Fine-meshTraveling ScreensEPRI-EPA MeetingAugust 26, 2008Doug Dixon, EPRIJon Black, Alden2EPRI 2008 Technology Research Program•Fine mesh screen performance(laboratory)•Fish return effects on survival–Eggs, larvae & juveniles(laboratory)– Adults (literature)•Designing portable fine meshscreen field testing device• Beaudrey screen performance– Hatchery & native fish injection• Barrier net design for rivers(physical model testing)• Technology performance reviewsummary report (~ Dec 2008)•Planning 2009 research program3Types of Fine Mesh Screens4Fine Mesh CollectionScreens: Summary• Biological Performance– Extremely limited data base– Survival highly stage- (egg,pro-larvae, post-larvae,juvenile), species-, and sitespecific– Challenging to demonstrate• Limited field deployment (8sites) with favorable screening(debris) performance• Handling procedures continue todevelop & improve• Screen designs continue todevelop & improve5Typical Modified Traveling Screen6Fine-mesh Traveling Water Screen Advantages• Proven engineering performance• Can resolve O&M issues in addition to providing fishprotection• Relatively easy to retrofit• Improved screen designs• Fine-mesh screens different from other entrainmentreducing technologies – handle or collect and returnfish/shellfish eggs & larvae7Biological Performance – Metric for Measuring• The metric for measuring biological performance willimpact the ability of fine-mesh screen to meet a standard:– Numbers of organisms– Biomass– Equivalent Adult Modeling– Larger entrainables are better able to survive thecollection process8Challenges9Challenges10Challenges11Challenges12Challenges13• Condition of fish• Handling controls• Visual observations• Control of variables– e.g., duration,velocity• Environmental variables– Water quality, debris loadingLaboratory vs. Field14Laboratory Evaluation – Striped Bass Larvae15Field Studies – Immediate Survival?• Larval fish have high natural mortality• In the laboratory, these mortalities can be accounted forby handling controls– latent mortality can mask effects• In the field – what can you use for control?• In the absence of controls is immediate survival a bettermethod for measuring performance?Observed Trends17Fine-mesh EvaluationsYear ofEvaluationWater bodyPlant1977Columbia RiverHanford GeneratingProject1977Columbia River100-N reactor1977Laguna MadreBarney Davis1977-1978Hudson RiverIndian Point1980Tampa BayBig Bend1981LaboratoryESEERCO1984-1985Cape Fear RiverBrunswick1985-1989Lake OntarioSomerset1987-1991Lake ErieDunkirk1988Mississippi RiverPrairie Island2008LaboratoryEPRI18Localized Differences• Hanford Generating Project and100-N, Columbia River• Comparison between adjacent intakes• Similar Configuration– 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) - conventional traveling screen100-NHanfordNo. collected1,2961,762Survival0% All species97% Chinook92% yellow perchThrough-screenvelocity2.9 ft/sec2.4 ft/sec19Brueggemeyer etal.1988TaxaScreenwashORLHatchabilityFish Eggs:Anchoa mitchilli7493Sciaenidae8080Latent Survival (48 hour)Fish Larvae:Anchoa mitchilli6865Sciaenidae6366Fish Returns Effects20Seasonal EffectsSomerset - Lake OntarioRistroph screen –1.0 mm meshSpeciesLifestageSeasonNo.Tested96-hSurvivalJUVwinter10914.7JUVspring97835.5JUVsummer1,4916.8JUVsummer5,49626.6JUVfall24821.8JUVfall3,46149.4rainbowsmeltJUVfall17440.8McLarenandTuttle2000-0.88 - 1.08 ft/s typical- 2.5 - 3.1 ft/s at low water21SpeciesLifestageNo.Tested24-HSurvivalsmallmouth bassPYSL12100.0%spottail shinerPYSL2286.4%yellow perchPYSL9661.5%white perchPYSL1060.0%emerald shinerPYSL6033.3%white bassPYSL19031.6%rainbow smeltPYSL4750.8%alewifePYSL500.0%gizzard shadPYSL470.0%Dunkirk‐Beak1988Species Differences22Length Effects0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%≤7 7‐8 8‐9 >9CommonCarpSurvival0.5ft/s‐8minScreenAScreenBScreenCEPRIunpublisheddataEPRI-sponsored Laboratory Study24Study Design - 2007VariableGeigerBrackettGreenHydroloxMesh0.5 mm0.5 mm1.0 mmWaterVelocity0.5 and 1.0 ft/sDuration ofExposure4 and 8 minutes25Study Design - 2008VariableGeigerBrackettGreenMesh0.5 mm(modified bucket)0.5 mmWater Velocity0.5 and 1.0 ft/sDuration ofExposure2and 4 minutes26Test Facility27Test Facility281.0 mm screen0.5 mmscreen0.5 mmscreen29Flume with Water30Test Species - 2007SpeciesnNL Range(mm)Mean±SDcommon carp29,1955.4 - 13.87.6±1.2channel catfish20,20013.9 - 23.017.5±1.8white sucker29,40012.5 - 28.816.8±2.5310.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%A B

Percent SurvivalScreenCommomCarpControl0.5ft/s‐4min0.5ft/s‐8min1.0ft/s‐4min1.0ft/s‐8minCommon Carp Survival - 2007320.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%A B

Percent SurvivalScreenWhiteSuckerControl0.5ft/s‐4min0.5ft/s‐8min1.0ft/s‐4min1.0ft/s‐8minWhite Sucker Survival - 2007330.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%A B

Percent SurvivalScreenChannelCatfishControl0.5ft/s‐4min0.5ft/s‐8min1.0ft/s‐4min1.0ft/s‐8minChannel Catfish Survival - 200734Tested Species 2008• Hybrid striped bass• Common carp• Bigmouth buffalo• Golden shiner• Channel catfish35Attempted Species in 2008SpeciesTestedExplanationHybrid striped bassLimitedSeal failure on pump intake entrained airnitrogen super-saturation conditionGolden shinerLimitedSeal failure on pump intake entrained airnitrogen super-saturation conditionGizzard shad –Group 1NEggs were not viable, many dead on arrival,failure to hatch, 100% mortality at 48 hrsGizzard shad –Group 2NMal-development of GI tract and absence ofactive feedingRiver herringN35% mortality on arrival, absence of activefeeding in the presence of appropriate rotiferdensities and microencapsulated dry feed362008 Observed Trends• Testing ended July- preliminarystages of data analysis hasbeen initiated• Improvements in bucket designhave improved transferefficiency and survival• Observed decrease in survivalas velocity and durations ofimpingement increased• Life stage effects observed withdrop in survival as organismstransition from yolk-sac to postyolk-sac37Head tank & Pump6” diameter pipe line for each velocityAdjustable Collection TankCollection discharge & TrayInjection tubesFish Return System Components38Collection Box Configuration at Each DropHeightUnderwater4 ft2 ft71.9’Injection PointsParallel 6” PipesCollection BoxFish Return - Facility Design39Common CarpChannel CatfishBigmouth BuffaloGolden ShinerBuffalo LarvaeCyprinus carpioIctalurus punctatusIctiobus cyprinellusNotemigonus crysoleucasFish Return - Test Species40Three Drop Heights•Underwater•2 ft•4 ftTwo Velocities at eachHeight•2 ft/sec•6 ft/secFish Return - Test Conditions41Fish Return - Summary01020304050607080901002ft/sec6ft/secBoth

Percent SurvivalVelocitySurvival– UnderwaterDischargeChannelCatfishBigmouthBuffaloGoldenShinerCommonCarp42Fish Return - Summary01020304050607080901002ft/sec6ft/secBoth

Percent SurvivalVelocitySurvival‐2ftDropChannelCatfishBigmouthBuffaloGoldenShinerCommonCarpGolden shiner not tested43Fish Return - Summary01020304050607080901002ft/sec6ft/secBoth

Percent SurvivalVelocitySurvival‐4ftDropChannelCatfishBigmouthBuffaloGoldenShinerCommonCarp44Designing Portable Field Testing Platform[Example: EPRI-EPA Wedge Wire Test Barge]45Pilot Scale Preliminary Designs – BargeNOTE: otherportabledesigns alsobeingconsidered46Barge Mounted47Barge Mounted48Fine Mesh Collection Screens: Summary• Biological Performance– Extremely limited data base– Survival highly stage- (egg,pro-larvae, post-larvae,juvenile), species-, and sitespecific– Challenging to demonstrate• Limited field deployment (8sites) with favorable screening(debris) performance• Handling procedures continue todevelop & improve• Screen designs continue todevelop & improve49EPRI Technology Research Program: Revisited• Beaudrey screen performance– Hatchery & native fish injection• Barrier net design for rivers(physical model testing)• Technology performance reviewsummary report (~ Dec 2008)• Planning 2009 research program:recommendations welcomed– Additional fine-mesh laboratorytests (e.g., vacuum screens?)– Fine mesh field tests– Evaluation of infrasound?– Field test of riverine barrier net?