifted out of the water, floating and suspended debris are collected on the face

of the wire mesh, while aquatic life are directed into the basket’s trough utilizing a fish catching

system. The smooth, flush mounting of the mesh assists with discharge and encourages

deposition of aquatic life in the basket trough.

• As baskets pass over the head shaft assembly, aquatic organisms are gently discharged from the

basket trough into the fish return system with the aid of gentle, low-pressure sprays. The fish

return system consists of a fiberglass trough which returns aquatic life to the downstream side of

the water source. The trough is designed to maintain a minimum of 6 in. of water while the

screens operate. Following removal of the fish, a high-pressure front spray system cleans the

debris from the face of the wire mesh. A rear seal reduces the potential for debris carry-over.

• The capture mechanism is comprised of unique aquatic life survival baskets; these special

purpose baskets are designed solely for capture and retention of aquatic life without degrading

flows and hydraulics in the intake. Baskets with a deep trough enhance survival potential, and the

shape of this trough assists with capture and discharge. The utilization of smooth-top, slotted

opening mesh provides for increased open areas and reduced velocities, and discourages stapling.

• The release mechanism is comprised of the fish sprays and basket-mesh design. The release

mechanism is primarily the large amount of water in the basket trough that spills out at discharge,

providing a smooth unobstructed slide for aquatic life release. The fish spray is low pressure (10-



15 pounds per square inch gage [psig]) and consists of an outside and an inside spray. The outside

spray acts primarily as a sluicing device, keeping the release path inundated with water. The

inside spray aids in removing the aquatic life off the mesh surface, with the use of gravity, and

discharging the aquatic life into the return mechanism.

• The return mechanism consists of a deep trough system designed to return the aquatic life to the

water source. The trough is typically fabricated from fiberglass and has rounded corners. The

trough is sloped to allow for a minimum of 6 in. of water to remain in the trough during

operation. For preliminary design, it was assumed the return trough is 12 in. wide with a slope of

approximately 0.09 ft./ft. The trough will be above grade with tray supports at 10-ft. spacing.

Covers are installed on the trough where needed to prevent the removal of aquatic life by outside

predators, such as birds. The area adjacent to the fish trough will be rough graded and a gravel

roadway will be installed to allow access to the trough for routine maintenance and inspection.

• The modified traveling screens would be continually rotated while the plant is in operation, which

represents a change in historical operation of this equipment. Some evaluation on design life

expectancy should be completed prior to selecting the new screen equipment.

If this technology is selected, a more detailed evaluation of the design criteria will be conducted during

the design phase. Design criteria that will be evaluated in more detail will include:

• overall return dimensions (length, width, slope)

• radius of turns in the return trough between the AWPP and the point of discharge

• planned construction materials including types of covers that will be provided

• expected rate of water flow in the trough

• depth of water at the point of discharge

• height above the water surface for the discharge from the return; including potential extremes in

water elevation (i.e., during floods or extended dry period/drought conditions)

• proximity to the thermal discharge

• inspection and cleaning requirements

The efficacy of 3/8-inch mesh modified traveling water screen for reducing IM varies by species

(Ronafalvy, 1999) and depends on the ability of the system to provide high survival rates of impinged

fish. Survival of fish on modified traveling screens and in handling and return systems is species- and

size-specific and dependent on several other factors including screen and return system material, screen

rotation speed and frequency, through screen velocity, return flume velocity, drop height, length of the

fish return, and water quality (EPA, 2014b). Frail species have higher mortality than more robust species.



For example, juvenile clupeid (that is, herring and shad) survival rates vary widely and often are low. The

most dominant species collected in the 1976 to 1977 and 2005 to 2006 impingement studies at AWPP

was gizzard shad, comprising 70 percent and 78 percent of the catch, respectively. Freshwater drum was

the second most abundant, comprising 18 percent and 20 percent of the catch, respectively. Gizzard shad,

however, are a listed fragile species and would not be included in the assessment of compliance with the

IM standard.

A 2-year, site-specific impingement technology performance optimization study of impingement

monitoring will need to be conducted with the implementation and operation of this technology. The

details of the study requirements will be discussed with IDEM after the entrainment BTA is determined.

6.2.2 Conclusion Based on the screening level feasibility evaluation and the results of the 122.21(r)(9) through (12) studies,

Alcoa has determined that IM option 5, modified traveling screens, is the most feasible option for

compliance with the IM standard.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Entrainment Performance Studies


7.0 ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES


§ 122.21(r)(5), Entrainment Performance Studies:

The owner or operator of an existing facility must submit any previously conducted studies or studies obtained from other facilities addressing technology efficacy, through-facility entrainment survival, and other entrainment studies.

a. A description of each study, together with underlying data, and a summary of any conclusions or results.

b. Studies conducted at other locations must include an explanation as to why the data from other locations are relevant and representative of conditions at your facility.

c. In the case of studies more than 10 years old, the applicant must explain why the data are still relevant and representative of conditions at the facility and explain how the data should be interpreted using the definition of entrainment at 40 CFR 125.92(h).

7.1 Entrainment Studies An entrainment study was conducted at AWPP from March 22 to August 2, 1979, at AWPP to

characterize and estimate entrainment (WAPORA, 1979). The study methods and results were

summarized in Subsection 4.4.1. A 2-year entrainment study was conducted from June 2015 to June 2017

as required in § 122.21(r)(9) of the Final Rule. The methods and results of this study are provided in the

Entrainment Characterization Study (provided as a stand-alone report).

7.2 Technology Efficacy Entrainment efficacy of EM reduction technologies is discussed in the Comprehensive Technical

Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study (provided as a stand-alone report).

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Operational Status


8.0 OPERATIONAL STATUS


§122.21(r)(8), Operational Status:

i. Descriptions of individual unit operating status including age of each unit, capacity utilization (or equivalent) for the previous 5 years, and any major upgrades completed within the last 15 years, including but not limited to boiler replacement, condenser replacement, turbine replacement, or changes to fuel type;

ii. Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled uprates; iii. Descriptions of plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacement of units; iv. Descriptions of current and future production schedules at manufacturing facilities; and v. Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years.

8.1 Unit Operating Status The AWPP has four generating units. APGI wholly owns Units 1, 2, and 3, which were placed into

service in the1960s. The largest unit, Unit 4, is jointly owned by APGI and Vectren Inc., a utility

company. Unit 4 was placed in operation in 1970 (Table 8-1). Vectren has announced plans to withdraw

their ownership of Unit 4 by 2020. For all units, the capacity utilizations rates for 2009 through 2014

exceeded 90 percent (Table 8-2 )

Table 8-1: Commercial Operation Date and Age of Each Unit

Unit Commercial Operation Date Agea (years) 1 April 1960 58 2 January 1964 54 3 October 1965 53 4 October 1970 48

(a) Age of unit at the time of this submittal (January 2018)

Table 8-2: Unit Capacity Utilization (2010 – 2014)

Year Unit 1

(percent) Unit 2

(percent) Unit 3

(percent) Unit 4

(percent) 2010 100.7 100.5 100.3 92.1 2011 100.8 102.8 101.3 91.5 2012 104.2 99.7 100.6 91.1 2013 99.2 98.9 100.7 90.6 2014 100.6 100.7 102.2 94.3

Source: Alcoa Warrick Operations, Performance Data (2010 – 2014)

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Operational Status


Alcoa has completed major upgrades to the equipment at AWPP to significantly reduce sulfur dioxide

(SO2), particulate, acid gas, and mercury emissions. In December 2008, Alcoa completed one of its

largest capital projects in North America, an investment of more than $400 million to upgrade AWPP

with wet-flue gas desulphurization equipment, or scrubbers. To offset some of the parasitic loads

associated with the installation of the SO2 scrubbers, all four units had turbine densepak upgrades to their

high pressure (HP) and intermediate pressure (IP) sections (from 2008 through 2013) to optimize

generation capacity. Boiler firebox and ductwork strengthening was also completed in correlation with the

installation of upgraded boiler Induced Draft Fans, which were installed with the scrubber systems.

Additional subsystem optimization work was completed in support of the Turbine and Boiler capacity

increases. No significant change to fuel type has occurred at AWPP.

8.2 Completed, Approved or Scheduled Uprates The upgrades described above uprated AWPP’s gross generating capacity from 742 to 823 MW, with a

net generating capacity change of approximately 81 MW. No future uprates to the facility have been

planned, approved, or scheduled at the time of this submittal.

8.3 Plans or Schedules for Unit Decommissioning or Replacement Alcoa has no plans to decommission or replace the existing units at the time of this submittal.

8.4 Current and Future Production Schedules This requirement is not applicable to AWPP.

8.5 Plans or Schedules for New Units Alcoa has no plans to add new units at AWPP at the time of this submittal.

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Requirements Final Literature Cited


9.0 LITERATURE CITED

Balon E.K. (1981). Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6:377-389.

Bandoli, J., J. Lannigan, and T. Sheckles. 1991. Reproduction in the spottail darter in Indiana: Use of artificial nest sites. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 100: 65-75.

Becker, G.C. (1983). Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.

Braasch, M.E., and R.L. Mayden. (1985). Review of the subgenus Catonotus (Percidae) with descriptions of two new darters of the Etheostoma squamiceps species group. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, 119:1-53.

Boschung, H.T. and R.L. Mayden. (2004). Fishes of Alabama. 736 pp. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bozek, M.A., T.J. Haxton, J.K. Raabe. (2011). Walleye and saguer habitat. In: Barton, B.A. (Ed.), Biology, Management, and Culture of Walleye and Sauger. (pp. 133-198). Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

Clugston, J.P. (1966). Centrarchid Spawning in the Florida Everglades. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences, 29(2): 137-143

EA Engineering, Science and Technology (EA), Inc. (2007). Cooling Water Intake Structure Fish Impingement Study, Warrick Electric Generating Station. Prepared for Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (2009). Ohio River Ecological Research Program: Impingement Mortality Characterization Study at 15 Power Stations. 1018540. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA; American Electric Power Company, Columbus, OH; American Municipal Power, Columbus, OH; Allegheny Energy Supply Company, Greensburg, PA; Buckeye Power, Inc., Columbus, OH; Dayton Power & Light, Dayton, OH; Duke Energy, Plainfield, IN; E.ON U.S. (Louisville Gas & Electric), Louisville, KY; E.ON U.S. (Western Kentucky Energy Corporation), Henderson, KY; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation/Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation, Piketon, OH; Owensboro Municipal Utilities, Owensboro KY; Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN.

Fishbase.org. (2015). Reproduction of Ictiobus bubalus. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.fishbase.org/Reproduction/FishReproSummary.php?ID=2992&GenusName=Ictiobus&SpeciesName=bubalus&fc=125&StockCode=3188.

Fuller, S. L. H. (1974). Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). In C. W. Hart, Jr., and S. L. H. Fuller (Eds.), Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates (pp 215-273). New York: Academic Press.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (2015). Indiana County Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species County: Warrick. Retrieved online in June 2015 at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/naturepreserve/files/np_warrick.pdf.

Jester, D.B. (1973). Life history, ecology, and management of the smallmouth buffalo, Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque), with reference to Elephant Butte Lake. New Mexico State University Agricultural Experimental Station Research Report No. 273. 80 pp.



Kuehne, Robert A. and Roger W. Barbour, (1983). The American Darters (pp 153-154). The University Press of Kentucky.

Missouri Department of Conservation. (2015). Online Field Guide. Retrieved July 2015 from http://mdc. mo.gov/ discover-nature/field-guide.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2015a). Species Guide Index, Fish, Bluegill Sunfish. Retrieved October 2015 from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2015b). Species Guide Index, Fish, Gizzard Shad. Retrieved October 2015 from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2015c). Species Guide Index, Fish, Sauger. Retrieved November 2015 from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/sauger.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission [ORSANCO]. (2015a). River Facts/Conditions. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.orsanco.org/river-factsconditions.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission [ORSANCO]. (2015b). Ohio River Main Stem Data (2003 – 2014). Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.orsanco.org/fish-population.

Page, L.M. (1974). The life history of the spottail darter, Etheostoma squamiceps, in Big Creek, Illinois, and Ferguson Creek, Kentucky. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 89. 20 pp.

Page, L. M. (1985). Evolution of reproductive behaviors in percid fishes. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 33: 275-295.

Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. (1997). Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in the Gulf of Mexico Estuaries Volume II: Species Life History Summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 11. 377 pp. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Pflieger, W.L. (1997). The Fishes of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Missouri Department of Conservation.

Ronafalvy, J. P. (1999). Circulating Water Traveling Screen Modifications to Improve Impinged Fish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem Generating Station. Proceedings of the EPRI/DOE Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Ross, S.T. (2001). The Inland Fishes of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 624 pp. University Press of Mississippi.

Rypel, A.L., D.R. Bayne, and J.B. Mitchell. (2006). Growth of Freshwater Drum from Lotic and Lentic Habitats in Alabama. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135:987-997.

Schramm H.L, Jr. (2004). Status and Management of Mississippi River Fisheries. In R. Welcomme and T. Petr (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries. Volume 1 (pp 301–333). Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. RAP Publication 2004/16.



Sietman, B. E. (2003). Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. 144 pp. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Simon, T.P. (1999). Assessment of Balon’s reproductive guilds with application to Midwestern North American Freshwater Fishes, pp. 97-121. In: Simon, T.L. (ed.). Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 671 pp.

Smith, P.W. (2002). The Fishes of Illinois. Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Swedberg, D.V., C.H. Walburg. (1970). Spawning and Early Life History of Freshwater Drum in Lewis and Clark Lake, Missouri River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 99:560-570.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2015). Newburgh Locks and Dam. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Navigation/LocksandDams/ NewburghLocksandDam.aspx

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Phase I—New Facilities, Technical Development Document for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-01-036. U.S. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125. August 15, 2014. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0667, FRL–9817–3.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014b). Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-14-002. May 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1995). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Notice of 90-day finding on the petition to list the sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub as endangered. Federal Register, 60:3613-3615.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels Throughout Their Range. 77 Federal Register 49, Final Rule, pp. 14914-14949.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2015a). Information for Planning Conservation (IPaC). Retrieved June 2015 from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/4TEYWRHIY5EEZNQD46QUK7QJH4 /resources.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2015b). Endangered Species Program – Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). Retrieved June 2015 from: https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/.

Wahl, D.H., and L.A. Nielsen, (1985). Feeding ecology of the sauger (Stizostedion canadense) in a large river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 42(1):120-128

WAPORA, Inc. (1978). Fish Impingement Studies at the Warrick Power Station, November 1976 – December 1977.

https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/



WAPORA, Inc. (1979). Entrainment Studies at the ACG Station, Newburgh, Indiana. Submitted to ALCOA Generating Corporation. October 12, 1979.

Willis, D.W. (1987). Reproduction and Recruitment of Gizzard Shad in Kansas Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7:71-80.

- ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

- WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM

Hot Mill- Oily Wastewater- Secondary Containment Rainwater- Coolant-Hydraulic Oils-Lubes-A/C Cooling Water

DI Quench Water Coil Coating Lines

(0 gpm)

Hydraulic Cooling Bldg 824 (10 gpm)

Fire Suppression Cooling Water

Bldg 849

Storm Water Runoff

Coil Prep Lines Hydraulics

Hydraulic Cooling Bldg. 820 (10

gpm)

Cooling Tower Blowdown Bldg 820F(80 gpm)

Chromic Acid Trtmt (Bldg 879)

(35 gpm)

Cooling Tower Bldn Bldg 872, 872A (80 gpm)

Material Testing Rinse Water

Air Conditioning Bldg 874B (20

gpm)

Air Cond. and Cooling Cond.

Tower Screen Washings

Cooling Tower 816C3 Blowdown

(80 gpm)

Fire Suppression Cooling Tower

Bldg 816X

Coil Prep Line 6Coil Prep Lines

3,4, 5, 7, and Coil Coating Lines 2,3

Ingot Preheat Furnace (60 gpm)

PACT System (50 GPM)

Oily Wastewater Trtmt Discharge

(80 gpm)

Cooling Tower 816C1 Blowdown

(80 gpm)

Miscellaneous- Oily Wastewater- Secondary Containment Rainwater- Used Oil- Scrap Oil (Heavy Lubes & Coolant)- 134 Scrubber Water- Spill Clean-up

Cold Mill- Oily Wastewater- Maintenance Washdown- Groundwater Intercept Sumps- #4 Mill Roof Drains- Oil / Water Separator From 006- Roll Shop Water- Truck Shop Water

Storm Water Runoff (variable)

West Scalper (10 gpm)

East Scalper (10 gpm)

Air Conditioning and Cooling Condensate

Clarifier Blowdown Bldg 134J

Cooling Tower Blowdown 134J

(160 gpm)

Storm Water Runoff

Roll Caster Cooling Tower

Blowdown (0 gpm)

Air Compressors Bldgs 310, 311 (0

gpm)

Evaporator Blowdown (10

gpm)

HPM Press Cooling Water (20

gpm)

Emergency Cooling Water

Bldg 311

Water Softener Bldg 310 (20 gpm)

Rectifier Cooling Bldg 301, 302 (80

gpm)Fire Training Area

Anode Manipulators

Ring Furnace Cooling Water 446 Reactor (20 gpm)

Ring Furnace Groundwater (10

gpm)

Air Compressor Condensate Bldg

311 (50 gpm)

Anode Assembly Hydraulic Cooling

Storm water Runoff

Smelting Plant

Ingot Plant

Fabricating Plant

Coal Pile Sump

Ore Unloading Dock

Demineralizer Regenerate

Containment Rainwater

Boiler Blowdown & Drains (Unit 4)

Instrument Air Compressors

Bearing Cooling

Air Compressor After Coolers

Condensor Cooling

Maintenance Washdowns

Ash Trench Drains Ash Sluice Water

Turbine CoolingNon-Contact Cooling

Non-Contact Cooling

Coal Handling Drains

Maintenance Washdowns

Ore Handling Condensate

Power PlantCoal Handling Area

Potable Water

Air Conditioner Cooling &

Condensate Bldg 1

Storm Water Retention Pond

Outfall 203 Sanitary Treatment Plant

Outfall 303

Outfall 103

Main Sump- Decant Pit-KMno4 Washdown- Boiler Blowdown & Drains (Units 1-3)- Potable Water Plant Filter Backwash

MiniSump- Intake Tunnel Sump- Non-Contact Cooling- Chlorine Analyzer- Maintenance Washdowns- Building Heat Condensate

Outfall 001

Outfall 004 Outfall 005

Ashponds

Power Plant Storm Water Runoff

Ohio River

Power Plant / Smelter Storm Water Runoff

River Water Intake

Storm Water From Secondary

Containments

Outfall 010S

Outfall 006S

Outfall 008

Outfall 002

Line No. Line Description Flow (MGD) Max (MGD)1 Potable Water Supply 2.5 – 3.0 7.52 Power Plant Potable Water Supply 0.520 3.53 River Water Intake 250 – 550 5504 Fire Suppression Cooling Water Bldg 849 .02 5 Fabrication Discharge (FAB Ditch) 1.1 6 Smelting Discharge (Smelting Ditch) 0.37 Outfall 203 (Sanitary Waste Effluent) 0.1 .258 Outfall 303 0.59 Outfall 002 50010 Outfall 103 911 Outfall 003 9.512 Air Conditioner Cooling and Condensate Bldg 1 0.0413 Outfall 403 1.0

Emergency OverflowNormal Flow Direction

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

Outfall 403 –Scrubber (overflow

to 303)

Outfall 403 –Scrubber

Scrubber

Unnamed Tributary

6

13

Figure 1

– MODIFIED TRAVELING SCREEN SKETCHES

Figure C-1: Example of Four Post Thru-Flow Traveling Water Screen

Source: Atlas, 2017

Figure C-2: Example of Typical Basket Assembly

Source: Atlas, 2017

Figure C-3: Example of Typical Spray Wash Assemblies

Source: Atlas, 2017

contract

project

designed

date

85014

CO

PY

RIG

HT © 2

017

BU

RN

S & M

cD

ON

NE

LL E

NGIN

EE

RIN

G C

OM

PA

NY, IN

C.

Z:\Clients\ESP\Alcoa\85014_316b\Design\Civil\Dwgs\Sketches\85014-WA-SK02.dgn3/7/2017

ALCOA 316B STUDY

-

A. MYERS

-

85014

WARRICK GENERATING STATIONN

WA-SK02

EXISTING INTAKE

POTENTIAL FISH RETURN LOCATION

RETURN LOCATION

POTENTIAL FISH

3/3/17

FISH TROUGH

SCALE IN FEET

30' 60'0

Burns & McDonnell World Headquarters 9400 Ward Parkway

Kansas City, MO 64114 O 816-333-9400 F 816-333-3690

www.burnsmcd.com

http://www.burnsmcd.com/

Documents

Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements · Section 122.21(r)(2) – (8) Information Requirements . Alcoa Power Generating Inc., a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation . Alcoa