ML12124A107

Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Section 3 and RTL#A9.630F, 2011 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Enclosure 3

ML12124A107
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	04/30/2012
From:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-12-085 RTL# A9.630F
Download: ML12124A107 (93)

Text

Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 3 -LAND USE CENSUS A. Land Use Census Overview:

A Land Use Census was conducted July 19 through September 16, 2011 to comply with:* Offsite Dose Calculation Manual procedure 1/2-ODC-3.03, "Controls for RETS and REMP Programs", Attachment R, Control 3.12.2, and Surveillance Requirement 4.12.2.1" BVPS REMP procedure 1/2-ENV-04.02, "Milch Animal Sampling Location Determination

& ODCM Procedure 1/2-ODC-3.03, Control 3.12.2 Action Statements a and b Compliance Determination" The Land Use census indicated that no changes were required in the current sampling locations, and no changes were required to the methodology used for determination of offsite dose from plant releases.

A numerical summary of the Land Use Census results are provided in Table 3-1. The following information is also provided to clarify the Land Use Census as documented in letter NPD3NRE:0796, dated September 27, 2011: B. Nearest Residence:

The location has not changed since the previous census. The location remains at the Terwilliger Residence, 211 Ferry Hill Road, Shippingport, PA (0.406 miles, NE).C. Nearest Garden >500 sQft: The location has not changed since the previous census. The location remains at the Knisley Residence, 175 Kerona Road, Shippingport, PA (0.7 miles, NE). However, this garden has not joined our sampling program because it does not contain leafy vegetables most appropriate for sampling (i.e. cabbage or lettuce) this year. The previous sampling location at the Cox Residence, 238 State Route 168, Hookstown, PA (0.760 miles, in the SSW Sector) was available for sampling cabbage this year and remains the nearest garden meeting all the requirements ofNUREG-1301.

D. Nearest Dairy Cow: The location has not changed since the previous census. The location remains at the Searight Dairy, 948 McCleary Road, RD 1, Hookstown, PA (2.097 miles, SSW).E. Nearest Doe Goat: The location has changed since the previous census. The location is once again the Collins Farm, 289 Calhoun Road, Aliquippa, PA (3.547 miles SE).However, goat milk samples were not available from this location, nor from any other location within the 5 mile radius this year (documented in CR #2011-02332).

F. Projection for 2012 Dairy Cow Sampling Locations:

Using a linear regression analysis of deposition parameters (D/Q), Dairy Cow sampling locations were determined to remain at the same locations used in 2011:-Searight Dairy, 948 McCleary Road, RD1, Hookstown, PA (2.097 miles SSW)3-1 I Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 3 -LAND USE CENSUS-Halstead Dairy, 104 Tellish Drive, Hookstown, PA (5.079 miles SSW) I-Brunton Dairy, 3681 Ridge Road, Aliquippa, PA (6.158 miles SE)-Windsheimer Dairy, RD 1 Burgettstown, PA (10.476 miles SSW)G. Projection for 2012 Doe Goat Sampling Locations:

The linear regression analysis also indicated that there may be a Doe Goat sampling location in 2012. The Doe Goat sampling location for 2012 may be as follows if Goat Milk becomes available from this site:-Collins Farm, 289 Calhoun Road, Aliquippa, PA (3.547 miles SE)H. D/O for Milch Animal Locations:

None of the 2011 milch animal sampling locations experienced a >20% increase in D/Q. Therefore, a Special Report per ODCM procedure 1/2-ODC-3.03, Attachment R, Control 3.12.2 Action "a" and/or Action "b" was not required.

3 i. D/O for Offsite Dose Determination:

There was no adverse effect on the current ODCM methodology used for offsite dose determination from effluent releases.Specifically, a linear regression analysis of D/Q did not yield any valid locations where the offsite dose could have increased

>20% more than the offsite dose previously calculated using current ODCM methodology.

Therefore, a Special Report per ODCM procedure 1/2-ODC-3.03, Attachment R, Control 3.12.2 Action "a" and/or Action "b" was not required.J. D/O Historical Comparison:

There was no adverse trend in D/Q when comparing I historical data to the ODCM default D/Q values. This validates that there was no adverse effect on the current ODCM methodology used for offsite dose determination from effluent releases.

Specifically, the analysis of D/Q did not yield any valid locations I where the offsite dose could have increased

>20% more than the offsite dose previously calculated using current ODCM methodology.

Therefore, a change in ODCM Receptor location and/or a change to meteorology at the current ODCM Receptor location are not I required.Special Note: The Knisley Residence, 175 Kerona Road, Shippingport, PA (0.7 I miles, NE) trends approximately 20% higher (119.5%) than the historic ODCM values. However, the calculations utilized for Offsite Dose Determination advises that there is no adverse effect from this receptor location.

Furthermore, this receptor does not meet the assumption of NUREG- 1301 that 20% of the garden was used for growing broad leaf vegetation (i.e., similar to lettuce and cabbage) in order to provide assurance of significant exposure through Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology.

In conclusion, until the Knisley Garden begins to grow broadleaf vegetation as defined by NUREG- 1301, this receptor may continue to be trended but not utilized for ODCM Receptor location changes.3-2 I I Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 3 -LAND USE CENSUS K. Discrepancies or Conditions of Note: Condition Report # 2011-02332 documented that the Doe Goat location identified at the Collins Farm at 289 Calhoun Road, Aliquippa, PA (3.547 miles SE) has not been able to provide enough milk to participate in the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) sampling program for 2011. It is unknown as to whether or not it will be able to in the future.In 2010, the same occurrence happened at the Ferry Farm, 227 Calhoun Road, Aliquippa, PA (3.320 miles SE) and was documented in CR #10-82742.

These two sample locations may need to be dropped from the REMP. However, 1/2-ODC-2.03 Step 8.4.1.3 requires that the NRC be notified in writing when samples are no longer obtainable from a milk sample location before they are dropped from the REMP surveillance program. Therefore, the BVPS REMP continued to monitor these two goat locations throughout the season, but may discontinue monitoring once this 2011 annual report has been submitted to the NRC.The unavailability of goat milk at these two locations were causing the REMP to not meet the ODCM sample requirements in 1/2-ODC-2.03 and in 1/2-ODC-3.03, Attachment Q Table 3.12-1 stating that a minimum of four (4) milk locations shall be sampled. There are no other milk animal locations available to add to the REMP, as all milk animal sites located within the 5 mile radius of BVPS are currently participating in the sampling program.While efforts will continue each season to search for new dairy locations, BVPS found it more prudent to change the ODCM requirements to allow for an increase in vegetation sampling as an alternative to the condition of declining milk sample locations.

3-3 Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SECTION 3 -LAND USE CENSUS RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 Table 3-1 Location of Nearest Residences, Gardens, SECTOR RESIDENCES 0 to 5 miles (miles)N 1.584 NNE 1.661 NE 0.406 b ENE 0.603 E 0.429 ESE 0.850 SE 1.583 SSE 1.102 S 1.399 SSW 0.760 SW 1.453 WSW 1.394 W 2.204 WNW 2.742 NW 0.885 NNW 0.902 GARDENS 0 to 5 miles (miles)1.584 3.1 0.7 b 1.047 2.0 1.713 1.5 3.1 2.354 0.760 1.453 2.5 None 2.8 1.033 2.4 Dairy Cows and Doe Goats DAIRY COWS DOE GOATS 0 to 5 miles 0 to 5 miles (miles) (miles)None None None None None None None None None 3.402 None None None a 3.547b None None 3.851 None 2.097 b None None None None None None None None None None None 2.442 None a Although there are no Dairy Cows within 5 miles in this sector, a large local dairy located at 6.158 miles is included in the milk sampling program.b Distances shown in Bold print are the nearest location for that receptor.3-4 Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM A. Split Sample Pro2ram (Inter-Laboratory Comparison, Part 1 of 2): BVPS participates in a split sample program with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)in support of their nuclear power plant monitoring program." BVPS provided split samples to PADEP throughout the report period. The shared media and number of locations were typically comprised of; milk (1), surface water (3), sediment (1), fish (1), and food crops (2).* PADEP has co-located continuous air particulate

& air iodine sample stations with four (4) of the BVPS locations.

• PADEP has co-located TLDs with twenty-four (24) of the BVPS TLDs.B. Spike Sample Program (Inter-Laboratory Comparison, Part 2 of 2): BVPS participates in a spike sample program with an Independent Laboratory.

This program is used to independently verify sample analyses performed by the BVPS Contractor Laboratory.

Acceptance Criteria:

The NRC criteria listed in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750, 03/15/94, Inspection Guidance 84750-03 is used as acceptance criteria for comparisons of results of spiked samples between the Contractor Lab and the Independent Lab. These comparisons are performed by dividing the comparison standard (Independent Lab result)by its associated uncertainty to obtain the resolution.

The comparison standard value is multiplied by the ratio values obtained from the following table to find the acceptance band for the result to be compared.

However, in such cases where the counting precision of the standard yields a resolution of less than 4, a valid comparison is not practical, and therefore, not performed.

NRC Criteria Resolution Ratio<4 --4-7 0.50 -2.00 8-15 0.60- 1.66 16-50 0.75 -1.33 51 -200 0.80- 1.25> 200 0.85-1.18 4-1 Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E i 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE I INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM I Participation in an Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program is required by BVPS Unit 1 and 2 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual procedure 1/2-ODC-3.03 Attachment S Control 3.12.3. For the report period, the requirement was met by the Contractor Lab analyzing NIST traceable 3 spiked samples supplied by an Independent Lab.During the report period, BVPS used (Environmental, Inc., Midwest Laboratory

-Northbrook, IL) as the Contractor Laboratory, and (Analytics

-Atlanta, GA) as the i Independent Laboratory.

The spiked samples included air particulate filter papers, charcoal cartridges, water samples, I and milk samples. The samples were submitted by the Independent Laboratory to the Contractor Laboratory for analysis.

The "spiked to" values were used for calculating comparison Acceptance Criteria.Spiked Milk & Water Samples: The spiked sample results (i.e.; the BVPS criteria) for each calendar quarter are reported in Table 4-1 through Table 4-4, respectively.

The following summary is provided:-A total of forty-six (46) gamma spectrometry radionuclide analyses were performed I by the Contractor Laboratory on four (4) milk samples.-A total of forty-six (46) gamma spectrometry radionuclide analyses were performed i by the Contractor Laboratory on four (4) water samples.-A total of four (4) chemical analyses for 1-131 were performed by the Contractor 3 Laboratory on four (4) milk samples.-A total of four (4) chemical analyses for 1-131 analyses were performed by the Contractor Laboratory on four (4) water samples. i-A total of four (4) tritium analyses were performed by the Contractor Laboratory on four (4) water samples.-Comparison of results of the spiked milk and water samples showed acceptable agreement with the NRC acceptance criteria.

All one-hundred-four (104) analyses met the NRC acceptance criteria.I I i I 4-2 Beaver Valley Power Station RTL A9.690E 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Spiked Filter Paper and Charcoal Cartridge Samples: The spiked sample results for each calendar quarter are also reported in Table 4-1 through Table 4-4, respectively.

The following summary is provided:-Gross Beta (Cesium-137) analyses were performed by the Contractor Laboratory on two (2) filter paper samples.-Iodine- 131 analyses were performed by the Contractor Laboratory on two (2)charcoal cartridge samples.-Comparison of results of the spiked filter paper and charcoal cartridge samples showed acceptable agreement with the NRC acceptance criteria.

All four (4)analyses performed by the Contractor Laboratory met the NRC acceptance criteria.C. Conclusions

• Results of Split Sample Program: The split sample program is coordinated by the state, and the results are not provided with this report.* Results of Spike Sample Program: Based on the Inter-Laboratory comparison data, BVPS considers all analyses provided throughout the report period by the Contractor Laboratory to be acceptable with respect to both accuracy and measurement.

A comparison of the data is provided in the following tables. All analyses for the 2011 report period were within the NRC Acceptance Criteria.4-3 I Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Table 4-1 Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program Spiked Samples -ist Quarter Sample Date, Type and Resolution Resolution Required Ratio Env Inc: Comparison Identification No. Ratio Band Analytics Comparison Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.98 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80 -1.25 0.82 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.96 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.98 AGREEMENT 03117111 Ce-141 60 0.80 -1.25 not present n/a Cr-51 60 0.80 -1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Water Cs-134 60 0.80-1.25 0.95 AGREEMENT Ind Lab: E7472-93 Cs-137 60 0.80- 1.25 1.07 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-1 134 Co-58 60 0.80 -1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80- 1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1.08 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80-1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80-1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT 03117111 Water Ind. Lab: E7471-93 H-3 60 0.80- 1.25 1.06 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-1133 Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.93 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.90 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.95 AGREEMENT 03117/11 Ce-141 60 0.80-1.25 not present n/a Milk Cr-51 60 0.80- 1.25 1.04 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E7473-93 Cs-134 60 0.80- 1.25 0.91 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPMI-1 135 Cs-137 60 0.80 -1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Co-58 60 0.80-1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1.07 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT 03117/11 Filter Paper Cs-I 37 60 0.80- 1.25 1.17 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E7474-93 (Gross Beta)Con. Lab: SPAP-1136 03117111 Charcoal Cartridge Cnd. Lab: ridge 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.93 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E7475-931 Con. Lab: SPCH-1 137 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-4 I Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Table 4-2 Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program Spiked Samples -2"d Quarter Sample Date, Type and Resolution Resolution Ratio Env nc Comparison Identification No. Ratio Band Analytics Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.93 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.91 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80-1.25 0.94 AGREEMENT 06116/11 Ce-141 60 0.80-1.25 0.98 AGREEMENT Cr-51 60 0.80- 1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Water Cs-134 60 0.80- 1.25 0.94 AGREEMENT Ind Lab: E7857-93 Cs-137 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-3817 Co-58 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80 -1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80 -1.25 1.08 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80-1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT 06116111 Water H-3 60 0.80- 1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E7856-93 Con. Lab: SPW-3816 Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.90 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 0.85 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.93 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT 06/16/11 Ce-141 60 0.80- 1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Milk Cr-51 60 0.80 -1.25 1.06 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E7858-93 Cs-134 60 0.80-1.25 0.93 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPMI-3818 Cs-137 60 0.80- 1.25 1.07 AGREEMENT Co-58 60 0.80-1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80-1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1.08 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80-1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 1,01 AGREEMENT 4-5 Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Table 4-3 Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program Spiked Samples -3rId Quarter Sample Date, Type and Resolution Resolution Required Ratio Env Ic: Comparison Identification No. Ratio Band Analytics Sr-89 60 0.80 -1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 0.83 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80-1.25 0,87 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80-1.25 0.96 AGREEMENT 09115111 Ce-141 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Cr-51 60 0.80-1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Water Cs-134 60 0.80- 1.25 0.94 AGREEMENT Ind Lab: E8114-93 Cs-137 60 0.80-1.25 1.04 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-6247 Co-58 60 0.80- 1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80- 1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80-1.25 1.10 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80-1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT 09/15111 Water Ind. Lab: E8113-93 H-3 60 0.80- 1.25 0.97 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-6246 Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.82 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 0.86 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.92 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.97 AGREEMENT 09115/11 Ce-141 60 0.80- 1.25 0.97 AGREEMENT Milk Cr-51 60 0.80- 1.25 1.02 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E8115-93 Cs-134 60 0.80- 1.25 0.90 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPMI-6248 Cs-1 37 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Co-58 60 0.80- 1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1.14 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80-1.25 1.04 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 0.97 AGREEMENT 09/15/11 Filter Paper Cs-137 60 0.80-1.25 1.15 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E8116-93 (Gross Beta)Con. Lab: SPAP-6249 09115/11 Charcoal Cartridge Ind. Lab: E8117-93 -131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.95 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPCH-6250 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-6 Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 SECTION 4 -SPLIT SAMPLE PROGRAM and SPIKE SAMPLE INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Table 4-4 Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program Spiked Samples -4 th Quarter Sample Date, Type and Resolution Resolution Required Ratio Env Inc: Comparison Identification No. Ratio Band Analytics Sr-89 60 0.80- 1.25 0.92 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80- 1.25 0.84 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.95 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT 12/08111 Ce-141 60 0.80-1.25 not present n/a Cr-51 60 0.80- 1.25 0.97 AGREEMENT Water Cs-134 60 0.80- 1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Ind Lab: E8190-93 Cs-137 60 0.80- 1.25 1.04 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPW-8541 Co-58 60 0.80- 1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80- 1.25 1.06 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1.07 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80- 1.25 1.06 AGREEMENT Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 1.04 AGREEMENT 12/08/11 Water H-3 60 0.80- 1.25 1.01 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E8189-93 Con. Lab: SPW-8540 Sr-89 60 0.80 -1.25 0.81 AGREEMENT Sr-90 60 0.80 -1.25 0.83 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT 1-131 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT 12/08/11 Ce-141 60 0.80-1.25 not present n/a Milk Cr-51 60 0.80-1.25 1.00 AGREEMENT Ind. Lab: E8191-93 Cs-1 34 60 0.80- 1.25 0.94 AGREEMENT Con. Lab: SPMI-8542 Cs-1 37 60 0.80- 1.25 1.05 AGREEMENT Co-58 60 0.80 -1.25 0.99 AGREEMENT Mn-54 60 0.80-1.25 1.06 AGREEMENT Fe-59 60 0.80- 1.25 1,06 AGREEMENT Zn-65 60 0.80- 1.25 1.08 AGREEMENT I Co-60 60 0.80- 1.25 1.03 AGREEMENT 4-7 Beaver Valley Power Station 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report RTL A9.690E Enclosure 3 SECTION 5 -CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT(S)Corrections to Previous Radiological Environmental Operating Report(s):

There are no corrections to previous reports at this time.5-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Enclosure B L-12-085 2011 Annual Environmental Operating Report (Non-Radiological)(Report follows)

RTL# A9.630F FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION 2011 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT NON-RADIOLOGICAL UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 LICENSES DPR-66 AND NPF-73 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION ENVIRONMENTAL

& CHEMISTRY SECTION Technical Report Approval 201 1 ANNUAl. RADIO)IOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT (Non-Radiological)

UNITS NO. I AND 2 LI CENSES DPR-66 AND NPF-73 Prepared by: Caiermon L. laige (Via E-mail) Date: 01/30/2012 Prepared by: ,Jason A. Lldwig f < Date: 03/06/2012 Rev'iewe'd by: Jon, iflianT'.

Ear ,,[i)atc: 3-l,2i.Approv'ed by: Donald J. Sal Qe: .1 a t e:

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

...............................................................

1...1.1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ............................................................................................

1 1.2 SUM M ARY & CONCLUSIONS

....................................................................

2 1.3 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE .................

2 1.4 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

...........

2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN NON-COMPLIANCES

..................

4 3.0 CHANGES INVOLVING UNREVfIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

.. .4 4.0 NONROUTfINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ................................................

4 5.0 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM .....................................................................

5 5.1 SIT E D E SC IP T IO N ..............................................................................................

5 5.2 STU D Y A R E A ...............................................................................................

6 5.3 M E T H O D S ................................................................................................

..6 5.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

...............................................

6 5.3.2 F ish M onitoring

....................................................................................

7 5.3.3 Corbicula/Zebra Mussel Density Determinations

...............................

8 5.3.4 Corbicula Juvenile M onitoring

..........................................................

9 5.3.5 Zebra M ussel M onitoring

..................................................................

10 5 .3.6 R ep orts .............................................................................................

..11 5.4 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM AND RESULTS ...............................

11 5.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program ................................

11 5.4.2 Fish Sam pling Program .......................................................................

14 5.4.3 Corbicula M onitoring Program ........................................................

17 5.4.4 Corbicula Juvenile M onitoring

.........................................................

17 5.4.5 Zebra M ussel M onitoring Program ....................................................

18 6.0 ZEBRA MUSSEL AND CORBICULA CONTROL ACTIVITIES

...........

20 7.0 R E F E R E N C E S .........................................................................................................

21 8.0 TABLES 9.0 FIGURES 10.0 PERMITS APPENDIX A SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970 THROUGH 2011 BVPS 2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)

LIST OF TABLES 5.1 Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Sampling Dates For 2011 5.2 Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 through 2011 in the Ohio River near BVPS (6 sheets)5.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Counts for Triplicate Samples Taken at Each Sample Station by Sample for May and September 2011 5.4 Mean Number of Macroinvertebrates (Number/r 2) and Percent Composition of Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, Mollusca and Other Organisms, 2011 -BVPS 5.5 Mean Number of Macroinvertebrates (Number/m 2) and Percent Composition of Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, Mollusca and Other Organisms for the Control Station (1) and the Average for Non-control Stations (2B1, 2B2, and 2B3), 2011 BVPS 5.6 Shannon-Weiner Diversity, Evenness and Richness Indices for Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected in the Ohio River, 2011 5.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities (Number/m 2) for Station 1 (Control) and Station 2B (Non-Control)

During Preoperational and Operational Years through 2011 BVPS 5.8 Total Fish Catch, Electrofishing and Seine Net Combined During the BVPS 2011 Fisheries Survey 5.9 Comparison of Control vs. Non-Control Electrofishing Catches, During the BVPS 2011 Fisheries Survey 5.10 Comparison of Control vs. Non-Control Seine Catches, During the BVPS 2011 Fisheries Survey 5.11 Fish Species Collected During the May 2011 Sampling of the Ohio River in the Vicinity of BVPS 5.12 Fish Species Collected During the July 2011 Sampling of the Ohio River in the Vicinity of BVPS 5.13 Fish Species Collected During the September 2011 Sampling of the Ohio River in the Vicinity of BVPS 5.14 Fish Species Collected During the November 2011 Sampling of the Ohio River in the Vicinity of BVPS 5.15 Estimated Number of Fish Observed During Electrofishing Operations 2011 Annual Enviromnental Report ii FENOC (BVPS) 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 LIST OF TABLES Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season During the BVPS 2008 Fisheries Survey Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season During the BVPS 2009 Fisheries Survey Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season During the BVPS 2010 Fisheries Survey Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season During the BVPS 2011 Fisheries Survey Unit 1 Cooling Reservoir Monthly Sampling Corbicula Density Data for 2011 ,from BVPS Unit 2 Cooling Reservoir Monthly Sampling Corbicula Density Data for 2011 from BVPS 2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)iii LIST OF FIGURES 5.1 Location Map for the 2011 Beaver Valley Power Station Aquatic Monitoring I Program Sampling Control and Non-Control Sampling Stations 5.2 Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Benthic Organism Survey I Sampling Sites for the 2011 Study 5.3 Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Fish Population Survey Fish U Sampling Sites for the 2011 Study 5.4 Location of Study Area, Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, Pennsylvania 1 BVPS 5.5 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among BVPS Unit 1 I Cooling Tower Reservoir Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups, 2011. I 5.6 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among Unit 2 Cooling Tower Reservoir Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups, 2011. 3 5.7 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among Intake Structure Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups, 2011. n 5.8 Water Temperature and River Elevation Recorded on the Ohio River at the BVPS Intake Structure, During Monthly Sampling Dates, 2011.5.9 Density of Zebra Mussel Veligers (#/m 3) Collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, Intake Structure, Unit 1 Cooling Tower Reservoir and Unit 2 Cooling Tower Reservoir, 2011.5.10 Density of Zebra Mussel Veligers (#/m 3) Collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, Barge Slip, Splash Pool and Emergency Outfall Basin, 2011.5.11 Density (#/m 2) of Settled Zebra Mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station Intake Structure, Unit 1 Cooling Tower Reservoir and Unit 2 Cooling Tower Reservoir, 2011.5.12 Density (#/m 2) of Settled Zebra Mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station, Barge I Slip, Splash Pool and Emergency Outfall Basin, 2011.I 2011 Annual Environmental Report iv FENOC (BVPS)

SUMMARY

1.1 IINTRODUCT]ION This report is submitted in accordance with Section 5.4.1 of Appendix B: To Facility Operating License No. NPF-73, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological).

Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC). The Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) are:* Verify that the facility is operated in an environmrentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement-Operating License Stage (FES-OL) and other NRC environmental impact assessments.

• Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State, and local requirements for environmental protection.

o Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effects.To achieve the objectives of the EPP, FENOC and BVPS have written programs and procedures to comply with the EPP, protect the environment, and comply with governmental requirements primarily including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Enviromnental Protection (PA DEP) requirements.

Water quality matters identified in the Final Environmental Statements-Operating License Stage (FES-OL) are regulated under the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.PA0025615.

Waste is regulated under EPA Identification No. PAR000040485.

Attaclhnent 10.1 contains a listing of permits and certificates for environmental compliance.

The BVPS programs and procedures include pre-work and pre-project environmental evaluations, operating procedures, pollution prevention and response programs procedures and plans, process improvement and corrective action programs, and human performance programs.Technical and managerial monitoring of tasks, operations, and other activities are performed.

Any identified challenges, concerns, or questions are captured in the FENOC Problem Identification and Resolution Program with a Condition Report. Condition Reports include investigations, cause determinations, and corrective actions.During 2011 BVPS continued an Aquatic Monitoring Program to evaluate its potential impact on the New Curnberland Pool of the Ohio River, and to provide infformation on potential impacts to BVPS operation from macrofoulers such as Asian clams and zebra mussels.2011 Annual Enviromnental Report FENOC (BVPS)

I 1.2

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS There were no significant environmental events during 2011. During 2011, no significant changes to operations that could affect the environment were made at Beaver Valley Power Station. As in previous years, results of the BVPS environmental programs did not indicate any adverse environmental impacts from station operation.

1.3 ANALYSIS

OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE During 2011, no significant changes were made at BVPS to cause significant negative affect on the environment.

1.4 AQUATIC

MONITORING PROGRAM EXECUTVWE

SUMMARY

The 2011 Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Units 1 and 2 Non-Radiological Monitoring Program consisted of an Aquatic Program that included surveillance and field sampling of the Ohio River's aquatic life in the vicinity of the station. The Aquatic Program is an annual program conducted to provide baseline aquatic resources data, to assess the impact of the I operation of BVPS on the aquatic ecosystem of the Ohio River, and to monitor for potential impacts of biofouling organisms (Corbicula and zebra mussels) on BVPS operations.

This is the 3 5 th year of operational environmental monitoring for Unit 1 and the 24th year for Unit 2. As in previous years, the results of the program did not indicate any adverse environmental impact to the aquatic life in the Ohio River associated with the operation of BVPS.The results of the 2011 benthic macroinvertebrate survey conducted in June and September indicated a normal community structure exists in the Ohio River both upstream and downstream of the BVPS. These benthic surveys are a continuation of a Fate and Effects Study conducted from 1990 through 1992 for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)to assess the ecosystem impacts of the molluscicides Nalco products H150M and Sodium Hypochlorite that are used to control biofouling organisms at BVPS. To date the results of the benthic studies have not indicated any impacts of operation at the BVPS including the use these biocides on the benthic community below the BVPS discharge.

Substrate was probably the most important factor influencing the distribution and abundance of the benthic macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River near BVPS. The generally soft muck-type substrate along the shoreline found in 2011 and previous years was conducive to segmented worm (oligochaete) and midge fly larvae (chironomid) proliferation.

Fifty-four (54)macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 2011 monitoring program. In 2011 two new taxa were added to the cumulative list of macroinvertebrates collected near BVPS (Table 5.2).One taxon was Pseudochironomis sp, which is a chironomid (midge fly). The other new taxon was Bithynia sp., which is a non-indigenous snail that was introduced to the freshwaters of the northeastern United States in the 1870s and has become established in many slow moving rivers and freshwater water lakes. No state or Federal threatened or endangered macroinvertebrate species were collected during 2011.In May oligochaetes were the most frequently collected group of macroinvertebrate, while in 2011 Annual Environmental Report 2 FENOC (BVPS)

September chironomids were the most frequently collected group. There were no major differences in the community structure between control and non-control stations that could be attributed to operation of BVPS. The overall community structure has changed little since pre-operational years, and program results did not indicate that BVPS operations were affecting the benthic community of the Ohio River.The fish community of the Ohio River near the BVPS was sampled in June (spring), July (summer), September (fall) and November (winter) of 2011 with nighttime electrofishing and daytime seining. Since monitoring began in the early 1970's, the number of identified fish taxa has increased from 43 to 78 for the New Cumberland Pool.Benthivores (bottom feeders including suckers and buffalo) and forage species (e.g. gizzard shad and emerald shiners) were generally collected in the highest numbers in 2011. The total number of forage species collected in 2011 was less than in 2010. Variations in annual catch were probably attributable to normal fluctuations in the population size of the forage species and the predator populations that rely on them. Forage species, such as gizzard shad and emerald shiner with high reproductive potentials, frequently respond to changes in natural environmental factors (competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) with large fluctuations in population size. This, in turn, influences their appearance in the sample populations during annual surveys.Spawning/rearing success due to abiotic factors is usually the determining factor of the size and composition of a fish community.

In 2011, the annual catch rate was 0.93 fish per minute. The greatest catch rate in 2011 occurred in fall (September) when the catch rate was 1.42 fish per minute. Shorthead redhorse sucker and smallmouth bass contributed to the majority of this total. The lowest catch rate occurred in summer (July) with a rate of 0.47 fish per electrofishing minute. The annual catch rates were consistent over the four years ranging from a high of 1.98 fish per minute in 2008 to 0.93 in 2011.Little difference in the species composition of the catch was observed between the control (Station 1) and non-control (Stations 2A, 2B and 3) stations.

Habitat preference and availability were probably the most important factors affecting where and when fish were collected.

Results from the 2011 fish surveys indicated that a normal community structure for the Ohio River exists near BVPS based on species composition and relative abundance.

In 2011, there was no indication of negative impact to the fish community in the Ohio River from the operation of BVPS.The monthly reservoir ponar samples collected in Units 1 and 2 cooling towers and the four samples collected at the intake during 2011 indicated that Corbicula were present in the Ohio River and entering the station. Although no settled Corbicula were collected in cooling tower ponar sampling in 2011, their presence in the river and in the cooling tower reservoirs as juveniles, indicates that they are still available for settlement.

Overall, the numbers of Corbicula collected in the samples were comparatively low, which continued the trend over the past few years offewer Corbicula and reflected a water-body-wide trend observed in the Ohio River.2011 Annual Environmental Report 3 FENOC (BVPS)

In 1995, live zebra mussels were collected for the first time by divers in the BVPS main intake and auxiliary intake structures during scheduled cleanings.

Overall, both the number of observations and densities of settled mussels were similar in 2003-present although somewhat higher in 2008 and 2010. In 2011, settlement was noted at the intake and at the barge slip.Overall, veliger densities in 2011 were lower than 2010, but comparable to 2009. This is likely due to annual variability in numbers of veligers in the Ohio River. Although densities of settled mussels in the vicinity of BJVPS are low compared to other populations such as in the Lower Great Lakes, densities comparable to those in the Ohio River are sufficient to cause problems in the operation of untreated cooling water intake systems.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN NON-COMPLIANCES There were no Environmental Protection Plan non-compliances identified in 2011.3.0 CHANGES INVOLVING UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS No Unreviewed Environmental Questions were identified in 2011. Therefore, there were no changes involving an Unreviewed Environmental Question.4.0 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT There were no non-routine environmental reports in 2011.I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I 2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)4

5.0 AQUATIC

MONITORING PROGRAM This section of the report sumnmarizes the Non-Radiological Environmental Program conducted for the BVPS, Units 1 and 2; Operating License Numbers DPR-66 and NPF-73. This is anon-mandatory program, because on February 26, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)granted BVPS's request to delete all of the Aquatic Monitoring Program, with the exception of the fish impingement program (Amendment No. 25), from the Environmrental Technical Specifications (ETS). In 1983, BVPS was permitted to also delete the fish impingement studies from the ETS program of required sampling along with non-radiological water quality requirements.-

However, in the interest of providing an uninterrupted database, BVPS has continued the 'Aquatic Monitoring Program.The objectives of the 2011 enviromnental program were: 0 To monitor for any possible environmental impact of BVPS operation on the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the Ohio River;o To provide a low leVel sampling program to continue an uninterrupted environmental database for the Ohio River near BVPS, pre-operational to present; and o To evaluate the presence, growth, and reproduction of macrofouling Corbicula (Asiatic clam) and zebra mussels (Dreissena spp.) at BVPS.5.1 SITE DESCRIPTION BVPS is located on an approximately 453-acre tract of land on the south bank of the Ohio River in the Borough of Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station once shared the site with BVPS before being decomnissioned.

Figure 5.1 is a plan view of BVPS. The site is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kin) from Midland, Pennsylvania; 5 miles (8 kin)from East Liverpool, Ohio; and 25 miles (40 kin) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The population within a 5-mile (8 kin) radius of the plant is approximately 18,000. The Borough of Midland, Pennsylvania has a population of approximately 3,500.The station islsituated at Ohio River Mile 34.8 (Latitude:

400 36' 18"; Longitude:

80' 26' 02') at a location on the New Cumberland Pool that is 3.1 river miles (5.3 kin) downstream from Montgomery Lock and Dam and 19.6 miles (31.2 kin) upstream from New Cumberland Lock and Dam. The Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia border is 5.2 river miles (8.4 kin) downstream from the site. The river flow is regulated by a series of dams and reservoirs on the Beaver, Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries.

The study site' lies along the Ohio River in a valley, which has a gradual slope that extends from the river at an elevation of 665 ft (203 in) above mean sea level; to an elevation of 1,160 ft (354 m) along a ridge south of BVPS. The plant entrance elevation at the station is approximately 735 ft (224 in) above mean sea level.2011 Amnual Enviromnental Report 5 FENOC (BVPS)

I BVPS Units 1 and 2 have a thermal rating of 2,900 megawatts (MW). Units 1 & 2 have a design electrical rating of 974 MW and 969 MW, respectively.

The circulating water systems for each unit are considered a closed cycle system with continuous overflow, using a cooling tower to minimize heat released to the Ohio River. Commercial operation of BVPS Unit 1 began in 1976 and Unit 2 began operation in 1987.5.2 STUDY AREA The environmental study area was established to assess potential impacts and consists of four sampling stations, each having a north and south shore (Figure 5.1). Station 1 is located at River Mile (RM) 34.5, approximately

0.3 miles

(0.5 kim) upstream of BVPS and is the control station. m Station 2A is located approximately

0.5 miles

(0.8 kln) downstream of the BVPS discharge structure in the main channel. Station 2B is located in the back channel of Phillis Island, also 0.5 miles downstream of the BVPS discharge structure.

Station 2B is the principal non-control station because the majority of discharges from BVPS Units 1 and 2 are released to this back channel. Station 3 is located approximately two miles (3.2 km) downstream of BVPS and only rarely is influenced by the BVPS discharge.

5.3 METHODS

m Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) was contracted to perform the 2011 Aquatic Monitoring Program as specified in BVBP-ENV-001-Aquatic Monitoring (procedural guide). This procedural guide references and describes in detail the field and laboratory procedures used in the various monitoring programs, as well as the data analysis and reporting requirements.

These procedures are summarized according to task in the following subsections.

Sampling was conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 5.1.I 5.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring The benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program consisted of river bottom sampling using a Ponar grab sampler at four stations on the Ohio River. Prior to 1996, duplicate sampling occurred at Stations 1, 2A, and 3, while triplicate sampling occurred at Station 2B (i.e., one sample at each shoreline and mid-channel) (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). In 1996, a review of the sampling design indicated that sampling should be performed in triplicate at each station to conform to standardized U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) procedures.

Therefore, starting in 1996, triplicate samples were taken at Stations 1, 2A, and 3, as in 1995, with triplicate samples also collected at each shore and mid-channel location at Station 2B. A petite Ponar dredge was used to collect these samples, replacing the standard Ponar dredge used in prior studies.Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was scheduled to be conducted in May and September 2011.In spring, sampling was delayed until June due to extremely high river flows in May that made I 2011 Annual Environmental Report 6 FENOC (BVPS) m sampling from a boat on the Ohio River unsafe. For each 2011 field effort, 18 benthic samples were collected and processed in the laboratory.

All field procedures and data analyses were conducted in accordance with the procedural guide. The contents of each Ponar grab sample were gently washed through a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and the retained contents were placed in a labeled bottle and preserved in ethanol. In the laboratory, rose bengal stain was added to aid in sorting and identifying the benthic organisms.

Macroinvertebrates were sorted from each sample, identified to the lowest taxon practical and counted. Mean density (number/mr

2) for each taxon was calculated for each replicate.

Four indices used to describe the benthic community were calculated:

Shannon-Weiner diversity index, evenness (Pielou, 1969), species richness, and the number of taxa. These estimates provide an indication of the relative quality of the macroinvertebrate community.

5.3.2 Fish Monitoring Fish sampling was conducted in 2011 to provide a continuous baseline of data and to detect possible changes that may. have occurred in the fish populations in the Ohio River near BVPS.Fish population surveys have been conducted in the Ohio River near BVPS annually from 1970 through 2011. These surveys have resulted in the collection of 73 fish species and five different hybrids.Adult fish surveys were scheduled to be performed in May, July, September, and November 2011. In spring, sampling was delayed until June due to extremely high river flows in May that made sampling from a boat on the Ohio River unsafe. During each survey, fish were scheduled to be sampled by standardized electrofishing techniques at four stations (Stations 1, 2A, 2B and 3)(Figure 5.3). Seining was scheduled to be performed at Station 1 (north shore) and Station 2B (south shore of Phillis Island) to sample species that are generally under-represented in electrofishing catches (e.g., young-of-the-year fish and small cyprinids).

Night electrofishing was conducted using a boat-mounted electroshocker with floodlights attached to the bow. A Smith-Root Type VI A variable voltage, pulsed-DC electrofishing unit powered by a 5-kW generator was used. The voltage selected depended on water conductivity and was adjusted to provide constant amperage (4-6 amps) of the current through the water. The north and south shoreline areas at each station were shocked for at least 10 minutes of unit "on" time (approximately five minutes along each shore) during each survey.When large schools of fish of a single non-game species such as gizzard shad and shiners were encountered during electrofishing efforts, all of the stunned fish were not netted and retrieved onboard the boat. A few fish were netted for verification of identity, and the number of observed stunned fish remaining in the water was estimated.

The size range of the individual fish in the school was also estimated and recorded.

This was done in an effort to expedite sample processing and cover a larger area during the timed electrofishing run. Regardless of the number of individuals, all game fish were boated when observed.2011 Annual Environmental Report 7 FENOC (BVPS)

I Fish seining was performed at Station 1 (control) and Station 2B (non-control) during each of the four 2011 BVPS fishery surveys. A 30-ft long bag seine made of 1/4-inch nylon mesh netting was used to collect fish located close to shore in 1 to 4 ft of water. Three seine hauls were performed at both Station 1 (north shore) and Station 2B (south shore of Phillis Island) during each survey. i Fish collected during electrofishing and seining efforts were processed according to standardized procedures.

All captured game fishes were identified to species, counted, measured for total length (nearest 1 mm), and weighed (nearest 1 g for fish less than or equal to 1000 g and the nearest 5 g for all other fish). Non-game fishes were counted, and a random subsample of lengths was taken. Live fish were returned to the river immediately after processing was completed.

All fish that were unidentifiable or of questionable identification and were obviously not on the endangered or threatened species list were placed in plastic sample bottles, preserved, labeled and returned to the laboratory for identification.

Any species of fish that had not I previously been collected at BVPS was retained for the voucher collection.

Any threatened or endangered species (if collected) would be photographed and released.5.3.3 Corbicula Density Determinations for Cooling Tower Reservoirs The Corbicula Monitoring Program at BVPS includes sampling the circulating river water and the service water systems of the BVPS (intake structure and cooling towers). The objectives of the ongoing Monitoring Program are to evaluate the presence of Corbicula at BVPS, and to evaluate the potential for and timing of infestation of the BVPS. This program is conducted in conjunction with a program to monitor for the presence of macrofouling zebra mussels (see Section 5.3.5).Corbicula enter the BVPS from the Ohio River by passing through the water intakes, and eventually settle in low flow areas including the lower reservoirs of the Units 1 and 2 cooling towers. The density and growth of these Corbicula were monitored by collecting monthly samples from the lower reservoir sidewalls and sediments.

The sampler used on the sidewalls consisted of a D-frame net attached behind a 24-inch long metal scraping edge. This device was connected to a pole long enough to allow the sampler to extend down into the reservoir area from the outside wall of the cooling tower. Sediments were sampled with a petite Ponar dredge.Cooling tower reservoir sampling was historically conducted once per month. Beginning in December 1997, it was decided to forego sampling in cold water months since buildup of Corbicula does not occur then. Monthly sampling has been maintained throughout the warmer water months of the year. In 2011 sampling began in April and ended in early November.In 2011, once each month (April through November), a single petite Ponar grab sample was taken in the reservoir of each cooling tower to obtain density and growth information on Corbicula present in the bottom sediment.

The samples collected from each cooling tower were returned to the laboratory and processed.

Samples were individually washed, and any Corbicula 2011 Annual Envirormuental Report 8 FENOC (BVPS) removed and rinsed through a series of stacked U.S. Standard sieves that ranged in mesh size from 1.00 mm to 9.49 mm. Live and dead clams retained in each sieve were counted and the numbers were recorded.

The size distribution data obtained using the sieves reflected clam width, rather than length. Samples containing a small number of Corbicula were not sieved;individuals were measured and placed in their respective size categories.

A scraping sample of about 12 square feet was also collected at each cooling tower during each monthly sampling effort. This sample was processed in a manner consistent with the petit Ponar samples.Population surveys of both BVPS cooling tower reservoirs have been conducted during scheduled outages (1986 to present) to estimate the number of Corbicula present in these structures.

During the scheduled shutdown period for each unit, each cooling tower reservoir bottom is sampled by petite Ponar at standardized locations within the reservoir.

Counts of live and dead clams and determination of density were made. There were no scheduled outages during 2011 when samples were collected.

5.3.4 Corbicula

Juvenile Monitoring The Corbicula juvenile study was designed to collect data on Corbicula spawning activities and growth of individuals entering the intake from the Ohio River. From 1988 through 1998, clam cages were deployed in the intake forebay to monitor for Corbicula that entered the BVPS.Observational-based concerns that the clam cages would quickly clog with sediment during high sediment periods and, as a result, would not effectively sample for Corbicula, led to an evaluation of an alternate sampling technique.

From April through June 1997, a study was conducted to compare the results of the clam cage samplers to a petite Ponar dredge technique to determine Corbicula presence and density in the BVPS intake bays. It was hypothesized that using a Ponar sampler to collect bottom sediments and analysis of those sediments would provide a more representative sample of Corbicula settlement and growth rates, and had the added benefit of not requiring confined space entry to conduct the sampling.

Results of the study confirmed this hypothesis.

During the 1998 sampling season, at the request of BVPS personnel, all clam cages were removed after the May collection.

Monthly petite Ponar grabs from the forebay in the intake building continued thereafter.

Samples were processed in the same manner as Cooling Tower Samples (Section 5.3.3).From 2002 to present, because of site access restrictions, sampling with the petite Ponar has been moved to the Ohio River directly in front of the Intake Structure Building.

Collections are presently scheduled to be made in conjunction with the fisheries sampling (May, July, September, and November).

In 2011, due to high flow and unsafe conditions in May, spring intake monitoring was delayed until June. During each sampling month two Ponar grabs are taken approximately 20 feet off shore of the intake building.

These grab samples are processed in the same manner as when they were collected from within the Intake Structure Building.2011 Annual Environmental Report 9 FENOC (BVPS)

II 5.3.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoring I The Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program includes sampling the Ohio River and the circulating river water system of the BVPS.The objectives of the Monitoring Program were: (1) To identify if zebra mussels were in the Ohio River adjacent to BVPS and provide early warning to operations personnel as to their possible infestation; (2) To provide data as to when the larvae were mobile in the Ohio River and insights as to their vulnerability to potential treatments; and i (3) To provide data on their overall density and growth rates under different water temperatures and provide estimates on the time it requires these mussels to reach the size and density that could impact the plant.The zebra mussel sampling for settled adults was historically conducted once per month, yearlong.

Beginning in December 1997, it was decided to forego sampling in the colder water i months of each year, since buildup of zebra mussels, does not occur then. Monthly sampling has been maintained throughout the balance of the year. In 2011 sampling occurred from April through November.A pump sample for zebra mussel veligers was collected at the barge slip location monthly from April through October in 1996 and 1997. The scope of the sampling was expanded in 1998 to also include the intake structure.

In June 1998, the Emergency Outfall and Emergency Outfall Impact Basin locations were also added. Additional pump samples were collected from the cooling towers of Unit 1 and Unit 2 in October 1998. In 2011 veliger sampling began in April and was conducted monthly through October.At the Intake Structure and Barge Slip the following surveillance techniques were used: i" Wall scraper sample collections on a monthly basis (April through November) from the barge slip and the riprap near the intake structure to detect attached adults; and* Pump sample collections from the barge slip and outside the intake structure, to detect the planktonic early life forms (April through October).At each of the cooling towers the following techniques were used:* Monthly reservoir scraper sample collections in each cooling tower (April through November);

and* Pump samples in April through October to detect planktonic life forms.I 2011 Annual Environmental Report 10 FENOC (BVPS)

At the Emergency Outfall and the Splash Pool the following techniques were used: o Monthly scraper sample collections in each (April through November);

and o Pump samples in each from April through October to detect planktonic life forms.5.3.6 Reports Each month, activity reports that summarized the activities that took place the previous month were prepared and submitted.

These reports included the results of the monthly Corbicula/zebra mussel monitoring including any trends observed and any preliminary results available from the benthic and fisheries programs.

The reports addressed progress made on each task, and reported any observed biological activity of interest.5.4 AQUATIIC MONITORING PROGRAM AND RESULTS The following sections summarize the findings for each of the program elements.

Sampling dates for each of the program elements are presented in Table 5.1.5.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program Benthic surveys were performed in June and in September 2011. Benthic samples were successfully collected using a petite Ponar grab sampler at Stations 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 (Figure 5.2).Triplicate samples were taken off the south shore at Stations 1, 2A, and 3. Sampling at Station 2B, in the back channel of Phillis Island, consisted of triplicate petite Ponar grabs at the south side, middle, and north side of the channel (i.e., Sample Stations 2B11, 2B2, and 2B3, respectively).

Substrate type is an important factor in determining the composition of the benthic community.

The habitats in the vicinity of BVPS are the result of damming, channelization, and river traffic.Shoreline habitats at the majority of sampling locations were generally in depositional areas that consisted of soft muck substrates composed of mixes of sand, silt, and detritus.

One exception was along the north shoreline of Phillis Island at Station 2A where hard-pan clay overlain with a thin layer of fine sand dominated.

The other distinct habitat, hard substrate (gravel and cobble), was located in mid-channel of the back channel of Phillis Island. The hard substrate was probably the result of channelization and ongoing scouring by river currents.

In general, the substrates found at each sampling location have been consistent from year to year.2011 Annual Environmental Report 11 FENOC (BVPS)

I Fifty-four (54) macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 2011 monitoring program (Tables 5.2 and 5.3), which was four more than in 2010. A mean density of 1,610 macroinvertebrates/m 2 was collected in May and 1,228/M 2 in September (Table 5.4). As in I previous years, the macroinvertebrate assemblage during 2011 was dominated by burrowing organisms typical of soft unconsolidated substrates.

Oligochaetes (segmented worms), mollusks (clams and snails) and chironomid (midge fly) larvae were abundant (Table 5.4). Sixteen (16)taxa of chironomids and 14 taxa of oligochaetes were collected.

As in 2010, the total mean density of organism was higher in May than in September.

Thirty-two (32) taxa were present in the May 2011 samples. Forty-seven (47) taxa were present in the September samples (Table 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). Twenty-five (25) of the 50 taxa were present in both May and September.

As in 2008-2010, immature tubificid worms were numerically the most abundant organism in May; however, the chironomid Polypedilium sp. was the most abundant taxa in September.

The Asiatic clam (Corbicula) has been observed in the Ohio River near BVPS from 1974 to present. Zebra mussels were first collected in the BVPS benthic samples in 1998. Adult zebra mussels, however, were detected in 1995 and 1996 by divers in the BVPS main and auxiliary intake structures during scheduled cleaning operations.

Zebra mussel veligers, adults and juveniles were collected during the 1997-2011 sampling programs (see Sections 5.4.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program).

Both live adult Corbicula and adult zebra mussels were collected in benthic macroinvertebrate samples in 2011.In 2011 two new taxa were added to the cumulative list of macroinvertebrates collected near BVPS (Table 5.2). One taxon was Pseudochironomis sp, which is a chironomid (midge fly).The other new taxon was Bithynia sp., which is a non-indigenous snail that was introduced to the freshwaters of the northeastern United States in the 1870s and has become established in many slow moving rivers and freshwater water lakes. No state or Federal threatened or endangered macroinvertebrate species were collected during 2011.In the May 2011 samples, oligochaetes accounted for the highest mean density of macroinvertebrates and chironomids had the second highest (979/m 2 or 61 percent of the total I density and 535/m 2 or 33 percent, respectively) (Table 5.4). Mollusks and had a mean density of only 24/m 2.Mollusks were present at a density of 55/M 2.Organisms other then oligochaetes, chironomids and mollusks were present at a density of 41/m 2 in May.In September 2011 samples, chironomids accounted for the highest mean density of macroinvertebrates and oligochaetes had the second highest (351/rn 2 or 29 percent of the total density and 538/mi 2 or 44 percent, respectively) (Table 5.4). Mollusks had the third highest mean density in September 2011 (253/rn 2 or 21 percent) while the "others" category had the fourth highest mean density (86/m 2 or seven percent).In May 2011, the highest density of macroinvertebrates (3,186/mn 2) occurred at Station 2B3. In September, the highest density of macroinvertebrates also occurred at Station 3 (2,121/mr 2). In 2011 Annual Environmental Report 12 I FENOC (BVPS)

May the lowest mean density of organisms occurred atStation 1 (115/m 2). In September, the lowest mean density of organisms also occurred at Station 2A (674/M 2).For a comparison of the control to non-control stations, Station 1 was designated the control station, because it is always out of the influence of the BVPS discharge and Station 2B (mean density of Station 2B11, 2B2, and 2B3) was designated as the non-control station, since it is the station most regularly subjected to BVPS's discharge.

Stations 3 and 2A may be under the influence of the plume under certain conditions, but it is unlikely that they are regularly influenced by BVPS.The mean density of macroinvertebrates in the non-control station was almost 15 times higher (1,700/M 2) than that of the control station (115/M 2) in May (Table 5.5). The high density of oligochaetes (1,018/m 2) and chironomids (530/M 2) in the non-control samples accounted for the majority of this difference.

Only oligochaetes were collected at the control station. A similar difference in density occurred in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Overall the differences probably reflect, the natural differences in substrate and natural heterogeneous distributions of these organisms between the stations rather than project-related impacts.In September, the density of macroinvertebrates present at the non-control stations (1,233/m 2)was about 1.4 times greater than at the control station (874/M 2). This was the reverse of the previous year, when the density.of macroinvertebrates was 1.4 times greater at the control station.Differences were within the expected range of variation for natural populations of macroinvertebrates.

Indices that describe the relative diversity, evenness, and richness of the macroinvertebrate population structure among stations and between control and non-control sites were calculated.

A higher Shannon-Weiner diversity index indicates a relatively better structured assemblage of organisms, while a lower index generally indicates a low quality or stressed community.

Evenness is an index that estimates the relative contribution of each taxon to the community assemblage, the closer to 1.00, the healthier the community.

The community richness is another estimate of the quality of the macroinvertebrate community with a higher richness number indicating a healthier community.

The Shannon-Weiner diversity indices in May 2011 collections ranged from 0.18 at Station 3 to 1.00 at Station 2A (Table 5.6). In May evenness ranged from 0.24 at Station 3 to 0.86 at Station 1. Richness was greatest at Stations 2B2 (4.67) and lowest at Station 3 (0.98). The overall low indices at Station 1 and 3 are attributed to the relatively few species (5 and 6, respectively) collected.

This low number of organisms likely is due to natural variation in the Ohio River rather than due to BVPS operations, since Station 1 is a control station and Station 3 is seldom under the influence of the BVPS discharge.

The Shannon-Weiner diversity of the macroinvertebrate community (0.65-1.14) evenness (0.65-0.89) and richness (2.34-5.40) in September 2011 were higher than in May. There was also generally an increase in the number of taxa present in September compared to May. Relatively high numbers of taxa are frequently present in early fall due to the increased numbers of aquatic stages of insects, especially chironomids, as well as the ability to identify to lower taxonomic levels many of the tubificids 2011 Annual Environmental Report 13 FENOC (BVPS)

I that are lumped together when immature.

A comparable increase in indices values in September i compared to May was observed in 2010.In May 2011, the number of taxa was appreciably lower in the control station (Station 1) than in the non-control stations (2B 1, 2B2, 2B3) while the diversity, evenness and richness indices were comparable (Table 5.6). In September 2011 the indices between the control and non-control stations were, in general, comparable.

Similar trends were apparent in the previous three study years and were likely due to natural variations in the local populations at these locations.

No impacts of the BVPS on the benthic community, as measured by differences between control and non-control zones, were evident in either May or September.

Substrate was probably the most important factor controlling the distribution and abundance of 3 the benthic macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River near BVPS. Soft, mucky substrates that generally existed along the shoreline are conducive to oligochaete, chironomid, and mollusk habitation and limit species of macroinvertebrates that require a more stable bottom. I The density of macroinvertebrates in May and September 2011 fell within the range of densities of macroinvertebrates collected at BVPS in previous years (Table 5.7). The community structure has changed little since pre-operational years, and the available evidence does not indicate that BVPS operations have affected the benthic community of the Ohio River.5.4.2 Fish Sampling Program In 2011, 191 fish representing 27 taxa were collected (i.e., handled) during BVPS surveys by electrofishing and seining (Table 5.8). All taxa collected in 2011 were previously encountered at BVPS. The most common species in the 2011 BVPS surveys that were collected by electrofishing and seining combined were shorthead redhorse sucker (17.8% of the total catch), smallmouth bass (12.6%), gizzard shad (10.5%), sauger (8.4%), spotfin shiner (6.3%), spotted bass (5.2%) and white bass (5.2%). None of the remaining 20 species contributed to more than 5 percent of the total handled catch. The most frequently observed but not handled fish in 2011 were unidentified suckers (Table 5.15). Game fish collected in 2011 included black crappie, i channel catfish, bluegill, flathead catfish, largemouth bass, white bass, smallmouth bass, sauger, walleye, pumpkinseed, yellow perch, rock bass and spotted bass. Game fish represented 41.4%of the total handled catch.A total of 151 fish, representing 22 taxa, was collected by electrofishing in 2011 (Table 5.9)compared to 176 fish representing 18 species in 2010. Shorthead redhorse suckers, smallmouth I bass and sauger accounted for the greatest portion of the 2011 electrofishing catch (22.5%, 14.6% and 10.6%, respectively) followed by spotted bass (6.6%), gizzard shad (5.3%), quillback (5.3%) and golden redhorse sucker (5.3%). No other species collected contributed to greater than I five percent of the total catch. Fish observed and not collected in the 2011 electrofishing study are presented in Table 5.15.A total of 40 fish representing nine (9) taxa was collected in 2011 (Table 5.10) compared to 287 2011 Annual Environmental Report 14 i FENOC (BVPS)I fish representing 16 in 2010. The large numbers of juvenile bluegills (109 individuals) and emerald shiners (91 individuals) in one month in contributed to much of this difference.

The most abundant taxa collected in 2011 were spotfin shiner and gizzard shad (each representing 30.0% of the total catch) followed by emerald shiner (12.5%), and juvenile white bass (10.0%).No other species collected contributed to greater than five percent of the total catch. Game species were only collected as juveniles.

A total of 40 fish representing 11 species was captured during the June (spring) 2011 sampling event (Table 5.11). Thirty-one (31) fish representing nine (9) species were collected during electrofishing.

Shorthead redhorse sucker (38.7% of the total catch), smallmouth bass (16.1%)and quillback (16.1%) were the most common species boated during the electrofishing effort.No other species contributed to more than seven percent of the June electrofishing catch.Channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and white bass were the game species collected in June. Nine fish; six spotfin shiner, two emerald shiner, and one juvenile smallmouth bass were collected by seine netting in June.A total of 23 fish representing 11 species was captured during the July (summer) 2011 sampling event (Table 5.12). A total of 19 fish representing nine (9) species was collected during electrofishing efforts. Spotted bass, quillback, shorthead redhorse sucker, and gizzard shad were the most abundant species and each represented 15.8% of the total electrofishing catch. Bluegill, smallmouth bass arnd spotted bass were the game species collected during the July electrofishing study (Table 5.12). Two spotfin shiners and one emerald shiner were the only fish collected during seining efforts in July.During the September (fall) 2011 sampling event, 82 fish representing 23 taxa were collected (Table 5.13). A total of 57 fish representing 18 species was collected during electrofishing efforts. Shorthead redhorse sucker and smallmouth bass were the most abundant species, contributing to 17.5% and 14.0% of the fish collected during electrofishing.

Golden redhorse sucker, sauger, and spotted bass (each representing 8.8% of the catch) were the only other species that contributed to greater than seven percent of the total electrofishing catch. A total of 25 fish was collected during seining efforts. Juvenile gizzard shad (48.0% of the total catch) were the most abundant species in the seine catch. Black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, flathead catfish, sauger, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, rock bass, walleye and white bass were the game fish collected in September.

During the November (winter) 2011 sampling event, 47 fish representing 15 taxa were captured (Table 5.14). A total of 44 fish representing 13 species were collected during electrofishing.

Sauger was the most abundant species collected by electrofishing and contributed to 25.0% of the total. Other relatively abundant species were shorthead redhorse sucker (20.5%), smallmouth bass (15.9%), smallmouth buffalo (9.1%), and bluegill (6.8%). No other species contributed to greater than five percent of the total catch. An additional 11 fish that included carp, sauger and unidentified suckers were also observed, but not boated during electrofishing efforts (Table 5.15). A bluegill juvenile, a bluntnose minnow and an emerald shiner were the only fish collected during seine netting in 2011. This is many fewer than the 209 fish collected in seine nets during the November 2010 effort. Game species collected in November included bluegill, 2011 Annual Environmental Report 15 FENOC (BVPS) largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, sauger, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, white bass, and yellow perch.Electrofishing catch rates are presented in Tables 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19 for fish that were boated and handled during the 2008 through 2011 surveys by season (FENOC 2009, 2010 and 2011. In 2011, the annual catch rate was 0.93 fish per minute. The greatest catch rate in 2011 occurred in fall (September) when the catch rate was 1.42 fish per minute. Shorthead redhorse sucker and smallmouth bass contributed to the majority of this total. The lowest catch rate occurred in summer (July) with a rate of 0.47 fish per electrofishing minute. The annual catch rates were consistent over the four years ranging from a high of 1.98 fish per minute in 2008 to 0.98 in 2011. Over the four years, the highest seasonal catch rates occurred in May 2008 (4.54 fish per minute) and in May 2010 (2.20 fish per minute). The lowest seasonal catch rates occurred in July 2011 (0.47 fish per minute) and July 2010 (0.32 fish per minute).The results of the electrofishing sampling effort (Table 5.9) did not indicate any major differences in species composition between the control station (1) and the non-control Stations 2A, 2B, and 3. A greater number of fish representing more species was captured at non-control stations than control stations.

This was most likely due to the extra effort expended at non-control stations versus control stations (i.e., there are three non-control stations and only one control station).

In 2011, a comparable number of individual, but fewer species were collected by seines at the control station compared to the non-control station (Table 5.10).In 2011, species composition remained comparable among stations.

Common taxa collected in the 2011 surveys by all methods included redhorse sucker species, sauger, smallmouth bass, and gizzard shad. Little difference in the species composition of the catch and relative composition was observed between the control (1) and non-control stations (2A, 2B and 3). Habitat preference and availability were probably the most important factors affecting where and when different species of fish are collected.

The results of the 2011 fish surveys indicated that there is a normal community structure in the Ohio River in the vicinity of BVPS based on species composition and relative abundance of fish observed during the surveys. Benthivores (bottom feeders including suckers and buffalo) and forage species (e.g. gizzard shad, emerald shiners) were generally collected in the highest numbers. The large numbers of juvenile bluegill and emerald shiner, which serve as forage, were not present in 2011. The numbers of forage species were less than in 2010 and some other past years. Variations in annual catch were probably attributable to normal fluctuations in the population size of the forage species and the predator populations that rely on them. Forage species, such as gizzard shad and emerald shiner with high reproductive potentials, frequently respond to changes in natural environmental factors (competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) with large fluctuations in population size. This, in turn, influences their appearance in the sample populations during annual surveys. Spawning/rearing success due to abiotic factors is usually the determining factor of the size and composition of a fish community.

In addition, differences in electrofishing catch rate can be attributed to environmental conditions that prevail during sampling efforts. High water, increased turbidity, and swift currents that occur during electrofishing efforts in some years can affect the collection efficiency in any given year.2011 Annual Environmental Report 16 FENOC (BVPS)

5.4.3 Corbicula

Monitoring Program In 2011, no settled Corbicula were collected from the Unit 1 cooling tower basin during monthly reservoir sampling (Table 5.20 and Figure 5.5). No Corbicula were collected in the scraping samples. Corbicula juveniles; however, were collected in monthly pump samples collected in the Unit 1 cooling tower reservoir from June through October. The highest density of juvenile Corbicula occurred in July when a density of 372 Corbicula/m 3 was present.In 2011, no settled Corbicula were collected from the Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir during monthly sampling (Table 5.21 and Figure 5.6). No Corbicula were collected in the scraping samples. Corbicula juveniles; however, were collected in monthly pump samples collected in the Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir in April and from June through October. The highest density of juvenile Corbicula occurred in August when a density of 157 Corbicula/m 3 was present.In 2011, BVPS continued its Corbicula control program (Year 17), which included the use of a molluscicide (CT-1) to prevent the proliferation of Corbicula within BVPS. BVPS was granted permission by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to use CT-1 to target the Unit 1 river water system and the Unit 2 service water system.In 1990 through 1993, the molluscicide applications (CT-1) focused on reducing the Corbicula population throughout-the entire river water system of each BVPS plant (Units 1 and 2). In 1994 and 1995, the CT-1 applications targeted the internal water systems; therefore, the CT-1 concentrations in the cooling towers were reduced during CT-1 applications.

Consequently, adult and juvenile Corbicula in the cooling towers often survived the CT-1 applications.

Reservoir sediment samples taken after CT-I applications represent mortality of Corbicula in the cooling tower only and do not reflect mortality in BVPS internal water systems.The monthly reservoir sediment samples and pump samples collected in Units 1 and 2 Cooling Towers in recent years demonstrated that Corbicula were entering and colonizing the reservoirs.

No settled Corbicula were collected in the cooling towers in 2011; however, their presence in the cooling tower pump samples indicates that they still are available for establishment in the cooling towers. The recent decrease of Corbicula at the BVPS returns densities to levels more consistent with densities in the Ohio River in the mid-1990's, but well below those present during the 1980's. Whether the decrease in density of Corbicula in 2011 is indicative of decreasing levels in the environment or due to sampling variability is uncertain, however, continued monitoring of Corbicula densities is recommended.

5.4.4 Corbicula

Juvenile Monitoring Program Figure 5.7 presents the abundance and size distribution data for samples collected in the Ohio River near the intake structure by petite ponar dredge in 2011. Three live individuals were collected in each month sampled (June, July, September, and November) for a total of 12 individuals.

They ranged in size from the 1.00-1.99 mm size range that were spawned in 2011 to greater than 9.50 mm that were spawned in prior years. The number of individuals collected in 2011 Annual Environmental Report 17 FENOC (BVPS)

I 2011 was somewhat less than in the prior three years; 27 individuals in 2010, 42 in 2009, and 23 in 2008. A spring/early-summer spawning period typically occurs in the Ohio River near BVPS each year when preferred spawning temperatures (60-650 F) are reached (Figure 5.8). The I offspring from this spawning event generally begin appearing in the sample collections in June.The settled clams generally increase in size throughout the year. The overall low numbers of live Corbicula collected in the sample collected outside the intake and cooling towers in 2011, compared to levels in the 1980's, likely reflects a natural decrease in the density of Corbicula in the Ohio River near BVPS, although an increased density of live individuals in the cooling towers may indicate that the population is beginning to increase again. Continued monitoring of Corbicula densities is recommended.

I 5.4.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are exotic freshwater mollusks that have ventrally flattened shells generally marked with alternating dark and lighter bands. They are believed to have been introduced into North America through the ballast water of ocean-going cargo vessels probably from Eastern Europe. They were first identified in Lake St. Clair in 1988 and rapidly spread to other Great Lakes and the Mississippi River drainage system, and have become increasingly abundant in the lower, middle, and upper Ohio River. They use strong adhesive I byssal threads, collectively referred to as their byssus, to attach them'selves to any hard surfaces (e.g., intake pipes, cooling water intake systems, and other mussels).

Responding to NRC Notice No. 89-76 (Biofouling Agent-Zebra Mussel, November 21, 1989), BVPS instituted a Zebra I Mussel Monitoring Program in January 1990. Studies have been conducted each year since then.Zebra mussels were detected in both pump samples (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) and substrate samples I (Figure 5.11 and 5.12) in 2011. Zebra mussel veliger pump samples were collected from April through October 2011 (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). Veligers were collected at all of the six sites that were sampled in 2011. At most sample sites, densities of veligers generally increased through the year, peaked in June or July and then were less abundant for the balance of the sampling year.This seasonal pattern is typical for zebra mussels in the northeastern United States. Spawning begins as water temperature reach approximately 140 C and peaks at water temperatures of 210 C. Veligers densities usually peak about two weeks after the optimum water temperature for spawning is reached. Veliger densities then fall off as veligers mature and settle. The greatest density of veligers was present in the sample collected from the Emergency Outfall Basin in June (33,160/mi 3). This was an order of magnitude less than the peak density of veligers collected in 2010 (256,800/M 3). In April, veligers were collected only at the thermally enhanced Unit 1 and Unit 2 Cooling Tower reservoirs.

Veligers were not collected at any sites in May. From June through October veligers were present in every sample collected at all locations.

Overall, veliger densities in 2011 were lower than in 2010, but comparable to the densities present in 2009. This I is likely due to annual variability in numbers of veligers in the Ohio River.In 2011, settled zebra mussels were collected only in scrape samples at the barge slip and theI intake structure (Figures 5.11 and 5.12). The highest density of settled mussels in any sample 2011 Annual Enviromnental Report 18 FENOC (BVPS) collected was at the barge slip (12 mussels/m 2) in June. The mussels collected at each of the sites included individuals that were capable of reproducing.

The density of collected adult zebra mussels in 2011 was comparable to densities that occurred in 2010, 2009 and 2008.Overall, both the number of observations and densities of settled mussels in 2011 were similar to those recorded in 2008-2010, which was somewhat higher than the preceding five years.Although densities of settled mussels are low compared to other populations such as the Lower Great Lakes, densities comparable to those in the Ohio River are sufficient to cause problems in the operation of untreated cooling water intake systems. Whether the population of zebra mussels in this reach of the Ohio River is resurging or only yearly fluctuations are present cannot be determined.

In any case, the densities of mussels that presently exist are more than sufficient to impact the BVPS, if continued prudent monitoring and control activities are not conducted.

2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)19

6.0 ZEBRA

MUSSEL AND CORBICULA CONTROL ACTIVITIES In 2011, BVPS continued its Corbicula and zebra mussel control program (1 8 th year), which included the use of a molluscicide (CT-1) to prevent the proliferation of Corbicula within BVPS.BVPS was granted permission by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to use CT-I to target the Unit 1 river water system and the Unit 2 service water system.In 1990 through 1993, the molluscicide applications (CT-1) focused on reducing the Corbicula population throughout the entire river water system of each BVPS plant (Units 1 and 2). In 1994 through 20010, the CT-1 or 2 applications targeted zebra mussels and Corbicula in the internal water systems; therefore the molluscicide concentrations in the cooling towers were reduced during CT-I or 2 applications.

Consequently, adult and juvenile Corbicula in the cooling towers often survived the applications.

Reservoir sediment samples taken after CT-1 or 2 applications represented mortality of Corbicula in the cooling tower only and do not reflect mortality in BVPS internal water systems.In addition to clamicide treatments, preventive measures were taken that included quarterly cleaning of the Intake Bays. The bay cleanings are intended to minimize the accumulation and growth of mussels within the bays. This practice prevents creating an uncontrolled internal colonization habitat.I I I I I I I I 2011 Annual Enviromnental Report FENOC (BVPS)20 I

7.0 REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1994. Pennsylvania's Endangered Fishes, Reptiles and Amphibians.

Published by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

Counts, C. C. III, 1985. Distribution of Corbicula fluminea at Nuclear Facilities.

Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NUREGLCR.

4233. 79 pp.Dahlberg, M. D. and E. P. Odum, 1970. Annual cycles of species occurrence, abundance and diversity in Georgia estuarine fish populations.

Am. Midl. Nat. 83:382-392.

FENOC, 2003. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 & 2. 113 pp.FENOC, 2004. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2005. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2006. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2007. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2008. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2009. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2010. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2011. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp First Energy First Energy First Energy First Energy First Energy First Energy First Energy First Energy Hutchinson, G. E., 1967. A treatise on limnology.

Vol. 2, Introduction to lake biology and the limnoplankton.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1115 pp.Hynes, H. B. N., 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto.NRC, IE Bulletin 81-03: Flow Blockage of Cooling Tower to Safety System Components by Corbicula sp. (Asiatic Clam) and Mytilus sp. (Mussel).2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)21 Pielou, E. C., 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley Interscience, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B.Scott, 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada (fifth edition).

American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 20:1-183.Shiffer, C., 1990. Identification Guide to Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bureau of Education and Information.

51 pp.Winner, J. M., 1975. Zooplankton.

In: B. A. Whitton, ed. River ecology. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 155-169 pp.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2011 Annual Environmental Report FENOC (BVPS)22

8.0 TABLES

TABLE 5.1 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION (BVPS)SAMPLING DATES FOR 2011 Study Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Benthic Macroinvertebrate 28 9 Fish 28 28 9 8 Corbiculda and Zebra Mussel 20 26 28 28 24 9 18 8 Corbicula CT Density Zebra Mussel Veliger 20 26 28 28 24 9 18 Table 5.2 SystematicList of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio River Near BVPS Phylum Class Family Genus andSpecies Previous Collected in Newin Sub-Familyy Collections 2011 2011 porifera_____

Spongillaf!-agilis X Cnidaria HydrozoaI a Comdylophora lacustris X Craspedacusta so werbii X Hydra s p. X Platyhelminthes Tricladida X Rhahiocoela X Nemertea X Nematoda X Entoprocta I Urnatella gracilis X Ectoprocta Fredericella sp. X Paludicella articulata X Pectinatella sp. X Plumatella sp. X Annelida Oligochaeta x x lAeolosomatidae x eEnchy traeidae X INaididaeX Allonais pectinata x Amphichaeta leydigi X Arnphichaeta sp. X Arcteonais lonmondi X Aulophorus sp. X Chaetogasterdiaphanus X C. diastroph us X Dero digitata X Deroflabelliger X D. nivea X Dero sp. X Nais barb ata X N. behningi X N. bretscheri X N. communis X N. elinguis X N. pardalis X N. pseudobtusa X N. simplex X N. variabilis X X Nais sp. X Ophidonais serpentina X Paranaisfiici X Paranais litoralis X Paranais sp. X Piguetiella michiganensis X Pristina idrensis X Pristina long iso ma X Pristina longiseta X P. osborni X P. sima X Pristina sp. X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pristinella sp.x Table 5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio River Near BVPS Phylum Class Family G a Previous Collected in New in Sub-Family

[Collections 2011 2011 Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae Pristinellajienkinae I X X Pristinella idrensis x Pristina osborni X Ripistesparasita X Slavina appendiculata X Specariajosinae X Stephensoniana trivandrana X Stylariafossularis X S. lacustris X X Uncinais uncinata X Vejdovskyella comata X Vejdovskyella intermedia X Vejdovskyella sp. X Tubificida x Tubificidae x x+ 4 .1-Aulodrilus linnobius x A. pigueti X A. pluriseta X Aulodrilus sp. X X Bothrioneurum vejdovskyanurn X X Branchiura sowerbyi X X Ilyodrilus templetoni X Linnodrilus cervix X L cervix (variant)

X L. claparedianus X X L. hoffineisteri X X L. maumeensis X X L. profundicla X X L. spiralis X X L. udekemnianus X Linwodrilus sp. X Peloscolex multisetosus longidentus X P. in. multisetosus X Potarnothrix moldaviensis X Potamothrix sp. X P. vejdovskyi X Psanmmoryctides curvisetosus X Tubifex tubifex X Unidentified immature forms:-;fh hair eh-fp..Y__ _ I I__ _ _ _without hair chaetae x x Lumbriculidae X X Hirudinae x xj Glossiphoniidae

_________________j x l I____ I___Helobdella elongata x eH. stagnalis x JHelobdella sp. X I Erpobdellidae Ervobdella so.x I. + +Mooreobdella n2icrostonia x Haplotawddae Stylodrilus sp.x Lumbricina lLumbricidae x 4-x Table 5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio RiverNear BVPS Phylum Class Family Genus and Species Previous Collected in New in P ClssSub-Family Collections 2011 2011 Arthropoda Acarina X]Oxus sp.Ostracoda X lsopoda Asellus sp. X Arthropoda"Amphipda Talitridae Hyalella azteca X Cammiaridae Cranonyx pseudogracilis X Cran7on7yx Sp. x Gammarus fasciatus x Gammarus sp. X X Pontoporejidac

_____Monoporeia affinis X Corophididae x Decapoda X Collembola x Ephemeroptera x Heptageniidae x Stenacron sp. X Stenonenma sp. X E p h e m e rid a e ] p e n r p Ephemera s. X Hexagenia sp. X X jphron sp. X BafiBe-aetis sp. X Caenis sp. X X Serattella sp. X Tricorythodes s p.X M egaloptera S ai p Odonata]Gomphidae Argia sp. X Dromo omphus spoliatus X Drontogomphus sp. X X Gomphus sp." x Lestidae xLestes sp. X x]Libellula sp. X Plecoptera X Trichoptera X[] Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. X Wjdropsyche sp. X IParapsyche sp. X H y d r o p t i l i d a e -H d o t l p Hydroptila sp X X Orthotrichia sp. X Oxyethira sp. X x Ceraclea sp. X Oecetis sp. X Polycentropodidae Cyrnelhus sp X Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sp. x I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio River Near BVPS Phylum Class Family Genus and Species Previous Collectedin Newin Sub-Family Collections 2011. 2011 Coleoptera Hydrophilidae x Coleoptera lmnidae Ancyronyx i'ariegatus X Dubiraphia sp. X Helichus sp. X Optioserus sp. X Stenelmis sp. X_Psephenidae X Diptera_____ -I-Unidentified Dinotera X Psychodidae X Pericoma sp. X Psychoda sp. X Telmatoscopus sp. X Unidentified Psychodidae pupae X Chaoboridae CChaoborus sp. X Simuliidae SSimniliuin sp. X Chironomidae X X Chironominae X Tanytarsini pupa X Chironominae pupa X X Axhrus sp. X X Chironomus sp. X X Cladopelma sp. X Cladotanytarsus sp. X X Cryptochironounis sp. X X Dicrotendipes nervosus X Dicrotendipes sp. X X Glyptotendipes sp. X Harnischia sp. X Microchironomus sp. X Micropsectra sp. X Microtendipes sp. X Parachirononnus sp. X Paracladopelma sp. X Paratanytarsus sp. X Paratendipes sp. X Phaenopsectra sp. X Polypedilum (s.s.) convictum type X P. (s.s.) simulans type X Polypedilum sp. X X Pseudochirononnis sp. X X Rheotanytarsus sp. X Stempellina sp. X Stenochirononms sp. X Stictochirononius sp. X Tanytarsus coffinani X Tanytarsus sp. X X Tribelos sp. X Xenochironomus sp. X Tanypodinae X Tanypodinae pupae x Ablabesmyia sp. X X Clinotanypus sp. X X Coelotanypus scapularis X Coelotanypus sp. X X Djalmabatista pulcher X Djahnabatista sp. X Procladius sp. X X Tanypus sp.X Table 5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio River Near BVPS Phylum Class Family Genus and Species Previous Collectedin Newin Sub-Family Collections 2011 2011 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemanninyzia group I X Zavrelinyia sp.x Orthocladiinae x 4- 4 4 Orthocladiinae pupae x Cricotopus bicinclus X C. (s.s.) trifascia X Cricotopus (Isocladius)-sylvestris Group X C. (Isocladius) sp. X Cricotopus (s.s.) sp. X X Eukiefferiella sp. X Hydrobaenus sp. X Lininophyes sp. X Nanocladius (s.s.) distinctus X Nanocladius sp. X Orthocladius sp. X X Parainetriocnenmus sp. X Paraphaenocladius sp. X Psectrocladius sp. X Pseudorthocladius sp. X Pseudosniittia sp. X Sinittia sp. X Theinenianninmyia sp. X Diamesinae Diamesa sp.x IPotthastia st).x 1- 1 4 Ceratopogonidae Probezzia sp.x x x Bezzia sp. .x + X x Culicoides sp. X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dolichopodidae x Ernpididae X Clinocera sp. X Wiedemiannia sp. X Ephydridae X Muscidae X Rhagionidae X Tipulidae X Stratiomyidae X Svyrhidae x Lepidoptera X Hydracarinidia X lOxus sp. X X Mollusca Gastropoda X Hydrobiidae x Amnicolinae Amnnicola sp. X Aminicola binneyana X X Anmnicola limosa X X Stagnicola elodes X Bithynidae x th ap.X IPhysacea X Pleuroceridae Pleurocera acuta X X Goniobasis sp. X X Physidae X Psas.X X _ _Physa ancillaria X Physa integm X X Table 5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2011 in The Ohio River Near BVPS Phylum Class Family Genus and Species Previous Collectedin Newin P Sub-Familyh Collections 2011 2011 Mollusca Physacea Ancylidae X X IFerrissia sp. X Planorbidae Gillia atilis X X_Valvatidae x Valvata perdepressa X Valvatapiscinalis x Valvata sincera X X Valvata sp, x Pelecypoda x IS phaeriacea x Corbiculidae Corbiculayluminea X X Corbicula sp. X Sphaeriidae x Pisidium ventricosum X Pisidium sp. X X Sphaerium sp. X Unidentified immature Sphaeriidae X Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha X X Unionidae X Anodonta-grandis X Anodonta (immature)

X Elliptio sp. X Quadrulaipustulosa X Unidentified immature Unionidae X

TABLE 5.3 BiNTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COUNTS FOR TRIPLICATE SAMPLES TAKEN AT EACH SAMPLE STATION FOR MAY AND SEPTEMBER 2011 May Sept Scientific name Location May Location Sept 2011 1 2A 2B1 2B2 2B3 3 Total 1 2A 2BI 2B2 2B3 3 Total Total Ablabesmyia sp. 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Amnicola binneyana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 13 0 0 21 21 Amnicola limosa 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 1 1 7 14 Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 10 13 13 Aulodilus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 Axarus sp. 0 24 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Bothdoneurum vejdovskyanum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Bezzia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Branchiura sowerbyi 1 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 9 Bithnya sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 Caenis sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 3 9 11 Ceratopogonidae 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 Chironomid pupae 0 4 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 11 Chironomidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Chironomus sp. 0 21 9 1 26 0 57 1 1 0 1 2 0 5 62 Cladotanytarsus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. 1 1 1 Clinotanypus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Coelotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 2 9 9 Corbicula fluminea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3. 2 0 3 9 9 Cdcotopus (s.s.) sp. 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 Cryptochironomus sp. 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 2 12 8 11 0 12 45 54 Dicrotenfipides sp 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 6 0 1 13 15 Dreissena polymorpha 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 8 2 0 10 20 32 Dromogomphussp 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Gammarus sp. 0 0 2 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 11 Gillia ablis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 Goniobasis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 3 Hexagenia sp. 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Hydropbla sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 19 22 22 Immature tubificid without 1 22 18 1 115 152 309 22 0 14 23 23 1 83 392 Lestes sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 5 6 Limnodrilus claparedianus 1 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Limnoddrus hoffmeisteri 4 3 6 0 60 7 80 3 2 7 12 3 2 29 109 Limnodrilus maumeensis 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 8 ULmnodrlus profundicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Limnoddlus udemekianus 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lumbdculidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nais vadabilis 0 2 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 Oligochaeta 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 Orthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 Oxus sp (Hydracarina) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Oxyethira sp (Tricoptera) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 3 Physa sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 Physa integm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 Pisidium sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 13 1 2 1 0 3 20 21 Pleurocera acuta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Polypedilum sp. 0 28 58 0 2 4 92 10 24 7 30 14 44 129 221 Pdstinella jenkinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Procladius sp. 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 8 11 17 Pseudochironomis sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

---

m m m -m m m m -m---TABLE 5.4 MEAN NUMBER OF MACROVERTEBRATES (NUMBERIM 2) AND PERCENT COMPOSMON OF OLIGOCHAErES, CHIRONOMIDS, MOLLUSKS, AND OTHIX ORGANISMS, 2011 BVPS May --Stat ion l:(Controli).

2A 2Bl,(Nn-control),-.

'2B2-(Non-control)

I 2B3,(Non-control)

.3 I Total Mean...." ->" #/mn- .... :>'- ':#/m. .... %> :.,-#/rn.

,%'- '. #/l ....;.. fin..#m> .%,. " #IMn.....

% .."#lm2. :%% #/ 2 :'7 winu .2 2 2.Oligo claetes 115 100 387 19 401 25 86 30 2566 81 2322 97 979 61 Chiro n'omids- 0 0 1562 76 1089 67 14 5 487 15 57 2 535 33 Mollusks,<

0 0 43 2 100 6 172 60 14 0 0 0 55 3 Others: 0 0 57 3 .43 3 14 5 115 4 14 1 41 3 Tot6l.c 115 100 2049 100 1633 100 286 100 3182 100 2393 100 1610 100 Scpte giber -:Station, 1 B(~ oto); 2B2 (No n-contro 1)> 2B .3 im onto1 Clotoo > o AiiBl § 9 n. -" 548 4 243 2 02 4 #/ 23 Ohigochia

'etes 387 44 43 6 358 33 502 27 430 59 387 18 351 29 Chiiro'noinids',.

215 25 545 81 358 33 831 44 244 33 1032 49 538 44 Mollusks -272 31 72 11 344 32 358 19 29 4 444 21 253 21 Others-,"-.-.'-

0 0 14 2 14 1 201 11 29 4 258 12 86 7 Total 874 100 674 100 1074 100 1892 100 732 100 2121 100 1228 100 H TABLE 5.5 MEAN NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (NUMBER/M 2) AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF OLIGOCHAETA, CHIRONOMIDAE, MOLLUSCA, AND OTHER ORGANISMS FOR THE CONTROL STATION (1) AND THE AVERAGE FOR NON-CONTROL STATIONS (22B1, 2B2, AND 2B3), 2011 BVPS May,, Control Station(Mean). , Ndn;Control Station (Mdan)oligoohaeta.

115 100 1018 60 Chironomidae i 0 0 530 31 Mlitsda Kluc, a.- 0 0 95 6 others 0 0 57 3 TOTAL 115 100 1700 100 Septemiber;

• ,.6rol ýstation (Mea). .Non-Control Station (Mean)2,20 M7 ,ligochaeta.

387 44 430 35 Chirobomidae,;l.

215 25 478 39*Mollusca ..".. 272 31 244 20 Olihers 0:* 0:i : 81 7"[:T AI .i : 874 100 1 1233 100 I I I I I I I TABLE 5.6 SHANNON-WEINER DIVERSITY, EVENNESS AND RICHNESS INDICES FOR BENTIUC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN THE 01110 RIVER, 2011 Station ....- .May A A. 2B i :i 2B3 -"3 N., <2offaca, 5 17 12 15 14 6 0.60 1.00 0.73 0.53 0.60 0.18 0.86 0.81 0.68 0.45 0.53 0.24 RiIjchni.ss A 1.92 3.22 2.32 4.67 2.41 0.98 StationSeptembe 1 2A 2B1 , 2B2 2B3' :.No6. .- .12 10 .19 26 11 28 Sh§annon-Weine Index'- 0.81 0.65 1.14 1.12 0.71 1.13 EVefihiess 0.75 0.65 0.89 0.79 0.68 0.78 Riche'ss 2.68 2.34 4.17 5.12 2.54 5.40 Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control)and 2B (Noncontrol), BVPS, 1973-2011.

__________________'

Preoperational, 1973 1974 1975 , .1 .. .2B , ' 1 .2B -- 2B " May 248 508 1116 2197 August 99 244 143 541 1017 1124 Mean 173 376 630 1369 1017 1124'... ' operational

_. ________..._:

_1976 .1977 1978_ _._ _ ,I , .2B, I , 2B1 .: ' .2B May 927 3660 674 848 351 126 August 851 785 591 3474 601 1896 Mean 889 2223 633 2161 476 1011__..". _. __:. __._." __. ::.,: '.i.,:,Operational .I " ____ _._:,- __1979 1980 1981____ 12B:; 1 213' 2B.May 1004 840 1041 747 209 456 Aug/Sept 1185 588 1523 448 2185 912 Mean 1095 714 1282 598 1197 684 1982 1983 1984" , ." :2B11... .1 2B I ' '2B .May 3490 3026 3590 1314 2741 621 September 2958 3364 4172 4213 1341 828 Mean 3223 3195 3881 2764 2041 725_________________ -perational

_______1985 1986 1987______ :-"I'.'2 .B .2B.. 1 .. 2B May 2256 867 601 969 1971 2649 September 1024 913 849 943 2910 2780 Mean 1640 890 725 956 2440 2714 I I I i I I I I I I I I I U Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control)and 2B (Noncontrol), BVPS, 1973-2011 (Continued).

Operational 1988 1989 1990 1 2B I 2B 1 2B May 1804 1775 3459 2335 15135 5796 September 1420 1514 1560 4707 5550 1118 Mean 1612 1645 2510 3274 10343 3457 Operational 1991 1992 1993 1 2B I 2B 1 2B May 7760 6355 7314 10560 8435 2152 September 3588 2605 2723 4707 4693 2143 Mean 5808 4480 5019 7634 6564 2148 Operational 1994 1995 1996 1 2B I 2B 1 2B May 6980 2349 8083 9283 1987 1333 September 1371 2930 1669 3873 1649 2413 Mean 4176 2640 4876 6578 1814 1873 Operational 1997 1998 1999 1 2B I 2B I 2B May 1411 2520 6980 2349 879 1002 September 1944 2774 1371 2930 302 402 Mean 1678 2647 4176 2640 591 702 Operational 2000 2001 2002 1 2B I 2B I 2B May 2987 2881 3139 5232 1548 2795 September 3092 2742 8632 14663 Mean 3040 2812 3139 5232 5090 8729 Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control)and 2B (Noncontrol), BVPS, 1973-2011 (Continued).

-O~~~~perational

__________

2003 2004 2005__r_ _ ""2BB 1 2B2,:ýMay 7095 10750 2752 4558 516 1146 September 2193 6464 10062 7604 4773 6435 Mean 4644 8607 6407 6181 2645 3791________________

0perational

_________2006 2007 2008* .1 2B I 2B I 1 '2B..May 143 1242 559 912 158 1252 September 229 2199 560 3794 1161 2150 Mean 186 1721 560 2353 660 1701_ Operational 2009 2010 2011 1 2B I 2B 1 2B May 71 1462 1763 2527 115 1700 September 903 1902 1720 1256 874 1233 Mean 487 1682 1742 1892 495 1467 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 5.8 TOTAL FISH CATCH; ELECTROFISHING AND SEINE NET COMBINED DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEY Common Name Scientific Name , Number iPercent Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 7 3.66 Black crappie Pomnoxis nigromaculatus 1 0.52 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 7 3.66 Bluntnose minnow Pirnephales notatus 2 1.05 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 2 1.05 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 2 1.05 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 5 2.62 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 2 1.05 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 4 2.09 Gizzard shad Dorosomna cepedianum 20 10.47 Golden redhorse sucker Moxostoma erythrurum 8 4.19 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 1 0.52 Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 5 2.62 Log perch Percina caprodes 1 0.52 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus 2 1.05 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 1 0.52 Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 8 4.19 Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 1 0.52 Sauger Sander canadense 16 8.38 Shorthead redhorse sucker Moxostoma macrolepidotum 34 17.80 Silver redhorse Moxostonza anisurum 2 1.05 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 24 12.57 Spotfin shiner Notropis spilopterus 12 6.28 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus 10 5.24 Walleye Sander vitreum 3 1.57 White bass Morone chrysops 10 5.24 Yellow perch Percaflavescens 1 0.52[Total Fish Collected in 2011 191 100.00 TABLE 5.9 COMPARISON OF CONTROL VS. NON-CONTROL ELECTROFISHING CATCHES DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEY Comm6nName

[ Control 1.% Non-control]

Total fish .Smallmouth buffalo 2 4.44 5 4.7 7 4.64 Black crappie 1 0.9 1 0.66 Bluegill 6 5.7 6 3.97 Channel catfish 2 1.9 2 1.32 Common carp 1 2.22 1 0.9 2 1.32 Flathead catfish 2 4.44 2 1.32 Freshwater drum 1 2.22 3 2.8 4 2.65 Gizzard shad 8 7.5 8 5.30 Golden redhorse sucker 5 11.11 3 2.8 8 5.30 Largemouth bass 1 0.9 1 0.66 Longnose gar 2 4.44 3 2.8 5 3.31 Mooneye 1 2.22 1 0.9 2 1.32 Pumpkinseed 1 0.9 1 0.66 Quillback 4 8.89 4 3.8 8 5.30 Sauger 3 6.67 13 12.3 16 10.60 Shorthead redhorse sucker 14 31.11 20 18.9 34 22.52 Silver redhorse 2 1.9 2 1.32 Smallmouth bass 5 11.11 17 16.0 22 14.57 Spotted bass 3 6.67 7 6.6 10 6.62 Walleye 2 4.44 1 0.9 3 1.99 White bass 6 5.7 6 3.97 Yellow perch 1 0.9 1 0.66 Total 45 100.00 106 100.0 151 100.00 I I I I U I I I I I I I TABLE 5.10 COMPARISON OF CONTROL VS. NON-CONTROL SEINE CATCHES DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEY om e ImonName Contr % JNon-controkl j Total fishl , Bluegill 0 0.00 1 4.76 1 2.50 Bluntnose minnow 1 5.26 1 4.76 2 5.00 Emerald shiner 2 10.53 3 14.29 5 12.50 Gizzard shad 8 42.11 4 19.05 12 30.00 Log perch 0 0.00 1 4.76 1 2.50 Rock bass 0 0.00 1 4.76 1 2.50 Smallmouth bass 0 0.00 2 9.52 2 5.00 Spotfin shiner 8 42.11 4 19.05 12 30.00 White bass 0 0.00 4 19.05 4 10.00 Total 1 19 r 100.00 1 21 r 100.00 1 40 1 100.00 TABLE 5.11 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE JUNE 2011 (SPRING) SAMPLING OF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPS Saml, oain Sein Electrofishin

.commo Namen-1 ,s-2 E-21 EA E-2B E-3 Týtal % Total %Smalmnouth buflalo 1 1 0 0.00 2 6.45 Black crappie 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bluegill 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bluntnose minnow 0 0.00 0 0.00 Channel catfish 1 0 0.00 1 3.23 Common carp 0 0.00 0 0.00 Emerald shiner 2 2 22.22 0 0.00 Flathead catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 Freshwater drum 0 0.00 0 -0.00 Gizzard shad 1 0 0.00 1 -3.23 Golden redhorse sucker 1 1 0 0.00 2 6.45 Largemouth bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Longnose gar 1 0 0.00 1 3.23 Log perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mooneye 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pumpkinseed 0 0.00 0 0.00 Quillback 3 1 1 0 0.00 5 16.13 Rock bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sauger 0 0.00 0 0.00 Shorthead redhorse sucker 4 6 1 1 0 0.00 12 38.71 Silver redhorse 0 0.00 0 0.00 Smnallmouth bass 1 2 1 2 1 11.11 5 16.13 Spotfin shiner 6 6 66.67 0 0.00 Spotted bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Walleye 0 0.00 0 0.00 White bass 2 0 0.00 2 6.45 Yellow perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 6 3 11 8 9 3 9 100.00 31 100.00 U I I I I I I I I I* Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining I I TABLE 5.12 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE JULY 2011 SAMPLING OF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPS Samle ocaion~ ~S~eihe Electrofishingz Common Name S Si S-2: E-1 E-2A, E-2B E' -3 Total % Total %Smallmouth buffalo 0 0.00 0 0.00 Black crappie 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bluegill 1 1 0 0.00 2 10.53 Bluntnose minnow 0 0.00 0 0.00 Channel catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 Conmmon carp 0 0.00 0 0.00 Emerald shiner 1 1 33.33 0 0.00 Flathead catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 Freshwater drum 1 0 0.00 1 5.26 Gizzard shad 2 1 0 0.00 3 15.79 Golden redhorse sucker 1 0 0.00 1 5.26 Largemouth bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Longnose gar 1 0 0.00 1 5.26 Log perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mooneye 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pumpkinseed 0 0.00 0 0.00 Quillback 1 2 0 0.00 3 15.79 Rock Bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sauger 0 0.00 0 0.00 Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 1 0 0.00 3 15.79 Silver redhorse.

0 0.00 0 0.00 Smalhnouth bass 1 1 0 0.00 2 10.53 Spotfin shiner 2 2 66.67 0 0.00 Spotted bass 1 2 0 0.00 3 15.79 Walleye 0 0.00 0 0.00 White bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Yellow perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 3 0 4 9 4 2 3 100.00 19 100.00 I I I I TABLE 5.13 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE SEPTEMBER 2011 SAMPLING OF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPS Sample locations

• Seine Electroishing Common Name'.. 8-Y S-2 ý"E-I E-2A E-2B1 E-3 Total .-.,% Total..::

%Smallmouth buffalo 1 0 0.00 .1 1.75 Black crappie 1 0 0.00 1 1.75 Bluegill 1 0 0.00 1 1.75 Bluntnose minnow 1 1 4.00 0 0.00 Channel catfish 1 0 0.00 1 1.75 Common carp 1 0 0.00 1 1.75 Emerald shiner 1 1 4.00 0 0.00 Flathead catfish 2 0 0.00 2 3.51 Freshwater drum 1 0 0.00 1 1.75 Gizzard shad 8 4 3 12 48.00 3 5.26 Golden redhorse sucker 3 1 1 0 0.00 5 8.77 Largemouth bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Longnose gar 2 1 0 0.00 3 5.26 Log perch 1 1 4.00 0 0.00 Mooneye 1 1 0 0.00 2 3.51 Pumpkinseed 0 0.00 0 0.00 Quillback 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rock bass 1 1 4.00 0 0.00 Sauger 1 2 1 1 0 0.00 5 8.77 Shorthead redhorse sucker 1 7 1 1 0 0.00 10 17.54 Silver redhorse 1 1 0 0.00 2 3.51 Smallmouth bass 1 2 4 2 1 4.00 8 14.04 Spotfin shiner 4 4 16.00 0 0.00 Spotted bass 2 1 2 0 0.00 5 8.77 Walleye 2 1 0 0.00 3 5.26 White bass 4 2 1 4 16.00 3 5.26 Yellow perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 9 16 16 20 14 7 25 100.00 57 100.00 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I* Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.14 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE NOVEMBER 2011 SAMPLING OF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPS_"__________._

_ ';," sample, ocations

• Seinei Electrofishing CommonNamie S-'. S-2 EI",1 ::E-2A" E2- E-3 Total %X Total " Smallmouth buffalo 1 1 2 0 0.00 4 9.09 Black crappie 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bluegill 1 2 1 1 33.33 3 6.82 Bluntnose minnow 1 1 33.33 0 0.00 Channel catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 Common carp 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Emerald shiner 1 1 33.33 0 0.00 Flathead catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 Freshwater drum 1 1 0 0.00 2 4.55 Gizzard shad 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Golden redhorse sucker 0 0.00 0 0.00 Largemouth bass 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Longnose gar 0 0.00 0 0.00 Log perch 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mooneye 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pumpkinseed 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Quillback 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rock bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sauger 2 1 6 2 0 0.00 11 25.00 Shorthead redhorse sucker 7 2 0 0.00 9 20.45 Silver redhorse 0 0.00 0 0.00 Smallmouth bass 1 3 3 0 0.00 7 15.91 Spotfin shiner 0 0.00 0 0.00 Spotted bass 1 1 0 0.00 2 4.55 Walleye 0 0.00 0 0.00 White bass 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Yellow perch 1 0 0.00 1 2.27 Total 1 2 14 10 14 6 3 100.00 44 97.73* Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.15 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FISH OBSERVED DURING ELECTROFISHING OPERATIONS, 2011 ,"CommoName

,." Junle July Sept Nov Total Unidentified redhorse suckers 5 --5 Carp --1 1 Longnose gar 4 --4 Unidentified suckers 3 -6 9 Sauger --4 4 Gizzard shad 2 --2 Total 14 0 0 11 25* = Not boated or handled Table 5.16 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHIELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2008 FISHERIES SURVEY Numbe'r Seeason Effrt (min) Common Name .Coliected CPUE (fish/min)

Spring 40.5 Smallrnouth buffalo 6 0.1481 Bluegill 1 0.0247 Carp 1 0.0247 Channel catfish 10 0.2469 Freshwater drum 2 0.0494 Golden redhorse sucker 18 0.4444 Quilback 9 0.2222 Rock bass 1 0.0247 Sauger 51 1.2593 Shorthead redhorse sucker 40 0.9877 Silver redhorse 11 0.2716 Smallmouth bass 18 0.4444 Spotted bass 4 0.0988 Walleye 12 0.2963 Season Total 184 4.5432 Number-Seaso: n Effort, (min) Common Name..' ColHlecte-d CPUE(fish/min), -Summer 41.0 Smallmouth buffalo 5 0.1220 Bluegill 1 0.0244 Flathead catfish 1 0.0244 Freshwater drum 4 0.0976 Gizzard shad 4 0.0976 Longnose gar 3 0.0732 Quillback 1 0.0244 Sauger 2 0.0488 Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 0.0488 Smallmouth bass 4 0.0976 Spotted bass 1 0.0244_Season Total 28 0.6829 Table 5.16 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2008 FISHERIES SURVEY Season Effort (min) CommonName Nu.bCollected, p ,fs/ in: Fall 41.0 Smalhnouth buffalo 2 0.0488 Carp 1 0.0244 Channel catfish 2 0.0488 Freshwater drum 1 0.0244 Gizzard shad 17 0.4146 Golden redhorse sucker 3 0.0732 Mooneye 1 0.0244 Northern hog sucker 0 0.0000 Quillback 4 0.0976 Sauger 2 0.0488 Shorthead redhorse sucker 7 0.1707 Silver redhorse 1 0.0244 Smallmouth bass 9 0.2195 Spotted bass 1 0.0244 White bass 1 0.0244 Season Total 52 1.2683'Num'ber Season Effort (mi) Coimmon Name Collected

..CPUE (fish/min).

Winter 40.4 Smalhlnouth buffalo 3 0.0743 Bluegill 2 0.0495 Carp 0 0.0000 Gizzard shad 3 0.0743 Golden redhorse sucker 9 0.2228 Largemouth bass 1 0.0248 Longnose gar 2 0.0495 Quillback 2 0.0495 River carpsucker 1 0.0248 Sauger 10 0.2475 Shorthead redhorse sucker 15 0.3713 Silver redhorse 1 0.0248 Smallmouth bass 4 0.0990 Spotted bass 4 0.0990 White bass 1 0.0248 Season Total 58 1.4356 2008 162.9 322 1.9767 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U Table 5.17 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHIELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2009 FISHERIES SURVEY Number Season Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Spring 40.3 Smalimouth buffalo 7 0.1737 Flathead catfish 1 0.0248 Freshwater drum 1 0.0248 Gizzard shad 2 0.0496 Golden redhorse sucker 8 0.1985 Longnose gar 4 0.0993 Quillback 5 0.1241 River carpsucker 2 0.0496 Shorthead redhorse sucker 15 0.3722 Silver redhorse 1 0.0248 Smallmouth bass 9 0.2233 Spotted bass 1 0.0248 Walleye 1 0.0248 White bass 1 0.0248 Season Total 58 1.4392 Number Season Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.0 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.1000 Carp 3 0.0750 Channel catfish 1 0.0250 Gizzard shad 2 0.0500 Golden redhorse sucker 1 0.0250 Mooneye 2 0.0500 Quillback 3 0.0750 Sauger 6 0.1500 Shorthead redhorse sucker 13 0.3250 Smalimouth bass 2 0.0500 Spotted bass 2 0.0500 Season Total 39 0.9750 Table 5.17 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2009 FISHERIES SURVEYý-:i; ý,,Season

'Effort.(min)

Common Name Co0lected

.CPUE (fishmi6)Fall 40.5 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0247 Black crappie 1 0.0247 Bluegill 3 0.0741 Carp 3 0.0741 Gizzard shad 1 0.0247 Golden redhorse sucker 6 0.1481 Quillback 1 0.0247 Sauger 13 0.3210 Shorthead redhorse sucker 4 0.0988 Silver redhorse 1 0.0247-Smallmouth bass 3 0.074f Spotted bass 4 0.0988 White bass 8 0.1975 Season Total 49 1.2099.Num~be'r' Seas0on', Effot mon Name' , .Collected:'

CPUE (fish/min)

Winter 40.0 SmaUmouth buffalo 5 0.1250 Carp 4 0.1000 Channel catfish 1 0.0250 Flathead catfish 1 0.0250 Golden redhorse sucker 4 0.1000 Longnose gar 3 0.0750 Mooneye 1 0.0250 Quillback 3 0.0750 Sauger 11 0.2750 Shorthead redhorse sucker 12 0.3000 Smailmouth bass 6 0.1500 Spotted bass 1 0.0250 Walleye 3 0.0750 White bass 3 0.0750_Season Total 58 1.4500 2009 160.8 1 204 1.2687 I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I Table 5.18 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2010 FISHERIES SURVEY Season Effort (min) Common Name Number Collected CPUE(fish/min)

Spring 41.0 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.0976 Channel catfish 3 0.0732 Freshwater drum 1 0.0244 Gizzard shad 3 0.0732 Golden redhorse sucker 11 0.2683 Longnose gar 4 0.0976 Mooneye 2 0.0488 Sauger 16 0.3902 Shorthead redhorse sucker 22 0.5366 Silver redhorse 4 0.0976 Smalmouth bass 13 0.3171 Spotted bass 2 0.0488 Walleye 3 0.0732 White bass 2 0.0488 Season Total 90 2.1951 Number Season Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.4 Smalmouth buffalo 4 0.0990 Channel catfish 1 0.0248 Flathead catfish 1 0.0248 Golden shiner 1 0.0248 Mooneye 1 0.0248 Quillback 2 0.0495 Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 0.0495 Silver redhorse 1 0.0248 Season Total 13 0.3218 Table 5.19 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHIELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEY Nuber Season,' Effort (nun) Common Name , Collected CPUE(fish/min), Spring 40.5 Smallmouth buffalo 2 0.0494 Channel catfish 1 0.0247 Gizzard shad 1 0.0247 Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0494 Longnose gar 1 0.0247 Quiliback 5 0.1235 Shorthead redhorse sucker 12 0.2963 Smallmouth bass 5 0.1235'White bass 2 0.0494 Season Total 31 0.7654 season-i", Effort(mrin)

C common, Name:.- Collected " CPUE: (fishmin)Summer 40.3 Bluegill 2 0.0496 Freshwater drum 1 0.0248 Gizzard shad 3 0.0744 Golden redhorse sucker 1 0.0248 Longnose gar .1 0.0248_Quiliback 3 0.0744 Shorthead redhorse sucker 3 0.0744.Smailmouth bass 2 0.0496 Spotted bass 3 0.0744 Season Total 19 0.4715 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5.18 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2010 FISHERIES SURVEY Number Season Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Fall 40.2 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0249 Gizzard shad 6 0.1493 Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0498 Sauger 1 0.0249 Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 0.0498 Silver redhorse 1 0.0249 Smallmouth bass 3 0.0746 Spotted bass 4 0.0995 White bass 6 0.1493 Season Total 26 0.6468 Number Season Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Winter 40.4 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0248 Freshwater drum 3 0.0743 Gizzard shad 4 0.0990 Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0495 Mooneye 1 0.0248 Pumpkinseed 0 0.0000 I Quillback 2 0.0495 River carpsucker 1 0.0248 Sauger 3 0.0743 Shorthead redhorse sucker 7 0.1733 Silver redhorse 5 0.1238 Smallmouth bass 3 0.0743 Spotted bass 2 0.0495 White bass 13 0.3218 Season Total 47 1.1634 2010 162.0 176 1.08642 Table 5.19 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEY_ for oCollected, , -'c .CPUE, fih/min Fall 40.2 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0249 Black crappie 1 0.0249 Bluegill 1 0.0249 Channel catfish 1 0.0249 Common carp 1 0.0249 Flathead catfish 2 0.0498 Freshwater drum 1 0.0249 Gizzard shad 3 0.0746 Golden redhorse sucker 5 0.1244 Longnose gar 3 0.0746 Mooneye 2 0.0498 Sauger 5 0.1244 Shorthead redhorse sucker 10 0.2488 Silver redhorse 2 0.0498 Smallmouth bass 8 0.1990 Spotted bass 5 0.1244 Walleye 3 0.0746 White bass 3 0.0746 Season Total 57 1.4179 o leced-..;-ao 6rtrin) 'C' N' Number'Season Eff0rt (min ,',... CommoniName .Collec.te'd',.

CPUE(fi shmin)in.Winter 40.5 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.0988 Bluegill 3 0.0741 Common carp 1 0.0247 Freshwater drum 2 0.0494 Gizzard shad 1 0.0247 Largemouth bass 1 0.0247 Pumpkinseed 1 0.0247 Sauger 11 0.2716 Shorthead redhorse sucker 9 0.2222 Smallmouth bass 7 0.1728 Spotted bass 2 0.0494 White bass 1 0.0247 Yellow perch 1 0.0247 Season Total 44 1.0864 2011 161.5 151 0.93498 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 5.20 UNIT 1 COOLING RESERVOIR MONTHLY SAMPLING CORBICULA DENSITY DATA FOR 2011 FROM BVPS...... Area : Live.' ,Maxmur .. MinimU" fEstimated., Collection Sampled "or .Length. , Numb er't: sq ;uDead.Count, Range (mm)" -.Ringe(mon)

,(peý- sq in).4/20/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 5/26/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 --- 0 6/28/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 --- 0 7/28/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 --- 0 8/24/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 --- 0 9/9/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 10/18/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 11/8/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 --- 0 Dead 0 ....0 Unit summary Le 0 --- 0 L-Live 0_ ....o TABLE 5.21 UNIT 2 COOLING RESERVOIR MONTHLY SAMPLING CORBICULA DENSITY DATA FOR 2011 FROM BVPS Estimated Area Maximum Minimum Number.Collection Sampled Live or. Length.. Length- (per sq ,I Date.:: (s4 ft)f Dead. Count. Range (mm) Range(mm) r 4/20/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 5/26/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 0 6/28/2011 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0 Live 0 ----0 7/28/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 Dead 0 ....0 8/24/2011 0.25 Live 0 .-- 0 Dead 0 ...... 0 99210.5 Live 0 ----0 10/18/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 11/8/2011 0.25 Dead 0 0 Live 0 ...... 0 Unit Dead 0 ...... 0 sumary Live 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

9.0 FIGURES

= IM I -I -- M---- I -- M M M I;0 2-4 Figure 5.1 2011 Beaver Valley Power Station Aquatic Monitoring Program Sampling Control and Non-Control Sampling Stations "Ipplngpout 0 z Mag 14.00 IW1 Thu Jan 16 10:23 1997~~ Scale 1:31.250 (at center)jl~enthic sample site2DDFe Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Benthic Organism Survey Sampling Sites for the 2011 Studyý- 5va Figure 5.2 m M M M M -M M M M M M M = = M m M d ~try .n 0n PWhPPkngport 0z Mao 14.00 LEGEND ThuJarn 1610141997

• Electiofltingshite MC Scade 1:31,250 (at center)eSensieStation 2A N, 2000 Feet low Meters r Station FS Fi2B-Figure 5.3 Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Fish Population Survey Fish Sampling Sites for the 2011 Study z C Ill S C 2 m z-4 m-U 0-4 Figure 5.4 Location of Study Area, Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, Pennsylvania BVPS m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

---

m -imm m m nmmm mmm mm Comparison of live Corbicula clam density estimates among 2011 BVPS Unit 1 cooling tower reservoir events, for various clam shell groups.m o 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SIZE RANGE 4/20 1 5/26 1 6128 1 7/28 1 8/24 9/9 10/18 1 11/8 m0.01-0.99mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01.00-1.99mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02.00-3.34 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03.35-4.74 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m4.75-6.29 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m6.30-9.49mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0>9.50mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 5.5 TOTALMM2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL #/m2 I 0 0 olo 0 0 0 0 0 Comparison of live Corbicula clam density estimates among 2011 BVPS Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir events, for various clam shell groups.U..0 z 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4-20 526 &28 7128 W~4 I 9# 1W18 1118 mO.1-.9gMM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01.M-1.99mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200-a34 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.335-4.74 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.75-6.29 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0630-9.49 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M>9.50mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALI/m 2 0 0 r TOTAL #1m2 59 mm W.30-9.49,mm 4.75-6.29 mm SIZE RANGE 334 74mm v2.00-3.34 mm 1.00-1.99 MM 01-0.99 MM Figure 5.6-mn m m m m m -m m m m m m m m m -mn Comparison of live Corbicula clam density estimates among 2011 BVPS Intake Structure sample events, for various clam shell groups..jt ~ ~....................................................................

/ 4 ," " ......................................................

.................

12 -i .i/.mE.......................................................................

1 2 "" ...... ........ .................

...4 t.l. .75..29 mm 2 H" 2.00-3.34 mm 0 1 --/T 7/ F i"I 'IIT U. MMMSIZE RANGE 28 28 8=0.01-0.99mm 0 0 0 0 01.00-1.99mm 0 1 1 2 02.00-3.34 mm 0 1 0 1 03.35-4.74 mm 1 0 0 0*4.75-6.29 mm 2 0 0 0 06.30-9.49 mm 0 0 1 0 0>9.50mm 0 1 1 0 OTOTAL 3 3 3 3 Intake structure bottom samples are collected fromthe Ohio River atthe Intake Building.Figure 5.7 Water Temperature and River Elevation Recorded at the Ohio River at BVPS Intake Structure During 2011 on Monthly Sample Dats.so so I 70 60 678 674 672 668 666 654 50 40 30 4/M0 so2 6/2 MA2 W/4 iimsI~wtiw~V~AnW.O 9F9 10/18 ilia Figu re 5.8= = m m = m -m m m mm = =

7000 6000 5000 4000 3 3000 2000 1000 0 i U.-xxer Reservoir IUnit 2Coi I-Intake Structure/Open Water ig Tower Reservoir 250 34/20 0 10 13/60 0 0 0/28 6400 1137 4280 7/28 290 2629 3313 8/24 530 1390 3205 09I9 140 300 2693 010/18 0 1520 3870 Sample location Figure 5.9. Density of zebra mussel veligers collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2011.

35000 30000 25000 20000 -3 15000 10000 o 5000 Barge S Splash Pool Emergency Outfall Slip I Facility 04/20 0 0 0 05/26 0 0 0 06/28 2200 8550 33160 07/28 900 4215 5500 E8/24 1390 3990 4200*9/9 380 480 30 010/18 160 20 40 Sample location Figure 5.10. Density of zebra mussel veligers collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2011.

7 6 i 51-4 1 2 3 +/--2-I 1 -ZulU Intake Structure/Open Water*I 0-Unit 1 CoolingTower Reservoir Unit 2 CoolingTower Reservoir 3 0 0 0 04/20 0 0 0 05/26 0 0 0 06/28 1 0 0 07/28 0 0 0 D8/24 6 0 0*9/9 6 0 0 010/18 0 0 0 011/8 2 0 0 Figure 5.11. Density of settled zebra mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2011.* Rier Elevation Too High to Safely Sample in April and May.

15 10 2 5.0 Barge Slip*Barge Slip*Splash Pool Emergency OutfalU Facility I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 04/20 0 0 0 15/26 0 0 0 06/28 12 0 0 K7/28 0 0 0 08/24 5 0 0*9/9 2 0 0 110/18 0 0 0 011/8 5 0 0 Figure 5.12. Density of settled zebra mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2011.* River Elevation Too High to Safely Sample in April and May.

10.0 PERMITS Attachment 10.1: PERMITS & CERTIFICATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Registration Number Regulator/Description Expiration BVPS EPA generator identification Resource Conservation

& Recovery Act PAR000040485 (RCRA) Identification number for regulated waste activity.

Also used by PA DEP Indefinite to monitor regulated waste activity under the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA).04-02474 BVPS EPA Facility Identification Number for CERCLA/EPCRA/SARA.

Used for SARA Tier II reporting and emergency planning.

Indefinite 04-02475 FE Long Term Distribution Center/Warehouse (22) EPA Facility Identification Number for CERCLA/EPCRA/SARA.

Used for SARA Tier II reporting and Indefinite emergency planning.PA0025615 BVPS NPDES Permit number under US EPA and PA DEP. 12/27/2006 Continued pending approval of renewal application.

04-13281 BVPS Unit 1 PA DEP Facility Identification*&

certificate number for regulated storage tanks. Indefinite 04-13361 BVPS Unit 2 PA DEP Facility Identification

& certificate number for regulated storage tanks. Indefinite OP-04-00086 PA DEP State Only Synthetic Minor Permit for emergency auxiliary boilers, 10/12/2012 emergency diesel generators, paint shop and other miscellaneous sources..N/A PA DEP Open Burning Permit for operation of the BVPS Fire School- annual application and renewal 01/13/2012 042009 450 002RT US Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Registration 06/30/2012 200100242 US Army Permit for maintenance dredging (With Encroachment/Submerged Lands 12/31/2021 Agreement

1. 0477705, this allows maintenance dredging.).

0477705 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for construction and Indefinite maintenance of current barge slip. (With US Army Permit #200100242, this allows maintenance dredging.)

06786A Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for transmission line over Ohio Indefinite River @ Mile 34.5 18737 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for Unit 1 intake and discharge Indefinite (main combined intake and outfall structures) 0475711 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for construction and Indefinite maintenance of Unit 2 auxiliary intake GP020409201 For construction and maintenance of boat ramp near barge slip. Indefinite-End Table -

APPENDIX A SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME'OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970 THROUGH 2011 BVPS'Nomenclature follows Robins, et al. (1991)I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of 3 Appendix A Family and Scientific Name Lepisosteidae (gars)Lepisosteus osseus Hiodontidae (mooneyes)

Hiodon alosoides H. tergisus Clupeidae (herrings)

Alosa chrysochloris A. pseudoharengus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinidae (carps and minnows)Campostoma anomalum Carassius auratus Ctenopharyngodon idella Notropis spilopterus Cyprinus carpio C. carpio x C. auratus Luxilus chrysocephalus Macrhybopsis storeriana Nocomis micropogon Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis atherinoides N. buccatus N. hudsonius N. rubellus N. stramineus N. volucellus Pimephales notatus P. promelas Rhinichthys atratulus Semotilus atromaculatus Catostomidae (suckers)Carpiodes carpio C. cyprinus C. velifer Catostomus commersondi Hypentelium nigricans Ictiobus bubalus I. niger Minytrema melanops Common Name Longnose gar Goldeye Mooneye Skipjack herring Alewife Gizzard shad Central stoneroller Goldfish Grass carp Spotfin shiner Common carp Carp-goldfish hybrid Striped shiner Silver chub River chub Golden shiner Emerald shiner Silverjaw minnow Spottail shiner Rosyface shiner Sand shiner Mimic shiner Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Blacknose dace Creek chub River carpsucker Quillback Highfin carpsucker White sucker Northern hogsucker Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Spotted sucker Page 2 of 3 Appendix A (Continued)

Family and Scientific Name Moxostoma anisurum M. carinatum M. duquesnei M. erythrurum M. macrolepidotum Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes)

Ameiurus catus A. furcatus A. melas A. natalis A. nebulosus Ictalurus punctatus Noturus flavus Pylodictis olivaris Esocidae (pikes)Esox lucius E. masquinongy E lucius x E. masquinongy Salmonidae (trouts)Oncorhynchus mykiss Percopsidae (trout-perches)

Percopsis omiscomaycus Cyprinodontidae (killifishes)

Fundulus diaphanus Atherinidae (silversides)

Labidesthes sicculus Percichthyidae (temperate basses)Morone chrysops M. saxatilis M. saxatilis x M. chrysops Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis cyanellus L. gibbosus L. macrochirus L. microlophus L. gibbosus x L. microlophus Micropterus dolomieu M. punctulatus M. salmoides Pomoxis annularis P. nigromaculatus Common Name Silver redhorse River redhorse Black redhorse Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorse White catfish Blue catfish Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Stonecat Flathead catfish Northern pike Muskellunge Tiger muskellunge Rainbow trout Trout-perch Banded killifish I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brook silverside White bass Striped bass Striped bass hybrid Rock bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Redear sunfish Pumpkinseed-redear sunfish hybrid Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie I I I Page 3 of 3 Appendix A (Continued)

Family and Scientific Name Percidae (perches)Etheostoma blennioides E. nigrum E. zonale Perca flavescens Percina caprodes P. copelandi Sander canadense S. vitreum S. canadense x S. vitreum Sciaenidae (drums)Aplodinotus grunniens Common Name Greenside darter Johnny darter Banded darter Yellow perch Logperch Channel darter Sauger Walleye Saugeye Freshwater drum