TECHNOLOGY UPD

The Aquatic Filter Barrier: Recen

Demonstrating Versatility and Eff
OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNO

Origination, System Types and Components
Technology Originat

• 1986, Alaska

• Aquatic Filter Barrier

(AFB)

• Sediment Dredging

Disposal, Kachemak Bay

• Establishment of

Gunderboom for

engineered solutions
Types of System Applic

• Reservoir Protection SystemTM (RP

• Beach Protection SystemTM (BPS)• Particulate Control SystemTM (PCS)

• Sound Attenuation SystemTM (SAS)

• Marine Life Exclusion SystemTM (M

– Curtain– Panel– Cartridge

– Intake Filter Poo– Offshore Intake 
Reservoir Protection SystemTM (RPS)

Kensico RPS; Westchester County, NY

Achieves successful reductions for drinking water:

TSS – 93%, Turbidity – 96%, Coliforms – 99%
Beach Protection SystemTM (BPS)

Harbor Island Beach BPS; Mamaroneck, NY

Keeps beaches open all season long.Protects swimming areas from waterborne health hazards and 

safe recreational beaches and shores.
RESULTS INSIDE OUT

Sheen: Present Not Pr

Turbidity: 96 NTU 1.5 N

TSS: 350 mg/l 13 m

Chrysene: 0.36 μg/l ND 

Particulate Control SystemTM (PCS)

Excavation with Clam Shell
Sound Attenuation SystemTM (SAS)

Designed to mitigate the damaging effects of sound and pressure waves produced 

and demolition activities.

Oakland Bay, CA: Concussive force of driving 8‐

ft.‐dia. piles deleterious to fish populations.

Seneca Lake, NY: Testmitigate noise from o
Marine Life Exclusion SystemTM (MLES)

Hudson River, NY

Site‐specifically designed to prevent impingement and entrainment of ichthyopl

juvenile aquatic and marine life.

Best Technology Available; site‐specific basis (section 316(b) of the Clean Water 

Through‐velocity is 0.02 fps, 95% less than approved intake velocity.
Geotextiles, Fine Mesh Gr

Knotless Netting

Nonwoven GB4508 Nonwoven GB4508, Perforated Wov

Fine Mesh Grid; 1.0, 2.0, or 5.0 mm Supplier 1: 0.25‐in Knotless Supp
AFB Framework

A load‐bearing skeleton of Nylon webbing supports the barrier 

heavy loading due to ambient currents and intake flows.
AFB Framework

20,000‐lb. Dyneema Netting

Supports Filter Throughout

Load‐Bearing S

Connection Po
AFB Anchoring

Helical Anchors – Small Footprint Navy Anchors – 
MLES AirBurst Cleaning 

Compressed Air Delivery Automated A
MLES AirBurst Control S

Real‐Time Control Interface Historical Dat
MLES Types

• Curtain:

– Anchored and floating,

sealed to bottom andalong shoreline

• Panel:

– Fixed, panelized structure

enclosing intake bay area

• Cartridge:

– Carriage structure accepts

MLES cartridges, which

supply a reservoir area

with filtered water via

individual pipes
MLES Intake Floating Pool (IFP)

Enclosed floating pool provides entrainment protection for inta
MLES Types: Project Exa
PROJECTS AND DEVELOPM

An Overview and Update of Demonstrated Application
Basic Requirements of a

In order to effectively draw water through a passive, fine‐screen barrier and exclude and and larvae in addition to juveniles and larger fish, an AFB system requires that certain d

characteristics must be met:Size of perforations to prevent intake of target organism life stages – 0.5‐mm apparent 

were added into a non‐woven fabric with an AOS of 150 microns. Mesh of 0.5mm has b

all or nearly all targeted egg and larval species.

No toxicity of fabric – The material used is polypropylene, non‐toxic and non‐leaching. 

testing demonstrated the lack of any impact for prolonged exposures (Alden Labs).

Low velocity to minimize impingement of eggs or larvae ‐ Average highest velocity was 

and observations were made of multiple species of eggs and larvae in flowing condition

more than double the deployed system design velocity. (HDR/LMS, E. Radle, EPRI/Alden 

Cleaning system that does not physically impact ichthyoplankton – Pressured air, relea

panels, between two layers of filter fabric, relies on fabric movement or “shaking” rathe

brush devices, scraping or high pressure water. Based on observations, the 1—4 cleanin

considered an unlikely source of impact on survival rates while providing a potential ben

projection of eggs that may be close to the fabric further into the ambient currents.

Additional requirements are those necessary based on the facility operation, location, a

specific engineering process helps address each system’s design individually.
Accomplishments of AFB 

• Design and construction of waterfront sheet pile 

discharge channels to facilitate isolation of intake 

• Extensive cartridge system testing (high head, un

cleaning, etc.)

• Development of the Intake Filter Pool design and 

to protect the NYC Waterfalls from entrainment

• Development of design changes to accommodate 

flows, requirement for minimal anchoring impact

footprint limits for

a new desalination plant on

a 

• Filtration fabric type proven safe for egg and larv

• Testing showing effectiveness of filter to exclude 

nuclear intakes, and waterfront design solution fo

at another location
Lovett Generating Station

MLES: 2004‐2008Experience over time with the Lovett

MLES as well as other AFB systems in a

variety of harsh marine environmentsallowed substantial technological

advances to take place. Developments

that took place 1995 – 2007 improved

performance and longevity andreduced costs:AirBurst Cleaning SystemLaser Perforated Fabric

Modern Industrial Fabrics

Robust PLC Network System

Diagnostics and AutomationTargeted Overtopping Control

Anchoring System

Exclusion rates 2005‐2007

91%, 89%, 95%

0

200400600800

10001200

0.00%

20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%

100.00%

27‐May 21‐Jun 16‐Jul 10‐Aug

Lovett Ichthyoplankton Sampling – 2007

% Exclusion Per Sampling Event Average Egg and Larval Densities (per 1000 m3)
Taunton Desalination

Plant MLES: 2008‐Present

2008 Performance

May 86 %

June 68 %

July 82 %

August 100 %

SEASON 83 %

16,667 gpm intake and 21,000 gpm brinedischargeBased on initial preliminary design concept

in 2002Notified to final design, fabricate and deliver

in 2007Initial operations in 2008, now in 3rd year of

operationLate notification and late installation for2008 and 2009 so spawning fish already inriver systemResults not quantified by total exclusion but

reported to be in excess of 80%2010 later deployment and full biologicalmonitoring will provide best data set

Successful development and implementation

of the ichthyoplankton exclusion system

required numerous innovative solutions that

have direct and indirect applicability to other

sites and systems:Low‐Impact Anchoring

Bi‐directional Flow, High‐Discharge SystemsShore‐Mounted Air Supply System
New York City Waterfalls

IFP Systems; 200842,000 gpm total intake flow through

floating Intake Filter Pools (IFP’s)

Designed specifically for unique

application where bottom seal system

not feasible4 IFP’s in East River and NY Harbor

with >9 fps current bi‐directional flow,

waves and significant boat wakes

Utilized 0.425 mm WOVEN fabric (G‐Weave)No AirBurstTM cleaning; with GWeave

fabric in the composite, flow rates are

higher and the fabric does not retainsediment particles

Monitoring integrity of filter fabric

only by weekly inspection program, no

biological sampling
Nuclear Power Plant,

Coastal France

2,536,000 gpm through two intakes,

1000 ft offshore

Primary target for exclusion is vegetal

debris but system will also excludelarger fish larvae and juveniles

Gunderboom MLES as an adaptabletechnologyDetermined initial feasibility and nowengaged in design level for final

decision‐makingIncludes physical modeling ofcandidate fabrics for exclusion

effectiveness, clogging, head loss

Includes CFD modeling for “bull nose”

sheet pile end walls to blunt and train

water currentsPresent phase to be completed this

summer
LIFE CYCLE AND O&M

Proven Durability and Performance
AFB Systems; 10 Years Op

• Settling Ponds• Roadside Drainage (Alaskan Enviro
AFB Systems; 7 Years Ope

– All Have Weathered Winter Ice:

• Wachusett Reservoir RPS

• Mamaroneck Beach BPS

– Tidal Dynamics

• Kensico Drinking Water Reservoir 

– Stormwater Flows
High‐Flow AFB Applica

• Multi‐Year Ongoing Operations

– Monitoring– Inspections– Maintenance– Component Replacement

– Withstand Environmental Stressors 

Continuous Operational Demand
O&M: Lovett Generating 

• Real‐time monitoring with automati

response to changing conditions

• Trend monitoring (remote capability

• Periodic dive inspections

• Approximate 3‐year replacement cy

filtering non‐woven geotextile

• Air system expected life 30 years

• Control system component replacem

estimated at 5‐10 years.
O&M: Taunton Desalinati

• General daily observations• Periodic dive inspections• Approximate 5‐year replacement 

filter panels

• Approximate 10‐year replacemen

“skeleton”

• AirBurst and control system estim

years
O&M: Fixed Panel & Cartridg

• General daily observations

• Trend monitoring (remote)• Periodic dive inspections• Replacement panels, estimated 2 

cycle

• All other components, 30‐year est

cycle
AFB SYSTEM COSTS

Capital Investment and O&M Costs
Site‐Specific Costin

• Estimated costing info is very general and includes ma

cannot be used to estimate the cost at any particular s

Gunderboom evaluation

• Variables include:

– Site data acquisition requirements

– Number of designs evaluated as desired by the end use

– Type of air supply and control system equipment used

– Type of anchoring used– Nature of the site’s environment

– Seasonal vs. year‐round deployment

– Installation variables: difficulty of water body, difficulty 

anchoring, seasonal considerations, facility timing consi

non‐union labor, partial acquisition of components from 

installation by other contractors, etc.

– Operational variables: site environmental conditions, au

remote operation by Gunderboom, level of pro‐active m

facility demand
Capital Cost: Anchored, Floa

General Estimated Ballpark Cost ($

Flow (gpm) Low High 

10,000 545 980 

104,000 1960 2725 

347,000 6212 8500 

20,000; with special features like

bidirectional flow, etc. 1300 2500 

400,000; with known design

parameters

1600 5000 

Cartridge – Smaller System

(approx. 600‐1,200 gpm) 300 450 

Cartridge – Larger System

(approx. 22,000‐26,000 gpm) 800 1600 
Annual O&M: Anchored, F

MLES

General Estimated Ballpark Cost ($

Flow (gpm) Low High 

10,000 109 327 

104,000 164 327 

347,000 545 762 

20,000; with special features like

bidirectional flow, etc. 200 537 

400,000; with known design

parameters

700 1000 

Cartridge – Smaller System

(approx. 600‐1,200 gpm) 15 60 

Cartridge – Larger System

(approx. 22,000‐26,000 gpm) 75 150