Intake Technologies: Research Status
alewife, barriers, behavioral barriers, bubble curtain, cooling systems, engineering, fish barriers, fish behavior, impingement, fish protection, Hudson River, hydroelectric, intake, intake structures, pneumatic guns, protection, strobe light
Palo Alto, CA
Electric Power Research Institute
This report summarizes recent research activities related to fish protection at water intake structures, with particular emphasis on research reported on or conducted at pumped cooling-water intakes since the Advanced Intake Technologies Study Report (EPRI CS-3644) published in 1984. Information gathered from 51 organizations (33 utilities, seven equipment manufacturers, six research organizations, two private engineering firms, one steel mill, and two government agencies) is provided along with specific summaries of EPRI-sponsored research on behavioral barriers at pumped and hydroelectric facilities. The level of research activity indicated by utilities at pumped intakes has decreased recently, although the interest in potential plant operational impact mitigative techniques remains high. Sixteen of the organizations contacted were actively evaluating one or more intake technologies in 1987 and 1988; eight studies included behavioral barriers similar to those employed under the EPRI-sponsored studies. Two studies sponsored by EPRI at pumped cooling-water intake structures evaluated the individual and combined deterrent capabilities of three devices: an air bubble curtain, pneumatic guns, and underwater strobe lights. A study conducted during 1985 and 1986 at Ontario Hydro's nearshore testing facility, located in Lake Ontario off the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station intake, indicated that all three devices and combinations of devices elicited an avoidance response in alewife. The pneumatic gun exhibited the highest deterrent capability and the air bubble curtain the lowest. Studies conducted using the same deterrent devices at the intake of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation's Roseton Generating Station on the Hudson River did not indicate an overall avoidance response; some species-specific responses to the devices were noted, however. http://www.epri.com
This document is currently not available here.