.4



### BIOLOGICAL 

### AND ENGINEERING EVALUATION 

### OF 

### A FINE-PESH SCREEN INTAKE 

### FOR BIG BEND STATION 

## - UNIT

### NO. 4 TAMPA 

### ELECTRIC COflPkNY



### June 30, 1980

STOKE & 

### WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 

### BOSTON, HASSACHUSETTS 

# P

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part Title Tab Number 

### I Fine-Mesh Screen Prototype Study 

## - Spring 

### 1980 

## . . . . . . . I ' I1 Conceptual Engineering Design 

### of the Unit 

### 3 

# . . . - . . . I1 and 

### 4 Fine-Mesh Screen Installation I11 Cost 

### Comparison of Fine Mesh Screening Options 

## . . . 

## . 

# . . . 111 Versus Closed-Cycle Coolinga


### FOREWORD Tampa 

### Electric Company's goal inproviding the enclosed information isyto yrovide information on the cooling water system 

### toserve 

### Big Bend Unit 

### No. 4 

### for preliminary agency review. There are three parts tothis document (1) the biological evaluation of fine-mesh screening technology, (2) the conceptual design 

### of 

### a fine-mesh screening system 

### to 

### serve Big Bend Station Units 

### 3 and 4, and 

### (3) 

### a cost comparison of fine-mesh screening with other techniques 

### forreducing entrainment. 

### Part I 

### is 

### a review of the biological testingwhich has been executed to date to demonstrate that egg, larval, and juvenile forms 

### of important species may be impinged on 

### a filtermedium, removed, and returned safely tothe watercourse rather than allowing them to

### pass through the condenser tobe subjected tothermal stress. These studies 

### are ongoing, and the resultspresented are, therefore, preliminary. 

### Part 

### I1 proceeds from the point of having made a successful showing of the technology toproviding an engineering design of 

### a fine-mesh screen system 

### as it would be employed at Big Bend Station. 

### Part 

### I11 provides 

### a summary of the cost comparisons of fine-mesh screen with closed cycle cooling systems 

### at Big Bend Station. This information willbe 

### a significant part,of 

### TECO's 316(b) Demonstration.

### FINE; MESH SCREEN PROTOTYPE 

### STUDY SPRING 

### 1980 BIGBEND 

### STATION 

# - WIT 4

TAMPA ELECTRIC 

### COMPANY



### JULY 1980



### STONE 6r 

### WEBSTER ENGI-WERING CORPOR4TION BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTSL 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title 

### Page 1 

### INTRODUCTION

## ......................... 1-1 

### 2 DESCRIPTION 

### OF TEST 

## FACILITY

## ................. 2-1 

### 3 SAMPLING 

### PROCEDURES 

## ..................... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 

## ........................ 3-1 

### 3.2 REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES

## ..............3-1 3.3 

### PROTOTYPE SCREEN SAMPLING 

### PROCEDURES

## .............3.2 

### 3.4 LABORATORY PROCEDURES 

## .................... 3-3 

### 3.5 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES 

## .....................3-5 

### 3.5.1 Spraywash Efficiency Sampling

## ............... 3-5 3.5.2 Plankton Net Sampling

## ...................3-5 

### 3.5.3 Prototype Screening Efficiency

## .............. 3-6 3.5.4 

### Air Exposure Studies

## ................... 3-6 3.5.5 Organism Return System Investigations

## ........... 3-7 3.5.5.1 Introduction 

## ......................3-7 

### 3.5.5.2 Flume 

### Study 

## ....................... 3-7 

### 3.5.5.3 Water Quality Measurements 

## ............... 3-8 

### 3.5.5.4 Plankton Sampling 

## ...................-3-9 

### 3.5.5.5 Organism Survival Studies 

## ................3-10 

### 3.5.5.6 Hydrodynamic Evaluation 

## .................3-10 

### 4 RESULTSTODATE 

## ........................ 4-1 

### 5 CONCLUSIONS 

## ..........................5.1 REFERENCES 

### APPENDIX

ii 

# 5-LIST 

### OF 

### TABLES Table Title 4-1 Taxa/Life Stages Used In Initial Survivorship Analysis 4-2 Prototype Mean Initial Survival, by Grouping as Pe.rAnalysis of Variance (Table 4-3) 4-3 Analysis of Variance for the Effect of Screen Speed and Approach Velocity 

### on Initial Survival 4-4 Taxa/Life Stages Used 

### In 48 Hour Latent Survivorship Analysis 4-5 Taxa/Life Stages Used 

### In 96 Hour Latent Survivorship Analysis 4-6 48 Hour Latent Survivorship 4-7 96 Hour Latent Survivorship 4-8 Hatchability 

### of Eggs During Holding Experiments 4-9 Analysis of Variance for 48 Hour Latent Survival 4-10 Analysis of Variance for 96 Hour Latent Survival 4-11 Latent Survival for Control Samples



### iii 

# Q

### LIST OF 

### FIGURES

L 

### Figure 1-1 

### 2- 1 2-2 2-3 2-4 

### 3-1 

### Title General SiteLocation SitePlan

# - Fine-Mesh Screen Prototype Deck Arrangement 

## - Fine-Mesh Screen Prototype ProfileArrangement 

# - Fine-Hesh Screen Prototype Deck Arrangement 

# - Fine-Mesh Screen 

### Test Facility Water Quality Sampling Stations

iV 

# 7

# .

SECTION 1 

### INTRODUCTION Tampa 

### Electric Company 

### (TECO) is presently planning the addition of a fourth generating unit atthe Big Bend Station. The 

### site is located 

### on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay 

### inNorth Ruskin, Florida (Figure 

### 1-1). Region 

### 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed concern for losses of organisms due tothe operation of the Unit 

### No. 

### 4 cooling water intake. Accordingly, early in 1979, 

### TECO requested Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 

### (S&W) to conduct an evaluation 

### of various larval exclusion technologies which could be utilized in lieu of closedcycle cooling atUnit 

### No. 

### 4. Specific tasks involved inthe evaluation included: 1. The review of available intake technologies which might be applied to Big Bend Station tominimize losses; 2. The selection of organism protection systems which have the potential forbiological effectiveness and engineering reliability, and more detailed, site-specific evaluations of these systems; 

### 3. The evaluation of the need for additional studies to verify the effectiveness and reliability of the selected system; 

### 4. The performance of studies, if warranted. Results of Tasks 1 through 

### 3 evaluations indicated that fine-mesh screening had a definite potential for effective application atBig Bend. Accordingly, preliminary studies were conducted atthe site in the 

### summer of 1979. 

### Two separate study efforts 

### were involved: 1. 

### A partial fine-mesh backfit of 

### an existing traveling screen atBig Bend 

# - Unit 1. 

### 2. A flume study inwhich various 

### test organisms 

### were impinged 

### on a fine-mesh screen panel over a range of impingement velocities and durations. The objectives of these studies 

### were: 1. To determine whether availableRepresentative Important Species (RIS) are capable of surviving impingement 

### on a fine-mesh screen under conditions of existing screen design. 2. To determine the relationship between specificvelocity/impingement duration conditions and survival rate. The decision to conduct two separate studies was based 

### on the fact that the use of one of the existing screens atBig Bend for a partial backfit evaluation would 

### not permit changes in screen rotation speed or impingement velocity. With fine-mesh panels incorporated, velocities could be in4 excess of 

### 3 fps which would far exceed values that would be selected for a fine-screening installation. Therefore, 

### it 

### was believed that mortality 

### estimates from the 1979 study would be higher than would be observed 

### if a dual-flow screen were specifically designed to collect planktonic organisms. 

### To obtain a clearer understanding of the 

### effects of impingement on organism survival, the 

### flume study was conceived to permit testing under controlled conditions. Velocity and impingement duration

### were selected as the primary variables of interest inthe flume since, ata given power plant 

### water flow requirement, the design velocity determines the number and 

### size of traveling screens needed, and the acceptable upper impingement duration 

### limitdetermines the slowest speed atwhich the screen can rotate. Since fine-mesh screens must rotate continuously, it 

### is desirable from a maintenance and cost standpoint tominimize the 

### size and number of screens and 

### to operate them atthe slowest speed possible. Therefore, testparameters were selected to cover a range of values which would have a good potential forprotecting organisms and would also be practical to achieve atBig Bend StationUnit 

### No. 4. The partial backfit and flume studies 

### were designed to supply informationwhich would 

### serve as a basis 

### for deciding whether to continue with additional fine screening studies atBig Bend 

### in 1980. The rationale for making this decision was 

### as follows: 1. If positive results (in the form of acceptable survival values) are obtained from both the partial backfit and flume studies, proceed with additional studies in 1980. 2. If the partial backfit study yields negative results, but 

### flume survival rates are good, proceed with 1980 studies sincebackfit conditi.0n.s are very conservative. 

### 3. If both backfit and flume studies yield negative results, cancel. plans for further studies. 

### The results of the 1979 studies are presented in detail in

### a separate report (Stone & Webster 1980). 

### In summary, acceptable survival rates were observed inboth 

### test facilities for several of the RIS that 

### were available for testing, as wellas for a number of other species. Therefore, the decisionwas made toproceed with additional, large-scale investigations in 1980. 

### In order to ensure the validity of the data tobe obtained, it was further decided that the 1980 

### test facilitywould be a full-scale, prototype traveling screen which would be identical in every way to the screen which would be incorporated into an actual fine-mesh screening installation atBig Bend 

## - Unit.No. 

### 4. Design efforts began in late summer along with model studies which were conducted to optimize the screen’s hydraulic characteristics and organism collection system. Construction continued through the winter and was completed in time to initiatebiological testing atthe beginning of the entrainment season inearly ?larch. This report presents a description of the test and laboratory facilities being utilized, allmethodologies employed and a summary of results obtained between March 

### 3 and April 

### 17. These data represent roughly two-thirds of those collected during the first two phases of the study program, whichended 

### on May 

### 8. The third phase 

### willbegin 

### inJune and 

### willinvolve a less intensive screen sampling schedule 

### of one week per

### month through September, as compared 

### to continuous sampling (five days per week) during Phases 1 and 

### 2. A detailed description of the entire study program and the data gathered 

### willbe given in a confirmatory report scheduled 

### forpublication inNovember 

### 1980.

### FISHHOOK 

## />SPOIL

4OOO 5000SECTION 

### 2 DESCRIPTION OF TEST FACILITY
The general siteplan for the 

### test facility is shown 

### on Figure 

### 2-1. test screen is situated 

### on a platform located in the intake channel immediThe ately upstream of the existingpipe bridge. provide access to the screen. As shown 

### on Figure 2-1, laboratory facilities Stairs from the pipe bridge

are located 

### on the north side 

### of the intake channel, approximately 

### 150 ft from the screen facility. Figure 

### 2-2 shows a more detailed plan of the screen operating deck: prototype screen is of the dual-flow type and incorporates all

### of the features required for fine screening. Seals are incorporated between screenbaskets and between the baskets and the side frame toprevent the The

passage of organisms through these areas. The screening medium is 

### 0.5-mm square mesh made of woven-monofilament polyester. The screen is capable of operation at speeds up to 

### 28 fpm. 

### On automatic control, the screen runs continuously at

### 7 fpm; as the head differential across the screen reaches 

### 4 and then 

### 6 in., the speed increases 

### to 14 and 25 fpm, respectively. 

### On manual control, the screen can be operated at speeds between 

### 0 and 

### 28 fpm. Three speeds of 

### 7, 

### 14, and 

### 28 fpm were selected for study. These speeds correspond to maximum impingement durations of approximately ?, 

### 4, and 

### 2 minutes, respectively. Flow through the screen is supplied by an in-line pump (an adapted ship bow thruster pump) located under the testplatform and connected directly to the screen via a transition section (Figure 2-3). The pump 

### is belt-driven by a 250-hp motor located 

### on the deck. Assorted pulleys allow for flow adjustments. Given the 

### size of the pump and motor, flows ranging from 

### 8,270 to 

### 50,000 gpm can be achieved. Since the test screen is 

### 2 ftwide, these flows correspond to screen face velocities ranging from approximately 0.25 to 

### 1.5 fps. During the present study, pulleys were selected to achieve velocities of 

### 0.5 and 

### 1.0 fps. The discharge flow from the pump, composed of fine-screened water, is conveyed by a pipe to a location far enough downstream inthe intake channel toprevent recirculation (Figure 2-1). Atthe point where the pipe passes under the pipe bridge, two taps are installed in the pipe to allow for the insertion of a flow-measuring device (for verification of pump flow rate and an organism sampler which can be used to determine the collection efficiency of the fine-mesh screen (Figure 2-4). A work platform is provided directly above this location to allow for the recording of pitometer measurements and the collection of biological samples. A floating platform is installed directly in front of the upstream (ascending) side of the test screen and is accessible by ladder. This platform is used for observing the location and movement of organisms as individual screen baskets clear the water surface. 

### It also serves as a sampling location and work station from which the need for additional spray systems is being evaluated.
2- 1The 

### test screen incorporates shallow lifting buckets 

### on each 2-ft wide screen basket which retain approximately a 1-in water depth. A low-pressure 

### (10 psi) spray header, located on the ascending side of the screen, acts to remove organisms from the screen mesh surface and liftingbuckets (Figure 2­ 

### 4). A high-pressure 

### (55 psi) spray header is located on the descending side of screen to remove any remaining debris into a separate trough. 

### A screenwash pump with a strainer is located on the operating deck and takes suction from the filtered water (bow thrusterpump discharge). 

### As each screen basket passes the spraywash, organisms 

### on the mesh or in the lifting bucket are gently rinsed into a collection trough (Figure 

### 2­ 

### 4). Once inthe trough, the organisms flow by gravity into a primary collection tank from which they are drained into a secondary collection chamber, which also 

### serves as the container inwhich the organisms are transported to the laboratory. 

### As shown 

### on Figure 

### 2-1, a land-based laboratory is available 

### for processing of all screen samples. Screen sampling is conducted by Stone Sr Webster Engineering Corporation personnel. Following collection, the samples are delivered topersonnel from Mote Marine Laboratory (the contracted lab operator) forprocessing. The laboratory facility is designed to: 1. Permit sorting, counting, identification, and determination of initial mortality of planktonic organisms. 2. Hold selected organisms for up to 

### 96 hours to determine latent mortality. Ambient, filtered intake water 

### is supplied to the laboratory via a 

### system of pumps, 

### filters, and piping. 

### A redundant water supply 

### system 

### was installed as a backup in the event of a system failure. This water 

### serves as a water bath for maintaining ambient temperatures in a system 

### of closed holding containers. However, the system 

### is designed to allow formodification to a once-through mode of operation inwhich screened containers could be utilized to permit continuous flushing.

# . W R >- I-*:

1 

### a 0 CD w YW Q



# n

f W



### t 

# lllllllllllllllllllll

### DECKEL.



## EL,0'-0"



# 'I' I I 

# !I! 0



### FIGURE 

### 2-3 

## PROFILE ARRANGEMENT FINE-MESH 

### SCREENPROTOTYPE 

### 8JG BEND STATION-UNIT 4 

### TAMPA 

### ELECTRIC COMPANY 8SECTION 

### 3 

### SAMPLING PROCEDURES


### 3.1 INTRODUCTION Sampling with the prototype screen began onMarch 

### 3, 1980. In addition to routine screen sampling, a number of supplemental studies 

### were included inthe originalprogram design'or have sincebeen added. Procedures for a11 studies arepresented inthis sectionwhether or not they have been utilized to date. However, those procedures utilized to date are described ingreater detail. Supplemental study data 

### willbe analyzed inthe near future and 

### willbe presented inthe final report. Therefore, theprocedures used inthe supplemental studies are presented briefly here but 

### willbe discussed indetail inthe final report.


### 3.2 REPRESENTATIVE 

### IMPORTANT SPECIES During the study program, emphasis has been placed 

### on obtaining survival data for the RIS life stages listed below: Species Bay anchovy Black drum
Silver perch Spotted seatrout
Scaled sardine
Tidewater silverside
Stone crab (Xanthids) Pink shrimp .American oyster Blue crab 

### Life Stage 

### Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae, juveniles Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae, juveniles Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae, juveniles Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae, juveniles

. Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae,

juveniles Egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-larvae, juveniles Zoea1 stages, megalops Post-larval stages Larvae Alllife stages Th rationale for the selection f the RIS atBig Bend Station is pre ented 

### in a separate report (S&W 1980). 

### Life stage selections were based 

### on the probable occurrence of each RIS in screen samples given the proposed operating conditions.



### 3- 1Due to the difficulty inidentifying 

### live crab zoea, no attempt 

### was made to sort and hold zoea by species. Rather, zoea 

### were held 

### as groups and

. identified atthe completion of the survival studies. 

### It wa,s hoped that stone crab zoea would be in great enough abundance toyield meaningful survival data when sorted from other xanthid species. Other species 

### were held as 

### wellwhen space and 

### timepermitted. However, the RIS life stages always took priority over others. The decision to include or exclude in the study 

### any species not listed above was made each day 

### on the basis of abundance and available time.


### 3.3 PROTOTYPE SCREEN SAMPLING PROCEDURES Essentially the same sampling procedures 

### were utilized during the first two phases of the study. As discussed previously, 

### tests 

### were conducted at screen travel speeds of 

### 7, 14, and 

### 28 fpm and approach flow velocities of 

### 0.5 and 1.0 fps. Therefore, a complete series 

### of tests involved screenwash collections ateach of the sixvelocity/screen speed combinations in the following matrix: Screen 

### Travel Speed (fpm) Approa

### ch 

### 17 14 28 

### 0.5

## I

Within a given day, the timing 

### of the sampling procedures was such that 

### six samples could be collected and processed inthe laboratory. Since the process of changing pulleys.to achieve test velocities required several hours, 

### it was not feasible to conduct 

### tests atboth velocities within a single day. Therefore, the pulleys were changed atthe end of 

### every second day of testing ata given velocity. Within a day, two replicates of a 

### one-velocity/three-screen speed portion of the matrix were obtained. During Phase 

### 1, tests were conducted five days per week (up to six 

### tests per day) during the daytime hours (approximately between the hours of 0900 and 1500). At the beginning of Phase 

### 2, the sampling strategy was modified to include night collection. The intent of night sampling was to determine whether species/life stage occurrence, abundance and/or mortality differbetween day and night. Under this mode, sampling was conducted Monday through Thursday during the daytime and Thursday night between approximately 1900 and 2400 hrs. Regardless of phase or sampling strategy, the same procedures have been utilized inalltests to date and willbe used during Phase 

### 3. Prior to sampling, the bow thrusterpump and screen (Figure 

### 2-3) are set at the desired operating point for the specific 

### test being conducted. The 

### low- pressure spraywash is preset at 10 psi and then shut off until the sample is taken. Once the screen is in full operation and the movement of water and organisms through the test facility is in steady-state, sampling is initiated by turning on the low-pressure spray, allowing the contents of a predetermined number of screen baskets to be rinsed into the collection trough, and then shutting off the spray. The number of baskets washed differs for each water velocity/screen travel speed condition such thatateach condition, the total volume of 

### water sampled by the prototype screen is equivalent. Organisms washed into the collection trough are carried into a primary collectionarea (Figure 

### 2-2) which contains a screened overflow 

### (0.25 

### mm mesh). In this area, large debris (leaves, shells, ctenophores) can be removed as the area drains. Once the 

### water 

### level reaches the bottom of the overflow screen, the sample 

### is concentrated to the point where it can be drawn down into the secondary collectionand transport chamber where the sample 

### is further concentrated. The drawdown is slow and gentle to avoid 

### stress due tohigh velocities and turbulence inthe drain line and container. Once the sample has been completely transferred, the container 

### is sealed and transported to the land-based laboratory for sorting and latent effects studies. Atthe 

### timeof each sample, the following information (as a minimum) 

### is recorded: date; 

### time; air temperature; 

### water temperature 

### of the intake and collection area; tidal stage and measured height; wind direction and velocity; screen travel speed; screen flow velocity (nominal); spraywash pressure; any unusual sampling problems which occurred; and any other information which 

### is deemed important. In addition to screenwash samples, control organisms have been collected and held 

### for comparison to 96-hr mortality values experienced among organisms collected by the screen. During Phase 1, control organisms 

### were collected one day per week, generally Monday, while inPhase 2, controls 

### were collected twice weekly. Control organisms 

### are collected from the intake canal by suspending a stationary plankton net inthe canal flow (velocity

### c0.4 fps) for approximately fiveminutes. The net 

### is then gently washed and the contents am transported to the laboratory where the sample 

### is sorted for 

### RIS life stages. Up to 

### 60 of each 

### life stage are then held inlots of five individuals for 96-hr. As discussed 

### in Section

### 3.4, 

### 60 organisms represents two replicate control groups, since a normal 

### test group consists of 

### 30 individuals. 

### As mentioned above, all samples collected from the prototype screen 

### are transferred to the land-based laboratory where they 

### are sorted and held. The procedures forprocessing a screen sample from 

### timeof entry into the laboratory to the end of the latent-effects holding period are presented inthe following section.


### 3.4 

### LABORATORY PROCEDURES Once the transport container is delivered to the laboratory, the following procedures are carried out: 1. The transport container is placed 

### in a water bath and temperature is recorded immediately.t 2.



### 3.
4.
5.



### 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.



### 13. When RIS 

### are abundant, the sample 

### is gently stirred or agitated to obtain a homogeneous distribution of organisms and a volumetric subsample 

### is drawn off. The primary sample 

### is maintained in a water bath and held for later processing. The subsample (ina 

### water bath) 

### is sorted immediately into species/ life stages, concentrating on 

### RIS species 

### first. Up to five individuals of each species/life stage areplaced in a separate container for transfer to the holding area; organisms are sorted to the lowest taxonomic levelpossible without delaying initiation of holding or adding incremental 

### stress to the 

### test organisms; crab zoea are held inlots of 48. 

### A species/life stage sample consists of 

### 30 organisms 

### (48 zoea); therefore, once sixlots of 

### a species/life stage 

### are counted and recorded, they are transferred immediately to the holding area for the latent 

### effects study. When "stunned" organisms occur inthe subsample, they 

### are treated in 

### the same manner 

### as the live organisms, but 

### are held as 

### a separate, additional, latent-effects sample. Sorting continues until samples of 

### all

### RIS life stages have been placed inholding containers; the location of allorganisms is carefully documented. The remainder of the subsample 

### is sorted by species, reco-rding numbers of 

### live, stunned, and dead organisms on data sheets. (These data 

### willbe used to determine "initial 

### survival.") If the primary sample 

### is no longer needed, it is preserved for later analysis. 

### If organism densities are low, several additional subsamples are taken in order to obtain 

### 30 live organisms of available RIS forholding; inthis case, only the first subsample is completely sorted for 

### live, stunned and dead organisms; 

### the remaining subsamples 

### are drawn only Go bring the total of each 

### RIS life stage to 

### 30 (48 zoea), ifpossible. 

### All organisms now inthe holding facility are checked at3, 

### 6, 12, 18, 24, 

### 36, 48, 

### 60, 72, 84, and 

### 96 hr; the number live and dead ateach check 

### is recorded, as

### well as any abnormal occurrences (e.g., missing organisms). Allorganisms which die during the holding period 

### are preserved inlabeled vials. At the completion of the holding period, the final number of live and dead organisms is recorded and each group ispreserved ina labeled vial.

# . 14. Water qualityparameters 

### are recorded frequently during 

### all holding experiments; parameters recorded include salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and ammonia. 

### 15. At the end of each latent-effects test, allvials are rechecked and allorganisms 

### are identified (to species, ifpossible), categorized 

### tolife stage and counted. These procedures have functioned 

### very effectively inpermitting an accurate accounting 

### of most organisms from collection through final identification. Data gathered during each stage of the latent-effects studies are recorded on various data sheets which are subjected to frequent quality assurance checks. A detailed description of the data handling procedures employed is given inthe appendix to this report.


### 3.5 

### SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES 

### In addition to the prototype screen sampling efforts, several supplemental studies arebeing, or

### willbe, conducted to gather information which 

### will be used inthe overall evaluation of the potential effectiveness of 

### finemesh screens atBig Bend Station. Each study is described individually below.


### 3.5.1 Spraywash Efficiency Study Since the spraywash 

### system being incorporated into the prototype screen represents a new design, the effi.ciency’of the system inwashing organisms into the collection trough 

### is being investigated. Samples are collected by screening the 

### water exiting the debris trough on the high-pressure spraywash side of the screen while the low-pressure spraywash is in operation (refer toFigure 

### 2-2). 

### In this way, the number of organisms removed by the low-pressure spray can be directly compared to the number carried over to the high-pressure spray and the low-pressure spraywash efficiency can be calculated. 

### If the low-pressure spray 

### is effectively cleaning the screen mesh and liftingbuckets, relatively few organisms 

### should be recovered inthe high-pressure spraywash water. Naturally, the speed of the screen 

### willinfluence cleaning efficiency, with efficiency expected to decrease as speed increases. Therefore, samples are taken atallthree travel speeds 

### (7, 14, and 28 fpm). Each sample 

### is concentrated by washing down the screened collectionbox and is then preserved for later analysis

### by laboratory personnel. Laboratory analysis consists 

### of enumeration, identification to species or lowest feasible taxonomic level, determination 

### of lifestage and size measurements (fish larvae only).
3.5.2 Plankton Net Sampling Plankton net samples collected adjacent to the prototype screen structure willbe used to compare the relative meroplankton impingement rates at the various screen test conditions with the abundance of meroplanktonicorganisms measured in the immediate vicinity of the prototype structure. Samples are collected using the same techniques employed inthe 

### 1979meroplankton study (Mote Marine Laboratory, 

### 1980). Four replicate samples are collected on one day during each week of screen s:ampling atthe 

### time that screen samples are collected. Samples are preserved for laterprocessing. Laboratory analysis for

### RIS will consist of enumeration, identification to species or lowest feasible taxonomic level, determination of 

### life stage, and 

### sizemeasurement (fish larvae only).


### 3.5.3 Prototype Screening Efficiency 

### To determine the efficiency of the prototype screen inpreventing the passage 

### of organisms either through the 

### 0.5-mm mesh or the various sealed areas inthe screen assembly, samples of the screened water 

### willbe taken during Phase 

### 3. Samples 

### willbe preserved and processed inthe laboratory. Laboratory analysis 

### willconsist 

### of enumeration, identificationto species or lowest feasible taxonomic level, determination 

### of life stage, and 

### size measurements. Samples 

### willbe collected from the sample 

### pump discharge 

### (refer toFigure 2­ 

### 4) intwo conical plankton nets submerged intanks. Results obtained 

### willbe used to establish the need for additional sampling or, possibly, modifications to the screen. 

### The Phase 

### 3 samples 

### willbe processed immediately after collection and the data 

### willbe examined to determine whether major "leaks" exist in the screening assembly which must be found and sealed prior touse 

### on a full-scale basis ata power plant intake.


### 3.5.4 AirExposure Studies Past studies have shown that some organisms, particularly intheir early life stages, are 

### very sensitive to airexposure. Since the prototype screen has the potential for exposing impinged organisms to the 

### air for short periods of 

### &.me (severalminutes), it 

### is desirable to determine how this additional stress factormight influence overall mortality resulting from collection and removal from the fine-mesh screening. Accordingly, provisions were made to conduct on-site studies on species showing 

### low survival. During such studies, individuals would be exposed to 

### the air for up to three minutes, followed by 96-hr mortality determinations. Past research atBig Bend indicates that Anchoa mitchilli may be particularly sensitive to air exposure. Since the anchovy is abundant atBig Bend, 

### it was planned that emphasis would be placed 

### on testing this species. To date, very high initialmortality observed among anchovy larvae collected by the prototype screen is not believed tobe a function of airexposure, but rather the impingement and removal process. This conclusion 

### is based on careful observation of the position and condition of these organisms as they clear the water surface during screen rotation. Under the condi­ 

## --. tions tested, anchovy larvae have been observed tobe dead or dying as the screen panels enter the air. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to conduct air exposure studies during Phases 1 and 2.

3-6Should survival of anchovy larvae improve during Phase 

### 3, such that 

### air exposure appears tobe affectingmortality, studies 

### willbe conducted. Testing 

### will consist of placing small lots of organisms inholding containers with screened bottoms, lifting the containers out of the water for different periods of time (from ten seconds to three minutes), returning them.to the water, and monitoring mortality for

### 96 hr. The data obtained 

### from this study effort would be used to determine the need for an additional low-pressure spraywash. To minimize air exposure, the wash would be located ata pointjust above mean high water and would be designed to rinse impinged (exposed) organisms from the screen mesh into the water-filled liftingbucket. In this way, the organisms would 

### now remain inwater while traveling upward to the spraywash located at operating deck elevation.


### 3.5.5 Organism Return System Investigations
3.5.5.1 Introduction A critical component of an organism protection device is the design, operation, and discharge locationof the organism return system. Should finemesh screens be employed atBig Bend Station, a trough 

### willbe utilized to transport collected organisms for discharge atone of two possible locations: (1) the presently unused canaljust.north of, and parallel to, the intake canal, and 

### (2) off of the breakwater south of Fish

### Hook Spoil (Figure 

### 3-1). Ateither location, two concerns 

### exist: can the RIS 0,rganisrns of concern atBig Bend be transported ina trough without undue 

### stress, and 

### willdifferences in.water qualitybetween the intake and the discharge location adversely affect the survivalpotential of returned organisms. To address these concerns, 

### SStW initiated a number 

### of additional studies inMay 1980. These studies 

### will continue until September and 

### willbe discussed in detail inthe final study report. Therefore, the following discussions present a brief summary of each task associated with the organisms return 

### system studies.
3.5.5.2 Flume Study In order to evaluate the effect of travel through a return trough 

### on organism survival, studies 

### willbe conducted ina circular flume. The flume 

### will measure 12 in. deep by 

### 9 in. wide and 

### willhave an outer diameter 

### of 8.3 ft. A central motor drive unit willpropel paddles around the flume thereby moving the water contained therein. The paddles will seal tightly with the 

### flume walls and bottom toprevent leakage. 

### Tests willbe conducted by placing individual groups of RIS-lifestages into the flume and allowing them to circulate atvelocities of 2 fps for 1hr. This velocity is considered sufficiently high tomove organisms rapidly to the release site and low enough tominimize damage due to turbulence and abrasion. 

### Test organisms willbe obtained from the prototypea

screen. Thus, they 

### willhave experienced the entireprocess of impinge

### ment, removal and transport. The results can then be compared to the results obtained from the prototype screen to determine the incremental stresses of transport. Control organisms collected from the prototype screen

### willalso be placed inthe flume and collected to determine whether the flume testing procedure contributes substantiallyto any mortality observed. Following each 

### test 

### run, the organisms 

### willbe removed from the 

### flume by draining the water into a screened collectionbox. The organisms 

### will then be enumerated as live, stunned, and dead and held for 

### 96 hr to determine latent mortality. Holding procedures 

### willbe identical to those used inthe prototype screen evaluation (Section 

### 3.4).
3.5.5.3 Water Quality Measurements Assuming that the organisms 

### of interest atBig Bend can survive passage through relatively a long trough, a final question remains relative to the effects of water quality on ultimate survival. Of the two proposed discharge locations, the preferred location has been identified as the canal (Figure 

### 3-1) which is parallel to, and immediately north of, the power plant intake canal (PIC). This locationwould have a much shorter travel distance and would therefore return the organisms quickly with 

### less potential for transport stresses. Due to differences in flu-shing rates, it is possible that this proposed organism return canal 

### (ORC) could differ inwater quality from the PIC to the extent that organism survival would be affected. 

### In order to identify any important differences in water qualitybetween the 

### ORC and the PIC, a series 

### of water quality, hydrographic and plankton samples 

### willbe collected during Phase 

### 3 (May through September). The other possible discharge location off 

### of the breakwater south of Fish Hook Spoil 

### is an area of ambient bay conditions and is deemed tohave acceptable 

### water quality should it be used. Three sampling stations have been established: one inthe 

### PIC and two inthe 

### ORC (Figure 

### 3-1). The frequency of sampling is determined by the tasks, as outlined below:

a. Water Quality Sampling: 

### DO, pH, salinity and temperature 

### will be recorded atthree depths (surface, mid-depth, bottom) at each stationusing a YSI 

### DO meter, a YSI S-C-T 

### meter and an Orion pH 

### meter. Sampling willoccur on a weekly basis inthe firstweek of May and terminate inthe third week of September. b. Other Water Quality Parameters: 

### NO3, N02, 

### NH3-N, Organic 

### N, Ortho-P, Organic P, chlorophyll "a" and phaeophytin "a", BODS, TSS, oil and grease, metals (Cd, 

### Ni, 

### Zn, Hg, Hn, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb), organochlorine pesticides and fecal coliforms 

### willbe sampled ateach station attwo depths (surface and bottom). Samples willbe taken once per month and one time 24 hr after a heavy rainfall.

3-8

# . 3.5.5.4 

### Plankton Sampling To aid in the determination of the suitability of ORC 

### water for sustaining the 

### RIS returned from a fine screening installation,phytoplankton, zooplankton, and meroplankton samples will be collected at each water quality station once per month from May through September. Four replicates will be collected at 

### each station for each sample. Phytoplankton sampleswill be collected with a 1 

### gal water sampler from about 0.5 ft below the water surface at each station (four samples per station). The sampleswill be preserved in the field, returned to the laboratory and processed in the followingmanner: A 

### minimum of two subsamples will be analyzed from each sample, the subsamplewill be pipetted into a 0.12

### m Palmer nannoplankton counting chamber where cells will be allowed to settlebefore examination under a microscope. Large phytoplanktonwill be enumerated and identified at 

### 200X magnification and small diatoms and phytoflagellates at 

### 400Xmagnification. One or

### two diameters of the counting chamber will be scanned until approximately 

### 150 to 200 

### cells are counted (filamentousblue-green algae,however, are counted as trichomes and not cells). Identificationwill be carried to the species level for large cells and to the lowestpractical level for small diatoms and phytoflagellates. The total concentrations of cells in the subsample will be calculated by:



### whereC 

### = total cell numbers (cells ml-1) 

### N = number of cells counted 

### V = 

### volume examined (ml) The total concentration of 

### cells in the samplewill be estimated from the average of 

### the subsample concentrations. Zooplankton samples (four at each station) will be collected with a 

### 0.5 m 

### diameter, 80 

### micron mesh net. At each station, the net will be allowed to

### sink approximately 

### 2m and will then be towed to near the surface. A 

### General Oceanic 2030 flowmeterwill be mounted on 

### the mouth of the net to provide an estimate of the water volume sampled. Upon retrieval, the net will be washed down and the samples in the cod-end will be preserved in 10 

### percent buffered formalin. Laboratory analysis of 

### the zooplankton samples will be conducted in the following

### manner. A 

### 5 or 10 

### ml aliquot (depending on 

### the apparent abundance of 

### zooplankton in the sample) will be withdrawn from each replicate sample and placed in a 

### gridded petri dish. All

### animals contained in 

### the aliquot will be enumerated and identified to 

### the lowestpractical taxonomic level under a 

### dissectingmicroscope. 

### If less than 200 

### animals are found in the initial aliquot, additional aliquots will be withdrawn and 

### sorted 3-9

### until atleast 200 organisms are found. In some cases, due to low numbers of organisms, the entire sample 

### willbe sorted. The number 

### of organisms per 

### m3 ateach station

### willbe calculated from the mean number of organisms 

### of each species from the four replicates. Meroplankton samples 

### willfollow the methods of the 1979 Aquatic Ecology Program (Mote Marine Laboratory 1980).
3.5.5.5 Organism Survival Studies Organism survival studies using 

### ORC water inholding containers 

### willbe conducted during one week each per month from June through September. Organisms collected from the prototype screen 

### willbe sorted into batches of 

### 30 (lots of five) and held in

### ORC water for 96 hr. Procedures 

### will be as outlined in Section 3.4; however, allsamples 

### willbe collected in one day. 

### In addition, control organisms collected from the prototype screen 

### willbe held inintake canal water for comparison.of latent survival.
3.5.5'.6 Hydrodynamic Evaluation Organisms which have been returned to the 

### water body are once again subjected to the processes of ambient dispersion. 

### A prediction and assessment of probable movement, especially the likelihood of reentrainment inthe intake flow, isbeing sought in order 

### to contribute to the evaluation of candidate releasepoints.n 4 

## ti

FISH 

### HOOK 

### spotL-

# .
SECTION 

### 4 RESULTS 

### TO 

### DATE
This sectionpresents the results of an analysis of available data collected during Phase 1 and part of Phase 

### 2. The data represent initial and latent survivorship of organisms which have been collectedby the fine-mesh prototype screen and control organisms not subjected to impingement 

### stress. The 

### results of initial survival studies include tests conducted up to

### May 7, 1980 and the latent survival data include results of 

### tests conducted up to April 

### 17, 1980. The proportion of organisms which 

### were alive when the sample 

### was brought into the laboratory 

### was determined from data on the species/life stages presented inTable 

### 4-1. In order tohave sufficient observations for analysis, 

### less abundant species were combined to form the following groups: sciaenids, clupeids, gobies, decapods (minus the stone crab). The bay anchovy and stone crab 

### were analyzed separately. Table 4-2 presents the mean initial survivorship and the standard deviation for the organism groups. These data indicate that the invertebrates had the highest survival, most often inexcess of 

### 90 percent. The fragile fish, such 

### as the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), had low survivorship, as expected for larvae and post-larvae. To provide an indication of the source of variability inthese survivorship estimate, an analysis of variance was conducted according to the experimental design discussed inSection 

### 3.3. Allanalyses 

### of variance 

### were conducted by life stage on the taxanomic groupings identified inTable 

### 4.2. Table 

### 4-3 presents the results of the analyses of variance. In general, few of the analyses revealed significant (p< 

### 0.05) effects for screen speed, approach velocity or their interactions. An inspection of the means which are significantly different suggests that the results between species are confused. For example, the bay anchovy egg interaction between screen speed and approach velocity 

### reveals higher survivorship at

### 1.0 fps than 

### 0.5 fps for screen speeds of 

### 7 fpm and 

### 28 fpm, and the 

### reverse pattern 

### for 

### 14 fpm. Since this pattern 

### is contrary 

### to expectation and not confirmed by the other species, the result is probably a function of the samples analyzed to date and not a general trend. Therefore, in

### view 

### of the few analyses which revealed significant screen speed or approach velocity effects and the unexpected nature of some of the differences, it appears that, in general, the initial survivability is not greatly affected by screen speeds from 

### 7 to 

### 28 fpm or approach velocities from 

### 0.5 to 1.0 fps. The latent survivorship of those organisms which were initially alive was studied in the holding experiments in the laboratory. The proportion of organisms which 

### were alive at

### 48 hr and 

### 96 hr was used as an fndex of latent survival.Species/life stages which 

### were used as a basis to determine 

### 48 and 

### 96 hr latent survivorship are presented inTable 

### 4-4 and 

### 4-5, respectively. 

### As with the initial survivorship 

### estimates, these data were collapsed into similar taxonomic groups for analysis. The mean and standard deviation for the 

### 48 and 

### 96 hr survivorship values are presented inTables 

### 4-6 and 

### 4-7, respectively. The results indicate that survivorship 

### is 'taxa-and 

### life stage-specific, as 

### is the relationshipbetween 

### 48 and 

### 96 hr values. These values should be viewed inconnection with control survivorship presented later inthe results. The hatchability of eggs during the holding experiment 

### is 

### an index of ' the viability of the eggs. Since the development 

### time of eggs for many 

### of the species tested is quite rapid, nearly alleggs should hatchprior to 

### 96 hr. Therefore, the proportion of eggs which hatched during the holding period is presented inTable 

### 4-8. An analysis of varianceprocedure, of the same design as -the

### initial survival analysis, was employed to investigate 

### the sources 

### of variation 

### inlatent survivorship. The results of analyses of variance using 48 hr survivorship 'as the dependent variable arepresented inTable 

### 4-9, while the results using 

### 96 hr survivorship as the dependent variable are presented inTable 4-10. The results of the analyses of variance for latent survivorship 

### were similar to that of the initial survivorships. Few independent variables for a few of the groups 

### were found tobe significant (p 0.05). However, the fact that formost analyses 

### these variables did not consistently explain a significant amount of variability, suggests that.thesevariables within the range of values tested do not significantly alter the survivorship of organisms. To date, the results of three control samples were available and the survivorship of control organisms which had not experienced the fine-mesh screen 

### system arepresented inTable 4-11. These survivorship values indicate that natural mortality, not associated with 

### stresses resulting from the collectionand holding procedures, 

### is a contributing factor to the mortalities observed among organisms collected by the fine-mesh screen.

## TABLE 4-1 

## TAXA/LIFE STAGES

### USED 

## IN INITIAL SURVIVORSHIP

### ANALYSIS

Taxa
Anchoa mitchilli

Bairdiella chrysura Cynoscion arenarius Pogonias cromis 

### Sciaenidae

Gobiosoma robustum Microgobius gulosus Microgobius sp. C

### 1 upeidae Harengula jaguana Menippe mercenaria Caridea Common 

### Name bay anchovy

silverperch sand seatrout black drum unidentified drums

code goby
clown goby unidentified goby Life Stage

eggs larvae Postlarvae post

### 1a

### rvae postlarvae po

### stlarvae eggs larvae postlarvae postlarvae

po

### st

### 1arvae po

### s't 

### 1arvae unidentified herrings eggs scaled sardine eggs
stone crab zoea (stage 

### 1) unidentified caridean zoea (unstaged)

shrimp

Sheet 1 of 

### 2 

# 3/

### Taxa

Upogebia affinis 

### Brachyuran

Decapoda "Shrimp" Paguridae 

### TABLE 

### 4-1 (Cont'd) Common Name Life Stage

mud shrimp zoea (unstaged) unidentified true crab zoea (unstaged) megalops unidentified decapods zoea (unstaged) unidentified shrimp- zoea (unstaged)

like decapods unidentified hermit zoea (unstaged)

crabs

Sheet 

### 2 of 

### 2 

# 3%a cr) N 0 0 r- 0 ln m U 0 0 N 0 0 0

Q 0 Ln ri N 4 0 0 b 0 0 0

GOY n

C 0 I m r i ri

e m s4 U aJ c C JJ u3aJ m v1 

### > CD Lc M m aJ ri

h 3 QJ m 

### ?, m m 4 4 L) il In Lo 0 0 a 3, 

## a

a m 5 n n ri al Eo m Cr VI v m m 0) aJ 0 0 N N
n d ri m v V QJ 

### c 3 4J rn

### TABLE 4-5 Taxa/Life Stages Used In 

### 96 Hour Latent Survivorship Analysis

Taxa Common 

### Name Life Stage Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy larvae 

### post

### 1 a

### rvae hatched larvae Bairdiella chrysura 

### silver perch postlarvae Cynoscion arenarius sand seatrout postlarvae Pogonias cromis black drum po

### stla rvae Sciaenidae unidentified drums larvae postlarvae hatched larvae Gobiosoma robustun code goby postlarvae Microgobius gulosus clown goby postla rvae


### Clupeidae unidentified herrings hatched larvae Menippe mercena

### ria stone crab zoea (stage 

### 1). Caridea unidentified caridean zoea (unstaged) shrimp Upogebia affinis mud shrimp zoea (unstaged) Brachyura unidentified true crabs zoea (unstaged) mega

### 1 op

### s Decapoda unidentified decapods zoea (unstaged) "Shrimp" unidentified shrimp- zoea (unstaged) like decapods Paguridae unidentified hermit zoea (unstaged) crabs4

Species Sciaenidae

Clup

### eida

### e
Bay anchovy

Stone crab
Decapods (all) 

### TABLE 4-6 48 

### HOUR LATENT 

### SURVIVORSHIP

Life Stage hatched larvae eggs larvae postlarvae adult hatched larvae post larva e hatched larvae eggs larvae postlarvae

zoea (stage 

### 1) (stage 2)

zoea (combined) megalops Proportion Alive Standard 

### N Mean Deviation



### - 850 0.844 0.325

95 0.067 0.225 31 

### 0.228 

### 0.399 133 0.890 0.282

12 

### 1 0 74 0.951 

### 0.209 10 

### 1 0 945 0.612 0.244 159 0.059 0.201 8 0.125 0.354 10 0

## -700 0.483 63 0.965 0.148 

### 11 

### 1 0 433 0.955 0.192

88 0

## -985 0.112

### TABLE 4-7

Species Sciaenidae

Clup eidae
Bay anchovy

Stone crab

Decapods (all) 96 

### HOUR 

### LATENT

Life Stage hatched larvae eggs larvae postlarvae hatched larvae postlarvae hatched larvae larvae postlarvae

zoea (stage 1)

zoea (stage 2)

zoea (unstaged) megalops



# 3 SURVIVORSHIP Proportion Alive



### - N Mean 850 0.788

95 

### 0 31 0.183 133 0.798

74 0.851 

### 10


### . 0.900 945 0.432 Standard Deviation 0.372



### 0 0.376 0.342 0.323 0.316 0.225 8 0.125 ’ 0.354 10 0.433 0.410 63 0.894 0.248 11 0.727 0.467 433 0.736 0.415

88 0.908 0.272

### TABLE 4-8 

### Hatchability 

### of Eggs During Holding Experiments
ProDortion of 

### EPPS Hatched SDecies
Bay 

### anchovy Clupeidae unidentified Sciaenidae unidentified 0.865 0.588 0.842

### TABLE 4-9 Analysis of Variance for 

### 48 Hour Latent Survival

Species Life Stage Sciaenidae hatched larvae eggs larvae postla rvae Clupeidae hatched larvae 

### Bay anchovy hatched larvae eggs Stone crab zoea (stage 

### 1) Decapods 

### (all)zoea (combined) megalops 

### F Value Screen Approach Speed Vel0 ci ty Interaction 

### 0.33 4.69" 0.07 3.09 0.31 0.39 

### 0.28 1-10 

### 0.36 1.38 3.79 2.64

0 

### 0.53 0 

### 0:52 86.71$+ 0.60 

### 5 35'"' 

### 2.61 6.21%+; 

### 0.30 1.66 

### 1.01

I 

### 2.93 3.71 2.38 L 

### 1.44 2.92 1.44.mr-rn I 

# -,. a IAHU 4-IU Analysis of Variance

Species Life Stage Sciaenidae hatched larvae postlarvae 

### Clup

### eida

### e hatched larvae Bay anchovy hatched larvae Stone crab zoea (stage 

### 1) Decapods (all) zoea (combined)

.. . mega

### lops for 96 Hour Latent Survival


### F Value Screen Approach 

### No. ObserSpeed Velocity Interaction vations 

### 1.08 1.60 0.19 849 2.45 

### 1.82 0.91 

### 133 0.88 0.38 0.02 74 4.07" 49.825-2 

### 0.17 945 0.03 0.04 0.29 63 3

# .66;:- 

### 13.5

### 1;';;: 2.96 

### 433 0.71 0.06 1.79 88,-

I



# I

Ill 0 t- m m m U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 -000 -00

# ­ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q U 

# ii a 0 0 Lc JA 

### a 0 U (. 

### c 0 r( r, 

# 2 

# i V r) U 0
3 

# - a U X 0 

# :

d c) QI 

## * U U U U 6 0 ­ 

# z i i i 0 a0 ut w 0 a w .) d r( 4 

# i;' Q '0 (I U U d A A LI V u .) L) J 0 a a 

### a a c

a La

# ..

i 

### SECTION 5 

### CONCLUSIONS
The results presented 

### inSection 

### 4 indicate that fine-mesh screening. 

### is a viable alternative for removing organisms from the circulating

### water flow 

### at Big Bend Station and returning them safelytotheir natural environment. The 0.5-mm mesh used on the prototype screen has demonstrated 

### its capacity for effectivelyretaining the RIS life stages under study; therefore, such 

### a fine-mesh system would ensure the protection of the RIS 

### at Big Bend. Results of testing to date indicate that initial and latent survival 

### are speciesand life stage-dependent, with invertebrates showing the highest survival and bay anchovy larvae showing the lowest survival. Such low survival 

### rates for anchovy larvae were anticipated given the very fragile nature of this species. Initial and latent survival of fish eggs 

### was relativelyhigh, particularly among Sciaenids. 

### No attempt 

### was made to adjust latent survival values 

### for control mortality (Table 4-11]; however, by comparing test and control mor

### talities, it 

### is evident that much of the mortality observed among test organisms 

### is a reflection of natural mortality and handling stress. The process 

### of collecting, concentrating and sorting organisms removed from the prototype screen 

### is certainly 

### a contributing factor inmortality that would not be 

### as severe ina full-scale, fine-mesh screen facility. This 

### fact, and consideration of control mortalities, leads to the conclusion that survival values 

### at Big Bend could 

### be higher than those observed in studies to date. Overall survival values for invertebrates, specificallythe stone crab, should approach 100percent. Although 

### fewfish and invertebrate juveniles and adults are impinged 

### at the existing Big Bend Station, a fine-mesh screen intake system should greatly alleviate impingement and would reducethemortality of those organisms which would Secome impinged since they 

### are presently 

### all killed 

### after being collected from the screen. Observations in 1979 and 1980 of the survival of the few juvenile and adult organisms collected by the fine-mesh screen suggest that they 

### are not affected by the impingement and removal process. These organisms can be returned toTampa Bay without significant 

### effectof the overall biological integrity of the bay system. On the 

### basis of existing data, 

### it would appear that installation of fine-mesh screening on Big Bend Units 3 and 4 would resultsinentrainment losses less than those presently experienced with Units 1to 3 without dilutionpumping. Further studies throughout the summer months will provide additional data to refine these preliminary results. Additionally species/life stages of the 

### RIS willbe studied in the summer months; additional control data willbe collected; verification of filtration and spray wash efficiencies will be made; and return flume survival willbe estimated. In addition, the remainder of the study data gathered this spring but not included in this report willbe added to the data base and subjected to further analyses.
5-1REFERENCES Mote Marine Laboratory, 1980. 1979 Aquatic Ecology Program, Big Bend Power Station, Tampa, Florida. Final Report (April 21, 1980). Stone SI Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980. Studies To Develop An IntakeDesign For Reducing Entrainment Losses, Unit No. 4-Big Bend Station. Prepared For Tampa E1ectri.c Company (February 1980).

### APPENDIX

PROTOTYPE FINE-MESH SCREEN EVALUATION BIOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRESS REPORT BY 

### MOTE 

### MARINE LABORATORYPROTOTYPE FINE MESH SCREEN EVALUATION BIOLOGICAL STUDIES

PROGRESS REPORT

Reference : ESSOW No. 12408.64-WOO3V 

### J.O. No. 12408.04

Submitted to: Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation P.O. Box 2325 Eioston, Massachusetts 02107 Attn: Mr. CurtisR. Young
Submitted by: 

## .. Selvakmaran Mahadevan, Ph.D. Staff Scientist/Project Manager

Mote Marine Laboratory 1600 City 

### Island Park Sarasota, Florida 33577
March 15, 1980I
. 

### .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

# . INTRODUCTION 

# ............................................... 1 11

# . PROGRESS TO DATE 

# ........................................... 1' a) Facilities 

# ........................................... 1 

### b) Prelininary Studies 

# .................................. 2 c) External ExFertise 

# ................................... 3 I11

# . STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 

# .............................. 3

IV

# . RECOMMENDATIONS 

# ............................................ 9

V

# . REQUEST FOR APPROVALS 

# ...................................... 10 APENDIX 

## - EXAMPLES OF PROJECT DOCUI+EWl"TION.ANDRECORDS

# .
I. INTRODUCTION


### The Prototype Fine Mesh Screen Evaluation Biological studies were begun on February 

### 1, 1980. The preliminary phase (February 1-29, 

### 1980) addressed some 

### of the potential problems that may arise in the regular testing program and conducted short-term studies on feeding requirements, best methods 

### for observation and sorting, and the suitability 

### of a closed system 

### for holding organisms. The phase also physically set up the holding facility and its once-through seawater system, and conducted tests to debug the seawater system. Phase 

### l (March 1-31, 1980) was designated as a shakedown phase. This phase requires intensive sampling as part of a preliminary screen evaluation. Data obtained will serve as 

### a basis 

### for finalizing test parameters and procedures to be used in phases 2 and 3 (RegularTesting Program; Phase 

### 2: April 

### 1 to May 15, 1980; phase 3: June 

### 1 to September 

### 15, 1980). This report provides a summary 

### of progress to date on the preliminary phase and part 

### of phase 

### 1. It provides a description 

### of the Standard Operating Procedures 

### (SOP) to be used in the Regular Testing Program, discusses findings or' the preliminary phase and provides a summary of the recommendations 

### of our expert consultants 

### to date on the sorting and holding procedures. sased on our findings and the recommendations 

### of the consultants, we request approvals for certain .-_ methods and procedures that are not specifically addressed in the ESSOW for the study.

11. ?RCGilESS 

### TO 

### DATE
a) Facilities 

### As specifiec! in the ESSOK,.a laboratory facility has been set-up at the site (Big Bend). The laboratory is located in two trailers: Trailer 1 (Haldinc Facility): This 60' x 12' trailer is outfitted with a once-throuqh seawater system. The seawater is distributed.to 23 tables. Nineteen 

### of these tables are "holding" tables with a capability 

### of holding approximately 8000 organisms at one time. Holding containers are 500 ml. jars and tackle box trays. Four of these tables are "sorting" tables (space for a total of eight sorters) with glass windows and

1underneath-the-table liahtina. Seawater 

### is withdrawn from the intake canal and piped to a tank via two filters (adual svstem exists from intake 

### to the tank for DurDoses of a back-uD svsteml. From the tank, the seawater is piped to the tables through three lines. Each table has an individual valve for water flow control. The holding facility also has twoworktables where microscopes are available. Four carts in the facility serve as observation aids (carts lighted from underneath with glasswindows on top) and aswater qualitymonitors tray. Trailer 2 (office): This 48' x 12' trailer serves astheoffice trailer. It contains office space for the section supervisors (Comp and Phillips), work-space �or the technicians (including microscope area, a copier, files and a cultureroom where algae and rotifers are grown). The laboratory facilities have been inspected by the followincj Stone and Webster personnel: Messrs. E.?. Taft, C.R. Young and R. Felts. The seawater system has been continuouslyoperating since February 29, 1980 and no problems have been encountered. The laboratory design was asoutlined in theproposal; no variationswere made. To date, samples 

### toabout 1/3 capacity of the holding facility arebeing processed. Approximately 

### 4-5 spaces inthe sorting area are being utilized.
b) Preliminzry Studies Allreports culminating from the preliminary studies have Seen forwarded to Stone and Webster personnel, C.R. Young and Z.P. Taft (pleasesee letter of transmittaldated 2/29/80 and accompanyin5 enclosures). Since those reports, 

### we have held orcanisms (collected by d plankton net and from the screen) at the site (holding facility). Data sheets have Seen transmitted to Yr. E.?. Taft. These combined studies re-inforced our earlier findings that .organisins could be helc! inclose6 containers.

2

### 1. 2. 3.

4.



### 5.

C) Summarizing the findings to date: Feeding is required 

### for larvae beyond the eye pigmentation stage. High survival rates were evident even in 

### closed containers. Mortality stainsare too species-specific and 

### are difficult to be retained in thepreservation stage. Various methods of observation of live/dead organisms were tested and guidelines for best methods in sorting and observing were drawn. Controlorganisms can be successfully collected with plankton nets.
External Expertise Dr. Sheldon Dobkin and Mr. Keith Taniguichi visited the holding facilityand provided input in the sorting an6 holding of organisms. Letters summarizing their suggestions were sent toMessrs. E.P. Taft and C.R. Young (dated 2/29/80 and 3/11/80). Both feltthat closed systems (500

### ml containers 

### or tackle box trays) would be adequate if the orcjanisms densities are low and if water change is accomplished at least once during the 96 hour period [preferably at the 48-hour observation check). Both felt that feeding is necessary if the organisms are held �or 96

. hours. Both speculated that 48 hours would be a sufficientlylonq period for estimating latent mortality. ’ Both experts provided various suggestions to our skaff for efficient sorting and holding techniques.

111. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

### �or the program are discussed below. FIELD PROCEDU-XES Procedures have Seen established for the conduct and documentation of activitieswhich take place in the field.. Implementation of the procedures is the direct responsibilityof the Section SupervisorLho willbe in the field during most if not 211 sampling tiips. In additicn to periociic observation 

### of sampling activities, the proqram manager will review field documentation to assure that all required information has been provided, that allprocedures were followed and that proper signatures have been obtained. Procedures for the collection of meroplankton RIS in the intake canal were described inthe Scope of Work of this.project. Tows are taken ss described in the Scope of Work for thisproject. A 4.8 n beam is mounted across the boat to al.low the nets to fishoutside the prop wash asmuch as possible. The nets are released simultaneously, allowed to sink to near the bottom, and pulled from that position so as to travel obliquely through the water column. The nets are then recovered simultaneouslyover the same sideof the boat. Flowmeter readings are taken, checked, and entered in the logbook. The nets are rinsed into the cod end, the cod jar is removed, and an internal label and formaldehyde are added. The jar is capped, shaken, another jar is screwed 

### onto the net, and the procedure repeated. Physical data are taken upon arrival atthe station. Station depth 

### is taken by a marked line at the Hydrolab which is lowered vertically and the depth read directly. The line is marked in 0.5 m intervals. From the depth data, mid and bottom depths are found for measurement of hydrographic data. Data are taken by one person, with any questionable data retaken by another person after allreadings for alldepths have been completed. Plankton nets are thoroughly rinsed after each tow tominimize cumulative net clogging. Netsare checked, for tears after every sampling trip, and machine washed incold water whenever ricroscopic examination shows any change inpore sizedue to clogging. If necessary, minor repairs to the nets areperforme2 in the field. 

### All samples arepreserved in the field and are doubly labeled, i.e., both internaland external labels for sample containers. The labels identify the sample by date, station, gear, tine of sampling, and tow number, and are initialed by the Section Supervisor. Samples are returned to the laboratory immediately after completion of a sampling trip. 

### All data are recorded by one person of the field crex and checked and signed by another member of the field crew. Spraywash and screen efficiency samp1e.s are collected by Stone and Webster personnel and given to a section supervisor atthe holding' facility. The seccion supervisor records collectiondata on internal and external labels of a quart jar. The sample 

### is preserved with buffered formaldehyde in the quart jar and transported toWIL-Sarasota laboratory.

4

# . LABORATORY PROCEDURES A. Net and Sprsywash/Screen Efficiencv Samples: Plankton net samples and spraywash/screen efficiency samples are processed in the laboratory in a manner that each sample or subsample is traceable to its collection and that all data reported for these portions 

### of the study are both valid and documented- Procedures are as follows: Each aliquot is examined twice, with agitation between examinations. 

### To check for sorting and identification efficiency, at least 

### 5 percent of the samples are re-sorted and verified by a qualified individual other than the person who did the initial sorting and identification. Sorting efficiency is maintained above 95 percent for all RIS. Identification of larval specimens is made through use of standard literature sources for each RIS. Voucher specimens are referred to appropriate External Consultants for identification/confirmation, as necessary. A reference collection of taxonomically confirmed species is maintained. Bench data sheets (Data Sheet 

### No. 4 

# - Appendix) contain all field data for a sample including the volume sampled, as well as sorting data and individual measurements. Three copies of the bench sheets are made. One copy is transmitted to Stone and Webster, the original is retainei by the Project Coordinator, one copy 

### is placed in the Archives at .WL,and one copy is placed in the Section Supervisor's (Blanchet) files. Subsampling is accomplished by use of a 

### 10 ml capacity Tipet dispenser or 5 mlpipet for numerous eggs. The sample is'placedin an appropriately sized Erlenmeyer flask after the volume 

### is adjusted to allow efficient sorting. The sample is agitated thoroughly, and aliquots are drawn off into a gridded petri dish. Depending on the density of plankton, up to four aliquots may be sorted at one time. Subsamples dre sorted consistently, that is, they are completely sorted for any XIS for which less than 100'specimenshave been picked from the sanple. The density/lOOrn3 

### of any species 

### is then calculable by comparing the volume of sample examined (E)to pick out any number of specimens (NS), to the total volume of the sample 

### (TV)and the volume 

### of water filtered (VF)

### , to give the density of the species (SD):



### All samples are stored until the 

### ?reject is completed. 

### All sorted specimens will be cataloguer3 and similarly maintained, except 

### forvoucher specimens which willbe placed in the permanent MNL reference collection. Catalog numbers 

### of sorted specimens arecarried 

### on the data bench sheets and in a bound notebook in which entries are logged asthe samples are sorted. B. Regular Testinq Program: Procedures for the sorting of liverneroplankton RISand holding them for 96 hours (includesRegular Testing Program, Controls and Air Exposure Tests) areasfollows: 1. Live meroplankton sortin5: Samples obtained from the 

### screen or other control methods (net, lighttrap, etc.)ar@subsampled by the section supervisor and sorting by technicians commenced. Live 

### or stunned organisms for holding arepulled out in lots of five or less (fish eggs and larvae) and single individuals (zoea) in an attempt to total 30 organisms of each species/life stage. Once the organisms �or holding aredrawn off the first subsample, the rest of theRIS is sorted as 

### live, deed 

### or stunned (only for screen samples) and preserved in three seperate containers (nocounts or final identification is made). If a total of 30'organisms of each species/life stage.for holding is not available 

### from the first subsample a second subsample is drawn and sorted only 

### for the Jive/stunned organisms necessary. The procedure is repeated once more if necessary. A maximum of only 3 subsamples per sample are processed. For controls, two lots of 30 organisms per available ?.IS species/ life stage is sorted per week for holding. Once the organisms for holdlzg and the initialmortality estimation are withdrawn from the sample, the remains arepreserved. Organisms for Air Exposure Testinq zre also prox:ided from the sorting of control sanples. Stringent QA procedure is enforced during the five sorting process. The section supervisor (Duane Phillips) or alternate (Donna Famislietti) draws the subsamples and supervises the sorting and data recording (Data Sheet No. 1

## - Appendix). He/She then transfers the position-marked containers (500 rril glass jars for fish eggs.and

. larvae: 2" cube tackle box trays for zoea) to the holding facility supervisor (Gary Comp) or desionated alternate shift supervisor/technician (K. McCarthy or E. Myers or R. Dennis 

### or E;. Caraccia). Data Sheet No. 1 is copied (4 coi)iesl: one cop): is provided to the holding facility supervisor (Corn?); one cop:~ is retained in the section supervisor's (Phillips) files: one copy is trznsmitted to Stone and webster's field representati-Je; one copy is filed in the project coordinator's files and the oriqinal istransmitted to the 'preserved material' section rupervisor (Blanchet). 2. Holding: On receiving the position marked-containers, the holding facility supervisor or alternate records the sorting data (Data Sheet No. 2 

# - Appendix) and places the container in the appropriate 

### water table and position (Tables are marked alaphabetically and positions within a table sequentially marked. Charts over each table identify the exact position 

### sf each container). Checks (observation of dead/ liveorganisms) are thenceforth made on a regular schedule (3,6,12,18, 24,36,48,60,72,84, an6 96 hours) and appropriate information recorded on data sheets (Data Sheet No.2 

# - Appendix). Dead organisms during each check 

### are pulled out, preserved in a labeled vial and placed 

### on the transport rack with appropriate entrymade on 

### to the transport control sheet (Appendix). The labels (external stick-on) contain sample number (twodigitse.g. lA), subsample number (1digit e.g. l), table identification (1digit e.g. K), positionwithin the table (1-2 digits e.5. 29) and check hour (1-2 digits e.g. 18). An example label is: 1AlK29-18. Attheend of the 96 hour period allanimals arepreserved with live and dead seperated and identified with h 'D' 

### or 100 (live)respectively in the labels. e.g. l.UK29-100. Transport racks are individually labeled before use and one rack is used to transport allvialswithin one sample only (e.g. a transport rack specifically marked for sample 1A). When a complete day's semple vials areaccumulated (e.g. lA through IF-6 samples in that day), samples are transported to MML-Sarasota. Samples preserved from the initialmortality sorting are labeled with sample No. (e.g. 1A), subsample No. (e.g. 1)and condition of organism (e.g., L=live, D=dead, S-stunned). An example labelwould contain: 1A1-L. These samples are transported the same day with accompanying transport control sheets. Control samples and air exposure test samples are treated similarly. Completed Data Sheets No. 2 are copied (5copies); one copy is retained in the holding facility sup'ervisor 's files; two copies are transxitted to Stone and Webster; one copy is filed in the YLYL archives; one copy is filed inPreserved Material section supervisor's (Blanchet) files and theoriginal is filed in theproject coordinator's file. 3. Preserved Material Handlin?: Allsamples transported from the holding facility are received atMML-Sarasota by the section supervisor (Harry Blanchet) or alternate (Tom tong) and checked to ensure accuracy of vials transported. The samples are then processed
7(identification,enumeration, length measurement) and data entered 

### on Data Sheet 

### No. 3 (Appendix). Four copies of this data sheet are made after all quality control checks are made. One copy is retained 

### by the section supervisor, one copy 

### is transmitted to Stone and Webster field representative, one copy 

### is filed in the MML archives, one copy is placed in the holding facility section supervisor's (Comp) files and the original 

### is placed in the project coordinator's files. Samples from initial mortality are processed similarly and data entered on to the appropriate Data Sheet 

### No. 

### 1 (that is, the original that was transmitted 

### by D. Phillips to H. Blanchet, see (a) above). Four copies 

### of this data sheet are made. One copy is transmitted to Stone and 

### Webster field representative, one copy is filed in the holding facility supervisor's (Comp) files, one copy is placed in the MML archives, one copy is retained in the section supervisor's (Blanchet) files, and the original filed in the project coordinator's files. A11 preserved material from the holding facility (after processing and quality control checks) are lumped intoprimary sam?les (e.9- 1A-one Screen Test sample; AEl-one Air Exposuze Test; CT1-one Control Group: etc.) and stored until completion of project. C. Computer Dzta 

### Entrv: Utilizing Data Sheets 1,2,3 and 4, the section supervisor (Blanchet) 

### or a technician transfers data to appropriate computer data sheets (examples in Appendix). Checks are made to ensure accuracy 

### of data transfer. Twocopies 

### of the computer data sheets tre made. The original is transmitted to the Stone and Kebster (Eostonoffice)

### , one copy 

### is placed in the holding facility supervisor's (Comp) files, one co9y is placed in the project cocrdinator's files an2 one copy is filed in IXYL archives.

8IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our preliminary studies' findings and the suggestions of
our expert consultants, we recommend: 1. Feeding the organisms (witha mixture of algae and rotifer culture) that are held 

### for latent mortality. 2. Holding the organisms for 96 hours as planned in the ESSOW. 3. Holding the fisheggs and larvae in 500 mlglassjars (5 individuals to a container) and zoea in 2" cube tackle box trays (singleorganism to a container). 3" PVC pipes with screen bottom should be kept as back-up in the event of excessivemortality inclosed system. 4. Collecting control organisms with a plankton net (with backup of a light trap, if necessary). 5. Eggs that hatch during holding be kept until.thenormal duration of the experiment (96 hours) but record kept of thc hatch time

# . 6. Partially changing water in the container (during 48 hour check) 7. Holding 48 zoea instead of 30 zoea per sample 2s specified in the ZSSOW (tackle box trays are inconparment units of 24).

9

## v. REQUEST 

### FOR AP~ROVALS

We request that the following items be approved by the Engineers: 1. Collection of control organisms by primarily plankton nets with the use of a light trap, if necessary. 2, Holding of allorganisms in closed systems, (with a back-up of open-system containers if a need arose to change). 3. Feeding the organisms (post-larvae only) with a mixture 

### of algae and rotifer at the 24 hr, 48 hr and 72 hr checks. 4. Changing water partially (larvaeonly) at the 48 hour check. 5. Holding 48zoea instead of 30 zoea per screen or control sample.

10

# .

APPEND1X

EXAMPLES OF PROJECT

DOCUMENTATION

AND

RECORDS.. Data-Flow for ?lankton net Samples, Spray Wash and Screen Efficiency Samples.

'' 

### --. 

# ("-Field Check List' 

### '63 Calibration 

### Loa ) 

### I 

# t Field


### 9 w 

# A I ;SampleAnalysis 

# 7

(Custody Log 

### (Daily Log) ' A Resort Bench Sheet %>) 

### $ 

# 1Data Transfer i Entry



# . 0 !

Checks by supervisor Task Documentation 

### --7

'- Project Coordinator is custodian of these logs Secticn Supervisor is custodian 

### of these 105s cr data sheets P f'ersor.al log Copies to Origirzl to 

### m

Log Records

PL!lL Coordinator 

### ! I Archives I'<<..< 

## ..



## TheMettlerbalances

## listedbelowhavebeen

## serviced by

## ourrepresentative

## on /,,' I/

4 - I ,. ,- 

### c 

## /??.?



# __ - 

### __ 

## Thisis

## tocertifythatthetestweights

## usedaretracezble tothe

## NationalBureauofStandards.

* ­ .& 3

?: '4T $A 

## Mettleridentificationnumber

## oftestweightsused: 

# +&yI

-. r C. -1c // ..,- .. 

## Mettler

## calibrationdateof

## testweights

## used: 

# /G. 4 ,I 

### o*:-n

­ 

### - '1-

L 

## NationalBureaucf Standards

## tes:date: .L;L;:?.L ,J

### ...: 

### .;' r' .& 

### - -.

# - Type

## andserizlnumberofbzimces

## service<:

__ ._ 

## ___.. . .. ._.- .



## 4-7-

# -- Data-Flow for regular testing program, Controls and air- exposure tests. Control/ A screen 

# . Air Exposure

1Sampling Sampling 1

1 ' Initial

Mortality Estimation

4

Log Records 49 

## A

I 

## 4 k' ///

# A\YProject

### Y' / I

# 1 MYL Coordinator 1 I Archives 

## -+

# -

# - -

# --

# ­ ata S eet Cj).



# 1 Seawater at

I Water-exchange
V Preserved Material 

### fiortinq LO~S 

### ) Sorting 

# c------?

Bench Sheet Records Project

# /,TT 1 +- Coordinatoc

# ' 1 \ 

### si g - 

### v PlML Solding Archives Facility Supervisor (Comp)

### or Appropriate Section Supervisor

(SeeQA Manual) -J

S&W Final Analysis a Checks by supervisor Section Supervisor 

# 0 Task (Blanchet) 

# 0 Documentation
@ s A



# --

# + -5 Project Coordinator is custodian of these logs Section ~upervisoiis custodian 

### of these 

### loss or data sheets Personel loa Copies to Original to 1

### 5. >iODEL 

### ASTM 36C 

# 1

1. CALIBXATIOK TECHSICLAK [A. J.mWTON 

# 1

7. TEST DATE 

# L 4-2-80 

# 1 3. CONDITION RECEIVED WITHIN TOLEWCE OUTSIDE TOLEWCE

L. COh'DITIOI\! RETULYED WIXIXTOTLi&NCE OUTSIDE TOIElWYCE 

### 5. CERTIFICATED OR EPORTEQ

~ l'.CiE ST.L\DARD IF FIXED 

# u METROLOGICAL CONDITIONS REV

._. TE?l?ERATURE 72 

### *OF RELATIVE HLTMIDITY 33 X 

### 3. SEii'L'ICIN(; C'<CLE(?iOi.;THS) CEIITIFICATIOX 

# m CALI 

### BRATION 

# U

LO. CALIBPdITION PROCEDURE 

# 1 w3. 

# 1 % 6. PMX-HOURS TO CALIaRATE 

## [ 2.0 

# 1

7. $(&-HOURS TO REPAIR 

# I N/A 

# I

8. SERVICING WEL AFFIXED

. CERTIFICATION CALIB 

### RATIOK LINITED USE WEL LIMITED USE TAG 

## ... 9. 3TXT SERVICIKG DATE CERTICI CATI

### OK CfiLIBRATIO?! 

### XS

READING OF STD. READING OF EADl11

### I O0 

## +.2 12.0 12.0 

## 2s.o 28.1 30.0 30.1 50.0 50.L 52.0 52.hSAMPLE LABEL



### MOTE

### MARINE LABORATORY SARASOTA, 

### FL Pmj.

# +: Samp. gear: Stat

# +: Repl.

# *: Samp. day/hr: samp. time: 1
TidePh: sarilp.vol/area: CoL by: Anal- by: Comment: ChE& by:

### 1 2 3

L SUBSAMPLE IDNUMBER: A. INITIAL MORTALITY ESTIMATION a. Rough Sorting by: b. Final IDby Date



### - 

### .DAChecks:
- Rough Sorting:

Ini tisls/Date
Final ID:

Ini tisls/Datc NOTE: Lengths are inmillimetei
Comments: Preliminary sorting for Initial Mortality Estimation done: YES NO Ey:

3. HOLDING SAMPLES/SEPARATIONL



### ..

# . MOTE MARINE LABORATORY Page 

## - of

# ­ 1600 CITY ISLAND PARK SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33577 Project Z310.85 FMS BIOLOGICAL EVALUATICN
LATENT SURVIVAL MONITORING ID DATA SHEET Sample Subsample C

Quality Concrol Checks (ID) 

### 1. Vial Numbers: 2. Vial NmSers: Comments : Date Collected :



# - bv Date: by Date:

# ~ MOTE MARINE LABORATORY 

### Sarasota, Florida 33577
Station: 

### Collection Date: day/nite PROJECT No. 310.85 FMS Eioloqical Evaluation 

### Replicate =: 

### Sample 

### vol


## .: 

### Meroplankton Data Sheet \ 

## L A1iquot 

### Vo

### 1ume 

# I Crassostrea 

# ! I 1 

# I ! 1

. I I ! Penaeus P.L. 

# I I 1 

## i Ca'ilinectes Zoea I 

# ' I I ! 

### Menippe Zoea 

# I l l / I 

# II 

# 1 I 

# i i ! 

# j[ 

# 1/ 

# jl 

# f.. Anchoa 1

### arva

### e 

# ! I 

# ; Harengula larvse 

# ' I 1 1 ; i 

# ' ! 

# i Meni

### ai 

### a 1

### arvae 

# / I 

# ' l 

# I i l 

# I ! ; i

# I i 

# / Bairdiella 

### larvae I 

### ! 

### I I I 

# i i i i I 

### Cynoscion larvae 

# I I 

# t i I l l
-. 

### Pogonizs larvae 

# 1 

# ! I 

# ' ! I j anchoa prolarvae 

# i 1 

# i 

# I 1 

# ! I ! ! I I I ! 

## i 

# / I I l l 

# l l I ! 

### ! ! I I i 

### I 

### ! 

## I ! 

### 1 I I Anchoa 

### eg~s 

# I ! i l l ! 

# I ! I / 2arengula eciis 

# I f ! l ! ! i 

# 1 Nenidia "9s 

# i I I i I 

## i I I 

### Saircie'iz egGs 

# ~ l / l i I

# i l Cynoscion escs 

# I [ 

# ! I t l 

# il 

# ji 

# j ! 

# i l

. ; l i , 

# I Pcconizs ecjss 

# ! 1

3a:e : Cmmen: t T ' 

### Iltle: 2.

## :. Date: 

### Sate:1600 C I T Y SARASOTA, PHONE: WILLIAM R. MOTE CHAIRMANOF THE BOARD Revised 3/19/80

ISLAND P A R K FLORIDA 3 3 5 7 7 (813) 388.4441 WILLIAM H. TAFT, Ph.0. PRESIOENT Project: 310.85 Reference: FMS Eiological Evaluations INSTRUCTIONS FOR SAMPLE TRANSPORT CONTROL SSEET This 

### form is designed to assure accurate traceability of samples from the field laboratory tothe base lab inSarasota. A separate sheetmust be completed for each tray of vials sent to Sarasota. It is stronglyurged thatdifferent types of samples (vials) be separated by empty taped rows. PACKER :

### 1. Complete ths top half of the form. 2. Either atthe timeof packing or (better)inmediately before loading �or transport, check the total nLT5er 

### of vials listed on the sheet. 3. Count the number 

### of vials inthe tray. 4. Spot-check atleast three vial numbers on the sheet tomake sure those vials are inthe tray. Circlemmbers on sheet. 5. ComFlete the Packer Check co1urr.n. 6. Sign and date thePacker Check column. 7. Lock the container with 'he transpor: control sheet. TRilh'STOEITER (Driver): Open the container 1. Verify %he nunber of vials listed on the control sheet. 2. Verify (count)'the number of vials in rhe tray. 3. Locate, in the tray, the three vials doujle-checked by the pacKer, 4. spot-check three additional vial nninbers on rhe sheet tonake sure those vials are in-;ne tray. 5. Complete the TransporterCheck column. 6. Sign and date the Transporter Check col~mn. 7. Make sure there is a sheet for each tray. 8. Lock the container with the transport control sheet. XECEICTR (Harry or hisdesiqnee): Open the container
. ­ 1. Veriry that :he Control Sneetvial nunhers and the vials received match one-to-one. 2. Complete the Receiver Check colamn. 3. Sign and date the Receiver Check colur;,~. 3. Give the Control Sheet to Jeff for filin5. 5. Remove the vials and storeit iz the lab sample container. Lock it TFSJSTORTER Xi3 ECZiVER: If you find. any discrepancies, whatsoever, refuse to accept the delivery. As soon aspractical, notifyjeff ?atton and the shift supervisor on duty to have the shiFment returned to the field laboratory for corrective acticn. The socner ihe problem can be traced, the easier itwill be to correcz. Delay willonly compouzc the problen.m 0
w \ /,r u ! G OI ? r-3 \ m

rk r .

H .x



## ..MOTE NARIb!:'E LLBOlbYl'ORY EQUIPMENT CALIBWtTION LOG FOK.AT

EQUIPP'ENT: 'IODEL NUIYBER : PANUFACTURER : SERIAL NUMBE'S :

STANDAiiD USED: PX-CALIBRATION POST-CALIBRATION 

## - .WADING OF STANDARD READING OF TEST INST. READING OF STANDARD READING OF TEST INST.

-.-

BY: DATE : TIFl:

## -

APPROvED (SUPEXVISOX)

# -- 

# .



# .

1 2 3 n 5 G 7 3 9 1(I 11 72 13 14 15 1(i 17 ;8 19 20 71 22 23 7.7 25 2; ?7 ?!i
-?a ...1 .XI 31 

### -., -%.
.).I 3I 

### ..­ .lZ' .?I



## ... .>I



## ... .,'*
+I I .](I j J.G. No. Presented by: Date: Checked by: Date:

C w 

### z z 3 E. tn Pageof 

# ­

-i



# I I ._.-. . _:



### ...........

- 

### . .-_.._._.___

....

..,



### ..

. . .CONCEPTUAL 

### ENGINEERING 

### DESIGN OF THE UNIT 

### 3 

### AND 4 FINE 

### MESH 

### SCREEN INSTALLATION 

### BIG BEND STATION TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY Studies 

### are presently ongoing at Big Bend Station todeterminehow the concept 

### of fine-mesh screening can be employed to.reduce entrainment. In light 

### of the positive results obtained 

### to date, a pre1i.minax-y conceptual design has been developed for applying fine-mesh 

### screens to existing Llnit 3 and proposed Unit 4. 

### The intent of 

### finc screening two units 

### to minimize entrainment 

### is supported by prcliminary results ns sufficient tomaintain entrainment 

### levels when 

### Unit 4 

### is added, st 

### or below those which presently exist with three-unit operation without thermal dilution pumping

# . Sheet pj.lingwould be utilized toenclosc the pump scrccnwell 

### area and 

### create 

### a forebay between the fine-mesh screens and thc p”ips. A layout 

### of thenew screening structure 

### is shown on drawing 12408.04 IiSK-62. Each 

### of the six (3 for each unit) dual-flow, fine-mesh 

### screens would be fitted inthis

### wall and would discharge intothe forebay. The discharge opening would be sized toachieve a uniform flow distribution through the two parallel screen 

### faces. To ensure proper hydraulic conditions atthe four circulating 

### water pumps and 

### a relatively uniform flow through each 

### of the 

### six screens, the forebay would be extended out from the seawall to a distance 

### of about 60 

### ftinto the intake channel. The pumps would alsobe positioned toaid

### inproper 

### flow distribution such that each set of two pumps draws from three 

### screens. Stop gates would be provided foruse in closing the discharge opening in the event that 

### a screen must be stopped 

### or removed 

### for maintenance. 

### In case of emergency conditions roller gates would 

### be installed in the sheetpile wall between screens and would be opened to 

### stipply water to the pumps. 

### To screen the 

### flow and protect the

### pumps and condenser under this emergency operating mode, the existing coarse-mesh 

### (3/8 in.) screens would be maintained on Unit 3 and new, sj.milarcoarse-mesh screens would be 

### installed 

### on Unit 4. The dual-flow screen design has been used successfully at Big Bend Units 1 through 3 with 3/8 in. mesh screens for a number of years and, based 

### on fine-screen testing todate, has the necessary features for minimizing entrainment and protecting small organisms when using fine-mesh. Pending final results 

### of ongoing studies, the number and size 

### of the screens have been preliminarily determined on thebasis of achieving a screen 

### face flow velocity 

### of 0.5 fps ata water level 

### el. 

### of 0.0 

### NLW. Thus, six,

### .lo-ft wide screens would be required. Each screen would be submerged to 

### el. 

## ­ 21.5 ft. Each of the 63 screen baskets would be equipped with easily replaceable 

### 0.5 

### mm mesh panels and fish collection buckets. The fine mesh requires continuous screen operation toprevent clogging, 

### as well 

### as to limitthe 

### time that organisms 

### are impinged. Since continuous operation results in greater 

### wear of the mechanical components than with intermittent operation 

### as on the existing 

### screens, 

### more reliability would be achieved through the use of heavy duty rollers, bushings, bearings, sleeves, 

### chains,and motors. To further reduce maintenance requirements, 

### 10 

### mm mesh screen panels would be provided for use inperiods of the year when entrainment 

### of meroplankton 

### is not of concern. Each fine-mesh screen would be capable 

### of operating continuously at speeds of up to28 

### ft/min. On automatic control, the screen would run continuously 

### at 7 

### ft/min., assuming that ongoing studies indicate that this speed would be adequate toprotect impinged organisms. As the head differential across the screen reaches 

### 4 

### in., and then 

### 6 

### in., the speed would automatically increase to 

### 14 and 

### 28 ft/min, respectively. Should studies indicate the need for different speeds than these, the controls could be modified to achieve any required speed between 0 and 28 ft/min. Each 

### screen would be equipped with 

### a low pressure (approximately 

### 10psi) organism spray wash header on the ascending side and high pressure 

### (40 to 

### 60 psi) spray wash header for debris removal on the descending side of 

### the screen. Separate pumps would supply water toeach header and would take suction from the fine-screened water downstream of the circulating water pumps. These nozzles would have 1/2 in. diameter orifices and 

### woraLd be evenly spaced at 

### 1 ft intervals over the 

### 10 ftheader length 

### to ensure 

### a uniform spray pattern across the screen baskets. Although the low and high pressure sprays would wash organisms and debris into separate troughs, all troughs would manifold in 

### a common sluiceway which would 

### carry collected organisms and debris to a 

### release point north 

### of the intake channel 

### (HSK-62). This design 

### willmaximize the opportunity for survival of any organisms not removed by the low pressure spray, but subsequently removed by the debris spray. The organism return trough would be sized toachieve a transport velocity in the range of 2 to3 fps at 

### a water depth of from 6 to 12 in. 

### The trough would run 

### west along the south side 

### of the 

### intake channel to

### a footbridge from which 

### it would be supported 

### as it 

### transverses the channel. The trough would then travel north and east tothe channel where 

### it would discharge. Total length of the return flume 

### will range from 3,500 

### ft to 4,700 

### ft depending on the exact location 

### of discharge in the channel. 

### To alleviate fouling problems in the trough, it will be divided with each half being 

### 18 in. wide by 18 in. deep. With this arrangement, the flow would be frequently diverted from one side to the other and the unused side would be drained and dried. The trough would be covered with solid removable plates to eliminate sunlight, and it could be insulated if nccessary tominimize temperature 

### ri.ses as the water travels from the 

### screcri to the dischnrge point. The proposed design involves expanding the existing Unit 3 operating deck from which the dual-flow fine-mesh screens would hang. The design would be similar tothe existing screen structure designs 

### at Big Bend with the exception of the overall dimensions and number 

### of screens. The expanded deck would be supported on piles 

### si.milar 

### to the existing units. 

### Also, similar to the existing structure, theoperating deck would 

### be at el. + 9 ft. The canal would be maintained in the screen structure 

### area at a depth of el. 

### - 24 

### ft.Initially, a chain link fence, similar to that presently used atUnits 1 to 

### 3 to exclude large floating debris, would be incorporated into the new screen structure and would extend to el

## - 5 ft. If, inthe future, the fence is found tobe inadequate toprotect the fine-mesh screening medium, provisions would be incorporated toallow for possible installation of stationarybar racks to replace the fence. Such racks would be located approximately 14 ftupstream of the fine mesh screens. The rack structure would be inclined ata 5-on-1 slope and would have bar spacings of 

### 1.5 in. A common, moveable rake would be provided for the removal of debris; the rake would raise alldebris collected on thebar racks to the operating deck and into a rail-mounted hopper. The hopper would traverse the screen deck and would be emptied atthe end of the rail lineforultimate disposal 

### In the event trash racks areadded, provisions willbe made �or lateral fishpassageways atthe end of the structure. Construction would be performed inthe wet and would consist of excavation, driving necessary piles and sheeting and fabricating the operating deck. The traveling screen assembly troughs and pumps would thenbe installed. 

### Itmay be necessary to shut down Unit 

### 3 during pile driving or installation of equipment.

### i i?4OTES 

# , X SWE.:

### d

# -f-0.UNlcsS NOTED OSHFLRWSF.

, @MIS 6SCtKEPTWL ENCINkERING DWG

. ' I 4

. .. L I

..



### .-.

.. .COST COMPARISON OF FINE-MESH SCREENS VERSUS CLOSED-CYCLE 

### COOLING
Estimated costs 

### are provided here for 

### a fine-mesh screen system to serve Big Bend Units 3 and 4. 

### This system would enclose the conventional intake structures 

### of Units 3 and 

### 4 

### as discussed in

### Part 

### 11. A duplicate system could be installed on Units 1 and 2 

### if further reduction 

### inentrainment 

### isrequired. These costs are compared tothe differential cost (above the costs 

### of a conventional once-through system) 

### for a closed-cycle cooling 

### system. Table 1provides a summary 

### of this cost analysis. The closed-cycle cooling system which 

### willbe used for comparison 

### is

### a mechanical draft cooling tower. An engineering study on closed-cycle heat rejection systems for Big Bend Unit 

### 4 

### was performed. The study 

### results indicate that 

### a mechanical draft tower would be the preferred closed-cycle system. This tower would be of concrete construction and would utilize 

### saltwater as the cooling medium. Tower costs 

### are based upon 

### a design which will achieve a maximum drift 

### rate of 0.002 percent of the circulating 

### water flow. Site and foundation preparations costs are included 

### as separate items. Energy requirements and deratingpenalties 

### were calculated and 

### are The tower requires 4.5 

### MW of auxiliary included 

### inthe estimated costs. power year round and 

### creates 

### a generation 

### loss due 

### to increased turbine back pressure of 2.2 

### MW on both a 

### summer peak and annual average basis. The table presents cost differentials above the cost of a conventional once-through cooling system. The additional cost required to add 

### a finemesh screen system toUnits 3 and 4 

### is $10,215,000. The costs toretrofit 

### a fine-mesh screen 

### system toUnits 1 and 2 would be approximately $7,985,000. The cost of the two systems is approximately the 

### same; however, the cost 

### of the shared return system 

### is included in the Units 3 and 

### 4 estimate. The additional cost 

### of providing a mechanical draft tower 

### is $51,802,000.

### TABLE 1 COST COMPARISON FOR 

### FINE-MESH SCREENS

VERSUS CLOSED-CYCLE 

### COOLING SYSTEM (MECHANICAL DRAFT TOWER) Figures are in (Thousand $) 

# - Descri ption Structural

Cooling Tower s( Basin Other Structural Total Structural Electrical Mechanica

### 1 Instrumentation Building Services Environmental Total Direct Cost 

### Dis tributables Indirects 

### AF1 (10%) Total Present Day Escalation TECO Local Charges Units 3 

### Sr 4



## -



# - 2,080 100 2,550 Incl inMech Incl inMech Incl inMech 4,730 420 410 560 6,120 1,263 333 Units 1

### SI 2 Cooling Tower



## -

- 1,670 100 1,760 Incl inMech Incl inMech Incl inMech 3,530 300 310 410 4,550 939 247

52 672 

### 6

## ,460 6,042 6,481 12,523

1,150 753. 208

14 32 14,680 2,165 600 

### 1,755 19,200

8,000 1,224 257 2 692 A 

### 31,373 Administrative and General Expense 70 

### IDC 

### 904 Total Capital Cost 8,690

### TABLE 1 (cont) OPERATING COST PENALTIES Figures 

### are in (Thousand $) Description Units 3 & 4 Units 1 & 2 Cooling Tower CirculatingWater Pump 

# - 106 

### 106 

# - Additional Head Required Auxiliary Power for System 414 414 12,932 Generating Loss Due toTurbine Back Pressure Annual Average 

## - 6.324


## - Totals 

### 520 520 19,256
OPERATION 

### AND 

### MAINTENANCE COSTS Description Screens Screenwash Pumps Organism Return Total Escalation Total Cost TotalEvaluated Cost

(Total Cost ) (Fixed Chg Rate)


### TOTAL COSTS
Descri pti

### on Capita

### 1 Revenue Requirements Ooerating Cost 

### Penalties Operation and Maintenance Total Evaluated Cost Figures are 

### in (Thousand $) Units 3 & 4 Units 1 & 2 Cooling Tower



## - 30 30

7.5 7.5 

## ­ 24 24 

# -

- 61.5 61.5



## - 105.5 105.5 167 167 195

1,005 1,005 1,173

Figures are 

### in (Thousand $) 

### Units 

### 3 & 

### 4 Units 1 & 2 Cooling Tower 8,690 6,460 31,373 

### 520



# - 520 19,256 1 173 1,005 1.005 A 10,215 7,985 51,802