TAR_24_-_SAFETY_TESTING_FINAL_REPORT_-_Feb2011_SafetyTesting.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

TAR 24 - SAFETY TESTING

FINAL REPORT

MAY 10, 2011

Prepared For:

Chicago District 111 North Canal Street Chicago, IL 60606-7206

Prepared By:

Black & Veatch 6601 College Blvd

Overland Park, KS 66211

Table of Contents

1.0 ................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Introduction

2.0 .................................................................................................................... 2-4 Executive Summary

3.0 .......................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Process

3.1 ...................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Method

3.2 ........................................................................................................................... 3-8 Measurements

3.3 ................................................................................................................................. 3-9 Validation

4.0 .................................................................................................................... 4-10 Model Verification

4.1 ........................................................................................... 4-10 Comparison to Measured Values

4.1.1 ........................................................................... 4-10 Evaluation of Point Data versus CDEGS

4.1.2 ...................................................................................... 4-11 Seasonal and Operational Trends

4.2 ........................................................................ 4-13 Ground Potentials and Water Field Mapping

4.2.1 ............................................................................................. 4-15 Location of Run Comparison

4.2.2 ............................................................................................................... 4-17 Data Comparison

4.3 .............................................................................. 4-18 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials

4.3.1 ............................. 4-18 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials for Operating Scenario “B”

4.3.2 ............................. 4-19 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials for Operating Scenario “D”

4.3.3 ......................................................................................................................... 4-20 Conclusion

5.0 ........................................................................................................................ 5-21 Electrical Utility

5.1 ................................................................................................................................. 5-21 Overview

5.2 .............................................................................................................................. 5-21 Discussion

5.3 ........................................................................................................................................ 5-23 Data

5.4 .............................................................................................................................. 5-24 Conclusion

6.0 ............................................................................................................................ 6-25 Parasitic Mats

6.1 ................................................................................................................................. 6-25 Overview

6.2 ........................................................................................ 6-25 Effects on Earth Surface Potentials

6.2.1 ....................................................................................................................... 6-27 Data/Results

6.2.2 ............................................................................................................................. 6-30 Analysis

6.3 ..................................................................................................................... 6-31 Parasitic Cables

6.3.1 ................................................................................................................................... 6-34 Data

6.3.2 ......................................................................................................................... 6-35 Conclusion

7.0 .............................................................................................................. 7-1 Soil Potential Gradients

7.1 ................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Overview

7.2 ................................................................................. 7-1 Effects of Barrier Operating Parameters

7.2.1 .................................................................................................................................. 7-2 Point 7

7.3 ............................................................................................................ 7-4 Effects of Barge Traffic

7.3.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 7-5 Data

7.4 ............................................................................................................... 7-6 Worst Case Scenarios

7.4.1 ...................................................................................................................... 7-6 Spigot pt. 429:

7.4.2 ............................................................................................................... 7-7 Light Pole pt. 421:

7.4.3 ....................................................................................................... 7-7 Step, Touch, and Reach

7.5 .................................................................................................................. 7-8 Eight Volt Potential

7.6 .............................................................................................................................. 7-8 Conclusions

8.0 .................................................................................................................................. 8-9 Conclusions

8.1 ................................................................................................................ 8-9 General Conclusions

8.2 .......................................................................................................................... 8-9 Voltage Spikes

8.3 ............................................................................................................... 8-12 Other Abnormalities

9.0 ................................................................................................................................. 9-13 Appendices

9.1 ............................................. 9-14 APPENDIX A - February 2011 Safety Testing – Site Overview

9.2 .............................................. 9-15 APPENDIX B - Locations with Readings of 8 Volts or Higher

9.3 ................................................................................ 9-16 APPENDIX C - Measurement Database

9.4 ............................................ 9-17 APPENDIX D – Stray Currents Permanent Barrier Addendum

9.5 .............................................................................................. 9-18 APPENDIX E – Electric Fields

9.5.1 ..................................................................................... 9-18 Electric Fields and Step Readings

9.5.2 ............................................................. 9-21 Numerical Example of Utility and Electric Fields

9.6 ............................... 9-28 Appendix F – Ground Potentials Versus Water Electric Field Mapping

1.0 Introduction

The Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for operation of an electrical fish barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (canal) located in Romeoville, Illinois. The purpose of this fish barrier is to prevent the migration of Asian carp through the canal to Lake Michigan. The fish barrier installation consists of three units, a Demonstration Barrier, Barrier IIA, and a recently constructed

Barrier IIB.

A collaborative study was performed by the USACE, US Coast Guard, CERL, and Black & Veatch (B&V) to determine the impacts of the new Barrier IIB operation on the canal and earth surface potential (voltage) gradients. B&V’s scope was to collect and gather information on the earth surface potential gradients in the areas surrounding the

Demonstration, IIA, and IIB fish barriers. This information was used to confirm the modeling provided on September 21, 2010 in the Currents Investigation Final Report, establish the extent and influence of ground current with the multiple barrier operating scenarios, effects of barge traffic in the canal on earth surface potentials, evaluate the changes in earth potential readings due to changes in parasitic configurations, determine how the potential gradients are impacting the utility grid, and concerns for safety with the added operation of fish Barrier IIB.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 1

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 2

2.0 Executive Summary

Prior testing and modeling indicated the need for more evaluation of the site earth surface potentials when Barrier IIB is brought on line. Areas of concern include the impact of running both Barrier IIA and Barrier IIB simultaneously, of changing the various barrier operating parameters, and of barge traffic on the surface potentials.

Testing was previously completed in September 2010 with only the operation of the

Demonstration and IIA barriers. The Currents Investigation Report dated September 21, 2010 (September 2010 Report) concluded that there were some hazards and concerns that needed to be addressed due to the operation of Fish Barrier IIA.

With the addition of Barrier IIB, the testing and evaluation needed to be re-visited. The safety testing performed in February 2011 included many of the same processes used in the previous field testing as documented in the September Report. The

February 2011 field testing included investigation of additional areas to determine the influence of Barrier IIB.

This report includes an overview of how the data was gathered, verification of various model parameters from the September 2010 Report, effects on the electrical utility, use of the parasitic mats, and changes in the ground currents.

The February 2011 testing indicates there is not a strong influence from the fish barriers on the utility grounding network. Measurements were taken as far as a mile away on various utility infrastructures. Findings showed that the both fish barriers’ influence on the utility distribution system grounding is isolated to the local vicinity of the fish barrier. The findings do support the premise that the utility grounding network is connecting areas of higher ground potential with areas of lower ground potential.

The parasitic mat testing indicated that there is not a single parasitic mat operating scenario that resulted in the lowest touch or step voltages at all monitoring points. The currents measured in the parasitic cables are within the cable ratings. There are touch potential hazards in the parasitic junction boxes between the bus bars and the enclosure.

It is important that the proper precautions be taken to protect personnel. The enclosures should be locked to prevent unintended access, signage should be added to warn of the hazard, and proper PPE should be required for those performing maintenance within the

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 3 enclosures.

Barges manipulated the electric field in the water in such a way that the ground currents surrounding the canal decreased creating lower earth surface potential gradients.

While this was not the case for every comparison point, the majority had this trend.

Comparison of testing points showed a slight decrease in step and touch potentials when barge traffic was in the canal.

As expected with Barrier II A operating simultaneously with Barrier IIB, ground currents in the vicinity of the barriers are increased creating larger voltage potentials.

The effects of the additional barrier dissipate as the distance from the canal increases creating a DC influence area very similar to the one listed in September 2010 Report.

Some local values near the barrier show an increase of up to 20 percent when both barriers are operational, while others do not show a measurable increase when both barriers are operational. There are some points that show an increase of 100% with both barriers operational. Further testing is recommended to determine the cause of these spikes in order to prevent their occurrence. Electrical safety precautions currently in practice are effective in reducing electrical shock risk. Periodic spikes in touch and step potentials were observed at several locations.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 4

3.0 Process

3.1 Method

Black & Veatch (B&V) collected data February 1st through 12th, 2011 at the fish barrier to analyze the earth potential gradients created by the operation of the three fish barriers. Part of the data collection process required B&V to take data readings at

Midwest Generation, CITGO, and other local commercial properties to allow for comprehensive evaluation of voltage gradients. B&V used many tools such as generators, testing clamps, digital multi-meters, and geographic information system equipment. Test points were established on both sides of the canal to the north and south of the barrier. Each point was evaluated daily and was used to record multiple voltage readings. Immediate testing was done periodically through out the day. See Figure 1 below for a typical test location.

Figure 1: Typical Test Location

(Courtesy of USACE)

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 5

There were over 40 different test points that were monitored through out the testing period. All points monitored can be found on a map located in Appendix A. As detailed in Figure 1, most points have a series of three metal rods driven into the soil in a right triangle orientation near a grounded conductive structure of interest. The rods are spaced three feet apart and are located three feet away from the structure. In addition to spot readings, some of the more critical test locations were set up with monitoring equipment to record voltage values continuously throughout the day. See Figure 2:

Typical Continuous Monitoring for a typical test set up for a continuous measurement.

Figure 2: Typical Continuous Monitoring

Other readings taken on site included data taken at the parasitic junction boxes, see Figure 3 for a Typical Parasitic Junction Box. The junction boxes contain the parasitic cables connecting three parasitic mats. Voltage readings were taken between local earth and the busbar where these cables terminated. These voltage readings represent the voltage levels one would be exposed to if one reached and touched the busbar.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 6

Figure 3: Typical Parasitic Junction Box

3.2 Measurements

Recorded data included measured step, touch, and reach voltages (where applicable). These scenarios are listed and measured in accordance to IEEE 80 to represent the situations in which a human could come in contact with ground currents at the fish barrier. Step readings symbolize someone walking in the area and the voltage they would be exposed to between their feet. This is measured between two of the ground rods (either parallel or perpendicular to the canal). Touch readings are the other common situation found on site. These readings represent a human standing and touching something else that is grounded such as a fence or hand rail. In Figure 1, this would be represented by the fence in the background. These measurements are taken between the ground rod and the grounded structure three feet away. Each reading taken was recorded with a time, location, orientation, and value. Voltage measurements included root-mean-square, peak-to-peak, and direct current values for each scenario.

An additional measurement, RMS current, was taken at each of the cables in the parasitic junction boxes. These values were gathered using a Fluke Model 376 clamp-on ammeter at the parasitic junction boxes to determine information about the parasitic mats.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 7

3.3 Validation

Copper – copper sulfate reference electrodes and Fluke Scopemeters with certificates of calibration were used to authenticate the values being recorded for the spot measurements and trend plots. These measurements were very similar to those obtained with the ground rods and testing multi-meters. Deviations between the two were negligible.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 8

4.0 Model Verification

4.1 Comparison to Measured Values

The process of collecting field data, evaluating and studying the data, and the subsequent modeling process to gain further understanding of the site electrical issues began in February 2010 and have continued through April of 2011. The field testing periods of record include February 2010, April 2010, May 2010, July 2010 and February

2011. Barrier IIA and the Demonstration Barrier were operating during the 2010 testing periods and Barrier IIA, Barrier IIB and the Demonstration Barrier were operating during the 2011 testing period. A series of common test points was selected to illustrate the change in data collected at these times. Table 1 documents the selected points and shows the recorded data for each testing period.

The CDEGS modeling program was used to model Fish Barrier IIA, IIB, and the

Permanent Barrier. The modeling results for Barriers IIA and IIB are documented in the

September 2010 report. The modeling results for the Permanent Barrier are included in

Appendix D. The results from each of these models for the selected points are included in Table 1.

4.1.1 Evaluation of Point Data versus CDEGS

Points 3, 112, and 171 appear to be the only points that have a consistent field record and modeling record, and have also remained in similar field condition (they have not been altered to mitigate the electrical issues) throughout the testing periods. These three points represent the best opportunity to identify trends throughout the full testing period.

The results from the field testing of Barrier IIA were used to calibrate the CDEGS model for Barrier IIA. All of the points included in Table 1 show that generally the

CDEGS model of Barrier IIA is calibrated to the actual field data. The CDEGS model results for the simultaneous operation of Barrier IIA and IIB suggests that touch potentials will increase uniformly by 10 to 20 percent and that locally some points may increase by 100%. Points 3, 112, and 171 reflect the latter trend.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 9

The actual field measurements for points 3, 112, and 171 show that the CDEGS model generally over estimates the electrical potentials that are present when both

Barriers are operational. There are many reasons that might explain why the CDEGS model overestimates the actual electrical potentials. The primary reason is that the

CDEGS model reflects the site prior to all the mitigation measures that have been implemented to manage the electrical issues. The February 2011 field data suggests that these field measures have been very effective in reducing the overall electrical potentials.

The CDEGS model is not flexible enough to capture these mitigations. Another primary reason is that the soil resistivity is considered homogenous in the CDEGS model while the field data clearly shows that the soil resistivity varies in all directions. The CDEGS model can not adequately capture the complexity of the onsite soil conditions due to limitations of the processing power of the computer. Some of the secondary reasons that might explain why the CDEGS model predicts different electrical potentials than those recorded in February 2011 is that the model is not complex enough to recognize the change in seasons (moisture condition of the soil) and the subsequent change in water conductivity.

4.1.2 Seasonal and Operational Trends

The data from all testing periods was evaluated to determine if there are noticeable trends that can be identified to characterize the changes in electric potentials over time. Seasonal trends are difficult to predict from the data collected throughout the testing period as reflected in Table 1. The predominant reason these trends are difficult to predict is due to the site mitigation that has occurred to address the electric potential issue.

Many of the points that reflect changes in electric potential over time are due to the mitigation measures. Points 7, 20, 21, 24, 78, 130, 202, 302 and 305 show a lower electric potential in February 2011 than in prior testing periods. In fact, these points all show electric potentials below the 8 Vrms threshold. The reduction in electric potential at these points is a result of the mitigation measures that have been implemented.

Regardless of the mitigation measures, the change in water conductivity during the winter results in more energy loss into the surrounding earth as compared to the water

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 10 conductivity in the summer. However, in both situations electric potentials are still present and the magnitude of the potential that a human might come in contact with is more directly related to the difference in electrical field rather than magnitude in electrical field.

An additional trend or result that may occur if Barrier IIB is operated is reflected by the field data collected at point 361. Field data recorded at point 36 which is located near the Enbridge Pipeline that arches over the canal suggests that operation of Barrier

IIB will increase the electric potentials in the soil around the pipeline. This could increase the likelihood of a corrosion issue developing along the pipeline as a result of operation of Barrier IIB. Point 710 (not included in Table 1) which is the northern extent of the points tested along the east bank reflects a high electric potential as well. Reach potentials recorded at this point in February 2011 varied from 4 to 26 Vrms.

The Permanent Barrier CDEGS output suggests that the Permanent Barrier will have limited impact on the areas local to Barriers IIA and IIB with or without those barriers operating. The CDEGS model predicted that the electrical potentials may increase by 0 to 2 volts in the areas near Barriers IIA and IIB if all three barriers are operating simultaneously. Further the CDEGS model indicates that the Permanent

Barrier has negligible impact on the water surface gradients near Barriers IIA and IIB when all the barriers are operating simultaneously.

1 Though much of the signal recorded included interference from the cathodic protection on the pipeline, it did indicate an increase in potential when barrier IIB was running. Further analysis needed to fully determine the impact of the barrier system IIB’s impact on the pipeline.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 11

TABLE 1: Field Data and CDEGS Model Results for Selected Points

Date of Data Recording^ CDEGS Results Po in ts C om m on t o Re ce nt a nd

P ri or F ie ld

Te st in g

In di ca ti on o f w he th er P oi nt h as b ee n al te re d fr om t he in it ia l D at a Re co rd in g

Fe b

(t he se r ea di ng s ar e no t co ns id er ed a s re lia bl e as r ea di ng s ta ke n du ri ng t he s um m er d ue t o fr oz en g ro un d)

A pr ‐1

M ay ‐1

Ju l‐1

Fe b‐

2a 6.

5m s, H z (V rm s)

2.

m s, H z (V a nd b ‐ 6

.5 m s, H z (V a nd b 2.

m s, H z (V

Pe an en t B ar ri er N .5 m s, H z

(V an en t B ar ri er N a nd

W .5 m s, H z (V an en t B ar ri er N a nd

W .5 m s, H z (V an en t B ar ri er N a nd

W .0 m s, H z (V

1 no 3.8 2.16 0.618 2.46 1.91 1.97 3.37 2.89 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.16

3 no 0.9 0.2 0.64 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.24 0.11 0.12 0.29 0.37

7 no 7.9 2.8 3.2 1.57 0.52 2.83 2.98 3.82 3.44 1.23 1.81 2.11 1.79

9 no 1 0.32 5.98 0.28 0.29 0.35 0.32 0.95 1.29 2.39 2.41

20 no 17 29.8 55 5.42 25.29 44.6 47.61 57.13 0.79 0.87 1.36 0.93

21 no 13 6.33 19.7 3.19 5.46 7.27 9.21 9.39 0.35 0.38 0.66 0.57

24 no 4.8 4.67 1.04

32 yes 0.23 2.31 5.7

36 yes 0.3 0.37 3.94

46 no 1.8 14

78 no 0.345 64.5 2.12

91 no 1.08 7.5

112 no 0.5 2.6 0.45 1.52 4.56 4.61 0.41 0.46 0.69 0.53

123 yes 0.143 1.1

130 no 4.9 2.3

168 yes 27.4

171 no 3.67 3.95 3.25 4.54 10.24 8.99 0.68 0.71 1.26 0.91

176 yes 0.7

190 yes 0.69

202 no 6 0 0.098 5.29 5.94 9.54 8.9 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

302 yes 2.8 1.3

305 yes 2.6 0.005

^The readings taken in 2010 were taken while Barrier IIA and the Demonstration Barrier were operational.

The barrier operational parameters are documented in Appendix C. The February 2011 readings were taken while Barrier IIA, Barrier IIB and the Demonstration Barrier were operating simultaneously. The operational parameters were documented for these readings.

4.2 Ground Potentials and Water Field Mapping

Additional testing was performed in the canal by other groups during the February

2011 testing period. This testing consisted of mapping voltages at the surface of the canal using a boat taking voltage potential measurements across the barrier influence area. Measured data was provided to B&V for comparison to the recorded ground

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 12 potential data taken at the same time.

Water field mapping data consisted of 38 individual runs through the canal gathering different pieces of information. Data recorded were peak voltages and calculated current values at different spacing and depths. Variables changed were barrier operating conditions (V/in, pulse width, Hz, etc.), parasitic configurations (on or off), and run locations (east, west, or center). For comparison purposes to ground potentials, these runs can be broken into seven different groups. Each group is unique by barrier operation settings and parasitic configuration. Within each group, the only variable changing is the location of the run. The rest of the variables, barrier operation and parasitic configuration, remained the same. Runs were broken down as follows:

o Group 1: Runs 1-7 on Feb 11 o Group 2: Runs 8-13 on Feb 11 o Group 3: Runs 14-19 on Feb 11 o Group 4: Runs 1-6 on Feb 12 o Group 5: Runs 7-12 on Feb 12 o Group 6: Runs 13-18 on Feb 12 o Group 7: Run 19 on Feb 12

V12 and V45 measurements were chosen for comparison from the mapping data.

The spacing and orientation is the closest comparison to what was recorded for ground potential readings during the same period of time. V12 is a parallel to canal measurement spaced at one foot on the surface of the water. V45 is the same reading taken five feet below the surface of the canal. Some of the V12 and V45 values were positive and others negative. Because polarity is relative when dealing with voltage potentials, only the absolute values (ABS) of the measurements were used. These values were charted with respect to the time during the run and shown for each group. The charts show the values of the maximum voltage readings in the canal for that particular group of variables.

The water field mapping data were compared to the step ground potential readings perpendicular to the canal. Further explanation of perpendicular step readings can be found in Appendix E. These values best represent surface measurements on the ground recorded during the same period of time.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 13

4.2.1 Location of Run Comparison

Preliminary analysis of the data showed that location in the canal did not affect the measurements. Max and min voltages were within a couple of volts of each other and changed by less than three percent. So to simplify the data comparison only the center runs from each group were compared. The three figures were charted only changing the location of the run. Barrier operation and parasitic configuration remained the same. An example of this comparison has been charted in Figures 4 to 6.

Figure 4: Center of Canal

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 14

Figure 5: East Wall of Canal

Figure 6: West Wall of Canal2

2 Chart is mirrored because the run started on the opposite side of the canal as the previous plots.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 15

4.2.2 Data Comparison

The information from the Water Field Mapping includes multiple sets of data to represent the electrical field in the water during a specific operating scenario. Each set of data is organized so that the first graph shown is an overview of the entire run with the latitude and longitude of the maximum recorded voltages indicated. The next series of graphs represent the electrical field map created by each barrier. The corresponding ground data recordings that were recorded during the period of time for each group are listed. This information is documented in Appendix F.

The Group 1 data represents operation of Barriers IIA and IIB with the parasitics turned off while Group 3 data represents the operation of Barriers IIA and IIB with the parasitics turn on. The comparison of the electric readings show that in some cases the ground potential readings are higher for Group 1 as compared to Group 2, while in other cases the opposite is true. If points are located near the canal and near the parasitics, then they tended to show higher readings when the parasitics are turned on. If points are located further away from the parasitics, then they tended to show higher readings when the parasitics were turned off since the electrical energy could spread further away from the canal.

The Group 2 data represents operation of Barriers IIA and IIB with parasitics 1 and 3 on, while the Group 5 data represents the same configuration with the Barrier IIA frequency changed to 15 hertz and the narrow array Volts per inch changed from 2.3 to

2.0. The evaluation of the group potentials recorded during both these time periods show that changing of the barrier frequency and target Volts per inch do not have a significant impact on the potential readings.

The Group 4 data represents operation of Barrier IIA only with parasitics 1 and 2 turned on. The majority of the ground potential readings are much lower without Barrier

IIB operating simultaneously with Barrier IIA. However, there are some anomalies such as Point 7. The parallel step RMS is higher for Group 4 than the value recorded for

Group 2. This further reinforces that points located near the canal and near the parasitics appear to be more sensitive to the parasitics operation than they do to the barrier electrical parameters. Though generally, the comparison of the data reinforces the conclusion that the ground potential readings do not respond uniformly to any operating

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 16 scenario.

4.3 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials

In water voltage gradient measurements were performed by CERL on February 7, 2011 with a barge located in the canal adjacent to the fish barrier and also on February

11th and 12th with no barges present. The water voltage gradient measurements were performed with the fish barrier operating in both scenario’s “B” and “D”. These measurements facilitated determining the effects of barge traffic on the water surface potentials.

4.3.1 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials for Operating Scenario “B”

Operating scenario “B” consists of the following parameters:

TABLE 2: Scenario B Parameters

Barrier 2A Narrow Barrier 2A Wide Barrier 2B Narrow Barrier 2B Wide

Hrtz v per in Ms Hrtz v per in ms Hrtz v per in ms Hrtz v per in ms

30 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5

Following is a comparison of water surface potentials for operating scenario “B”:

2A Wide 2A Narrow Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 0.88 0.71 2.48 2.30 Center 0.72 0.76 2.26 2.33 West Wall 0.83 0.73 2.60 2.27

2B Wide 2B Narrow Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 1.06 0.92 2.89 2.69 Center 0.96 0.93 2.88 2.68 West Wall 0.98 0.96 2.89 2.60

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 17

Demo Barrier Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 1.02 0.83 Center 0.86 0.81 West Wall 0.97 0.85

4.3.2 Barge Effect on Water Surface Potentials for Operating Scenario “D”

Operating scenario “D” consists of the following parameters:

TABLE3: Scenario D Parameters

Barrier 2A Narrow Barrier 2A Wide Barrier 2B Narrow Barrier 2B Wide

Hrtz v per in ms Hrtz v per in ms Hrtz v per in ms Hrtz v per in ms

30 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 OFF OFF

Following is a comparison of water surface potentials for operating scenario “B”:

2A Wide 2A Narrow Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 0.78 0.70 2.35 2.42 Center 0.74 0.67 2.29 2.23 West Wall 0.72 0.69 2.47 2.34

2B Wide 2B Narrow Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 0 0.03 0 0.03 Center 0 0.03 0 0.03 West Wall 0 0.03 0 0.03

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 18

Demo Barrier Measurement Location in Canal

Water Surface Potential with Barge Present volts / in

Water Surface Potential Without Barge volts / in

East Wall 1.00 0.84 Center 0.95 0.81 West Wall 0.95 0.85

4.3.3 Conclusion

A comparison of the water surface potentials with and without barges present indicates that in general, the water surface potentials are slightly greater when a barge is present. Thus barges do not appear to reduce the operating effectiveness of the barrier.

These changes are noticed on the surface and do not indicate effects on the electric field below the surface. There was a four to five day time difference during which the testing was performed. Changes in canal water conductivity and barrier current output may have occurred during this time interval and may account for some of the variations observed in the water surface potentials.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 19

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 20

5.0 Electrical Utility

5.1 Overview

Testing was performed to determine the extent of influence the barrier was having on surrounding electrical utility services. Structures tested included distribution pole grounding (ground rods and grounding conductors), transmission tower grounding, light poles, electric signs, etc.

5.2 Discussion

Electrical power is distributed to local utility customers using a three wire system supported on wooden distribution poles. Typical utility distribution poles have a ground conductor routed down it which is assumed to terminate on a ground rod. The pole grounding systems are interconnected with a ground wire supported on the poles and routed below the phase conductors. The pole grounding serves to ground distribution transformer neutrals and to provide a ground path for lightning surge arrestors. The distribution system has several poles located in the area of the fish barrier ground potential influence and many that are outside the fish barrier zone of influence.

The pole grounding systems will couple a portion of the local earth potentials to the distribution system grounding. This results in local circulating currents due to the pole grounds being at different earth surface potentials. There was also a concern that these voltages may get transferred a distance resulting in touch potential concerns away from the fish barrier.

Figure 7: Typical Influence on Utility Grid gives a few different scenarios where grounded power poles create local elevated potentials increasing the hazard for touch and step potentials. The green arcs flowing away from the canal represent the electric field in the soil created by the barrier. The red radiating circles show the elevated ground voltages around each pole. The blue lines on the figure are the utility connections made between each of the power poles and the service to the transformer at the fish barrier.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 21

Figure 7: Typical Influence on Utility Grid

From the figure, analysis of pole 1, 2, and 3 will all read different measurements for touch potentials. Pole 1 is remote from the soil electric field and only has the fish barrier signal coming in from the overhead utility ground connections. Pole 2 grounding system is in the electric field and is also influenced by the overhead ground line. Pole 3 is isolated from the electric field and is providing the service to the transformer. It is influenced by the grounding in the transformer and overhead lines. Both pole 1 and 3 are outside the electric field represented by the green arcs emitting from the barrier.

Additional information on electric fields is located in Appendix E.

Pole 1 may create a localized touch potential hazard because its grounding system may be carrying the voltage from multiple sources on its utility ground connection. The utility connection is carrying the signal being provided from the transformer grounding and stray currents created by the electric field at pole 2. The touch potential measured at pole 1 will be a sum between all the sources at the utility connection, electric field and grounding, and remote earth assumed to be at zero volts.

The same can be said about pole 2 and 3. Because of the utility connection between all three poles, voltages are carried to areas that can not be reached through the ground. This may create elevated voltages potentials through the grounding and earth.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 22

Additional information on electric fields can be found in Appendix E.

An example of voltage on the utility is the waveform recorded at point 711 in

Figure 8: Typical Waveform on Utility. This measurement was taken on a grounding cable for a service to a construction trailer.

Areas investigated were a museum, multiple light poles, CITGO properties, residential neighborhoods, BNSF propane tanks, and local restaurants. These point locations are documented in the measurement data base and listed on the site map.

Figure 8: Typical Waveform on Utility

Within the immediate area of the fish barrier it is possible to measure voltages on grounding and guy wires on utility equipment. During safety testing, attempts were made to trace out the influence of the fish barrier by taking measurements on utility grounding near and away from the barrier site.

5.3 Data

Table 4 represents the utility measurement data:

TABLE 4: Utility Measurement Data

MAP

POINT

Touch

RMS

Touch Pk‐Pk

Touch

DC

714 3.08 14.3 ‐1.15 713 1.49 10 ‐1 713 1.34 8.99 ‐1.43 708 1.08 3.78 ‐0.538

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 23

MAP

POINT

Touch

RMS

Touch Pk‐Pk

Touch

DC

707 0.757 2.42 ‐0.534 706 0.27 1.22 ‐0.51 705 0.6 3.6 ‐0.55 704 0.313 1.1 ‐0.89 703 0.44 2.14 ‐0.354 702 0.008 0.052 ‐0.047 701 0.21 0.11 0.1 700 0.106 0.35 ‐0.746 302 1.3 6.28 ‐0.77 305 .005 0 .001

5.4 Conclusion

Values measured did not indicate there is a strong influence from the fish barrier onto the utility grounding network. Measurements were taken as far as a mile on various utility infrastructures. The fish barrier signal was found on light poles and meter boxes as far as point 703. Most of these data points included significant portions of AC signal.

Analysis of this data indicated that the barrier influence is isolated to the local vicinity of the fish barrier. In this area, it is possible that a utility ground in a high electric field may allow for local circulating current to another pole that is grounded in a lower electric field.

Further analysis of information, all showed no indication for possible corrosion concern on the utility network. Measurements provided only represent the measurements recorded and do not include a full assessment of the entire utility network around the fish barriers. These values can only be used as indication of the how the utility may be influenced by voltage potentials and/or corrosion and not represent a full extent of their impacts.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 24

6.0 Parasitic Mats

6.1 Overview

Parasitic mats to contain the extent of the electric field in the canal were installed in December 2010. Previous conversations and research suggested that the cables connecting the mats could have up to several hundred amps of current flow. One part of the safety testing process required the documentation of bus-bar voltages and current flow. The second included testing to find how the use of the parasitic mats affects earth surface potentials. Shifting the flow of the fish barrier current from the soil, through the mats and connecting cables, could potentially increase and/or decrease touch and step potentials around the site.

6.2 Effects on Earth Surface Potentials

Parasitic mat testing was completed on February 11, 2011 and was done to determine how the different operating scenarios and use of parasitic mats would directly affect the earth surface potentials at the barrier. The parasitic testing was implemented in a manner to control all variables so that electrical contribution or changes in the electrical testing data could be attributed to a specific change in the parasitic configurations. Test stations were set up at point 7 between the barriers, point 9 north of the barriers, point 78 south of the barriers, and point 429 at 805 Old Romeo Rd. Each test station had a Fluke

Scopemeter continuously recording data. Trends recorded the maximum RMS voltage multiple times per second. Additionally, the meters were set up to catch any changes in the earth surface potentials at that location during the test. Point 78 and point 7 were step potentials perpendicular to the barrier. Point 429 was a touch reading to a water spigot, and point 9 was a touch potential to fence hardware. A map showing the locations of the test points is provided in Appendix A. IIA and IIB Barrier parameters were set at 2.3

V/in for the narrow array and 1.0 V/in for the wide array for the duration of the test.

Series switches were used to isolate or connect each of the parasitic mats. A schematic in

Figure 9: Parasitic Mat Diagram shows the location where the test was preformed and how the mats are connected.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 25

Figure 9: Parasitic Mat Diagram

The testing process consisted of changing the operation of the parasitics to each of five different scenarios while running the barrier continuously with no changes to its output. Employing all of the different scenarios that the mats could be operated at allowed for collection of data to determine the direct impact the parasitics have on local earth surface potentials. Each scenario was recorded at six minute intervals. At the completion of the interval the next scenario was run. See below for operation scenarios:

Scenario 1 – Parasitic 1, 2, and 3 all connected.

Scenario 2 – Parasitic 1 and 3 connected, Parasitic 2 isolated.

Scenario 3 – Parasitic 1 and 2 connected, Parasitic 3 isolated.

Scenario 4 – Parasitic 2 and 3 connected, Parasitic 1 isolated.

Scenario 5 – Parasitic 1, 2, and 3 all isolated.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 26

6.2.1 Data/Results

List of Results:

Point 9 – North of Barriers

Point 7 – Between Barriers

Point 78 – South of Barriers

Point 429 – 805 Old Romeo Rd.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 27

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 28

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 29

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 30

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 31

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 32

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 33

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 34

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 35

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 36

6.2.1.1 Point 429

The plot for point 429 shows the normal operation of the parasitics and barriers in the beginning under baseline3 (normal operation). The graph continues on to show the effects of switching between each of the scenarios. The last part of the graph shows the start of the safety testing with both Barriers IIA and IIB at 2.3 V/in and parasitic scenario two. For 429, the highest maximum reading was 16.6V measured at scenario four with parasitics two and three connected and one isolated. The minimum reading was taken during scenario three at 3.1V. The voltage for the first scenario was about 6.6V.

Switching to scenario two increased the voltage to 9.5V. Proceeding to scenario three lowered the voltage down to 4.1V. Scenario 4 increased the voltage up to 11V, and the fell to 8.4V.

6.2.1.2 Point 9

The plot for point 9 shows the normal operation of the parasitics and barriers in the beginning under baseline (normal operation). The next section of the plot shows the effects of switching to scenario one and the barrier operating at 2.3V/in. Under these conditions the voltage increased from baseline to 2.3V. Switching the parasitics to scenario two increased the voltage again to 3.4V. Scenario three increased a third time to

5.9V. Scenario four lowered the voltage down to 3.2V and scenario 5 increased the voltage reading to 5.7. The last section of the plot shows the voltage at the beginning of safety testing for the day, at scenario two and both barriers at 2.3V/in. The maximum voltage recorded during the test was 6.25V and the minimum voltage was 0.00V.

6.2.1.3 Point 7

The plot for point 7 shows the normal operation of the parasitics and barriers in the beginning under baseline (normal operation). Scenario one shows the start of the test and the voltage increasing from 1V in the baseline to 6.7V. During scenario two the voltage increased to 10.7V and again in scenario three to 15.5V. Scenario four dropped

3 Baseline was considered to be the operating parameters of the barrier when no testing was taking place and the canal was open to barge traffic. Baseline = 2A at 2.0V/in and 2B = 0V/in. Baseline = Parasitic 1 and 2 ON and parasitic 3 = OFF

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 37 to 7.4V and scenario five increased to 15.9V. The last section of the plot shows the voltage at the beginning of safety testing for the day, at scenario two and both barriers at

2.3V/in. The maximum voltage reading for the test was 15.9V and the minimum was

6.3V.

6.2.1.4 Point 78

The plot for point 78 shows the normal operation of the parasitics and barriers in the beginning under baseline (normal operation). The graph continues to show the effects of switching between each of the scenarios. The last part of the graph shows the start of the safety testing with both Barriers IIA and IIB at 2.3 V/in and parasitic scenario two. For 78, the highest maximum reading was 2.02V measured at scenario two. The minimum reading was taken during scenario five at 0.28V. The voltage for the first scenario was about 0.75V. Switching to scenario two increased the voltage to 1.2V.

Proceeding to scenario three lowered the voltage down to 0.75V. Scenario 4 increased the voltage up to 1.6V, and scenario five fell to 1.5V.

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 38

TABLE 5: Parasitic Overview

Parasitic Testing

1 2 3 4 5

Scenario

V o lt s

Pt. 429 Pt. 9 Pt. 78 Pt. 7

6.2.2 Analysis

A full list of ground currents data resulting from the parasitic testing can be found in Appendix C. A summary of the testing results is included in Table 3: Parasitic

Overview. The testing indicated that there is not a single parasitic mat operating scenario that resulted in the lowest touch or step voltages at all monitoring points. Point 9, north of the parasitics, had its highest readings during scenario three and five. During both of these scenarios, point 9 is in full exposure to the Barrier IIB with parasitic three isolated.

The lowest readings at point 9 were during scenario two and four with parasitic three

Black & Veatch TAR 24 - Safety Testing Final Report Page 39 connected. Point 78’s data showed similar effects in relation to its relative parasitics as point 9. Isolating parasitics one or two creates the highest voltages exposing point 78 to increased ground currents from IIA. Its lowest readings were during scenarios one and three, both having parasitics one and two connected. Point 7, sitting near parasitic two, had a similar trend as point 9. Both of its highest readings and lowest readings were detected during the same scenarios. With both barriers running identically and point 9 being centered between the two barriers, it was expected that point 9 would have a unique trend and change relative to parasitic two. The data shows instead that it is more affected by Barrier IIB than IIA and the isolation of parasitic three. Point 429 was unique and closely related to point 78. Point 78 was closest in proximity to 429 and both were influenced mostly by the adjusting of parasitics two and one. Running parasitics one and three proved to be one of the worst scenarios for point 429. The best was scenario three and worst was scenario four.

During scenario one, the lowest voltage readings…