4



## Post-ImpingementFish 

## Survival at 

## Huntley Steam 

## Station Winter and 

## Fall 1999



## FINAL

## REPORT

Prepared for:

.. 

### Niagura Mohawk Power Corporution 300Erie Boulevard West Syracuse,

### NY 13202
Prepared by: Beak ConsultantsIncorporated 

### I40RotechDrive Laneaster,

### NY 14086 April 10, 2000---- 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Beak Consaltants Incorporated (Beak) was retained by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation evaluatethe swivalof fish impinged on newly installedthrough-flow Ristroph-type (NMPC) to - -._ traveling screens-at its Huntley Steam Station. These screens were engineered by 

### NMPC and manufacturedby Brackett Green Incorporated. The screening system was designed to maximize the survival of impinged fish for their return to the Niagara River, 

### in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requirements that the intake structure reflect the best technology available 

### (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. 

### This report presents methods and results for impingement survival testing conducted in January 1999 for 

### NMPC and in October 1999 for NRG Huntley Power, 

### LLC, who assumed ownership of the station in June 1999.

The study objectives were to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of 

### a low-pressure spray wash system for the removal of fish from the screens; 2) investigate the influence of sample collection and handling on the survival of impinged fish; 3) estimate the post-impingement survival of commonly impinged species; and 4) determineways to optimizepost-impingement survival.

1.2 Huntley Station Description

The Huntley Steam Station(Huntley) 

### is located on the Niagara River in the Town ofTonawanda, New York. Huntley is coal-fired and has four units rated for a total of 760 megawatts (Mw). Five new “Ristroph-type” through-flow traveling screens were installed in the screenhouse that services Units 67 and 68. The new screens replaced four older, conventional traveling screens. Physical characteristics ofthe new screening system are described in Table 1.

NRG Huntley L.L.C. 1 Beak Consultantshcorporated April 10,2000 File: Huntley-report-final.docCirculating system water enters the plant perpendicular to the Niagara River through an intake structure located along a bulkheaded shoreline. Water travels under a skimmer wall and enters a common forebay before passing through five sets of bar racks. There is one traveling screen located 12

### A behind each set ofbar racks. The traveling screens fit into slots approximately 11 

### ft wide and 20 

### ft deep. Each screen is made of rectangular frames (basket sections) connected to form an endl&s belt. Each basket section is covered with 118-inch by %-inch “smooth tex”
woven stainless steel cloth 

### and has an attached hydraulically-designed fish bucket at the bottom to collect 

### fish as the buckets ascend. 

### As the screen buckets 

### overturn at the top 

### of the traveling screen, their contents are washed into a fish return trough 

### by two inside and two outside lowpressure’spray wash headers. The screen is then subjected to a high-pressure spray wash, which forces remaining debris into a debris trough. The fish and debris troughs 

### run parallel to all five
screens troughs (fish trough above the debris trough) before combining into a single 18-inch diameterpipe, which discharges into the Niagara River approximately 350 �tdownstream of the intake.

NRG HuntleyL.L.C. 2 Beak Consultants Incorporated April 10,2000 File: Huntley-report-finaLdoc3.0 

### RESULTS 

### AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Low-Pressure SpraySystemEfficiency

### Testing
Recovery rates for marked centrarchidsranged from 

### 88% to 100%(Table 2). Based on testing at Screen #5, the best results (100% recovery) came 

### with spray pressures of 1.5 and 5 psi. Testing at Screen #5 also showed that nearly all fish missed by the fish return trough were collected in the debris trough. For Screens 

### #6 through 

### #9, recovery rates from the fish return trough approached loo%, with the exception 

### of Screen #7 

### (88%).

At Huntley, the lower inside and outside spraynozzles of most screensare directly opposed. The lower inside spray wash on Screen #7 was aimed slightly above the lower outside spray and appeared to have weaker pressure. The pressure differential andor orientation of the lower outside spray may explain the lower collection efficiency at Screen #7, if they are forcing fish between the flap seal and the descending screen.

For the test conducted on Screen 

### #6 using dead emerald shiners, only 37% 

### of the fish released
were recovered 

### in the fish return trough (Table 3). The remainder of the fish were collected in the debris trough for a combined efficiencyof 

### 100%.
Using dead rainbow smelt, the recovery rates forjuveniles (75-95 

### mm) from Screens#5,#6, and #9 were 63, 42 and 52%, respectively (Table 

### 3). The recovery rates for adults (130-140 

### m) from Screens #5, 

### #6, and 

### #9 were 

### 98, 86 

### and 88%, respectively. The combined collection efficiency for the fish and debris troughs at Screens#5 and#6 were 89 to LOO.

Simultaneous collections of live, “naturally impinged fish” fiom the fish return and debris troughs downstream of Screens #5 and 

### #6 showed that 83% of the emerald shiners and 91% of thejuvenile and adult rainbow smeltwere collected from the fish return trough (Table 4). These NRG Huntley L.L.C. 9 Beak ConsultantsIncorporated April 10,2000 File: fIuntleyreport-&aI.doc-- . .

.. 

# I high recovery rates in the fish return trough were in contrast to the 37% recovery of emerald shiners and 42 to 63% recovery of juvenile rainbow smelt during tests using marked dead fish releases (Table 

### 3). Therefore, better collection efficiencymay be expected for live fish than for dead fish. 

# I 

# i 

# I Detailed t6st results arepresented

### in Appendix Tables

### A-2 through 

### A-4. 

# I 1 3.2 Collection

### and HandlingMortality

### Testing 

# I During testing on January 20, 1999, none of the 

### 49 golden shiners (handling controls) or 36 golden shiners (holding controls) held for 24 

### hr died (Table 6). Therefore, no

.__ adjustments to impingement mortality estimates would be necessary to account for the effects of handling or 

# I ..-_-_ holding. 

# 1 1 3.3 Post ImpingementSurvivai 

# I January Survival 

### During January testing, 

### atotal of 6,120 fish and 14species were collected for survival evaluation during five nights of sampling (Table 6). Targeted species included 3,418 rainbow smelt, 2,201 emerald shiners, 

### 3 15juvenile gizzard, 30 'alewife and three adult gizzard shad. 

### An additional 

### 6,364 fish were collectedbut not evaluated �or extended survival. 

# ! 1 

# I Rainbow smelt

### was the most abundant species collected. Fish tested ranged in length ftom 56 to 140 

### rnm (Appendix Table �3-1). There was a bimodal length frequency distribution, separating smelt into two size groups (approximatingjuveniles and adults) at about 100 inm. Overall, impingement survival for rainbow smelt was 84.2% (Table 7). The ratio ofjuveniles (<lo0 mm) 

# I

to adults (>lo0 mm) occurring within the measured fish classified as initially dead or stressed, dead or stressed at 24 

### hr, and alive at 24 hr was applied to the total number of fish (measured and Nl2G Huntley L.L.C. 10 Beak Consultants Incorporated Apd 10,2000 File: Huntley-report-hal.doc

### ~ - - ...

unmeasured) in each ofthese three categories to estimateinitial and extended survivalofjuvenile and adult rainbow smelt. By this method, the extended survival forjuvenile and adult rainbow smelt was estimated to be 74.4% and 94.3%,respectively (Table 7).

Emerald shiner was the second most abundant species collected. Fish tested ranged in length from48 to -105

### m in a relativelyuniform size distribution (Appendix Table B-2). Impingement survivalfor emerald shiners was 97.5% (Table 6).

Juvenile gizzard shad was the third most abundant species collected. Fish tested ranged 

### in length fiom 86 to 193

### rnm (Appendix Table B-3). Overall, impingement survival forjuvenile gizzard shad was 5.1% and initial survival was 14.9% (Table 6). Only three adult gizzard shad were collected, ranging in length f7om 262 to 289 m. All three were severely stressed at the time of collection, and their survivalwas considered to be zero. The low survival for gizzard shad could be a result of cold water temperature, which at the time ofthe study was near 

### O°C. Gizzard shad in the Niagara River are at the northern limits of their geographic range (Smith 1985) and may have been thermally stressedprior to impingement.

Alewife were not abundant, and only 30 specimens were collected, ranging in length from 89 to 204mm (Appendix Table B-4). Ofthese 30 fish, fourwere dead and 26 were stressed at the time of collection (Table 

### 6). Since initially stressed fish were treated as being dead for this testing, the initial 

### and overall mortality was considered to be 100% for alewife. As with the gizzard shad, the low survival couldbe related to water temperature. Alewife are at the northern limit of their range in the Niagara River and 

### Lake Erie, and typically move to deep water to avoid cold winter temperatures (Smith 1985). 

### In laboratory experiments, adult alewife fiom Lake Michigan lost orientation and ceased feeding and schooling at temperaturesbetween 2.0 and 2.8 "C (35.5­ 37'F) (Colby 2971). Water temperatures during testing were near 0 "C (Appendix C).

Ten non-target species were collected, including trout-perch, yellow perch, rock bass, spottail shiner, white sucker, white perch, smallmouth bass, bluntnose minnow, darters and redhorse sucker. 

### No specieswere abundant, except for trout-perch. kw 

### $& s ~ I 

### ~ (g

## - -

### ~

- 

### - j 

### , ~ ~ 

## j NRG Huntley L.L.C. 11 April 10,2000 File: Huntley-report-fmddoc I

# I 

# 1 OctoberSurvival During October testing, a total of 3,258 fish and 15specieswere collected for survivalevaluation 

# I during five nights of sampling (Table 8). Sample sizes for targeted species included 1,824 rainbow smelt, 628 emerald shiners, 183 alewife, and 65 gizzard shad. Other relatively abundant 

# I species incfuded spottail shiner (23 1' fish), rock bass (180 fish), and white bass (127 fish). 

# I The extended (24-hr) survival rate for rainbow smelt 

### in October was estimated to be 

### 48.0% (Table 8). This rate is lower than the rate (84.2%) derived fiom testing in January forjuveniles 

# I and adults combined, and lower than the juvenile survival (74.6%) in January (Table 7). Rainbow smelt in October ranged in length fiom 48 mm to 135 mm (Appendix Table 

### B-5), with 

# I a mean length of approximately65 111111, compared to a mean length of 88 mrn 

### inJanuary. 

# 1 The estimated survival rate of emerald shiners (97.5%) in October was nearly identicalto the rate (97.3%) estimated from testing 

### in January. Emerald shiners tested ranged in length from 40 to 100 mm (Appendix Table 3-6). Two other abundant species with high survival in January 

# 1

, i @8/ij/P.? :-, continued to demonstrate high survival rates 

### in October: spottail shiner (97.8%) and rock bass
,-­ ,-," [., $Ji"J

.~ 

# 1 (98.9%). .; ,: .: ?,,,I 

# II Most gizzard shad collected and tested in Octoberwerejuveniles (length fkequency dataprovided in Appendix Table B-7). Their estimated 24-hr survival rate (96.9%) was much improved over the 5.1% survival rate recorded forjuvenile gizzard shad in January. Water temperatures in the intake during testing ranged fiom 11.5 

### "C to 14 "C. These temperatures were well above the temperatures that could cause thermal stress for gizzard shad, 

### thus possibly accounting for the higher survivalthan observed in January. 

# I I I 

# a Alewife, the species targeted for October sampling in order to increase sample sizes, experienced
an improved 24-hr survival rate of 22.4% for a sample of 183 fish (Table 8), compared to 0% 

# 1 survival in January for a sample of 30 fish (Table 6). Alewife tested in Octoberranged in length from79 to 134mm (Appendix Table B-8) and most likely includedyoung-of-the-year fish. 

# I NRG Huntley L.L.C. 12 Beak Consultants Incorporated April 10,2000 File:Huntiey-report-final.docWaterQualiQMonitoringandStation Operating Conditions Intake temperatures vaned little during each of the two study periods. Water temperatures ranged from 

### 0 to 2 "Cin 

### January (Appendix Table C-1) and 

### 11.5to 14 "Cin October (Appendix Table C-3): 

### DO concentrations (Appendix Tables C-1 and C-3) remained at, or near, saturation.
J All circulaling and service water pumps remained on line during the study (Appendix Tables C- 1 and C-3). Water quality in the extended survival holding tanks was generally the same as at the intake (Appendix Tables C-2 and C-4).

April IO, 2000 File: HUntley-report-hal.doc4.0 

### OPTIMIZATION

The traveling screens as installed at Huntley have incorporated into their designs many fish mortality minimizing features, They include: 1) smooth woven wire screen; 2) “Ristr~ph” fish buckets wit6 a modified bucket lip to reduce turbulence in the bucket; and 3) separate fish and debris spraywash systems.
Improvements to collection efficiency have the effect of improving fish survival. 

### This assumes that fish not captured in either the fish or debris troughs are sent through the cooling system and experience mortality. The screens are designed to direct impinged fish into the fish trough in order to avoid exposure to the high pressure debris sprays. Collectionefficiencyresults indicate few fish are missed by the screens and sent through the plant. Results show that the majority of fish are captured in the fish trough, and a high percentage of remaining fish are captured in the debris 

### trough.

Potential actions to improve collection efficiency for the low pressure sprays at Huntley are as follows.

The gap between the flap seal and the descending screen should be minimized. We did not
measure this gap, but the flap seal did not appear to come into close contact with the screen. We recommend that the flap seal be adjusted and re-tested. Since collection efficiency is alreadyhigh, only small improvementsarenecessary.

Screen # 7 should be examined more closely, particularly the flap seal.

The lower outside spray nozzles are presently being directed towards the screen. 

### This may be forcing fish into the gap between the flap seal and the screen. This row ofnozzles should be re-directed.

NRG Huntley L.L.C. 14 Beak Consultantshcorporated April 10,2000 File: Huntky_repo~-f~~l.doc5.0 SUMMARY

The spray wash and collection system efficiently removes impinged fish from the traveling
screen to the fish return trough. The survival tests conducted during this study indicate that a largeperceniage 

### ofthe impinged 

### fish are in good condition forreturn to the river, as reflected by their conditfobn within the fish return trough. Modifications made to the traveling screens and spray wash system have positively affected the 24-hr, post-impingement survivalrate ofthe fish impinged at Huntley. For many species, the 24-hr post impingement survival rates now approach or equal 100%. Survival rates also may be underestimated because stressed fish were considered to be dead. For these reasons, furtherrefinements 

### in screening system design are not likelyto produce tangible increases in 

### survival. 

# I I 

# I I 1 I I 

# I I 

# I NRG Huntley L.L.C. 15 Beak Consultants Incorporated April 10,2000 File: Huntley-report-fmLdoc 

# sTable I. Physical characteristics

### ofthe newly installedtraveling screens 

### at Huntley Steam Station. GeneraVS ite Data Huntlev Station [numberoftraveling screens 

## I 

## 1 five manufacturer operating deck level designhigh water level desim low water level 563.0 fchannelbase level 

## I 1 552.9 

## I

HydraulicData screencapacity velocity trough mesh head loss across mesh /totalhead loss across screen 

## 1 I

- 

### I I 4 lapproach velocity 

# 1 1 <l’lsec 

# 1 ScreenDa Ita

[effectivescreenwidth 

# -7 I 9‘ 7 1/2” 

## I Inumber ofbasket sections lmesh opening size mesh material mesh diameter deuth of water in fishbucket 

## 1width 

### ofwater 

### in fishbucket

number 

### ofinside spray headers number ofoutside spray headers 

## t 31 

# 1

1 

# 1 tW0 two kmnber of spray nozzlesper sprayheader 19/18 inside spraypressure 5-10 

### psi outside spraypressure 

# Itotal low pressure water required 

# I 5-10 psi 262-370 gprnTable 1. Continued. 

### High Pressure Debris Spray SystemData number 

### ofinside sprayheaders number 

### of spraynozzlesper sprayheader inside 

### s~rav Dressure 

## 1highDressure water reauired 

## 1 Fish,Return 

### SystemData volume 

### ofwater suppliedto 

### fish trough mmox. vol. 

### ofwater sumlied to 

### fishreturn !method 

### of fish trans~ort 

## I (diameter

### offishreturn

### ube 

## 1 approximate length 

### of fish return approximatevelocity 

# I9iio/ 80 Dsi 

## 1 256 

### mm

615 gpm 

### 37506 gpm

gravity 18”

### I.D.

# 1 Table 2. Summaryof collection efficiency results 

### using centrarchids 

# I 

# I I Screen # 5’ 

# I Screen # 6 Screen # 7 

# i Screen # 8 

# I Screen # 

### 9 

# I 

# 1 I 

# I I 

# 1 I 1 1 I at the Huntley Station, January21,1999. fish return trough spray pressure (psi) spray pressure (psi)

100% 

### 100% 94% 92% 

### 100% 100% 98% 98% 98% 100% 88% NA 100% NA 100% NA NA =debris trough was inaccessible



# 1 HmtcolEF.xlsTable3. Summary 

### of collectionefficiencyresults using emeraldshiner and two sizes 

### ofrainbowsmelt atthe Huntley Station, January23 and 26,1999. fshreturn trough 

# I 1 fish return & debris troughs 

# I rainbowsmelt rainbowsmelt

63% 

### 98% 89% 100%

37% 42% 86% 100% 96% 96%

52% 88

### YoTable 4. Numbers ofnaturallyimpinged fish collected in the fish and debris troughs at the Huntley Station,January 2526,1999.

number number percent of recovered recovered recoveredfish from fish from debris collected

### in size(mm) trough trough fish trough

emerald shiner 70- 100 104 22 83% rainbow smelt 75-140 995 95 91%

Huntc0llEF.xls

# 0 $$ 9 

# 8
00 d d

00

00

00

00

### 2 $$

## s 9 9 -0?.? 0 0 ad- 0 + 03m w



### $$$S$ 49099 00000 00000

00000

00000 

## s $$$ 

### 9 909 0 000 0 000 F-4

0 

## 2 v) 

### $$S$ H ed 

### 9499 Y 0000 0 0000 c,

0000

0 0 00

,A,--­ e­ ..*" ._ /- , '.\ //

# .& 

# s c! d Qo

Y d 

# 2 VJ 

### g 0 P

.I 

## E 00 P 00 m

o\d0 mdY



# !
a2



# 2

E E 0 0 r( A 

# s Y 

# 2

U m Q)co to N m 

### I

I Q Y 0 Y

0

w~N000000000000 N ht