ML19291A260
| ML19291A260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905070592 | |
| Download: ML19291A260 (100) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:a . s HYDROTHERMAL AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES CONNECTICUT RIVER '~ VERNON, VERMONT PHASE V OCTOBER 1977 - MAY 1978 i VERMONT YANKEE j NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION ! ROGER C. BINKERD WILLIAM D. COUNTRYMAN R. MASON MCNEER MARCH 1979
%bINC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 75 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE, P.O. BOX 2223. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 T o507 o 59 2_
CONTENTS 1 *. INTRODUCTION 1 l 2. PLANT OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 4
- 3. CONNECTICUT RIVER DISCHARGE 6
- 4. HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES 9 4.1 Objective of_the Phase V Hydrological
, Studies and Review of Past Studies on Downstream Temperature 9 4.2 Description of a One-Dimensional Convective-Dispersion Surface Heat Transfer Model 11 4.3 Estimate of Temperature at Monitor 3 r from Temperature Measurements at Monitor 7 19 4.4 Temperature Increase at Monitor 3 Due to Vermont Yankee's Circulating Water Discharge 23 4.5 Temperature and Dispersion Studios in Turners , Falls and Holyoke Pools 4.5.1 Survey Methods 30 4.5.2 Temperature Studies 31 4.5.3 Dispersion Studies 42 4.5.4 Decrease of Excess Temperature 48
- 5. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES 50 ,
5.1 Phytoplankton Studies 50 5.2 Zooplankton Studies 52 5.3 Benthic Fauna Studies 52 5.4 Entrainment Studies 53 5.4.1 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Entrainment Studies 53 5.4.2 Ichthyoplankten Entrainment Studies 54 5.5 Fish Impingement Studies 55 5.6 Plume Attraction Studies 55 5.7 Live Cage Studies 56 LITERATURE CITED 59 a e
- 5
- l. INTRODUCTION l This report summarizes the results of the Phase V open cycle hydrothermal and biological studies conducted from October 1977 through May 1978. These studies were made while an application was being prepared by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, pursuant to Sections 316a and 316b of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, for alternative thermal effluent limitations for its electric j generating station located along the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vermont.
Vermont Yankee's application for amended discharge criteria, i which would permit open cycle operation from 15 Ocotber to 15 May, was based on ecological studies of the Connecticut River near Vernon, Vermont conducted over an eleven year period and on the results of studies made during four phases of open cycle test operation from February 1974 through May 1977. The results of the Phase V studies i were not included in the environmental assessment document submitted in support of the application. However, the biological and hydro-l thermal data of Phase V were available in preliminary form during consideration of the application by the Agency of Environmental Conservation, State of Vermont. The amended NPDES discharge permit was approved on 12 September 1978. The hydrothermal studies during Phase I-IV primarily concerned the physical effects in Vernon Pool and in the river downstream to Monitor 3. However, during Phase IV, thermal surveys were conducted to Turners Falls Dam, and one survey in May was conducted in the Holyoke Pool. The results of these farfield studies indicated that the thermal effect of the cooling water discharge extended a consid-erable distance downstream; therefore, the Phase V effort was concentrated in Turners Falls and Holyoke Pools. Predictions were made in the 316 demonstration document of the thermal effects under relatively high and steady river flows. However, predictions were not included in that report for downstream thermal effects during periods when the Vernon Hydroelectric Station cycles its discharge daily from minimum flows of 1200 cfs to over 10,000 cfs. This cycling of the discharge from Vernon Dam causes a build-up of warm water in Vernon Pool. When the discharge rate is increased, Vernon Pool is flushed quickly and the large volume of warm water that moves downstream transfers plant heat to the
- atmosphere. Also, the slug of warm water spreads out along the axis of the river and mixes with water at lower temperatures on the leading and trailing edges. This mixing is described by dispersion processes. The objective of the Phase V hydrological ~ studies was I
to obtain data on dispersion characteristics and surface heat transfer, and to use this information to develop a convective-dispersion, surface heat transfer model for the estimation of excess temperature at locations downstream under typical plant discharge and river flow conditions.
, The results of eleven thermal studies conducted monthly from November 1977 to May 1978 indicate that, on the average, only a 10% reduction in plant heat can be expected in the first fifty miles downstream.
{ Dispersion processes result in the decreases in temperature without a decrease in total plant heat. Results of the Phase V studies indicate that, for an isolated slug of warm water moving downstream after a ten hour minimum flow period, the initial temperature difference of 8 F will be reduced to 2.5 F at Turners Falls Dam and to 1.1 F at Holyoke Dam. For continuous minimum flow periods greater than 15 hours, the temperature difference at Monitor 3 stabilizes at a maximum of about 10 F above ambient. This increase in temperature is reduced to 5*F at Turners Falls Dam and 2 F at Holyoke Dam. 9 In additios to the results obtained on dispersion and surface cooling, analyses are included in this report of three previously proposed methods to evaluate temperature increase at downstream Monitor 3 attributable to Vermont Yankee's discharge. Each of [ these methods required that an estimate of ambient temoerature at Monitor 3 he made from the temperature measured at Monitor 7. Monitor 7 is located upstream from the area affected by Vermont Yankee's discharge. The difference between the temperature measured at Monitor 3 and the estimated ambient temperature is the temperature increase ascribable to Vermont Yankee's discharge. L These analyses showed that the ambient temperature at Monitor 3 could be estimated only to 1.1 F, at a 68% confidence level. Since the observed daily maximum difference in temperature between the monitors was 1.1 F or less on 40% of the days during the Phase V study, the three methods are tco imprecise to be of practical use. Therefore, it was proposed that the mixed river temperature increase resulting from Vermont Yankee's discharge be calculated from river flow rate and the quantity of heat conetined in the discharge. For all hydrographic conditions- this method conserva-tively estimates temperature increases. Tne method was the one previously proposed and adopted to show cc mpliance with the thermal criteria established for open cycle operation; however, more supporting documentation for its application is included in this report than was available at the concluelon of the Phase IV studies in May 1977. The biological studies during Phase V were undertaken to confirm the conclusions of Phases I-IV, conducted in the years 1974-1977. Those studies had examined the impact of Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge on aquatic biota in the Connecticut River near
. A Vernon, Vermont, and the effects of impingement and entrainment on small organisms in the river water used for condenser cooling.
The data garnered in the Phase V studies support the con-clusion of the earlier studies -- that vermont Yankee's open cycle operation has not significantly altered the distribution, abundance, or diversity of aquatic biota in the Connecticut River. The results of the Phase V biological studies are summarized in section five of this report. l I i f l i
. l
- 2. PLANT OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
! Vermont Yankee used the open cycle mode of condenser cooling exclusively from 5 October 1977 to 31 May 1978 -- the duration of the Phase V Hydrothermal and Biological Studies. In the open cycle mode of cooling, river water used for condenser cooling was returned to the river without passing through the cooling towers.
Generally, when river water temperatures were greater than 40 F, all the water used for condenser cooling was passed only once through the condensers. However, to maximize plant operating efficiencies when river water temperatures were below 40 F, some heated water was directly recirculated to the intake structure and thus a portion of the water was pumped through the condensers more than once. Vermont Yankee's capacity f actor, availability, and efficiency for each month during Phase V are listed in Table 2.1. Ve rmont Yankee was on line 5467 hours or 95.7% of the time from 5 October 1977 to 31 May 1978 and it operated at an average capacity factor !. of 91.3%. The average net plant efficiency during the open cycle mode of operation was 32.8%. In June 1978 the plant reverted back to closed cycle mode of condenser cooling. The plant availability during June 1978 was 100% and the plant capacity factor was 96.6%, which are comparable with the previous .eight months of open cycle operation; however, the net plant efficiency decreased 2.1% and this resulted in a loss of 32. 3 MN of net generation. The decrease of 32.3 MW in plant electrical output was due to the electrical requirements of operating the cooling towers and the decrease in turbine efficiency.
. I TABLE 2.1 ~
- VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION i CAPACITY FACTOR, AVAILABILITY, AND EFFICIENCY DURING PHASE V 5 OCTOBER 1977 - 31 MAY 1978 Plant Net Capacity Plant Plant Month Factor Availability Efficiency 1977 October 0.763 0.846 0.320 November 0.995 1.000 0.330 December 0.887 , 0.950 0.328 1978 i
January 0.913 0.966 0.328 February 0.935 0.981 0.329 ( March 0.875 0.962 0.329 April 0.963 1.000 0.329 May 0.961 1.000 0.327
. Gross Thermal Generation Gross Thermal Generation Possible = Plant Capacity Factor Hours Generator on Line Total Hours in Month = Plant Availability Net Power Generated Gross Thermal Generation = Net Plant Efficiency
.~
f
- 3. CONNECTICUT RIVER DISCHARGE l The monthly mean Connecticut River discharge and the hourly maximum and minimum discharge for each month during Phase V are listed in Table 3.1. The monthly mean discharge during six of the eight months of this open cycle study exceeded the average Connecticut River discharge at Vernon, Vermont of approximately 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). During February and March, the monthly average discharge of about 9,000 cfs was just below the yearly average. A maximum monthly average discharge of 30,569 cfs occurred during April. In October 1977 and May 1978 the average flows of 19,386 cfs and 18,437 cfs, respectively, were
[ almost twice the yearly average. Despite these generally high discharges, periods of minimum river discharge were recorded each month except during November and April. Minimum discharges, from 1200 cfs to 1600 cfs, were recorded on 36 days of the 239 days during Phase V, 15% of the l days of Phase V. Minimum flow discharge occurred 282 hours of
! 5736 hours during Phase V -- only 5% of the time during this eight month period. Minimum discharge occurred most frequently during March which had 18 occurrences with an average duration of seven hours each. The frequency and duration of river discharge less than 1600 cfs and greater than 1200 cfs from 5 October 1977 to
. 31 May 1978 are listed in Table 3.2.
. 2
. TABLE 3.1
~
AVERAGE, MAXIMUM, AND MINIMUM RIVER DISCHARGE AT VERNON STATION DURING PHASE V 5 OCTOBER 1977 - 31 MAY 1978 i~ Monthly Average Hourly Maximum Hourly Minimum River River River Month Discharge, cfs Discharge, cfs Discharge, cfs 1977 October 19386 54318 1200 13762 November 26406 3400 December 12105 23241 1200 1978 f January 15234 38085 1250 February 9105 12735 1200 March 9078 20056 1270 April 30569 47550 10605 May 18437 36895 1200
TABLE 3.2
~
FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF RIVER DISCHARGE
. AT VERNON STATION LESS THAN 1600 cfs AND GREATER THAN 1200 cfs DURING PHASE V 5 OCTOBER 1977 - 31 MAY 1978 Number Number Average Maximum Minimum of of Duration, Duration, Duration, Month Impoundments Days Hours Hours Hours 1977 October 3 3 5.6 9 2 November - - - - -
! December 4 4 4 7 2 ! 1978 January 3 3 8 12 5 February 7 7 5 8 1 ~ March 18 16 7 11 1 April - - - - - May 3 3 8 10 4
. 2
- 4. HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES l 4.1 Objective of the Phase V Hydrological Studies and Review of Past Studies on Downstream Temperature The environmental impact assessment that was summarized in "316 Demonstration, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station" (Aquatec, 1978) emphasized the hydrothermal effects in Vernon Pool, the body of water upstream of Vernon Dam, and downstream to Monitor 3.
Surveys were conducted downstream of Monitor 3 in Phase IV during periods when the discharge from Vernon Hydroelectric Station was cycling from minimum allowable flow rates of about 1200 cfs to over 10,000 cfs. This cycling of the discharge from Vernon Dam causes a buildup of warm water in Vernon Pool. When the discharge
- rate is increased, Vernon Pool is flushec quickly and a large volume of warm water moves downstream. For these survey periods, ambient temperatures were predicted and subtracted from measured temperature to estimate excess temperature at locations downstream.
The objective of the Phase V studies was to obtain data on dis-1 persion characteristics and surface heat transfer and to use this information to develop a convective-dispersion, surface heat ! transfer model to estimate excess temperature at locations down-stream for typical plant discharge and river flow characteristics. Dispersion characteristics were obtained by adding dye to the Connecticut River to simulate, as shown in Figure 4.1, the initial temperature distribution observed at Monitor 3 after a volume of warm water in Vernon Pool was released. Figure 4.1 depicts tempera-ture versus time observed at Monitor 3 after an eight hour period of minimum river discharge on 20 March 1978. Discharge from Vernon Dam was between 1260 cfs and 1315 cfs from midnight to 8:00 am At 8:00 a.m. the discharge was rapidly increased to 7600 cfs and the next hour it was increased to 9000 cfs and remained at 9000 cfc for twelve hours. During this entire period the heat rejection rate was constant at 1034 MW. As the warm water slug depicted in Figure 4.1 moves downstream, a portion of the heat added by the plant will be lost to the atmos-phere. However, even though there is always a loss of plant heat, as will be shown in section 4.2, the net amount of heat transferred across the water surface may result in either a net gain of heat
, and an increase in water temperature or a net loss of heat and a decrease in water temperature. Dispersion processes that are occurring, along with the surface heat transfer processes, cause a decrease in temperature but no loss of heat. The objective of
. J l
20 MARCH 1978 8 9 IO ll 12 13 14 15 I I ' I I I 39 2.5 A 1\ l\ I \ 2.0 - I g .- 38 I \ I
; \
I k g Ternperature h ,e 1 20 March 197 8 E / II At Monitor 3 g y 1.5 ~ j Y - 37 o
~
' w I \
j i fj g 5
, 9 I F g Q Q l s $
E f \ a H e \ 2 4
$ I.0 - '
I
\
Dye Concentration
- 36 W j g \
O 10 April 1978 g
! w I \ At Monitor 3 o AI g iV / s I %
0.5 - f \ - 35 i s
, \
'n N y,
j s,_ , - i O g g g g g 7 34 16 17 18 19 20 21 22- 23 10 APRIL 19 78 FIGURE 4.1 TEU.PERATURE AND DYE CONCENTRATION PROFILES MEASURED AT MONITOR 3
. s adding a conservative substance, Rhodamine WT dye, to the Connecticut P.iver was to enable the study of the effect of the decrease in concentration (or excess temperature) from dispersion processes only.
Surveys were conducted during Phase V to validate a surface heat transfer model. Thermal surveys were conducted while heat was discharged at a constant rate into a steady river flow rate. Dispersion processes were not effective in reducing excess tempera-l ture and surface heat transfer processes could be studied seperately. L. The results of the separate dispersion studies and surface heat exchange studies were then coupled to develop one unified model of downstream thermal ef fects. 4.2 Description of a One-Dimensional Convective-Dispersion i Surface Heat Transfer Model The model developed for the estimation of temperature increase is based on the principle of the conservation of heat. Conserva-tion of heat requires that the difference of the amount of heat flow into and out of a control volume equal the change in the r- amount of heat within the control volume. This principle is schematized below. z y
. Surface Heat Exchange A I
! l A E ob Ce Oc Os Ca x O C V V Y! sr ?! ar O r - - Heat- - -Content- - - In-- - 7 l l Heat In g Control Volume l Heat Out
" ^
l a pCp T'(AxayAz) upC T'+ ax-(upC i upC pT, l j p p T')Ax I
- umma ,, wiani ~ m ~a Equation 4.1 represent.s the heat balance for the control volume illustrated. The first term is the amount of heat transported into the control volume; the second term is the amount of heat transported out of the control volume; the third term is the amount of heat exchanged through the water surf ace; and the term on the right hand side of the equation is the change of heat content in the control volume.
upC T'AyAz - upC T' + JL (upC T') Ax AyAz P P ax P
+ 0n AxAy -
( p C T ' A x A ya z ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .1 at p
. a The net surface heat transfer rate On is the summation of several heat transfer processes, equation 4.2.
+
On" 50 s+0 sr + I *a+*ar) +#b+ e c ************************
- where, O s and O sr are short wave solar radiation and the amount of short wave radiation reflected, c a and C ar are atmospheric radia-tion and the amount reflected, ob is long wave back radiation, c e
,_ is heat loss or gain due to evaporation or condensation, O c is j heat loss or gain due to conduction. Solar radiation was measured using a Weather Measure Corpora-tion mechanical pyranograph. The pyranograph was placed in an open field near the plant site. All other surface heat transfer components were estimated using standard techniques for their evaluation as described by Harleman (1975). Meteorological parameters used to calculate the components of the net surface heat transfer rate were measured using a Weather Measure Corporation portable mechanical weather station. Meteoro-logical data obtained were wind speed and direction, air tempera-ture, relative humidity, and amount of precipitation. The weather station was located on a boat noored in Vernon Pool for the dura-tion of the surveys. The height of the instrumentation was 6 feet above the water surface.
- Indicated air temperature from the " weather station" was correlated with air temperature measured using a thermometer trace-able to a National Bureau of Standards calibrated thermometer. The accuracy of the corrected air temperature was 2 F. Indicated relative humidity, obtained from response of human hair coupled mechanically to a strip chart recorder, was calibrated with measura-ments obtained using a sling psychrometer. The scatter in the relative humidity data indicated an accuracy of 10% of the calcu-lated value after calibration. Solar radiation was checked against calculated clear sky solar radiation and with measurements of solar radiation obtained by Vermont Yankee instrumentation. Wind speed and direction, for selected periods, was checked with measured
, wind speed and direction obtained by plant instrumentation. Due ! to the difference in elevation of the instruments no correction was applied to the indicated wind speed. Water temperature was measured with YSI series 700 probes and a Metrodata 620 data logger. The accuracy of the water temperature measurements was 0.2 F. During every survey, indicated water temperatures were checked in the field using mercury thermometers traceable to a National Bureau of Standards calibrated thermometer. Using the meteorological data and water temperature, the following equations were used to compute the heat transfer com-ponents.
. a Net Solar Radiation e + (a); a = angle f incidence factor s #sr " o s 2 a = 0.945 - 0.075 {l-[ (Julian Day - 10)/365.25] }
Net Atmospheric Radiation C a
+
*ar = 0.97 (4.15 x 10-s) (Ta + 459.67)"
(1 - 0. 261 exp [ (-2. 4 x 10-* ) (T a - 32)2 3 (1 + 0.17 C 2) C = fraction cloud cover; 0-1.0 Ta = air temperature Back Radiation Cb Ob = 0.97 (4.15 x 10-e ) (T + 4 59. 6 7) " Evaporation Ce i O e fIWI (*w - *a)
- f (W) = maximum (17W) or,14W + 22.4 (40 y
)l/3 A0 y - Tyy -T av j
T yy = (Ty + 459.67) / (1 - 0.378 e /p') y T av - (T a + 459.67) / (1 - 0.378 e /p) p = atmospheric pressure e = atmospheric vapor pressure a ey = satuated vapor pressure at temperature T ey - e a >0 r cy = exp [21.2021 - 9677.238/ (T y + 459.67)] e = 0.01 RH exp [21.2021 - 9677.238/ (T + 459.67)] a a RH = relative humidity
. s Conduction Cc '~
o c = 0.255 f(W) (Ty -Tla e -e a- >0 w T wT> a Back radiation, evaporation, and conduction are direct
! functions of surface water temperature, i.e., increasing surface water temperature increases the amount of heat lost from the water surface. Consecuently, plant heat added to the water, which results in a histe surface water temperature, is always being lost to the atnosphere.
Returning ro equation 4.1, if the instantaneous values of velocity u and temperature T' are averaged over a cruss-section of the river and in time, equation 4.1 becomes p. 3 ST BT at
+ U ST ii =
i EE L t ax + Cn (T) B (x) pC A(x>
*3 p
i In equation 4.3, U, T and A(x) are the average values for the cross section of the river, and B(x) is the width of the river. The transport represented by the first term on the right hand side of equation 4.3 is called longitudinal dispersion, and D is the coefficient of longitudinal dispersion. f Constant Heat Added to Steady River Discharge For descriptions of ambient temperatures and temperatures resulting from constant heat addition into steady river flows, the
- gradients of temperature are small and longitudinal dispersion term in equation 4.3 is negligible. For steady conditions, equation 4.3 becomes dT _ Cn (T) B (x) ***********************************************~4*4 gg - CQ pr Ambient river temoeratures and elevated river temperatures resulting from Vermont Yankee's heated discharge were estimated by application to equation 4.4 by a finite difference technique, equation 4.5.
Tf,y = Tg + Cn[ (T) CQRi] B (Ei) (*i+1 - *i) ..................... 4.5 pr
. a The estimated temperatures from the model were compared with measured temperatures for model validation. Then estimated ambient temperatures were subtracted from estimated downstream increased temperatures to determine the temperature increase due to Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge.
The initial temperature was measured at the location of Monitor 3 or 7. The change in temperature in the Connecticut _ River at locations of tributar" inflow from the Ashuelot, Millers, and Deerfield Rivers, and from the discharge of the Northfield Mountain Pump Storago was determined by volumetric mixing. The width of the river, as a function of distance B (x) , and tDe depth d (x) were determined from 42 cross-sections between Monitor 7 and Holycke Dam. Ten cross-sections were used in Vernon
- Pool. The lccations of twelve cross-sections in Turners Falls Pool i
and of nineteen in the Holyoke Pool are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. Water elevations were obtained at Vernon Dam, Turners Falls Dam, the United States Geological stage-discharge monitor near station 15, at the Calvin Coolidge Bridge, and at Holyoke Dam. Equation 4.5 was evaluated from hourly average meteorological , and hydrographic data. The width and depth of the river at each Ci were computed by spline techniques using the closest four input values of B (x) and h(x). An implicit determination of Cn[T(si) ] could not be made since the temperature at xi+1 is unknown and o n , is a function of T; there fore , Ca[T(Ci)] was evaluated at xi. l Constant Heat Rejecticn and Cyclina River Discharce Heat discharged by Vermont Yankee during a period of minimum flow results in a slug of warm water moving downstream when the river flow is increased. In this case, the_ dispersion term in { equation 4.3 cannot be neglected. Equation 4.3 can be simplified by making use of the equilibrium temperature and heat exchange coefficient concept. The not surface heat transfer rate, expressed in terms of the equilibrium temperature TE, the surface heat exchange coefficient K, and the water temperature T, is given by equation 4.6. O = -K (T - Tg ) ............................................. 4.6 n The equilibrium temperature is the surface water temperature at which there would be no net surface heat transfer for a given set of meteorological conditions. The equilibrium temperature is calculated by setting equation 4.2 to zero and solving for Tg for a selected water temperature. The exchange coefficient can be then calculated by substituting O n and T E into equation 4.6.
e e Monetor 7 , N Stebben Island VERVONT Ashue/o/ I"'" ' #'* YANKEE k i Discharge E-A Rive R ST ATION S gpygg ggy y FOR TEMPEPATURE f PROFIL ES I I Monitor 3 k._ 4 Boston 8 Metre 5 R. R. Bridge VERMONT NEW HAMPSHIRE MASS ' HUSSETTS 6 7 g Schell Bridge t Centrat vermon t R.R. Bridge 8 -' Bennett Mecdow Bridge f l SCALE IN FEET
# 1000 0 5000 e zKidds Island 10 Bortoir Cove Borton Northfield Mcuntcin Island Norse Pamp Store;e P!cnt Roce intoke 8 Dischorgt f
. TURNERS FALLS P //
j7 French King Bridge The Norrors #'A g,,, gn,, FIGURE 4.2 LOCATION MAP; MONITOR 7 TO TURNERS FALLS DAM
- m. p- e
eq T d g-f Rowson Isiced 1 GREENFIELD - TURNERS FALLS E5 d Smead Isk2nd itORTH
- HADLEY f ,
Ecston a fAcire fy RR
" j . Bridge
/6
/4 4 HATFIELD i
Deerfield # River II Corry lsland l
, 26 Co' vin Coolidge Bridge
, 28 g Elwell Island
{ NORTHAMf' TON Shepherd is!cnd 28 Q ( /B e l *' t
- Third Isiend J
D x\ , ,9 Osbcw Q' f J/ RIVER STATIONS FOR TEMFERATU~iE PROFILES l e 2O SOUTH DEERFIELD s El S UND ER L AN D d i 35 Sundertend Bridq f SOUTH HADLEY a 22
. FJ 1000 0 5000 1 U.S. Rte. 202 Erid;c P4 Holyoke Dem B HOLYOKE B
FIGURE 4.3 LOCATION MAP; TURNERS FALLS DNA TO llCL'/C:'E DA '.
~
~
Substituting the expression for on given in equation 4.6 into equation 4.3, the following equation is obtained for the natural water temperature Tr* 2 BT r+ BT- 3 Tv K(Tv-Tp) [~ ~Bt lBp = D3 g , C h(x) At the elevated water temperature T s due to Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge, where Ts - Tr = ATr, equation 4.7 becomes i ,., BTs + U ax"=D S - (TS~ E} ******************************4.8 7 at L 3x' pC h(x) P Equations 4.7 and 4.8 are expressions for the change in the natural temperature and the change in the elevated temperature with dis tance . This change is dependent upon the water tempera-ture and meteorological factors. The change in the temperature
- - increase, d(Ts-Tr)/dx, is the difference between equations 4.8 and i 4.7. Assuming that K remains about the s ame , the change in tempera-ture increase is DAT" + U BATr = DL AT, _ K ( ATv) ****************************4,9 Bt 3x 3x' pC n(x)
P Equation 4.9 is similar to the one-dimensional conservation of mass equation for dye concentration undergoing a first-order decay with a rate c nstant K'. 2 [ ac ac 8c 77 + U 7- = D -g y - K'c .................................... 4.10 As shown in Figure 4.1, the initial temperature distribution at Monitor 3 is similar to the dye concentration distribution resulting from a line source at Monitor 7. Since dye concentra-tion near the injection location was approximately uniform with dep th , ir _icating rapid vertical mixing, the' source of dye is assumed tv be a plane. For these conditions the dye distribution is given by e c= W exp - [ (x-xo) - Ut] 2 + K't ................. 4.11 pAV4nDL t 4D t L s where, W is the weight of dye discharged at x = xo. The distri-bution of excess temperature is AT _ H ( Ati ) exp - [ (x-x,) - Ut] 2 + Kt r - 4D t *************'4*12 pC AV4nDL t L PCpn P s s a a where Ati is the duration of impoundment and H is the heat rejec-tion rate in Btu /sec. Equation 4.12 describes the temperature distribution result-ing from the release of a slug of warm water. For periods of f impoundments greater than 15 hours, the initial distribution of excess temperature has a " top hat" profile. An equation repre-senting this distribution, expressed in terms of the initial r excess temperature at Monitor 3, is I AT = AT r,3 exp (-Kt/pC h) r (x, - 1 1 ) - Ut~
- erf X1 -
- 2) - Ud ........ 4.13
' erf i
4D t 4D t s where 11 is the distance from Monitor 3 to the upstream edge of the volume slug of warm water; 12 is the distance to the down-stream edge. i. p 4.3 Estimate of Temperature at Monitor 3 from Temperature Measurements at Monitor 7 Monitor 3 is located 1.05 miles downstream of Vermont Yankee. , 4.9 miles down' stream from Monitor 7, and 0.65 miles downstream from Vernon Dam. Hydrographic studies have shown that the heated water discharged from Vermont Yankee and river water are well mixed af ter passing Vernon Dam; consequently, temperatures recordea at Monitor 3 are used as an indication of temperature effects. The rate of change of temperature, defined as the difference between consecutive hourly average temperatures, can be analyncd directly from measurements of temperature at Monitor 3. However, the increase of water temperature due to the heat discharge from Vermont Yankee cannot be obtained directly from measurements at Monitor 3. Estimates of the temperature that would have occurred at Monitor 3 had the plant not discharged any heat have to be subtracted from the measured temperature to calculate the tempera-ture increase. Also,since the ambient temperature cannot be measured directly< an estimate of the precision of determining ambient temperature must be made. A method of determining the increase of temperature at Monitor 3 has been of concern since Vermont Yankee began open cycle opera-tion in February 1974. Basically three methods have been proposed at various times for determining ambient temperature there and the increase in river water temperature attributable to Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge. The first method assumes that the temperature recorded at Monitor 7 would have also occurred at Monitor 3. The temperature increase in this case is the dif ference between the two recorded values. The second method assumes that there is no change of heat content between Monitors 7 and 3; therefore, the temperature
P 4 recorded at 7 at a previous time -- equal to the travel time between the monitor stations -- would have been the ambient temperature at Monitor 3. The third method proposed utilizes the principle of the conservation of heat. In this third approach, the temperature is measured at Monitor 7 and heat additions or losses due to surface heat transfer processes are calculated from measured meteorological parameters as the water moves downstream.
- An evaluation of these methods for estimating ambient tempera-l, tures at Monitor 3 was made to quantify their precision with data i m obtained during Phase V. This evaluation was not made before since a large and accurate river temperature data base was not available simultaneously with meteorological data. Data obtained at Monitors 3 and 7 during the years when Vermont Yankee was on closed cycle or before plant operation began were not utilized in this evalua-tion since the water pumped from the river to the monitors changed its heat content before its temperature was measured. With the start of open cycle studies, temperature probes were placed in the river to avoid this small error in measuring true river water
- l. temperature. After more accurate temperature data were recorded, the plant was discharging heat and a large data base of ambient upstream and downstream temperatures was not available. The plant was off line due to maintenance and refueling from July to October i 1977 and data were obtained during this period, and also in June when the plant was on closed cycle to-determine the precision of the three methods of estimating temperature at Monitor 3.
Least-squares regression analyses of hourly average tempera-ture data were used to determine a relationship between tempera- ! ture at Monitor 3, T and temperature at Monitor 7, T , for methods 1 and 2. Fo$, method 3, the temperature at Mon [ tor 3 was first predicted using a one-dimensional conservation of heat model (described in section 4.2) and then these data were correlated [ with the measured temperature. ,- The temperature at Monitor 3, using the statistics from these analyses is computed using equation 4.14. T3=T7+p i Pc ............................................ 4.14 where, p is the offset, a is the standard deviation, and P is a number associated with a given confidence level. The significance of P can be illustrated considering a normal distribution of temperature. If P = 1, then 68% of the values of the predicted temperature T3 fall within p a for given values of T7 The statistics for the various methods evaluated are listed below, where n is the sample size (hours of paired samples avail-able). i . Correlation No. 1 All Paired Temperature Data From 1 June 1977 to 3 October 1977 Method 1: Data Recorded at the Same Time n = 2427 p = -0.54 F
-. a = 1.08*F l
i Correlation No. 2 All Paired Temperature Data From 1 June 1977 to 3 October 1977 Me thod 2 : Data Adjusted for Travel Time Between Monitors n = 1956 y = +0.41 F a = 1.53 F A comparison of the statistics from correlations 1 and 2 indicate that adjusting the data for the travel time between {- monitors decreases the precision of estimating temperatures at Monitor 3. For example, at a 68% confidence level, the precision decreaces from 1.08 F to 1.53 F. l-Correlations No. 3 and No. 4 were made with a portion of the same data used for correlation No. 1. Correlation No. 3 used paired temperatures recorded at the same time but obtained during periods when the river discharge was cycling from minimum dis-charges to over 10,000 cfs. Correlation No. 4 used data of conti-nuous high and gradually changing flow rates. Correlation No. 3 Paired Temperature Data During Period of Cycling
, n = 2056
! p = -0.61 F o = 1.10 F Correlation No. 4 Paired Temperature Data During Periods of Continuous River Discharge n = 371 y = -0.14*F a = 0.89*F e . There is an increase of about 0.2*F in the precision in estimating temperatures during continuous discharge compared with cycling periods of hydroelectric plant operation. This is as expected and is due to the shorter travel time between Monitors 7 and 3 during steady discharge periods. For example, the volume of water between 7 and 3 is about 100,000 cfs-hours, the travel time for a steady discharge of 10,000 cfs would be 10 hours, and at 30,000 cfs just 3 1/3 hours, which does not allow sufficient time for large changes in heat content. I The last method utilizing the conservation of heat model gave the following results. Correlation No. 5 All Paired Temocrature Data From 18 August 1977 to 3 October 1977 Method 3: Conservation of Heat Model n = 554 p = +0.27 F a = 10.37 F l' The number of observations in correlation No. 5 was less than for No. 1 or No. 2 since meteorological data were not available throughout the entire period. At first it appeared that a signi-ficant improvement for estimating temperatures could be made using the conservation of heat model. However, for the same period, the data were correlated under the same hypothesis as correlation No. 1 and the statistics obtained are Correlation No. 6 P All Paired Temperature Data From 18 August 1977 to 3 October 1977 Data Recorded at the Same Time n = 554 i y = +0.28*F a = 10.44*F In conclusion, comparisons of correlation No. 1.through No. 6 indicate that the precision of estimating ambient temperature at Monitor 3 from measurements at the same time at Monitor 7 is 1.1 F for 68% of the observations and no significant improvement in pre-cision was realized by adjusting the paired samples for delay due to travel time or by utilization of a conservation of heat model.
i e 4.4 Temperature Increase at Monitor 3 Due to Vermont Yankee's Circulating Water Discharge Even though the methods described in section 4.3 indicated that the ambient temperature could be estimated within 1.l*F 68% of the time, which may seem very accurate, this level of precision is not at all acceptable to accurately determining temperature increase due to the thermal discharge. Figure 4.4 depicts the heat rejection rate, river discharges, and the temperature difference i between temperatures recorded at Monitor 3 and 7 at the same time. Figure 4.5 depicts the frequency and cumulative frequency of the maximum daily tamperature differences between T7 and T3 during Phase V. Forty percent of the daily maximum differences were either 1.1 F or less and, according to the methods proposed in section 4.3, the actual temperature increase could have been either 2.2*F or zero when the observed difference was 1,1 F. Since the methods proposed in section 4.3 for estimating l_ ambient temperature at Monitor 3 did not result in accurate esti-mates of temperature increase, an alternative approach is presented for determining Vermont Yankee's thermal impact. This alternative does not require any measurements of temperature for its applica- [ tion. As will be shown, the plant induced temperature increase at Monitor 3 can be conservatively estimated using equation 4.15 for all river discharge and heat rejection rates. ATr " "! p r) . ........................................... 4.15 where, H is the heat rejection rate to the river. The accuracy of the estimation by equation 4.15 of tempera-l. ture increases due to Vermont Yankee's discharges is easily checked when the ambient temperature that would have occurred at Monitor 3 is known very precisely, i.e., during the winter when it would have been 32 F. The river temperature increase due to Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge may be calculated very precisely then by subtracting 32*F from the measured temperature at Monitor 3. The application of equation 4.15 requires two parameters: plant heat rejection rate and river discharge. Plant heat rejec-tion rate is known within 1% or less. The plant core thermal power (CTP) and also the gross and not amount of power generated are known very accurately. The difference in heat between the CTP and the gross electrical generation is all rejected to the cooling water, in addition to a portion of the difference between the gross and net electrical outputs. At full load Vermont Yankee's rated reactor core thermal power level is 1593 MW, providing a gross electrical output of 537 MW. The remaining 1056 MW are removed by circulating water as it passes through the condenser. Of the approximately 20 MW difference between the gross and net electrical generation on open cycle, the service water removes a heat content
4 e l PHASE Y 5 OCTOBER 1977 - 31 M AY 1978 VERMONT YANKEE HEAT REJECTION RATE l ,it- ! l00 - '
\/y ,// y
- : 's -
y { 50 h~y25-0 I I I i 1 1 I j S CCTOBER 1977 31 MAY 1978 START PHASE I END PHASE I i RIVER DISCH ARGE AT VERNON STATICN t 8 60 -
)
U M AXIMUM HOURL*. y g [ ~ h h DAILY AVERAGE !} f; y E 09 . MINIMUM HCURLY il
- l'$s%)pA,g .s f \ '
\ ,',
2 : 1 I I I I I I I f m DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPER ATURE AT MONITOR 3 g MINUS TEMPERATURE AT MONITOR 7 5 10 ~ i E. ~ i b -
~ l 5 5 l A
y I I i i 1 2 OCTCSER NOVEMSER DECEMSER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY 1977 1978
< M , a FIGURE 4.4 HEAT REJECTION RATE, RIVER DISCHARGE, AND TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONITORS 3 a 7 DURING PHASE 3E
i e 80
< ON 7C CAYS CUR!NG PH AS E Z THE MAXIMUM TEMPER ATURE DIFFERENCE WASITO 2 F r
et y EO-o Ei
.o r
E t o PHASE Y Z 40 - O Z { W C g 20 - 1 3 EXAMPLE: ON 80 % OF THE DAYS
. DURING PHASE Y l
g - 5co-a 8 x in 40 - p THE MAXIMUM DAILY TEMPER ATURE W - DIFFERENCE WAS I 20 3 F OR LESS
$ ~
=a E O a a 1 i i i i i i 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TEMPERATURE DIFFEREtJCE ,
- F MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FROM OBSERVATIONS EVERY 10 MINUTES AT MONITOR 3 ;;iNUS TEMPERATURE AT MONITOR 7 THAT CCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME l FIGURE 4.5 TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE EETWEEN MONITORS 3 87 l
of 7 to 10 MN. The largest error in these measurements is in the heat content of the service water, but since the total amount of heat content in the service water is less than 1% of the total heat rejection, the plant heat rejection rate has an accuracy of greater than 1%. River discharge data are obtained from Vernon Hydroelectric Station. River flows at Vernon Station are calculated by two methods: (1) turbine characteristic curves that relate the difference in upstream and downstream water elevation and the amount of electricity generated to the flow rate through the turbine; and (2) stage-discharge relation. The turbine character-istic curves provide discharge data for flows up to about 12,000 cfs. For estimates of river discharge over 12,000 cfs, data from a United States Geological Survey stage-discharge gage are used. Figure 4.6 depicts the temperature patterns observed at Monitor 3 during a period in January 1977 when Vernon Hydroelectric r- was cycling its discharge, and during a period in October 1976 when the river discharge was generally high. Fortunately, for this analysis, the river ficw rates during the winter of 1976-1977 were generally low and during the winter of 1977-1978 long periods of j continuous high flow occurred. During January, February, and 1 March 1978 only 26 impoundment periods occurred when the upstream river temperature was 326F, compared with 92 impoundment periods , in 1977. Because of these different river discharge characteris-tics, sufficient data were obtained for analysis of both cycling and high flow periods. j Data for impoundment periods were presented in the 316 report and are repeated in Figure 4.7. For this case, using the minimum hourly discharge flow in the Connecticut River of 1200 cfs and the maximum discharge heat rate, the maximum possible increase is 13.2
*F. As is clear from Figure 4.7, increase of 13.2 F was never reached even for a long duration impoundment of over 36 hours.
Data obtained during the winter of 1977-1978- for high and gradually varying flows are shown in Figure 4.8. These data indicate that, except.for two of the forty-three impoundment periods analyzed, the predicted temperature increases are greater than the observed temperature increases. The two values wnere the observed increase was only 0.05*F and 0.2 P higher than the predicted could be due to a number of reasons and these two observations are not considered to seriously affect the credibility of this method to determine conservative temperature increases, e.g., a net increase in heat transfer to the water on exceptionally warm days could have been responbible for an observed increase higher than predicted or there could have been either an error in the temperature or river discharge measurement. Consequently, in both cases of cycling or continuous high river discharge application of equation 4.15 is still recommended to indicate maximum thermal impact possible.
AN 33W3d 73A31 W3*0d c'vy 31Tu . h0f13Y3WAv3MANvN 8 2 o I ? E 2
' ' ' I h* 1N30W34 x j 13A318320d CNY 31YH ,
, ?[ NO133f3W av3M INvid
! D , , ! f A E o E 7 E E s i : , , , , , , 8 l N f b o
ik l' !!!
~'
hN " h I E .I-- _os k s ./ I !* r E l o T"T t :V ! as s
'N l
-e~
!S r k '!
N
~'
i ! g'NN'\\ . ' I
' ( g"k =
Y
- ' \'
g
- N \ A =
E \ \ E ' E 1 X k N ) g 9 a N 3
~8o2 a \ g
- 2 s %
- A
~
ks# i = a I E 4 s x I
- k\ *(' ! f T
N h
~
Q s : 'l 5 N
\
l P N l e f 5 N J ' s' a O I1.I N s f _8 s - s = \ . g - r- p-r f- :. ci s s s ( ~8 c. I f f s * ' a- D
' l l NNs iiC .x '
( $2
) b
!lI
, ll.
N
'4 = ,'
/ si
~t N\ 5 /
p J d ""s . \ S
~
, e s 's
- 6 2 'N : = l' N
x\ i
;! a
\
I _s o E
... ) l A
T[\
; \ ) 85 I i
~
!. fis s x
;/.
8 E
,5 3
\x N
q l i
\\ :/ ! \ _g
) \ \
l I ~% s ok
\ EC kg {j !
$[
*s
(/ 8* i
- Q e a a i i i g
' 8 8 8 8 : ? : 2
\ \ h o' l k l 883* NOl1VIS NONd3% IV j , .3Wolvu3d W 21
, , , , , g 31VM M07J 30 WYE 10 g
e { 9 g a 7 ? : 2 543 'holivis NON>l3A iv j,.33Alvu3dn31 Jivu *013 30d vw3 Sic L-- ..______.__,,,7 ...,_._.. _ _ . . _
40 NOTES
' I (1) Date Obtcined 1Jcnuary 1977 I to 7 March 1977 i
(2) Discharge Hect Rate _ 2 95 % of 1056 fdw i 3o _ (3) Discharge Flow From Maxim p _ Vernon Dem f bintained Tape h e g of a fdinimum of about Increase Possible
= _ 1200 cf s for Thermal j $ _ (4) Increcsc in Temperature Discharge of y Determined by Subtr cting 1056 fdw and
@ Ambient Temperature That River Flow of i
L S 20 - Would Hove Occured at 1200 cfs >
$ fdonitor 3 From the
~ - **/ '
fdaximum Recorded , j o _ Temperat ure j h _ (5) Ambient Temperature /
$
- ct Monitor 3 E' qual
- to 32.1.i O.1
- F
***'/
;, j iO _ . . . .
. .. /.
*f
/
l ***** Envelope of Maximum
,,g
/
) Temperature Increases Observed O , , , , , , i i i i i , ,
O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TEldPER ATURE If4CR E ASE,
- F FIGURE 4.7 INCREASE IN RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE AT MONITOR 3 AFTER IMPOUNDMENTS
-2e-
I ,/ 3.0
- 2. 5 - .
I u. ! g 2.0 - . . W u t . y *E W e R D g I.5 - e
- g . .
~ .
, e E i.O - I W w e } % O.5 - 0 g g g g g O O.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 OBSERVED TEMPERATURE INCREASE ,
- F I
NOT E S:
- 1. Data Cbtained 16 January 1978 to f.tcrch 15 1978
- 2. Doto Are Daily Averages
- 3. Predicted increase in Tempercture aTr :H/(O PCp) r 4 Predicted Ambient Temperature At Monitor 3 Equals 32 F
- 5. Cc!culated increcse in Temperature Equals Measured Monsta- ' ' m;?roture Minus 32 F FIGURE 4.8 PREDICTED TEMPERATURE INCREASE VERSUS OBSERVED TEMPERATURE INCREASE FOR CONTINUOUS HIGH FLOW PERIODS 4.5 Temperature and Dispersion Studies in Turners Falls and Holyoke Pools 4.5.1 Survey Methods
. - . Hydrographic studies were conducted monthly from October 1977 to May 1978 to obtain data on dispersion characteristics and temperatures in Turners Falls and Holyoke Pools. Dye was discharged at Monitor 7 at the beginning of the surveys in November, December, April, and May. During the January, February, and March surveys i the river was frozen upstream of the Vermont Yankee site and, for these surveys, dye was added to the circulating water just before it was discharged to the river.
Dye was added to the river in the first four months of surveys to locate the tagged water as it moved downstream and insure that temperature measurements were made in the same body of water. Dye and temperature measurements for these first four surveys were made while the sampling boat was underway. River water was pumped through a fluorometer en the boat and temperature was measured with a probe towed in the water. In March the sampling technique was changed. The boat remained stationary while water was pumped through the fluorometer. This technique measured dye concentration and temperature versus time at a single location, whereas, during the first four surveys, dye concentration and temperature were obtained versus distance along the river, usually within a duration f of two hours. Temperature surveys were conducted up to 50 miles downstream
- from Vermont Yankee to obtain data for validation of the one-dimen-1, sional thermal nodel described in section 4.2. Every survey was conducted for conditions of high and relatively steady discharge flows and the change in temperature of the tagged water for each of these surveys was primarily due to not surf aca heat transfer.
During the surveys in March, April, and May, Rhodamine WT dye I I was used to quantify as precisely as possible the dispersion characteristics of the river. From 3 to 18 hours of continuous sampling was required at a single location to allow enough of the tagged slug of water to pass the sampling point. The criterion used for the duration of sampling at a location was to take measure-ments as the dye concentration went from zero to peak concentration and back to at least 50% of peak concentration. After this criterion was satisfied, the survey boat was moved downstream ahead of the tagged water and sampling began again. Surveys in April and May were conducted around the clock until the tagged water passed Holyoke Dam. Since only two concentration versus time profiles were avail-able from the survey conducted in March, the results of this survey
' were not used to characterize dispersion. These data were obtained at Monitor 3 and station 6 which are about five miles apart.
Feasurement of dye concentration was obtained for the March survey near Holyoke Dam using the same survey methods as those used for the surveys in November through February. 4.5.2 Temperature Studies Summaries of the heat rejection rate, river discharge at Vernon Dam, and initial temperature increase, calculated using equation 4.15, are listed in Table 4.1. The initial temperature increase in each of the surveys was less than 2 F, except for the survey which began on 10 March 1978 with a calculated 3.8 F initial i temperature increase. During this survey, the circulating water was tagged at 0500 when the river discharge was about 4,200 cfs. The river discharge remained constant until 1690 and the heat rejection rate was also constant. At 0730 when the tagged unter passed Monitor 3, its temperature was 35.l*F, 3.1 F above cmbient. Later, at 1150, the measured temperature at Monitor 3 was 35.9 F or 3.9 F above ambient. The increace in temperature betueen the measurement at 0730 and 1130 was due to the decrease in not heat loss to the atmosphere during the day compared with that which took place the previous night. i , The measured temperature at Monitor 3 was used as the initial I temperature for the thermal medel. Model output consisted of estimated temperatures at hourly intervals and their location, the not surface heat transfer race, the heat exchange coefficient, and the equilibrium touperature. The model was then applied using the i same meteorological and hydrographic data, but the initial tempera-ture for the second run was the calculated ambient tatperature.
- Estimates of temperature versus time for thermal conditions includ-
[ ing plant heat and ambient conditions are plotted in Figures 4.9 to 4.13. The measured temperatures are also plotted in theca figures for comparison with the estimated temperatures frc.' applica-tion of the model. Decreases in temperature below 32 F, .- ch are plotted in Figures 4.9 and 4.10, indicate when ice vould f or when loss of heat from the surface would contribute to an aase f, in the thickness of ice. Survey data is listed in Table 4. The measured temperature of the tagged water decreacei it moved downstream during the December, January, and two of - 1ree surveys in February. During all other surveys, the measure mpera-ture of the tagged water increased as it moved douns tream. iel estimates of temperature were very close to measured temper: .re s and followed the same patterns of temperature change -- enc . for the data illustrated for November. No explanation is appa:=nt for this exception. However, considering the results of the ou wr nine surveys, in which temperatures and patterns were simulated quite accurately using the model, the discrepancy of the November survey is not considered to seriously affect the model's credibility. The difference between the amount of heat transferred to the atmosphere due to evaporation, conduction, and back radiation at the elevated water temperature and the amount of heat that would
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY
OF HEAT REJECTION RATE, RIVER DISCHARGC AT VERNON STATION, AND INITIAL RIVER TEMPERATURE INCREASE DURIUG PHASE V THERETL SURVEYS Heat River Initial Ric'r l Re j ec tion Discharge, Temperatu.* i Date Time Rate, MN cfs Increase, *2 1977 15 November 1630 1046 11300 1.5 8 December 1900 1044 12000 1.3 1978 24 January 2300 1043 9300 1.7 8 February 2130 1010 9300 1.7 9 February 0830 1018 9400 ,,, 1.6 10 February 2000 1019 10800 1.4 10 March 0500 1048 4200 3.8 10 April 1530 1031 14000 1.1 j 13 April 1100 1042 33600 0.5 25 May 1930 1043 11100 1.4
TABLE 4.2-1
SUMMARY
OF MEASURED TEMPERATURE, RIVER DISCHARGE, AND MAXIMUM DYE CONCENTRATION DURING PHASE V THERMAL SURVEYS Mean River Measured Dye Temperature Discharge, Concentration, Date Tiec Station F cfs ppb 1977 15 November 1000 Monitor 7 43.1 - - 15 November 1830 Monitor 3 44.7 120003 - 16 November 1050 12 44.6 14200a _ 17 November 1000 30 45.4 16400b _ ! 8 Deccaber 1200 Monitor 7 32.9 - - 8 December 2100 Monitor 3 34.5 13000a _ 9 Decc=ber 1100 12 33.1 132003 - 10 December 1210 28 32.4 15000b _ l 1978 24 January 1415 Monitor 7 32.0 - - 25 January 0100 Monitor 3 34.0 82003 - 25 January 1000 11 33.4 7100a _ 8 February 2300 Monitor 3 33.7 - - 9 February 1500 10 33.4 9500a _ 9 February 1000 dbnitor 3 33.7 - - 9 February 1530 7 34.1 9500a _ 10 February 2130 Monitor 3 33.7 - - 11 February 1230 10 32.8 8800a _ 10 March 0740 Monitor 3 35.1 - 3.67 10 March 1500 6 35.6 4200a 1.82 13 March 0945 35 36.5 9500a,b 0.23 (a) River discharge at Vernon, Vermont (b) River discharge at Montague City, Massachusetts
TABLE 4.2-2
SUMMARY
OF MEASURED TEMPERATURE, R1VER DISCHARGE, AND MAXIMUM DYE CONCENTRATION DURING PHASE V THERMAL SURVEYS Mean River Measured Dye Discharge, Concentration, Temperature F cfs ppb Date Time Station 1978 e 10 April 1100 lbnitor 7 35.7 - 38.0 13000a 1.65 10 April 1715 Monitor 3 o,91 2245 8 38.4 12400a 10 April 0.77 0215 11 38.4 17200a 11 April 0.46 0700 12 38.9 17800a 11 April 1300 20 39.7 25500b 0.33 11 April 0.28 1930 27 39.8 289CJb 11 April 0.20 0300 34 39.8 34100b 12 April A 13 April 0910 Monitor 7 37.7 - 39.6 34000a 1.00 13 April 1215 lbnitor 3 7 39.6 35400a 0.90 13 April 1445 o,73 1730 10 40.0 38000a 13 April 0015 19 40.3 49900b 0.39 14 April 0630 28 40.3 55100 b 0.24 14 April 59.6 25 May 1200 Monitor 7 - [ 25 tby 2100 kbnitor 3 61.6' 11200a 1,47 10 62.1 11200a 0.82 26 thy 1030 0.22 0230 19 62.7 14000b
- t. 27 May o,1g 2300 33 65.6 13400b 0 27 tby (a) River discharge at Vernon, Vermont (b) River discharge at >batague City, lbssachusetts it
'd ,
I Station No.30 45 Monitor 3
' Station No. I2
\ easured M Tem;erature 44 -
w ATr
$ 43 - \ g
= N -% Mcdeled increcsed Temperature N %
$o. 42 -
N W 2
-Initial Temperature increase N/
~
Modeled Ambient Temperature i 40 g g , , g g g i 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 15 November 16 November 1977 17 Ncverrber 35 - Monitor 3 a 34 g ATr 0 , E 33 - N @ Stction No.12 3 y %^% Station No. 28 b 'N g 32 - g d N
- N N
N N
\. -
1 i i l 4 l 1 1 12 18 24 6 f2 18 24 6 12 8 December 9 December 1977 10 December Monitor 3 34 - g i Station No.10 1 33 - ATr E 32 - 1 W N~~% % 1 I i i i i i i 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 24 January 25 January 1978 26 January FIGURE 4.9 MEASURED AND PREDICTED TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME
Measured Temperature 35 _ Station No. 7 Modeled increesed 34 - Monitor 3 NC"II0' 3 * '" Monitor 3
- Slotion No.10 w St tien No. lO 33 - AT e
- S ATr / A T, i < / a u a: e /.
W .' c' 8 2 32 - s N N N Modeled Ambient Temperature W \ # \ g
%,,l ,. -
-Initial Temperature increase 1 I I I I I i i i i i I i 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 8 February 1978 9 Februury 10 February 11 February 1978 l
FIGURE 4.10 MEASURED AND PREDICTED TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME
5 3 o N e e r r n u u 2 o it t a r
, t a
r I 1 ta e e p 8 S e p 7 m m T e s T e 9 1 h d % t I 6 c e n r s ie a a % b M E e r c A m 3 M I in 1 d d e 1 4 2 T e le le s d. o S d o M U ._ M N S
' i a l R
E V
/
/ h c E l I 2 a r
R 1 M U 2 T 1 A R
% & 6 E P
% M E
_ I 4 T 2 _ D E T _ 1 8 1 C I D f E R
/ h c
r P y l 2 a 1 M l D l N s A
~ l 6 D E
e r
% R u U t
a S r e e l 4 p 6 s a s 2 A m e J o e r E T d f n i c n % M e o e r u s i t t a t r u ~ l 8 7 1 8 9 l a a 1 M e b S r e p e h c l 4 p r m a _ e 3 T M 2 0 E r o it l ia
/ l 1
1 R n o t i n U M O I G
- I 6
F 7 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 o E3N
,d8 i
41 - Measured Te mperature No.19 Na 28
+
40 - No. 20 N o. 27 No.34 go. ~% lO g @ Monitor 3 a' % ATr / N0' 7 e 39 - . 3 Station No. 8 No.12 I Monitor 3 No. ll 38 - aT r ! [_ ' s Modeled Ambient Temperature 37 -
-~~- _j
- Inlliol Temperature increase 36 , i g i i g i i g i g , , , ,
12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 10 April 11 April 12 April 1978 13 April 14 April l FIGURE 4.12 MEASURED AND PREDICTED TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME
i 66 - station ria 33 e [' 65 - r%
/
64 - Medeled increased Temperotere /
- u. /
/
E 63 - Mecsured Ternperature Station tio,19
/
I ? *
/
<r Station tJa 10 j E 62 - FA c ni t or 3p /
S A /n / { g ,
/
j
%s GI - AT r /
f e /
/
60 - ~s / M deted Ambient Temperature f -Inifict Ternperature increase 59 ,, , , g 3 g 3 ; g g 3 12 18 24 G 12 18 24 6 12 13 24 { 25 Mcy 26 May 1978 27 May t I FIGURE 4.13 IdEASURED AND PREDICTED TEMPERATURE VERSUS TlU.E I
have been transferred if the river was at its ambient water tempera-ture is attributable to loss of plant heat; consequently, plant heat is always being lost to the atmosphere. The loss of plant heat !.s illustrated in Figures 4.9 to 4.13 by the convergence of the curves depicting the temperature predicted for the heated water and the ambient water. This difference is always decreasing but, as evident in these illustrations, the rate of decrease of heat added by the plant is very low. Figure 4.14 illustrates the
- decrease in plant heat as a percentage of the initial amount of g~
heat added by Vermont Yankee. The percentage decrease is propor-tional to the convergence of the predicted ambient temperatures and elevated temperatures plotted in Figures 4.9 to 4.13. During the winter the impact of the plant thermal discharge is most evident. For long reaches of the river no ice was abserved r-and the ice that did form was not as thick at it would have been -- except perhaps in setbacks such as Barton Cove and the Oxbow where the water is shallow and there is little current. Ice formation along the bank of the river prevented launching of the survey boat i in the Holyoke Pool during the January and February surveys. Also, i during both of these surveys, ice in the river was encountered near the French King Bridge in Turners Falls Pool and sampling could not { be extended further downstream. During the March survey, although ice still covered the river upstream of Vermont Yankee, the entire river downstream was clear of ice. Toward the end of winter, the not surface heat transferred contributed to an increase'in the {~ water temperature rather than melting of ice. This resulted in higher water temperatures earlier in the spring than would have occurred without the plant discharge of heat. Figure 4.15 indicates that, on the average, only a ten percent reduction in heat occurs for this fif ty mile reach. Also the rate F of plant heat loss during the winter surveys was nearly the same as the rate of heat loss at other times of the year. The illustra-tion of the change in excess temperature, Figure 4.15, is qu:_te different for the surveys conducted when the ambient temperature {" was 32 F and ice covered the river upstream of Vermont Yankee. For this case, the temperature of the river water flowing downstream would have been 32 F and a cover of ice would have occurred on the river as has been observed in previous winters. For these winter surveys, the percentage change in temperature increase is obtained by subtracting 32*F from each measurement and !' dividing by the initial temperature increase. The change in excess temperature plotted for other times of the year is the sare as the change in excess heat illustrated in Figure 4.14. A decrease in excess temperature was observed for four of the six surveys conducted. An increase of excess temperature occurred during a six hour survey period on 9 February 1978 when there was a net increase in heat to the water. If ice were on surface down-stream, the water temperature would still have been 32 F and the heat addition would have contributed to a reduction in the thick-ness of the ice. An increase in initial temperature increase was
1 ,. re.rv.r, 9
/ /Jea.or,24-25Fetrueer 8 9 e so-fi 10 0 -
,, ,n o . .
. ____ - [
g go _ - sem.e,is-17 2 Worth 10 -13 h w w , Decemeer 8-10 E w way 25- 27 7 s 70 - a s \ g N O i 6 6 6 6 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 I DISTANCE , Mitos FIGURE 4.14 PLANT HEAT REMAINING VERSUS DISTANCE l 15 0 14 0 March 10-13,19 78 T, a 32 ' F 13 0 I E 120 - Fettuary 9,1979 T,a32*F 2 w 110 - M 4 h April 12 -14,19 7 8 2 _ A cril 10-12,1978 gg - Nove mner 15- 17, i9 7 7 5 4 Fe br uar y 8-9,1978 December 8-10,1977 h T,e32*F b e
~
May 25 - 2 7,19 78 W Jonvory 24 -25,1978 T,a32'F N 70 - 7 t 60 - Fe Devery 10 -11,19 7 8 T,a32'F 50 - d % a s i i i i i O 10 20 30 40 50 GO DISTANCE, Miles FIGUR E 4.15 TEMPERATURE INCREASE REMAINING VERSUS DISTANCE t
also evident during the March survey. Since ice would have been on the water surface downstream at this time of the year, the water temperature would have been 32*F; therefore, for these special cases, the total plant effect results in a greater temperature increase with distance. 4.5.3 Dispersion Studies Dispersion processes result in the spreading and dilution of a substance introduced to a water body due to velocity gradients and turbulence. Dye discharged at a single location as a slug will mix vertically, spread to the sides of the river, and spread along the length of the river at rates described by the vertical, lateral and longitudinal dispersion coefficients, respectively. After the dye has mixed uniformly throughout a cross-section of the river, additional decrease in peak concentration and spreading j along the axis is then described by a one-dimensional convective-dispersion model, described in section 4.2. 1 Dye was discharged from one side of the river to the other im at Monitor 7 by pouring dye solution from a bucket over the stern of a boat distributing the dye laterally. Measurements of dye concentration indicated that complete vertical mixing occurred { within 500 feet. Consequently, due to the rapid vertical mixing the dye dispersion studies simulated the rate of spreading of dye originating from a plane source. As this tagged water j was transported from Monitor 7 past Monitor 3, it spread along the axis of the river and at Monitor 3, its distribution simulated the distribution of temperature originating from the release of a slug of warm water from Vernon Pool. Dye concentration and temperature are both scalar quantities and the spreading of the slug of water tagged with dye and the spreading of the slug of ! heated water are described by the same process. However, dye is conservative and its decrease of concentration is a result of dispersion only, but temperature changes occur as a result i of dispersion and surface heat transfer. t Three separate dye dispersion studies were conducted in the Connecticut River from Monitor 7 to Holyoke Dam: the first survey was conducted from 10-12 April 1978; the second from 13-15 April 1978; and the third survey from 25-28 May 1978. The results of these three surveys are summarized in Figures 4.16 and 4.17. Figure 4.16 depicts the discharge in the Connecticut River as measured au Vernon, Vermont using the stage-discharge gage that was used until 1974 by the United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.). The discharge at Montague City, MA was provided by the U.S.G.S. (Forgarty 1978), Deerfield River discharge was provided by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Krabach 1978) and the flow rate either being pumped from the river or discharged to the river during generation of the Northfield Mountain Pump Storage was provided Northeast Utilities (Noyes 1978). The water temperature, background, fluorescence, and discharge from the Ashuelot and Millers
"~
40 - Connecticut River ct Montague City, M A ,r_ _ J J ~ f'
?O - j rt e ._, .'
1 ~ f i Rs s J 20 -
% {
1 ,inecticut Co River at Vernen,VT 10 - Deerfield River Generate i 9,443 t //A 7////s' Northfield Mountain Pump Storage Pump
-10 , , , , , i e i
) g E 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 y 10 APRIL 1978 11 APRIL 1978 12 APRIL 1978 d
v hg Connecticut River ct Mento;;;e City, MA f F r# _ _ g Connecticut River at Vernon, VT
- i. w #
a-~ .Z' f ' B: 40 - s l 30 - F [ 20 - Deerfield River 10 - Generate O f MN - p Northfield Mountain Pump Store;e
-10 , g g g , g 3 g g 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 13 APRIL 1978 14 APRll 1978 15 APRIL 1978 20 - -
Corcecticut River of Montague City, MA
+ \ r a
10 - Genecute
) .
C<erfield Race Flow4 1800 cf s 1400 26 Mcy :9.8
/
Connectic';t River et Vernen,VT O ,. N Pump Northfield Mountain Pump Stero;e
-10 g g g 3 , g 3 g g q l
12 18 24 G 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 25 FAAY 1978 26 MAY 1978 27 MAY 1978 28 MAY 1978 FIGURE 4.16 HYDROGRAPHIC CONDITIONS DURING DYE STUDIES
-u- -
2.0 Monitor 3 A 5 Miles From Dye Discharge Location i.5 - ;) l ', Modeled i e 3 Station No. 8 1.0 - ~ 2i : l
, 13 Miles 5 E E ,8 l ,
^ No. Il
! 1 E 8 8 '
20 Mi!as g05- a :
,8 l l ,
' 'g No.12 No.;O No. 2 7 No. 3 5
,, 8 l r 2' 3 M.'^s35 M. 59 M.
y O-~ n l ,
' ' ' DN ,f'47 M.s -O ~
{ ; g g i g g g i g
}
-{ 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 10 APRIL 1978 ll APRIL 1978 12 APRll 1978 z
9 N 4
% 2.0 - l',
5 li M l l 8 I .5 - g' ) y * !'iMl>nitor 3 O I 5 Miles From Dye Discharge Location l 1.0 - : g l3 i ji 3.Stien No.7 j a , il ,'si!e s Modeled
; 9 I l i No 10 0.5 - 5 S ,' I f k ,'
, ; 8 Mil e s,,, n 3, g g i ;
- 5f s 33 M. '% ' O p ,1 n, .
8
// \'Ys/ \ 9 M-O g g g g g g g g i 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 13 APRIL 1978 14 APRIL 1978 15 APRIL 1978 2 .0 -
Monitor 3 1.5 - 5 Miles Frorn Dye Discharge Location j [ Modeled 10 - 5
/ \ Station No. lO E & i 18 Miles I 8 [ \ '
/ s 0.5 -5 e , j g No.19 No.33 i
\ / s 33 Miles 56 Miles I r t \
/ #
1' _,a o- i i i i i i i i i i i 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 25 M AY 1978 26 MAY 1978 27 MAY 1978 28 MAY 1978 FIGURE 4.17 DYE CONCENTR ATION PROFILES
Rivers, and from the Deerfield River on 26 May 1978 were obtained during the field surveys. Measured dye concentration versus time is plotted in Figure 4.17 for each of the surveys. The quantity of dye discharged in
- each of the April surveys was 8.9 pounds of dye and 10.8 pounds i was discharged in May. The data obtained in May were scaled to 8.9 pounds of dye for comparison with the April survey data. Also, these data were scaled to account for changes in dye concentration due to dilution from tributaries and the Northfield Mountain Pump Storage. This scaling due to dilution increased four measurements by 0.02 b in the two April surveys (a maximum change of 5 percent) .
Two mea aments in the May survey were increased by 0.06 and 0.05 ppb, wh_ a was a 33 percent increase in each case. The dilution in thesa cases, was mainly due to the discharge from the Northfield Mountain Pump Storage. The concentration profiles in Figure 4.17 can be compared with data plotted in Figure 4.16 to determine the river discharge conditions that occurred during the dye measurements. The stations which are located in Figure 4.17 refer to the station number in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. The distances in miles from the
- dye injection location are indicated in Figure 4.17 for each dye profile.
The duration of travel of the peak dye concentration to Holyoke Dam is directly related to the magnitude of the discharge which is clearly indicated by a comparisen of these figures. For the survey i conducted in Iey, the travel time from Monitor 7 to station 33 was ' about 2 days, but during the higher discharge survey on 13 and 14 April 1978 the slug of dye traveled the same distance in just over one day. Figures 4.18 and 4.19 illustrate peak dye concentration versus time and distance, respectively, for the three dispersion studies. ! In the graph illustrating dye concentration versus time for the different surveys, there is a wide spread in the data. For example, 20 hours af ter dye injection the dye concentration ranged from 0.25 ppb to 0.72 ppb, but when these same data were plotted versus distance the range in observed dye concentration at a selected location was much smaller. For example, at 200,000 feet downstream, dye concentration varied from 0.28 ppb to 0.32 ppb. This indicates that turbulence increased with river discharge and resulted in approximately the same amount of dilution due to dispersion, at a selected location, even though the travel time to that location at the higher river discharge was less. Equation 4.11 was applied to obtain dispersion coefficients for each dye profile surveyed. Specifically equation 4.11 was solved for DL at (x-x o) equal to Ut. The coefficients calculated were plotted versus distance and a best fit line was drawn through the calculated dispersion coefficients. The best fit to the actual field data indicated that equation 4.11 could best simulate the decrease in peak dye concentration and the spread of the dye by dispersion coefficients represented by equation 4.16 for Turners
I i I t ! , e 9- , I i l l i i l i i l l l i l l l i i ! i l l l l I l l l I I I I I i ! II I I i lI' i 5- ! I ! !! l ! II lll l 1 l U ' 5 3 D l .
. 2-5 I I 8 l
i' - Al! l I U l 's t m II, I . l gl , . x I-O. - g H ' l l 4N a t g . I H 06 -
$ 0~5 -- '
52 l , l l l 'l '4 \ i i '
- 8 o,4 _ 's \
g0.3-I l ll l'hl\ '-- y
\! ! ,,
C.2 - 13 -14 Aprit 1978 j , l t, 9 l 10-12 April 1978 i i i l I I I l 25-27 May 1978 I '. I f ! i ai . . , , . . . , , , , , ,,, 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 .i 20 30 40 50 60 70 8090 I 10 10 0 TIME, hours FIGURE 4.18 MAXIMUM MEASURED DYE CONCENTR ATION VERSUS TIME
1 10 - i i i 9- ,
' ' l ,
8- ' ; 7 ' I 6 I I l [ l 5-d l l
' t 4- j U 13 -34 April 978 l 3 3- 5 2 5 -27 w., i97e I
{ l j t-iO -(2 A pril 19 73 l s 2_ s O ' En ! ~, e 4 , . ,
.9 E l 1 ',
N ! N. 's i- ._N , g . , o 0.9 g, 4,_ p O.8 - N
'p , ; , j, I f i l
g 0. 7 - ' I I i I I t l l ; ft { t: O.6 1 l l jij
' I I ll 4 ! l
h z O.5 - t t l i lll \, l ! l l i jji 8 04 \\ lf I - w g 0.3 - I l f \\ f fi'f'i f [ l; i A % ', i ' f l O. ' h f' l O.I ' i 6 iiiii 4 5 m ro e 4 e e$o'
! 10,000 00'000 I,000,000 DISTANCE, feet t
i i FIGURE 4.19 MAXIMUM MEASURED DYE CONCENTR ATION VERSUS DISTANCE Falls Pool and Holyoke Pool. D =a ( x - xg ) D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 16 where a = 11.15 and b = 0.35 for Turners Falls Pool and a = 5.0 x 10-" and b = 1.62 for Holyoke Pool. Dye profiles are plotted in Figure 4.17 using equation 4.16 to calculate the dispersion coefficient. The agreement appears good except for the first three measurements on 13 April 1978; however, measured dye concentration at station 19, 33 miles down-stream, and station 28, 49 miles downstream, agree well with the calculated dye concentrations. Also, although the peak concentra-tions are simulated very well, the measured profiles do not have a profile described exactly by a Gaussian distribution. The calcu-lated profiles of ten overestimate the dye concentration on the leading edge and underestimate the concentration on the trailing edge compared with measured dye profiles. 4.5.4 Decrease.of Excess Temperature , The primary mechanisms for the decrease in excess river l temperature that is caused by the discharge of Vermont Yankee's condenser cooling water are surface heat transfer and dispersion. The loss of plant heat is a slow process and, at typical river discharges of 10,000 cfs, only about 10% to 20% of the initial i heat added is transferred to the atmosphere in the first fifty miles from Vermont Yankee. The decreases in the initial excess j temperatures, that are observed af ter the release of heat contained i in Vernon Pool during minimum flow periods, is primarily the result of dispersion processes. Figure 4.7 indicates that the maximum temperature increase after a ten hour period of minimum flow is 8 F, and that the maximum temperature increase for longer duration impoundments reach a maximum of 10 F after 20 hours. However, the inital distribution of temperature for these impoundment periods is different and analytical solutions to the conservation of heat equation for each initial distribution were given in section 4.2. The initial distribution for the minimum flows of 10 hours is approximated by a Guassian distribution and for longer duration impoundments a " top hat" profile better simulates initial conditions. Equation 4.12 and 4.13 describe the temperature distributions that occur downstream from the release of water that was elevated in temperature by Vermont Yankee's thermal discharge and initially had either Gaussian or a " top hat" profile, respectively. Evaluation of these equations indicate that, for a slug of warm water released after a ten hour period of minimum flow with an initial 10 F increase, the temperature increase is 3.5 F at Turners Falls Dam and 1.1 F at Holyoke Dam. For continuous minimum flow periods greater than 15 hours , the temperature increase stabilizes at about 10 *F. The initial langth along the river, however, is dependent on the duration of minimum flows and could be several miles. After a twenty hour impoundment, the initial length of the volume of water affected is about four miles. Dispersion processes are still effective in reducing the tempera-ture increase, and also, the higher initial temperature increase results in a loss of plant heat at a faster rate. The temperature increase at Turners Falls Dam, for these conditions , is about 5 F and, at Holyoke Dam, the initial increase is less than 2 F. I p. l l
- 5. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES Biological studies during the final phase of the series of studies conducted to evaluate the impact on river biota of Vermont Yankee's operation with open cycle condenser cooling were similar in scope to the Phase IV studies of the previous year. The sam-pling effort in the Phase V studies was concentrated in Vernon Pond near Vermont Yankee's discharge (Vermont Yankee Station No. 4) ,
but samples were collected also as far as 6.45 miles downstream of Vernon Dam (Station No. 1) and 4.25 miles upstream of Vernon Dam (Station No. 7) . The locations of the Vermont Yankee sample stations are shown in Figure 5.1. The Phase V studies affirmed the conclusion, reported in the earlier studies (Aquatec 1974, 1975a, 1976a, 1977), that Vermont j Yankee's use of open cycle condenser cooling in the colder months of the year does not have a de: 2terious effect on the ecosystem of the Connecticut River near Vernon, Vermont. The results of the Phase V studies are discussed below and summarized in tables and figures which follow the text of this section of the report. In additio. , summaries of the results of this study combined with r those of previous study phases are presented for some of the investigations. 5.1 Phytoplankton Studies When practicable, plankton samples were collected monthly by vertical haul at the Vermont and the New Hampshire quarters of Station 4, at the Vermont quarter of the river 0.1 mile upstream of Vernon Dam, and midstream at Stations 3, 5, and 7. Sample collections were made also at Stations 3 and 7 via the pumping system of the water quality monitors located there. The samples were preserved in formalin for subsequent identification and enumeration of the organisms present. Diatoms were the predominant phytoplankters observed in all samples but one, that collected at Station 4, Vermont quarter, in March, in which diatoms constituted only 44% of the phytoplankters observed. The dominant species in that sample was Ulothrix zonata. This green alga was the dominant taxon also in April samples at 4VT and 0.1 mile north of Vernon Dam, but in those samples, diatoms constituted more than half the organisms observed. The more commonly observed diatoms were those that have been found in all previous
studies -- Asterionella formosa, Fragilaria capucina, F. cro tonen sis , Melosira italica, M. varians, Synedra spp., and Tabellaria spp. The concentrations of phytoplankton observed in the samples are shown in Table 5.1. These observed total counts are small, which is expected in samples collected from the cold waters of late fall, winter, and spring. No marked pattern of differences in concentration was observed between samples collected upstream of Vermont Yankee's discharge and those collected in water warmed by the discharge. Statistical analysis of plankton data collected prior to Vermont Yankee's operation and during operation in the closed cycle mode of condenser cooling has been detailed in earlier studies for Vermont Yankee (Aquatec 1975b, 1976b). The analysis developed linear regression equations for predicting Monitor 3 plankton concentrations from concentrations observed at Monitor 7. The equation, for Monitor 7 phytoplankton counts of 0-772, is: Predicted Monitor 3 count = (0. 802) (Monitor 7 count) + 29.2. Standard error of estimate = 193. Differences between the total counts observed at Monitor 3 during Phase V and the counts predicted by this equation are shown below. Monitor 7 Monitor 3 Count Date Count Observed Observed - Predictea = Difference i 11/16/77 48 82 68 +14 i 12/21/77 64 116 81 +35 2/21/78 20 4 45 -41 3/15/78 17 40 43 -3 4/24/78 473 1487 409 +1078 r
.5/25/78 79 129 93 +36 All differences, except that of the April samples, are within the 95% confidence limits associated with the predicted values.
1. Ninety-three percent of the phytoplankters in the Monitor '~ 3 sample of April 24 were pennate diatoms. A set of entrainment samples was collected two days later at Vermont Yankee. At the time of this sample collection Vermont Yankee was recirculating 19% of its condenser cooling water. The mean concentration of phytoplankton observed in the plant's discharge to the river was 3914 units per liter and ninety-seven percent were pennate diatoms. By contrast, river concentrations of phytoplankton averaged only 118 units per liter in the two intake samples collected. It is probable, then, that the comparatively high phytoplankton concentration observed at Monitor 3 on April 24
. is attributable to Vermont Yankee's discharge. At times when the river is cold and Vermont Yankee is recirculating a portion of its cooling water, it has not been uncommon to observe higher plankton concentrations in Vermont Yankee's discharge than ambient river concentrations of these organisms.
5.2 Zooplankton Studies The plankton samples collected as noted above were examined under 100X magnification in a Sedgewick-Rafter counting cell. Zooplankters observed were identified to the lowest feasible taxonomic level and counted. The counting results are shown in Table 5.2. The observed concentrations of zooplankters were low in all samples, upstream and downstream of Vermont Yankee's discharge. [_ A comparison of the zooplankton total counts observed at Monitor 3 during Phase V with counts predicted from those observed at Monitor 7 is shown below. The predicted counts are calculated from a linear regression equation generated, in a manner analogous to that used for phytoplankton, from data collected during pre-operation and closed cycle operation of Vermont Yankee in 1970-1974. The equation, for Monitor 7 zooplankton counts of 0.5 - 418.5, is: Predicted Monitor 3 count = (0.918) (Monitor 7 count) + 15.7. Standard error of estimate = 83.8 i j Monitor 7 Monitor 3 Count Date Count Observed Observed - Predicted = Difference { 11/16/77 16.5 26.0 30.8 -4.8 i 12/21/77 17.0 2.0 31.3 -29.3 2/21/78 8.5 0.5 23.5 -23.0 i 3/15/78 33.5 2.5 46.4 -43.9 4/24/78 3.0 1.0 18.4 -17.4 5/25/78 2.5 2.5 18.0 -15.5 All the differences are less than two standard errors of estimate. In 26 of 51 samples collected in Phase V, the predominant organisms observed were rotifers. Keratella cochlearis, Kellicottia sp., Conochilus unicornis, Philodina sp., and Synchaeta sp. were the more commonly observed species. Protozoa -- particularly Cam-panella sp. and Vorticella sp. -- were the dominant type of zooplankters in 22 of the samples, including all Monitor 7 samples except that
- ~~ collected in April. In general, the species composition of the samples was similar to that of zooplankton samples collected in o earlier years.
5.3 Benthic Fauna Studies Efforts were made in each month during the Phase V studies to collect benthos by five 9" Ekman dredge hauls at each river quarter point of Vermont Yankee Stations 1, 2, and 3, south of Vernon Dam, and Stations 4, 5, and 7, north of the dam. Sample collection was of ten precluded, however, by dangerous river flow or icing condi-tions. No samples were collected in April because of high river flows.
The collected material was washed through a set of standard sieves. Organisms retained by a No. 25 sieve were preserved and subsequently identified to the lowest feasible taxonomic level. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 5.3. The diversity index, d, shown in the table was calculated as follows: d = h (N log 10 " - "i 910 "i} where C = 3.3219 is a constant that converts base 10 logarithms to base 2; N = total number of organisms; and n.1 = number of organisms in the ith taxon. As was found in earlier studies, the predominant forms in these samples collected during the colder months of the year were larval chironomids and caddis flies. The numbers of benthos obtained in the samples were too small to support an assessment of Vermont Yankee's discharge on the benthic community of the river, but the numbers observed in downstream samples were usually greater than found in samples collected upstream of Vermont Yankee. 5.4 Entrainment Studies 5.4.1 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Entrainment Studies Duplicate samples of river water at Vermont Yankee's intake
- structure and of its cooling water discharge were collected at approximately two week intervals during Phase V. These samples
, were examined immediately af ter collection to determine the relative number of living and dead phytoplankton and zooplankton organisms. The remainder of each sample was then preserved and subsequently analyzed to determine the concentrations and identity, to the lowest practicable taxonomic level, of the organisms present. The results of the analyses of these fresh and preserved samples are shown in Table 5.4. The data of Table 5.4 have been used to calculate the per-cent changes in live plankton concentrations between intake and discharge samples shown in Table 5.5. Greater concentrations of live organisms in discharge samples than in intake samples were observed for phytoplankton in 12 of the 15 sample sets; for zoo-plankton in 7 sets. These observed increases in plankton concen-trations in some discharge samples over the concentrations found in intake samples are attributed to these factors: (1) During open cycle operation when ambient river temperature is below 50 F, Vermont Yankee of ten recirculates much of its cooling water in order to optimize the ef ficiency of electrical generation and (2) this warmer recirculated water promotes algal growth on the walls of the cooling water system (discharge structure walls, etc.) and this attached algal growth supports a community of microinver-tebrates. This aufwuchs often sloughs off into the circulating water system and becomes planktonic. The impact of Vermont Yankee's entrainment of plankton on the river's concentration of live plankton is dependent upon the proportion of river flow, O R, which is utilized as condenser cooling water, Q.D A calculation of this impact, which assumes uniform distribution of plankton in the river, is given in Table 5.6. The largest calculated decrease in live phytoplankton con-centration in the river is -3.7% and in live zooplankton concen-tration is -6.8%. The very large percentage increases in plankton concentra-
! tions in Tables 5.5 and 5.6 occurred at times when ambient river concentrations were very low. The absolute magnitudes of the increases were not great. In general, ambient plankton concen-trations are so small in the colder months of the year, when this study was conducted, that Vermont Yankee's impact on the river's ecosystem is not significant, regardless of the effects of entrain-ment on viability of phytoplankton and zooplankton.
5.4.2 Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Studies Studies on the entrainment of ichthyoplankton, initiated in the spring of 1977, were also conducted during Phase V. Samples were collected behind the trash racks in Vermont Yankee's intake bay from 1 March until open cycle operation was terminated on 31 May. Sampling was continued on a daily basis in the river near Vermont Yankee's intake structure from 1 June to 16 June. , i The samples were collected with a 0.5 meter diameter plankton net with a T.S.K. flowmeter positioned in the net's mouth. The net was mounted in an aluminum frame and lowered by ropes to collect intake bay samples; the net was towed by boat to collect the June river samples. The results of the studies in the intake bay are summarized in Table 5.7; those of the tows in the river are shown in Table 5.8. No ichthyoplankters were collected until 15 May, after which date they were found on all days of the studies in the intake bay ! and in the river. In the spring of 1977, during the Phase IV
- studies, three larval fish were collected prior to 15 May, but ambient river temperature was unusually high in that year. Daily average river temperature remained above 50 F after 1 May in 1977, but not until 13 May in 1978. In both study years, fish larvae were not observed regularly until the latter half of May and the peak concentrations of fish larvae were not found until the last week of the month. Larval concentrations observed in the river in June were of the same magnitude as those found in the intake bay in late May.
5.5 Fish Impingement Studies Vermont Yankee's circulating water traveling screens were backwashed daily during Phase V at approximately 0830. Impinged fish, picked from the debris sluiced into a strainer basket, were identified, weighed, and measured. Studies in earlier years had shown that few fish were impinged on the service water screens, so these screens were not separately washed. Fish impinged there are automatically backwashed into the basket and are included in p the collections reported here. Tables 5.9 through 5.16 are summaries by species, total weight, and ranges of weight and total length of fish impinged from October 1977 through May 1978. Table 5.17 is a summary of these data for i the 238 days of Phase V. Each summary also shows the average number and average weight of fish impinged per day and the maximum number ! and weight of fish impinged per day in that period. The Phase V study confirmed the observation of earlier studies that the greater impingement rates occur in early fall and early j spring. The numbers of fish impinged in October and November during Phase V were much larger than in these months in earlier studies. This higher impingement rate is consonant with the observation in earlier studies that greater impingement occurs at times of relatively high river flows. Monthly mean flows at Vernon in October and November 1977 were higher than usual for those months. The October 1977 hourly maximum flow rate of 54,000 cfs is greater than the maximum instantaneous discharge observed in some years during spring run-off. Despite the higher impingement rates in October and November of Phase V, impingement rates for the whole study were within ranges that had been observed in previous studies. Summaries of !. the results of all five phases of impingement studies are given in Tables 5.18 and 5.19. Table 5.19 shows mean numbers and mean weights (in grams) of fish impinged per study day during each of the studies. The average number of fish impinged per day has ranged from 6.9 in the brief Phase I study to 46 in Phase II. The mean weight impinged has been surprisingly consistent at about a half a p pound per day in each of the five study phases. 5.6 Plume Attraction Studies Special fish collection studies in Vernon Pond, to ascertain whether Vermont Yankee's heated discharge attracts fish, have been conducted in each of the five phases of open cycle testing. During Phase V, paired net sets (trap nets or gill nets) were made at approximately two week intervals at locations in and out of the heated discharge plume. The locations of net placements used in Phase V are shown in Figure 5.2. A tabulation of the numbers, species, and weight of fish captured in each set is given in Table 5.20. Table 5.21 summarizes by capture method the hours of not set and the numbers and weight of fish taken in and out of the plume during Phase V. These data are summarized for all five phases in Table 5.22. In contrast to the four earlier studies, in which greater numbers of fish per hour were captured by trap net out of the plume, the rate of fish captured by number during Phase V was slightly greater in the plume. In fact, during Phase V the ratio of number of fish captured by both net types in the plume to the number taken out of the plume per hour of effort was 1.13. During Phase V, rate of collection of biomass by both gill and trap nets in the plume was 2.39 times the rate of collection out of the plume. For all five phases, however, the numbers and weight of fish cap-tured per unit of effort were greater out of the plume than in the plume. The ratios for capture out of the plume to capture in the plume for all five phases were 5.9 for number of fish and 3,2 for weight of fish. The Phase V data with respect to species captured are summa-rized in Table 5.23. This table shows for the two net types used t the number and weight of each species collected in and out of the i plume. Such data for all five phases are shown in Table 5.24. Table 5.25 reduces the total numbers of each species captured in all five of the study periods to percentages of that species taken in the plume and out of the plume . The table also shows the per-centage composition by number of all fish species collected in the five phases. Figure 5.3 is a graphical presentation of the cercen-
. tage data of Table 5.25. Table 5.26 and Figure 5.4 are anal 6gous presentations of the weight data for fish captured in all five phases.
For all five phases, 73% of the fish captured were taken in nets set out of the heated plume and 59% of the biomass was collected I there. Of the species which constituted at least 1% by number of l all fish collected, only golden shiner was found exclusively in nets set out of the plume. Greater proportions of the number and weight of smallmouth bass captured were taken in the plume than for any other species except fallfish, only two of which were taken, both in the plume.
! The five years of plume attraction studies have demonstrated ! that fish resident in Vernon Pond are not attracted to Vermont Yankee's discharge; nor are they, in general, strongly repelled by it. Some fish of cost species were found both in and out of the heated discharge.
5.7 Live Cage Studies Special studies were initiated in the spring of 1974 to ascertain whether a cold water fish species would be adversely affected by Vermont Yankee's heated discharge during open cycle operation in the colder months of the year. Six live brown trout, Salmo trutta L., were held in wire mesh cages at several locations in the river, both in and out of the discharge plume. The cages were checked daily and the numbers of fish still living were recorded. In this Phase I study, the fish did not survive long in loca-tions where river currents were high, even in control areas out-side Vermont Yankee's discharge plume. A redesigned cage was used in four subsequent phases of testing. This cage was one foot square by 2.5 feet in length. The front third of each cage was covered by plywood to provide shelter from river currents, the remainder was covered with wire mesh. l' The cages were moored to anchored buoys to which were attached temperature probes that recorded river temperature near the cage once every ten minutes on magnetic tape. At the cage location nearest Vermont Yankee's discharge (Location No. 4.1) a temperature probe was also placed in the sheltered front portion of the fish cage. ! The cage locations used in the Phase V study are shown in Figure 5.5. The data on the survival of the brown trout are summarized in Table 5.27. At the suggestion of a member of Vermont Yankee's Technical Advisory Committee, one study at the same locations was done using rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. The results of that study are shown also in Taole 5.27. 1 In October, the cage at Station 3 was destroyed by vandals before the completion of the ten day test. With one exception, all six brown trout survived in all other cages for ten days at times when the mean river temperature during the test period was e below 60 F. The exceptian was Station 7, the control location I upstream of Vermont Yankee's discharge, where one fish was dead on the last day of the May test, and the temperature averaged 57.9 F there during that time. Average temperatures observed at each location during the test periods are shown in Table 5.28. When water temperature was below 60 F, all fish survived at locations affected by Vermont Yankee's discharge, even though large rates of temperature change were recorded at the locations in Vernon Pond. Table 5.29 lists for each study perica the maximum temperature increases and decreases observed between temperature records at successive ten minute intervals. At Location 4.1, nearest Vermont Yankee's discharge, a ten minute temperature increase of 13.0 F was recorded outside the cage on 12 December 1977; of 7.4 F inside the sheltered portion of the cage on 2 March 1978. Maximum ten minute temperature decreases of 12.8 F outside the cage and 13.4 F inside the cage were observed there in March 1978. Even greater temperature fluctuations were recorded ,at Location 4.4. A 23.1 F increase in ten minutes occurred there on 7 March 1978 and an 18.1 F decrease was recorded on 14 December 1977. Twice during the Phase V live cage study, Vermont Yankee ceased operation for brief periods. On these occasions, during the December and January study periods, fluctuating elevated river temperature near Vermont Yankee's discharge dropped, following the shutdowns, to a sustained ambient temperature of 32*F. Neither this cold shock nor the return to elevated temperatures following Vermont Yankee's resumption of generation were lethal to the fish caged in the discharge plume area. This study's observation of a high survival rate of this i sensitive fish species at times of low ambient river temperature, despite rapid rates of temperature change in Vermont Yankee's o discharge plume area, is consonant with the observations of ear-lier phases in this series of studies. Summaries of the results of the live cage studies of Phases II through V at the four cage locations used in Phase V are shown in Tables 5.30 and 5.31. l These tables summarize the data for all caged fish which were checked for an entire 10 day study period. (on occasions, some fish were lost due to vandalism or cages were swept away by high river currents.) Table 5.30 shows the number of fish, for each month in which studies were conducted, that were checked for 10 l- days and the percent of those fish that survived the entire period. Table 5.31 lists the number of days that 50% of those fish survived. j During the months October through May, when Vermont Yankee is now permitted to operate in an open cycle mode of condenser cooling, 95% of the fish tested at Station 3, downstream of Vernon Dam survived for 10 days. By comparison, 92% of those tested at t . the upstream control location, Station 7, survived. In Vernon Pond, 90% survived at Location 4.4 and 76% at Location 4.1. Signi-P ficant losses occurred in Vernon Pond only at times when average temperatures were relatively high. l. 6 - LITERATURE CITED p, Aquatec, :ncorporated. 1974. Hydrothermal and biological studies, Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Phase I, February-April 1974. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i Corporation. 1975a. Hydrothermal and biological studies, Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Phase II, December 1974-May 1975. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. 1975b. Ecological studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Report IV, January-December 1974. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. I 1976a. Hydrothermal and biological studies, Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Phase III, October 1975-June 1976. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. I 1976b. Ecological studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Report V, January-December 1975. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. 1977. Hydrothermal and biological studies, Connecticut River, j Vernon, Vermont. Phase IV, September 1976-May 1977. Report prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporat' ion. Fogarty, D. 1978. Personal communication, 9 May, 26 Jane. i Harleman, D. R. F. 1975. Engineering and environmental aspects of heat disposal from power generation. Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Krabach, M. 1978. Personal communication, 10 July. Noyes, L. 1978. Personal communication, 8 May, 25 July. sp 7
,,0 c gaOO6
- O p+ ,,
7 ,/ o ,n , SCALE IN MIL E S a
% 5 i
4 ASHUELOT river VERMONT- l r YANKEE C' O '
- Gb r NH 3
l , r , , /T
.i
~~
; q -
N/X SS FIGURE 5.1 VERMONT YANKEE SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS
\ --
, _=__.__.,.na
_ .= _ _ _ - - gg =-
TABLE 5.1 VERMONT YANKEE PIIASE V STUDIES PIIYTOPLANKTON Total Counts in Units Per Liter Sample Station No. Monitor Vernon Monitor Date 7 7 5 4VT 4 Nil Dam 3 3 10/25/77 120 1375 1043 955 911 1098 1135
- t h 11/15/77 48 613 377 372 364 215 411 82 1
** ** 99 ** 31 244 116 12/21/77 64
** ** 92 ** 94 109
- 1/31/78 59 38 22 ** 10 13 2/21/78 20 6 4 :
17 ** ** 43 ** 25 28 40 3/15/78 473 1581 866 1001 413 ** 1377 1487 4/24/78 5/25/78 79 543 677 874 1172 645 863 129 !
- Monitor pump inoperative.
** Sample collection precluded by hazardous river icing or flow conditions.
TABLE 5.2 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES ZOOPLANKTON i Total Counts in Units Per Liter Sample Station No. Monitor Vernon Monitor ' Date 7 7 5 4VT 4NH Dam 3 3 - I 10/25/77 8.0 18.2 14.5 13.5 14.0 10.0 16.5 11/16/77 16.5 19.0 20.8 11.0 11.1 12.5 4.6 26.0 12/21/77 17.0 4.5 4.1 8.4 2.0 1/31/78 31.5 4.5 5.2 c.6 2/21/78 8.5 1.4 3.6 0.6 5.2 0.4 0.5 3/15/78 33.5 6.6 2.4 4.4 2.5 4/24/78 3.0 3.6 2.3 1.6 1.0 3.6 1.0 5/25/78 2.5 3.2 2.8 6.5 5.5 4.4 3.6 2.5
- Monitor pump inoperative.
** Sample collection precluded by hazardous river icing or flow conditions.
TABLE 5.3-1 . VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES DENTIIIC FAUNA STUDIES Summary of Results of Analysis Sample Number of Number Diversity Predominant Form (s) Station Benthic of Index % of Date Number Organisms Taxa a Name(s) Total 10/24/77 1 17 4 1.7 Planarians 53 2 29 5 0.8 Caddis flies 90 3 4 2 0.8 Caddis flies 75 4 5 2 1.0 Fingernail clams 60 5 1 1 0.0 Chironomid 100 7 7 4 1.8 Tubificids 43 m Lsh a 11/22/77 1 2 2 1.0 None - 2 46 7 1.7 Caddis flies 63 3 3 2 0.9 Caddis flies 100 4 1 1 0.0 Tubificid 100 , 5 13 5 2.0 None - 7 23 9 2.8 Chironomids 48 12/28/77 1 25 8 2.4 None - 2 25 4 1.3 Caddis flies 64 3 21 4 1.3 Caddis flies 81 12/27/77 4* 2 2 1.0 Fingernail clams 100 1/31/78 1 0 0 - - - 2 17 .3 0.6 Caddis flies 88 3 10 4 1.7 Caddis flies 80 1/25/78 4** 2 2 1.0 None -
- Sample collected by five dredge hauls at Vermont quarter point only.
** Sample collected by five dredge hauls at Vermont quarter point and at midstream.
TABLE 5.3-2 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES DENTHIC FAUNA STUDIES Summary of Results of Analysis Sample Number of Number Diversity Predominant For(s) Station Benthic of Index % of Date Number Orga ni sms Taxa a Name(s) Total 0.5 Fingernail clams 89 2/22/78 1 9 2 62 2 16 6 2.2 Caddis flies 3 24 4 1.6 Chironomids 54 2/23/78 4* 'O O - 85 5* 34 6 1.4 Tubificids
- 7. 24 12 3.2 Chironomids 58 i 2/24/78
$ 48 16 3.4 Caddis flies 42 i 3/20/78 1 39 2 31 10 2.7 Caddis flies 3 29 5 1.8 Caddis flies 79 4** 5 4 1.9 Chironomids 60 5/23/78 1 10 9 3.1 None - 2 42 8 1.3 Caddis flies 55 3 3 2 0.9 Caddis flies 67 4 8 5 2.4 Chironomids 50 5 3 3 1.4 None - 7 3 2 0.9 Chironcmids 67
- Sample collected by five dredge hauls at Vermont quarter point only.
** Sample collected by five dredge hauls at Vermont quarter point and at midstream.
2 . i TABLE 5.4-1 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Summary of Results Power Percent Living Organisms Number Organisms / Liter Level Condenser Sample Sample (Fresh Sample) (Preserved Sample) Date (%) AT ( F) Location Temp'.( F) Phytoplankton Zooplankton Phytoplankton Zooplankton i 10/22/77 80.5 23.3 Intake 49.3 88 75 194 1.5 64 80 300 6.0 Discharge 86.7 86 0 377 9.5 e 61 50 278 7.5 m . Y 11/3/77 99.7 28.8 Intake 46.4 80 100 534 1.0 88 33 360 3.0 Discharge 75.2 97 157 0.2 87 100 702 1.5 11/22/77 99.7 28.8 Intake 41.0 80 100 125 10.5 68 80 112 9.0 Discharge 70.0 89 100 208 1.0 70 100 211 1.0 12/2/77 99.6 29.0 Intake 37.2 86
- 185 3.0 91 50 129 2.0 Discharge 72.5 83 0 667 2.5 ,
95 0 261 4.0 12/24/77 99.7 27.2 Intake 32.4 67 100 59 1.0 97 100 56 6.5 Discharge 70.0 - 0 40 1.0 33 50 36 1.5
*No organisms observed.
a 1 1 TABLE 5.4-2 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Summary o f Results Power Percent Living Organisms Number Organisms / Liter Level Condenser Sample Sample (Fresh Sample) (Preserved Sample) Date (%) AT (*F) Location Temp.(*F) Phytoplankton Zooplankton Phytoplankton Zooplankton 1/13/78 99.2 26.3 Intake 32.0 52 100 82 0.5 68 100 90 0.5 Discharge 69.3 67 100 88 3.5 65 100 74 0.5 1 1/25/78 99.9 26.9 Intake 32.9 65 100 66 1.5 7 36 100 518 1.0 Discharge 65.8 64 100 60 1.5 58
- 66 1.5 2/9/78 97.1 25.5 Intake 32.0 0
- 28 0.5 23 100 32 0.0 Discharge 65.1 63 100 44 3.5 62
- 12 1.0 2/23/78 99.2 26.7 Intake 32.4 9
- 12 0.0 8 33 24 2.5 Discharge 66.2 82 100 754 2.0 96 67 1272 5.5 3/10/78 99.4 26.3 Intake 32.4 0 100 46 2.0 20
- 30 2.5 Discharge 65.7 ,
82 50 1450 2.0 91 1627 3.0
*No organisms observed.
-- _. _ _ . ~
q - TABLE 5.4-3 VERMONT YANKEE PIIASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Summary of Results Power Percent Living Organisms Number Organisms / Liter Level Condenser Sample Sample (Fresh Sample) (Preserved Sample) Date (%) AT ( F) Location Temp.( F) Phytoplankton Zooplankton Phytoplankton Zooplankton 3/28/78 95.3 25.6 Intake 33.4 53 100 68 0.5 29 66 0.5 Discharge 72.0 52 100 893 0.5 33 50 368 1.0 E 4/7/78 99.5 27.1 Intake 34.0 72 100 230 3.5 y 41 100 284 6.0 Discharge 69.1 27 100 222 2.5 41 100 326 2.0 4/26/78 99.6 26.2 Intake 42.6 53 67 132 1.5 21 0 104 2.0 Discharge 73.8 31 100 6324 6.0 24 75 1505 3.5 5/11/78 99.7 20.6 Intake 50.7 86 100 252 0.5 90 0 266 2.0 Discharge 70.5 57 92 598 2.0 78 100 421 2.5 5/26/78 99.8 20.9 Intake 61.9 96 100 191 0.0 86
- 202 1.0 Discharge 82.9 73
- 292 1.5 66 0 313 0.0
*No organisms observed.
TABLE 5.5-1 . VERMONT YAMKEE PHASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Percent Changes in Live Plankton Concentrations Between Intake and Discharge Samples Living Organisms per Liter % Change Date Parameter Discharge - Intake = Difference thru Plant 10/22/77 Phytoplankton 220 190 +30 +16 Zooplankton 1.7 3.0 -1.3 -43 11/3/77 Phytoplankton 386 375 +11 +2.9 Zooplankton 0.8 1.0 -0.2 -20 11/22/77 Phytoplankton 178 89 +89 +100 Zooplankton 1.0 8.8 -7.8 -89 12/2/77 Phytoplankton 422 140 +282 +201 Zooplankton 0.0 1.2 -1.2 -100 12/24/77 Phytoplankton 12 54 -42 -78 Zooplankton 0.3 3.8 -3.5 -92 1/13/78 Phytoplankton 53 51 +2 +3.9 Zooplankton 2.0 0.5 +1.5 +300 1/25/78 Phytoplankton 38 137 -99 -72 Zooplankton 1.5 1.2 +0.3 +25 2/9/78 Phytoplank ton 18 5 +13 +260 Zooplankton 2.2 0.2 +2.0 +1000
TABLE 5.5-2 , VERMONT YANKEE P11ASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Percent Changes in Live Plankton Concentrations Between Intake and Discharge Samples Living Organisms per Liter % Change Date Parameter Discharge - Intake = Difference thru Plant 2/23/78 Phytoplankton 912 2 +910 +46000 Zooplankton 2.8 0.4 +2.4 +600 3/10/78 Phytoplankton 1323 2 +1321 +66000 Zooplankton 1.2 2.2 -1.0 -45 $ 3/28/78 Phytoplankton 252 27 +225 +830 ' Zooplank ton 0.6 0.5 +0.1 +20 4/7/78 Phytoplankton 88 136 -48 -35 Zooplankton 2.2 4.8 -2.6 -54 4/26/78 Phytoplankton 1057 37 +1020 +2800 Zooplankton 4.2 0.7 +3.5 +500 5/11/78 Phytoplank ton 357 228 +129 +57 Zooplankton 2.0 0.8 +1.2 +150 5/26/78 Phytoplankton 205 176 +29 +16 Zooplankton 0.0 0.5 -0.5 -100
. > . , , , t
~
TABLE 5.6 a VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES ENTRAINMENT Calculated Percent Changes in Live Plankton Concentrations of River Effected by Entrainment
% River Flow % Change in Live Plankton
% Change in Live Plankton #" 1#"
Cooling Concentration thru Plant Concentration in Mixed River Date Mode Phytoplankton Zooplankton (100 Q D ',O R Phytoplankton Zooplankton 10/22/77 Open* +16 -43 1.73 +0.28 -0.74 11/3/77 Open +2.9 -20 8.77 +0.25 -1.8 11/22/77 Open +100 -89 3.67 +3.7 -3.3 12/2/77 Open* +201 -100 2.08 +4.2 -2.1 12/24/77 Open* -78 -92 3.77 -2.9 -3.5 0 1/13/78 Open* +3.9 +300 2.10 +0.08 +6.3 1/25/78 Open* -72 +25 5.15 -3.7 +1.3 f +1000 +12 +47 2/9/78 Open* +260 4.70 2/23/78 Open* +46000 +600 8.60 +4000 +52 3/10/78 Open* +66000 -45 12.1 +8000 -5.4 3/28/78 Open* +830 +20 2.52 +21 +0.50 4/7/78 Open* -35 -54 1.68 -0.59 -0.91 4/26/78 Open* +2800 +500 1.34 +38 +6.7 5/11/78 Open +57 +150 2.40 +1.4 +3.6 5/26/78 Open +16 -100 6.78 +1.1 -6.8
*Open cycle with some recirculation of cooling water.
TABLE 5.7-1 VERMO:1T YANKEE , PilASE V STUDIES ICIITHYOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT STUDIES River Temperature Number Sample VY Intake Rate of River Intake Flow 1978 Station 7 of Larvac Volume Larvae Flow Rate Entrainment Flow Rate as % of Date Time ( F) Co11ceted (m3 ) per m 3 (c fs) (La rvac/llour) (cfs) River Flow 3/1 1540 32.0 0 13.7 0 496 0 3,600 13.8 3/8 1125 32.0 0 9.8 0 552 0 9,600 5.4 3/15 1130 32.1 0 5.6 0 452 0 10,300 4.4 3/22 1020 32.2 0 41.5 0 229 0 10,000 2.3 3/28 0845 32.1 0 23.6 0 382 0 15,100 2.5 3/31 0850 32.3 0 3.0 0 422 0 17,300 2.4 h 0915 32.3 0 8.7 0 422 0 17,300 2.4 ' 2.5 4/3 1315 33.4 0 3'. 3 0 452 0 17,900 1340 33.4 0 3.3 0 452 0 17,900 2.5 4/4 1647 33.1 0 3 0 454 0 17,700 2.6 4/5 1335 34.0 0 10.4 0 448 0 17,800 2.5 4/6 1035 33.9 0 26.2 0 441 0 21,600 2.0 4/7 0900 34.0 0 50.7 0 444 0 26,600 1.7 4/8 0812 33.3 0 20.0 0 262 0 22,400 1.2 4/9 0910 33.8 0 21.2 0 344 0 18.900 1.8 4/10 1455 36.9 0 7 .' .1 0 415 0 14,000 3.0 4/11 0705 38.5 0 34.6 a 503 0 19,300 2.6 4/12 0820 38.2 0 17.1 0 501 0 28.700 1.7 4/13 0625 37.8 0 6.9 0 521 0 31,400 1.7 4/14 1510 39.0 , c 49.4 3 546 0 46,500 1.2 4/15 1000 37.7 0 29.5 0 522 0 44,400 1.2
TABLE 5.7-2 VEle:0NT YANKEE . PilASE V STUDIES ICilTliYOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT STUDIES River Temperature Number Sample VY Intake Rate of River Intake Flow 1978 Station 7 of Larvae Volume Larvae Flow Rate Entrainment Flow Rate as % of Date Time (*F) Collected (m3) per m 3 (cfs) (La rvac/ilour) (cfs) River Flow 4/16 0850 37.5 - 0 15.6 0 478 0 34,600_ 1.4 4/17 0755 37.5 0 29.5 0 498 0 24.800 2.0 4/18 1350 39.6 0 37.1 0 4 78 0 26,500 1.8 4/19 0845 40.1 0 52.1 0 481 0 29,600 1.6 4/20 0920 39.7 0 51.9 0 490 0 34,500 1.4 4/21 0850 38.8 0 25.9 0 527 0 46,200 1.1 1
- j 4/22 0910 38.7 0 22.9 0 503 0 45,700 1.1 4/23 0835 39.4 0 21.6 0 453 0 42,100 1.1 4/24 0900 40.3 0 30.3 0 482 0 33,900 1.4 4/25 0915 41.2 0 30.9 0 496 0 37,900 1.3 4/26 0845 41.0 0 31.2 0 496 0 36,900 1.3 4/27 1020 41.7 0 27.5 0 540 0 35,300 1.5 4/28 0845 42.5 0 20.8 0 545 0 34,700 1.6 4/29 0800 42.8 0 5.4 0 142 0 37,700 0.4 4/30 0920 43.3 0 34.4 0 450 0 34.700 1.3 5/1 0915 42.6 0 30.8 0 566 0 34,100 1.7 5/2 1008 41.2- 0 26.1 0 565 0 29,900 1.9 5/3 0825 42.0 0 31.2 0 356 0 19,900 1.8 5/4 0845 42.9 0 56.6 0 477 0 17,200 2.8 5/5 0935 44.8 0 74.2 0 488 0 14,800 3. 3 5/6* 0850 44.5 0 76.3 0 613 0 15,900 3.9
*0nce through cooling (no recirculation) initiated.
. . 2 ; .
1-TABLE 5.7-3 VEPJ0NT YANKEE , PilASE V STUDIES ICIITilYOPLANFTON ENTRAIN!!2NT STUDIES River Temperature Number Sample VY Intake Rate of zRiver Intake Flow 1978 Station 7 of Latvae Volume Larvae Flow Rate Entrainment Flow Rate as % of Date Time ( F) Collected (m3 ) per m 3 (cfs) (La rvac/ Hour) (c fs) River Flow 5/7 0925 46.2 0 123 0 595 0 13,900 4.3 5/8 0940 48.0 0 96.3 0 589 0 14,400 4.1 5/9 1125 50.1 0 81.7 0 754 0 17,400 4.3 5/10 1030 50.7 0 52.3 0 770 0 27,400 2.8 5/11 0845 48.8 0 44.7 0 776 0 32,400 2.4 5/12 1110 48.8 0 38.4 0 796 0 28,900 2.8 5/13 0955 49.1 0 34.3 0 792 0 24,600 3.2 5/14 0945 50.1 0 52.4 0 791 0 23,100 3.4 5/15 0905 50.8 15 96.1 0.16 790 13 x 10 20,100 3.9' 1400 50.8 10 104 0.096 796 7.8 x 10 20,000 4.0 5/16 0850 50.0 14 113 0.12 791 10 x 10 21,900 3.6 1345 50.1 18 121 0.15 794 12 x 10 23,300 3.4 5/17 0855 49.8 21 106 0.20 795 16 x 10 27,800 2.9 1515 50.2 1 111 0.009 787 0.7 x 10 24,300 3.2 5/18 0955 50.1 8 120 0.067 791 5.4 x 10 24,200 3.3 1600 50.2 '2 69.1 0.029 791 2.3 x 10 24,400 3.2 5/19 0915 50.7 3 124 0.024 790 1.9 x 10 22,900 3.4 1545 52.6 0 116 0 789 0 24,100 3. 3 5/20 0810 53.5 5 113 0.044 774 3.5 x 10 22,100 3.5 1210 54.2 1 97.2 0.010 776 0.8 x 10 20,500 3.8 5/21 0845 56.1 15 122 0.12 766 9.6 x 10 17,400 4.4
TABLE 5.7-4 VEPJ10NT YANKEE , PIIASE V STUDIES ICilTIIYOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT STUDIES River Ten.perature Number Sample VY Intake Rate of River Intake Flow 1978 Station 7 of Larvae Volume Larvae Flow Rate Entrainment Flow Rate as % of Date Tirne ( F) Collected (m3 ) per m 3 (cFs) (La rvae/1 tour) (c fs) River Flow 5/21 1310 56.5 8 124 0.064 749 4.9 x 1 16,600 4.5 5/22 1030 57.1 0 97.2 0 791 0 15,100 5.2 1625 58.2 1 101 0.010 758 0.8 x 10 15,600 4.9 5/23 0710 58.2 16 108 0.15 751 11 x 10 15,700 4.8 1740 59.4 16 114 0.14 749 11 x 10 14,800 5.1 3 5/24 0855 58.8 53 83.0 0.64 731 48 x 10 15,300 4.8 1810 59.3 10 119 0.084 750 6.4 x 10 8,400 8.9 ' 0.18 2245 59.2 26 143 753 14 x 10 8,100 9.3 5/25 0455 58.8 54 211 0.26 769 20 x 10 8,400 9.2 1355 59.5 28 153 0.18 76s 14 x 10 11,200 6'. 9 5/26 0705 59.8 17 146 0.12 773 9.2 x 10 12,300 6.3 1450 61.0 18 201 0.090 772 7.0 x 10 11,200 6.9 5/27 0850 61.0 29 157 0.18 783 15 x 10 12,100 6.5 1245 62.0 29 121 0.24 775 19 x 10 11,800 6.6 3 5/28 0940 63.4 22 165 0.13 776 10 x 10 6,400 12.1 3 1330 64.3 54 218 0.25 768 19 x 10 8,900 8.6 5/29 0900 66.1 10 135 0.074 769 5.8 x 10 1,340 57.4 1555 65.7 140 204 0.67 764 53 x 10 9,700 7.9 5/30 1355 68.5 83 133 0.62 730 46 x 10 9,000 8.1 1635 69.3 2 91.7 0.022 729 1.6 x 10 9,200 7.9 5/31 0855 69.2 195 132 1.48 736 111 x 10 9,200 8.0
T78:LE 5. 8 VERMONT YM KEE ICllTHY0 PLANKTON STUD:ES Larval Concentrations in Connecticut River Near Vercont Yankee Intake Structure River Number Sample Larvae River 1978 Temperature of Larvae Volume per Flow Rate I_, Date Time Station 7 (*F) Collected (m3 ) m3 (cfs) 6/1 1430 70.9 20 53.5 0.37 10,700 1540 71.1 31 74.1 0.42 9,900 6/2 1305 71.3 54 90.5 0.60 10,700 6/3 1025 70.3 41 90.2 0.45 10,200 , 6/4 0905 68.9 56 98.5 0.57 10,300 6/5 1135 68.4 56 99.2 0.56 12,700 6/6 1300 66.2 18 109 0.16 11,400 6/7 1125 65.5 19 108 0.18 10,500 l 6/8 1330 64.4 39 123 0.32 11,300 6/9 1340 63.8 31 106 0.29 19,800 6/10 0845 62.3 9 111 0.081 20,100 l 6/11 0845 62.6 21 115 0.18 16,000 6/12 1010 64.1 11 108 0.10 15,400
- 6/13 11.'- 5 65.2 36 115 0.31 15,400 7
6/14 1500 64.1 36 95.1 0.38 11,000 6/15 1035 62.8 17 103 0.16 11,100 6/16 0835 63.2 18 108 0.17 13,300 TABLE 5.9 VER..ONT YANKEE ~- PHASE V STUDIES FISH IMPINGEMENT Summary: 6-31 October 1977 i I~ Range Species Number Weight (g) Wg t . (g) /T . L . (rmn) Lepomis spp. 2707 6217.8 <l.0/27 - 3.1/56 I White Perch 295 7566.5 3.0/68 - 277/251 Spottail Shiner 130 492.9 <l.0/36 - 10/108 Largemouth Bass 42 790.3 5.0/75 - 170/226 Brown Bullhead 35 196.1 3.2/71 - 16/116 l Yellow Perch 31 832.3 3.0/70 - 119/213 Rock Bass 26 651.6 1.0/40 - 127/184 Bluegill 26 302.6 3.0/60 - 158/185 Pumpkinseed 22 150.9 3.0/61 - 28/117 Smallmouth Bass 20 1045.7 3.0/63 - 315/289 i Banded Killifish 13 44.1 1.0/52 - 9.3/100 Carp 9 67.4 2.0/49 - 24/118 White Sucker 5 1169.2 3.2/67 - 823/410 Golden Shiner 4 19.7 2.5/74 - 7.2/95 American Eel 1 38.0 38/320 Rainbow Smelt 1 18.0 18/146 Silvery Minnow 1 5.5 5.5/89 Yellow Bullhead 1 1.6 1.6/56 I
- TOTALS 3367 19610.2 Average number of fish impinged per day = 129.5 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 754.2 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 619 on 10/20/77 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 4634 on 10/22/77 TABLE 5.10
- VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES FISH 1MPINGEMENT Summary: November 1977 r l Range Species Number ' Weight (g) Wgt. (g) /T.L. (mm) 1 Locomis spp. 309 661.3 <1.0/ 31 - 3.9/59 ,, Spottail Shiner 39 135.4 2.2/ 72 - 4.8/83 Rock Bass 27 2964.3 1.3/ 42 - 281/235 White Perch 26 1375.1 2.8/ 70 - 262/264 l Bluegill 21 238.6 2.9/ 63 - 148/185 Pumpkinseed 16 74.7 2.2/ 60 - 6.5/76 I Smallmouth Bass 15 3165.0 10/ 92 - 727/377 Largemouth Bass 8 100.6 3.0/ 60 - 28/131 Yellow Perch 4 469.0 57/177 - 210/258 I Banded Killifish 3 11.5 2.0/ 62 - 6.0/81 Golden Shiner 2 10.8 4.6/ 84 - 6.2/85 American Eel 1 75.0 75/415 TOTALS 471 9281.3 Average number of fish impinged per day = 15.7 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 309.4 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 113 on 11/12/77 [ Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 5044 on 11/7/77 _I TABLE 5.11 ,__. VERMONT YANKEE i PHASE V STUDIES FISH IMPINGEMENT r I Summary: December 1977 r Range Species Number Weight (g) Wgt. (g) /T.L. (mm) j Spottail Shiner 58 247.2 1.7/ 65 - 15/120 Rock Bass 6 628.2 4.2/ 59 - 200/198 I' Yellow Perch 6 119.9 8.9/ 96 - 55/170 White Perch 6 98.5 5.5/ 84 - 61/165 Pumpkinseed 3 75.1 5.0/ 66 - 65/144 i Smallmouth Bass 2 184.0 14/102 - 170/235 t - White Sucker 1 29.0 29/146 l
- Golden Shiner 1 20.0 20/132 Lepomis sp. 1 2.1 2.1/,46 TOTALS -
84 1404.0 i~ Average number of fish impinged per day = 2.7 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 45.3 l Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 54 on 12/10/77 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 629 on 12/10/77 I s. TABLE 5.12 , VERMONT YANKEE PEASE V STUDIES I~ FISH IMPINGEMENT
' Summary: January 1978 l ~
Range Species Number Weicht (c) Wgt . (q ) /T . L . (m-0 Spottail Shiner 11 43.7 1.5/ 62 - 9.6/110 White Perch 8 909.5 8.0/ 86 - 225/251 Rock Bass 2 217.0 62/146 - 155/206 j Banded Killifish 2 3.4 <l.0/ 36 - 2.6/67 Largemouth Bass 1 31.0 31/132 Pumpkinsced 1 6.8 6.8/79 Smallmouth Baca 1 3.9 3.9/67 TOTALS 26 1215.3 i Average number of fish impinged per day = 0.d Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 39.2 f' Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 5 on 1/7/78 & 1/10/78 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 437 on 1/7/78 k. r TABLE 5.13 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES FISH IMPINGEMENT Summary: February 1978 Range ! Species Number Weicht(g) Wat. (g) /T.L. (an) r-White Perch 19 409.9 4.6/ 72 - 289/257 Spottail Shiner 11 26.5 1.1/ 59 - 4.5/85 Golden Shiner 1 11.0 11/104 Tessellated Darter 1 2.0 2.0/58 Banded Killifish 1 1.7 1.7/60
- Lepomis sp. 1 1.3 1.3/47 TOTALS 34 452.4 l
Average number of fish impinged per day = 1.2 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 16.2 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 4 on 2/9/78 & 2/16/78 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 291 on 2/7/78 { 1 I TABLE 5.14 VERMONT YAN:'EE PIIASE V STUDIES i FISII IMPINGEliENT I Summary: March 1978 p Range l Species Number Weight (c) Wgt. (g) /T.L . (mm) Spottail Shiner 126 402.2 1.0/ 62 - 11/110 White Perch 104 949.5 3.2/ 67 - 273/258 Yellow Perch 11 321.1 7.2/ 89 - 17/120 Smallmouth Bass 2 11.1 4.1/ 73 - 7.0/87 Tessellated Darter 2 6.2 2.6/ 68 - 3.6/65 Walleye 1 831.0 831/463 ! Rock Bass 1 97.0 97/167 Brown Bullhecd 1 85.0 85/203 [ White Gucker 1 11.0 11/110 Lecomis sp. 1 2.7 2.7/35 i TOTALS 250 2516.8 [ Average number of f.ch impinged per day = 8.1 Average weight (g) c f fish impinged per day = 81.2 i Maximu:. number of fish impinged per day = 38 cn 3/29/78 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 980 on 3/29/73 r-i e 4 TABLE 5.15 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES FISH IMPINGEME"T Summary: April 1973 f Range Speci.cr Number Weicht(g) Wgt. (q) /T. L. (mm) Spottail Shiner 1127 4711.3 <l.0/ 38 - 17/126 i White Perch 190 1901.3 2.7/ 64 - 220/251
. Yellow Perch 187 4439.8 6.0/ 85 - 198/245 Silvery Minnow 53 330.2 1.3/ 69 - 14/111 Lepomis spp. 29 58.2 <l.0/ 33 - 4.0/54 l
Golden Shiner 22 385.1 2.1/ 69 - 113/210 White Sucker 18 138.9 2.0/ 68 - 21/127 Banded Killifish 17 54.7 1.1/ 56 - 6.5/90 Rock Ecss 16 <l.0/ 31 - 106/170 217.6 i Smallmouth Bacs 9 820.5 3.0/ 63 - 305/290 Pumpkinseed 9 49.8 4.0/ 60 - 8.0/80 Brown Bullhe:d 3 110.0 9.0/101 - 76/180 { Bluegill 2 310.0 83/160 - 227/205 Tesse11ated Darter 2 6.6 3.2/ 7' -
- 3.4/67 Brown Trout 1 194.0 19.,'262 Walleye 1 28.0 28/160 Common Shiner 1 7.0 7.0/93 Yellow Bullhead 1 5.8 5.8/78 Rainbow Smelt 1 5.0 5.0/105 TOTALS 1689 13781.8 4
Average number of fish impinged per day = 56.3 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 459.4 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 391 on 4/29/78 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 3346 on 4/29/78
TABLE 5.16 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES F' FISH IMPINGEMENT Summary: May 1978 i L Range E Scecies Number Weight (g) Wgt. (g) /T. L. (Imn) Spottail Shiner 77 230.4 <1.0/ 50 - 12/120 Yellow Perch 52 828.2 4.0/ 77 - 133/232 White Perch 37 240.9 3.0/ 70 - 57/172 , Lepomis spp. 23 46.9 1.0/ 42 - 3.7/58 Rock Basa 13 107.5 <l.0/ 35 - 81/155 Golden Shiner 10 321.8 1.7/ 62 - 153/255 l Tessellated Darter 9 25.8 1.0/ 51 - 5.2/80 Pumpkinseed 8 185.2 2.8/ 60 - 107/160 i Rainbow Smelt 8 113.5 5.5/100 - 27/185 Silvery Minnou 6 46.0 4.0/ 77 - 13/113 Smallmouth Bass 3 263.0 16/112 - 151/220 White Sucker 2 478.4 2.4/ 70 - 4:6/354 Brown Bullhead 2 10.7 5.2/ 77 - 5.5/80 f Bluegill 1 80.0 80/155 Yellow Bullhead 1 55.0 55/180 Banded Killifish 1 2.3 2.3/70 Slimy Sculpin 1 2.0 2.0/59 TOTALS 9 254 3037.6 Average number of fish impinged per day = 8.2 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 98.0 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 17 on 5/6/78 & 5/22/78 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 576 on 5/24/78 TABLE 5.17 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES FISH IMPINGEMENT Summary: 6 October 1977 - 31 May 1978 Range Species Number Weight (g) Wgt. (g) /T.L. (mm) I Lepomis spp. 3071 6990.3 <l.0/ 27 - 4.0/54 Spottail Shiner 1579 6289.6 <l.0/ 36 - 17/126 White Perch 685 13451.2 2.7/ 64 - 289/257 i Yellow Perch 291 6810.3 3.0/ 70 - 210/258 7 Rock Bass 91 4883.2 <l.0/ 31 - 281/235 Silvery tunnow 60 381.7 1.3/ 69 - 14/111 Pumpkinseed 59 542.5 2.2/ 60 - 107/160 Smallmouth Bass 52 5501.2 3.0/ 63 - 727/377 Largemouth Bass 51 921.9 3.0/ 60 - 170/226 Bluegill 50 931.2 2.9/ 63 - 227/205 Brown Bullhead 41 401.8 3.2/ 71 - 85/203 Golden Shiner 40 768.4 1.7/ 62 - 153/255 Banded Killifish 35 117.7 <l.0/ 36 - 9.3/100 White Sucker 27 1826.5 2.0/ 68 - 823/41C i Tessellated Darter 14 40.6 1.0/ 51 - 5.2/80 Rainbow Smelt 10 136.5 5.0/105 - 27/185 Carp 9 67.4 2.0/ 49 - 24/118 Yellow Bullhead 3 62.4 1.6/ 56 - 55/180 j Walleye 2 859.0 28/160 - 831/463 American Eel 2 113.0 38/320 - 75/415 Brown Trout 1 194.0 194/262 Common Shiner 1 7.0 7.0/93 l Slimy Sculpin 1 2.0 2.0/59 TOTALS 6175 51299.4 Average number of fish impinged per day = 25.9 Average weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 215.5 Maximum number of fish impinged per day = 619 on 10/20/77 Maximum weight (g) of fish impinged per day = 5044 on 11/7/77 TABLE 5.18-1 . VERMONT YANKEE FISH IMPINGEMENT STUDIES Summary: Phaces I - V, 1974-1978 Number Number Fish Weight (g) Fish Test Daily Daily, MONTH Year (s) Days Total Mean Range Total Mean Range September 1976 17 120 7.1 0-24 599 35 0-76 October 1975 9 260 29 6-49 3403 378 31-990 1976 31 1866 60 1-660 20695 668 10-4598 1977 26 3367 130 13-619 19610 754 43-4634 1975-77 66 5493 83 1-660 43708 662 10-4634 November 1975 29 156 5.4 0-17 1580 54 0-288 ' 61 1672 56 0-177 1976 30 2.0 0-8 1977 30 471 16 0-113 9281 309 0-5044 1975-77 89 688 7.7 0-113 12533 141 0-5044 December 1974 12 61 5.1 0-13 533 44 0-191 1975 31 42 1.4 0-9 1130 36 0-481 1976 31 53 1.7 0-6 1766 57 0-634 1977 31 84 2.7 0-54 1404 45 0-629 1974-77 105 240 2.3 0-54 4833 46 0-634 January 1975 31 32 1.0 0-7 240 7.8- 0-42 1976 26 19 0.7 0-3 735 28 0-228 1977 30 37 1.2 0-7 5636 188 0-4659 1978 31 26 0.8 0-5 1215 39 0-437 1975-78 118 114 1.0 0-7 7826 66 3-4659 February 1974 7 0 - - 0 - - 1975 23 35 1.5 0-10 155 6.8 0-59 1976 15 32 2.1 0-12 485 32 0-180 1977 28 17 0.6 0-2 457 16 0-167 1978 2S 34 1.2 0-4 452 16 0-291 1974-78 101 118 1.2 0-12 1549 15 0-291 a
TABLE 5.18-2 . VERMONT YANKEE FISH IMPINGEliENT STUDIES
~
Summary : Phases I - V, 1974-1978 Number Number Fisly Weight (g) Fish Test Daily Daily,
- MONTH Year (s) Days Total Mean Range Total Mcan Range March 1974 28 55 2.0 0-14 1874 67 0-556 1975 29 1850 64 0-1314 10514 363 0-6766 1976 31 939 30 0-307 9320 301 0-2296 1977 31 446 14 0-104 12970 418 0-4140 1978 31 250 8.1 0-38 2517 81 0-980 1974-78 150 3540 24 0-1314 37195 248 0-6766 E April 1974 22 340 15 0-95 12450 566 0-4148 i 1975 30 4854 162 24-592 28600 953 97-4987 1976 30 2827 94 9-451 31660 1055 73-5462 1977 30 497 17 3-59 11821 394 22-1696 1978 30 1689 56 7-391 13782 459 35-3346 1974-78 142 10207 72 0-592 98313 692 0-5462 May 1975 31 290 9.4 0-44 2302 74 0-380 1976 31 452 15 0-61 4515 146 0-1191 1977 31 107 3.4 0-48 4219 136 0-1551 1978 31 254 8.2 1-17 3038 98 6-576 1975-78 124 1103 9.0 0-61 14074 114 0-1551 June 1976 11 23 2.6 0-20 468 43 0-338 TOTALS 1974-78 923 21651 23 0-1314 221098 240 0-6766
TABLE 5.19 VERMONT YANKEE , FISil IMPIMGEMENT STUDIES Summary of Mean Number - Mean Weight (g) of Fish Impinged per Study Day Phases I-V, 1974-1978 PIIASE I PifASE 11 PilASE III P11ASE IV PIIASE V PilASES I-V
" 1974 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1974-78 Septembe - - -
7.1- 35 - 7.1- 35 E October - - 29-378 60-668 130-754 83-662 w I November - - 5.4- 54 2.0- 56 16-309 7.7-141 December - 5.1- 44 1.4- 36 1.7- 57 2.7- 45 2.3- 46 January - 1.0-7.8 0.7- 28 1.2-188 0.8- 39 1.0- 66 February 0-0 1.5-6.8 2.1- 32 0.6- 16 1.2- 16 1.2- 15 March 2.0- 67 64-363 30-301 14-418 8.1- C1 24-248 April 15-566 162-953 94-1055 17-394 56-459 % 72-692 May - 9.4- 74 15-146 3.4-136 8.2- 98 9.0-114 June - - 2.6- 43 - - 2.6- 43 PIIASE MEANS 6.9-251 46-271 22-250 12-231 26-216 23-240
tJ E W HAfAPSHIRE ,
.-m.
s M ,. -' - /. - '- .
. s '
\
-O
/
CONNECTICUT RIVER E 4 I co I LEGEND R GILL tJET g -" f TRAP f4ET d gA ! B ff
.x 00 0
.. . .o A I *~-
'u4 fW
. .. . 'kphj
:,. I'
,s :
\" t* ,l ^1CNE /'
(( { {#,CC O f , j' VERMONT 1
. / \, go* -,/ l v\i ,(M $(At[ IN F(CT
(,- C11FT _i;--] a0 '> 0 eOO 200 FIGURE 5.2 FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS, PLUME ATTRACTION STUDY, PHASE Y
1 TABLE 5.20 VERMONT YANKEE _ PHASE V STUDIES PLUME ATTRACTION STUDY Summary of Gill Net and Trap Net Data October 1977 - May 1978 l Net Net Hours Number Number Feight Date Type Location Of Set Species Fish (grams) ! 10/13/77 Trap A 24 6 28 15186 Trap C 25 7 33 6838 11/2/77 Trap B 27 6 69 16984 Trap C 28 5 20 4804 11/18/77 Trap B 42h 7 33 9878 Trap C 43 8 26 7261 l~ 12/8/77 Trap B 48 5 21 7037 Trap C 48h 4 72 4806 12/23/77 Gill D 24 0 0 0 Gill E 24 0, 0 0 1/5/78 Gill D 27h 0 0 0 Gill E 27 0 0 0 1/18/78 Gill D 27 0 0 0 l Gill E 27 0 0 0 2/14/78 Gill D 24 1 1 75 Gill E 24 0 0 0 2/28/78 Gill D 25 1 4 3751 Gill E 25 0 0 0 3/10/78 Gill D 26 1 1 440 Gill E 26 0 0 0 3/23/7[ Gill D 22 0 0 0 Gill E 22 0 0 0 3/24/7h Gill D 24 1 2 1577 Gill E 24 0 0 0 5/23/78 Gill D 25 3 17 3889 Gill E 25 2 5 540 CD Vermont Yankee not operating at time of not check. Q) Vermont Yankee not operating during period of this net set. These data omitted from summary Tables 5.21 and 5.22. _gg_
e p TABLE 5.21 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES
. PLUME ATTRACTION STUDY d
Summary of Number and Weight of Fish Captured i In and Out of Heated Plume Oc tober 19 77 - May 19 78 In Plume Out of Plume Trap Net Gill Net Trap Net Gill Net Total Hours of Set 142.5 200.5 144.5 201.0 i Total Number of Fish Captured 151 23 151 5 Number of Fish Captured l Per Hour of Set 1.06 0.11 1.04 0.02 Total Weight (grams) of Fish Captured 49085 8155 23709 540 Weight (gm) Captured Per Hour of Set 344 40.7 164 2.69 [. f TABLE 5.22 PLUME ATTRACTION STUDIES Summary of Number and Weight of Fish Captured In and Out of Heated Plume Phases I-V i-In Plume Out of Plume_ i Trap Net Gill Net Trap Net Gill Net Hours of Net Set Phase I 598.0 1,107.0 357.5 93.0 Phase II 319.5 591.0 120.0 45.0 , Phase III 611.5 431.0 317.5 122.0 Phase IV 426.0 241.0 476.0 217.0 Phase V 142.5 200.5 144.5 201.0 Totals 2,097.5 2,570.5 1,415.5 678.n Nu:rbor of Fish Captured Phase I 23 1 202 0 i Phase II 30 9 170 0 Phase III 118 23 652 0 Phase IV 169 11 303 2 Phase V - 151 23 151 5 { 'Ibtals 491 67 1478 7
, Neber of Fish Capturcd Per Hour of Set Phase I 0.038 0.0009 0.56 0 Phase II 0.094 0.015 1.42 0 Phase III 0.19 0.053 2.05 0 Phase IV 0.40 0.046 0.64 0.009 Phase V 1.06 0.11 1.04 0.02
! Phases I-V 0.23 0.026 1.04 0.01 Weight (gm) of Fish Captured Phase I 4,353 1,015 115,415 0 L- Phase II 7,585 6,668 33,529 0 Phase III 42,829 4,392 60,613 0 Phase IV 95,557 4,708 93,429 359 Phase V 49,085 8,155 23,709 540
'Ibtals 199,409 24,938 326,695 899 Weight (gm) Captured Per Hour of Set Phase I 7.28 0.92 323 0 Phase II 23.7 11.3 279 0 Phase III 70.0 10.2 191 0 Phase IV 224 19.5 196 1.65 Phase V 344 40.7 164 2.69 Phases I-V 95.1 9.70 231 1.33
TABLE 5.23 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES PLUME ATTRACTION STUDY Summary of Species of Fish Captured i In and Out of Heated Plume October 1977 - May 1978 lI l TRAP NET CAPTURE In Plume out of Plume Species Number Weight (g) Number Weight (g) White Sucker 30 20711 12 10993 Carp 1 3400 0 0 Fallfish 1 386 0 0 { Golden Shiner 0 0 3 86 Spottail Shiner 2 23 69 698 American Eel 4 4147 1 1050 I White Perch 12 1771 23 4149 Yellow Perch 23 2654 29 2749 Walleye 8 2221 5 3069 Smallmouth Bass 51 11291 1 170 Largemouth Bass 0 0 1 17 Rock Bass 19 2481 7 728 TOTALS 151 49085 151 23709 r GILL NET CAPTURE In Plume Out of Plume Species Number Weight (q) Number Weight (q) White Sucker 8 5914 0 0 White Perch 10 1779 1 171 Yellow Perch 5 462 4 369 TOTALS 23 8155 5 540
TABLE 5.24 VERMONT YANKEE PLUME ATTRACTION STUDIES Summary of Species of Fish Captured In and Out of Heated Plume l Phases I-V, 1974-1978 TRAP NET CAPTURE In Plume Out of Plume Species Number Weicht (a) Nurber Welant (g) White Sucker 90 56993 110 87182 Longnose Sucker 0 0 1 198 Carp 18 72736 24 115894 Fallfish 2 444 0 0 Golden Shiner 0 0 87 6613 Spottail Shiner 12 137 533 6218 Silvery Minnow 0 0 5 41 Brown Bullhead 0 0 3 53 . Chain Pickerel 0 0 1 209 1 American Eel 6 6216 4 3836 White Perch 85 10668 244 36454 Yellow Perch 129 14507 342 39965 Walleye 26 8353 35 16325 Smallmouth Bass 96 26229 43 9507 Largemouth Bass 0 0 2 57 Pumpkinseed 1 5 7 513 Bluegill 1 120 6 772 Rock Dass 25 3001 31 2858 TOTALS 491 199409 1478 f326695 i GILL NET CAPTURE In Plume Out of Plume Species Number Weight (g) Numner Weight (c) White Sucker 20 16358 0 0 Longnose Sucker 1 154 0 0 White Perch 30 4569 2 304 Yellow Perch 8 735 5 595 Walleye 3 1292 0 0
. Smallmouth Bass 5 1830 0 0 TOTALS 67 24938 7 899
TABLE 5.25 VERMONT YANKEE PLUME ATTRACTION STUDIES Percentage by Numbers of Fish Species Captured in and Out of Heated Plume
- t. Phases I-V, 1974-1978 f"
IN PLL7tE OUT OF PLD'E
% of % of Total % of Syecies No. Species No. Species' No. All Species Spottail Shiner 12 2 533 98 545 26.7 Yellow Perch 137 28 347 72 484 23.7 White Perch 115 32 246 68 361 17.7 White Sucker 110 50 110 50 220 10.8 Smallmouth Eass 101 70 43 30 144 7.0 Golden Shiner 0 0 87 100 87 4.3 Walleye 29 45 35 55 64 3.1 Rock Bass 25 45 31 55 56 2.7 Carp 18 43 24 57 42 2.1 American Eel 6 60 4 40 10 0.5 Pumpkinseed 1 12 7 88 8 0.4 Bluegill 1 14 6 86 7 0.3 Silvery Minnow 0 0 5 100 5 0.2 Brown Bullhead 0 0 3 100 3 0.1 Longnose Sucker 1 50 1 50 2 0.1 r Fa11 fish 2 100 0 0 2 0.1 Largemouth Bass 0 0 2 100 2 0.1 Chain Pickerel 0 0 1 100 1 0.05 ALL SPECIES 558 27 1485 73 2043
i 1 l ALL OThiR ULCit3 l l l CARP l l ROOK l BASS l l WALL EYE , . 90 g l GOLDEN SHINERI
' f I 4 l
SMALLM0'UTH BASS l eo - l ; s I. I ml e I "I m WHITE SUCKER $;w e I 3 i. y70 l a!d d I gi t; 5 ;$ l-1
'c "la d E , 26 - I WHITE PERCH El o i ' I E I I M l .I I a i ll 50 -
g i l i 8 I ! I'
@ l I U l
" 40 - l
@ l YELLOW PERCH I y i I
! 5 I I l30_ l I 8 I I l I ml e 1 20 - gl , 81
-j l y "iS SPOTTAIL SHINER l I
io - al A si E l 0 gl I
< El I I I I I O
I I I i e i 10 0 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 10 0 PERCENTAGE IN PLUME PERCENTAGE OUT OF PLUME FIGURE 5.3 PERCENTAGE BY NUMBERS OF FISH SPECIES IN AND OUT CF PLUME P LUME ATTRACTION STUDIES , PH ASES I -2E
. _ _ . . . _ . _ = be b %_
a 6 TABLE 5.26 VERMONT YANKEE PLUME ATTRACTION STUDIES Percentage by Weight (g). of Fish Species r- Captured In and Out of Heated Plume I Phases I-V, 1974-1978 IN PLUME OUT OF PLl"C Weight % of Weight % of Total % of Species (O Species (c) Spec ies Wgt(g) All Species l' Carp 72,736 39 115,894 61 188,630 34.2 White Sucker 73,351 46 87,182 54 160,533 29.1 Yellow Perch 15,242 27 40,560 73 55,802 10.1 ! White Perch 15,237 29 36,758 71 51,995 9.4 Smallmouth Bass 28,059 75 9,507 25 37,566 6.8 Walleye 9,645 37 16,325 63 25,970 4.7 American Eel 6,216 62 3,836 38 10,052 1.8 Goldtn Shiner 0 0 6,613 100 6,613 1.2 Spottail Shiner 137 2 6,218 93 6,355 1.2 Rock Bass 3,001 51 2,858 49 5,859 1.1 Bluegill 120 13 772 87 892 0.16 Pumpkinseed 5 1 513 99 518 0.09 Fallfish 444 100 0 0 444 0.08 Longnose Sucker 154 44 198 56 352 0.06
- Chain Pickerel 0 0 209 100 209 0.04 Large=outh Bass 0 0 57 100 57 0.01 Brown Pu11 head 0 0 53 100 53 0.01 Silvery Innnow 0 0 41 100 41 0.007 ALL SPECIES 224,347 41 327,594 59 551,941
'00
, e.u imes suecm s i i ,
, _,- o_ - -.
l *a,SH NE4 l AM E RICAN EEL l t I I WALLEYE so - I ' I l SMALLMOUTH BASS I ! i m 4 80 - ylI l M WHITE PERCH i T- mi I dlE , m 4 I3 , 0 I w 70 - Ml'
< z g i
e YELLOW PERCH I
$l-U
=
w 5l a. I i i 3
< 60 - l l
[ g m[ S .I 5! . l $ ! $ 50 l d3
; j WHITE SUCKER "j{
gi E l 5Is
@ l 518 C El e 4o - l g; E l i
W I i p 3 l l
$ 30 - l l
I i I I I l 20 - l , s I CARP l l l l l 10 - l l l l l l l l l 1 0 i i 6 i i i 1 10 0 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 10 0 PERCENTAGE IN PLUME PERCENTAGE OUT OF PLUME FIGURE 5.4 PERCENTAGE BY WElGHT (Grams) OF FISH SPECIES IN AND OUT OF PLUME PLUME ATTRACTION STUDIES, PH ASES I-3E
._- 9 7 - _
1 I~ D p* o I e '
, 1,
/. /
L o 4*4 l J
- 2 I
,4.1
=
0 z i # # I I DISCHt.RGE f STRUCTURE / ,
,, 7 N /
SCALE Pd FE ET ,#
- o. a ,
10 0 O 10 0 MC Fish cages also located at Vermont Yanhee fionitor Station 7, 4.25 miles upstream of Vernon Dam, and Monitor Station 3, 0.65 miles dow:1 stream of the dam. FIGURE 5.5 FISH CAGE LOCATIONS, PHASE E
TABLE 5.27 VERMONT YAN1;EE PHASE V STUDIES LIVE CAGE STUDY Survival of Caged Brown Trout Number of Fish / Number of Days of Survival F CAGE LOCATIONS j Dates 3 4.1 4.4 7 10/12-22/77 6/SN 1/5, 1/9, 4/10 6/10 6/10 11/2-12/77 6/10 1/3 ,1/9, 4/10 6/10 6/10 12/5-15/77b 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10
'12/16-2o/77 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 1/5-15/783 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 2/6-16/78 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 3/1-12 /78 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10
, 5/16-28/78 6/10 3/3, 2/4, 1/10 1/4, 1/7, 4/10 1/9, 5/10 6/6-16/7tO 2/3, 1/5, 3/10 3/4, 1/8, 2/10 1/2, 4/4, 1/10 1/3, 3/4, 2/10 Notes: @ High river flows prevented the checking of cage on 6th and 7th day of period. Check on 8th day revealed that cage had been destroyed by vandals.
@ Vermont Yankee shut down 0400 December 10 to 1400 December 11.
@ Vermont Yankee shut down 1130 January 6 to 1350 January 7.
@ Vermont Yankee operating in closed cycle cooling mode.
Survival of Caged Rainbow Trout Number of Fish / Number of Days of Survival CAGE LOCATIO::S Dates 3 4.1 4.4 7 2/17-27/78 6/10 1/5, 5/10 6/10 6/10
TABLE 5.28 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES LIVE CAGE STUDY Average Temperature ( F) Observed r- During Each Study Period I I Study Period TEMPERATURE PROBE LOCATIC::S Monitor Buoy z'isa dox Buoy cionitor Dates 3 4.1 4.1 4.4 7 10/12-22/77 49.5 62.4 61.6 48.8 48.8 f' 11/2-12/77 49.6 63.2 62.4 52.8 47.9 12/5-15/77 34.3 48.3 52.2 33.9 32.8 I 12/16-26/77 33.8 53.3 52.4 32.2 32.0 1/5-15/78 33.1 46.2 45.6 32.0 32.0 2/6-16/78 33.3 51.9 50.7 32.0 32.0 , y, 2/17-27/78* 33.9 51.8 50.9 34.7 32.0 3/1-11/78 34.3 51.8 50.6 38.4 32.0 !- 5/18-28/78 61.8 69.9 69.7 61.9 57.9 i 6/6-16/78 64.2 64.6 64.6 64.2 63.8 C) No data on December 10-14. GD No data on January 15. CD No data on February 13-16. GD No data on February 17 and 20. QD Vermont Yankee operating in
. closed cycle cooling mode.
-100-
TABLE 5.29-1 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES LIVE CAGE STUDY Maximum Increase and Decrease in Temperature Observed in a 10 Minute Interval During Each 10 Day Study Period i Max. Increase ('F/10 Min.)
! Date/ Time of Occurrenc TEMPERATURE PROBE LCCATIONS Max. Decrease ( F/10 Min.)
p Date/ Time of, Occurrence Study Perioc\ \ Monitor duoy Fish Box Buoy Monitor Dates I\ 3 4.1 4.1 4.4 7 10/12-22/77 All days 22 b 50 22 b450 13 5 00 13 2 50 0.1 2.9 4.3 4.1 0.2 All days 21/2120 21/2130 13/1120 13/2240 0.2 8.0 7.2 18.5 0.1 I 11/2-12/77 days 7/1230 7/1230 7/0910 All days 0.3 8.3 8.8 16.4 0.1 4 days 7/1220 7/1220 7/1150 All days 3 0.5 13.0 2.bO 18.9 0.2 12/5-15/77 / 0 12/0220 15/2300 13/1320 6/2350 0.3 12.0 2.3 18.1 0.2 3 days 9/2030 5/0130 14/0420 6/2340 I 12/16-26/77 25b850 17 5 10 19 5040 20 bb30 All days 0.2 5.9 3.4 11.0 0.1 10 days 17/2200 19/1820 20/0220 All days 1/5-15/79 7 11 610 9 b0 6 5 50 5 b30 All ays 0.5 8.9 9.3 11.0 0.1 11/0510 14/0200 9/1910 6/0200 All days 0.3 9.3 3.9 2.1 0.1 2/6-16/7f 6/1250 6/1540 6/1600 6/1440 6 days 0.2 6.4 4.9 4.2 0.1 2 days 6/1150 6/1150 6/1450 6 days (D No data on December 10-14. CD No data on January 15. CD No data on February 13-16.
-101-
TABLE 5.29-2 VERMONT YANKEE PHASE V STUDIES LIVE CAGE STUDY Maximum Increase and Decrease in Temperature Observed in a 10 Minute Interval During Each 10 Day Study Period i
~
Max. Increase (
- F/10 Min. )
Date/ Time of Occurrence TEMPERATURE PROBE LOCATIONS Max. Decrease ( F/10 Min.) Date/ Time of Occurrence Stucy PerlocjiMonitor Euoy Fisa bo:. Buoy Monitor Dates 11 3 4.1 4.1 4.4 7
~
2 h ys 27 b< 0 26 b 30 27 b20 All ays 2/17-27/78 ) 0.5 12.5 4.4 14.3 0.1
^
27/1010 27/0230 27/0020 23/2300 All days I 1.1 10.4 7.4 23.1 0.1 3/1-11/78 4/0240 3/1540 2/2030 7/0020 All days 0.7 12.8 13.4 17.9 0.1 2 days 9/0300 2/2110 3/025'O All days 0.2 4.3 4.8 8.3 0.2 5/10-28/73 3 days 23/1530 23/1540 23/1530 5 dayc 0.2 4.3 5.2 8.9 0.2 24/0010 24/1410 24/1350 23/1600 3 days 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 9.3 6/6-1.5/78'3) 16/1320 11/1100 S/1530 8/1530 8/1530 155940 12b10 13b250 10 5350 2 d ys
@) No data on February 17 and 20.
QD Vermont Yankee operating in closed cycle cooling mode.
-102-
TABLE 5.30 VERMONT YANKEE LIVE CAGE STUDIES i PHASES II-V Percent Survival for Ten Days of Caged Brown Trout CAGE LOCATIONS 3 4.1 4.4 7 MONTH No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Fish Survival Fish Survival Fish Survival Fish Survival September 6 100 6 83 6 100 6 67 October 12 100 12 83 18 100 18 100 November 12 100 18 89 18 100 18 100 December 24 100 24 100 24 92 18 100 f January 24 100 24 100 24 100 18 100 February 24 100 24 100 24 100 24 100 March 18 100 24 100 18 83 18 100 April 12 100 12 25 12 100 12 100 4 May 23 70 36 19 25 56 29 55 Junh 6 17 6 33 6 0 6 0 June 6 50 6 33 6 17 6 33
@ June 1976 - Vermont Yankee operating in hybrid cycle condenser cooling mode.
@ June 1978 - Vermont Yankee operating in closed cycle condenser cooling mode.
-103-
TABLE 5.31 VERMONT YANKEE i LIVE CAGE STUDIES PHASES II-V l Number of Days of Survival of Fifty Percent of Caged Brown Trout [ CAGE LOCATIONS MONTH 3 4.1 4.4 7 September 10 10 10 10
^
October 10 10 10 10 November 10 10 10 10 December 10 10 10 10 ,. . January 10 10 10 10 February 10 10 10 10 March 10 10 10 10 April 10 7 10 10 May 10 3 10 10 June 4 4 4 4 i June 10 7 3 3 (D June 1976 - Vermont Yankee operating in hybrid cycle condenser cooling mode. CD June 1978 - Vermont Yankee operating in closed cycle condenser cooling mode.
-104-}}