ML19319C288
| ML19319C288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1969 |
| From: | Richard Anderson, Ayers J MICHIGAN, UNIV. OF, ANN ARBOR, MI, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 45, NUDOCS 8002110798 | |
| Download: ML19319C288 (156) | |
Text
_ _
m..
r.
, gME+
FM 9'.. 2
$ N h.
O l
I K
b a pii 6
/
0163 8002110 %
l-I
D-B
/*
APPENDIX 2D LIMNCLOGY PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Suma g 2D-1 Lake Study Program for the D-B NPS 2D-1 I
Purpose 2D-1 II Scope 2D-1 III Schedule 2D-2 IV Outline of Study 2D-2 5
V Study 2D-2 Part I General Studies 2D-3 The General Area 2D-5 Bottom Sediments 2D-6 Possible Shore Erosion 2D-8 Water Depths 2D-9 Temperature Profiles 2D-13 18 Part II Currents and Dilution 2D-31 Current Studies 2D-33 Dye Dilution Studies 2D-76 Source Release Computations 2D-80 Part III Biological and Radiological Studies 2D-87 5
Scope and Status of Studies 2D-89 Summa 7 Statement 2D-92 Phytoplankton Population 2D-96 Primary Zooplankton Counts 2D-108 t
0190 2D-i Amendment No. 8
D-B
-m
)'
Benthos Data 2D-111 5
Fish and Fisheries 2D-122 l
Radiological Analyses 2D-131 N
0191 J
Amendment No. 5 2D-il
D-B APPENDIX 2D LIMNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION The lake study program as outlined in this appendix is being conducted under the direction of The Toledo Edison Company and the Great Lakes Research Division, Institute of Science and Technology of The University of Michigan was retained by Toledo Edison in 1968 to conduct this study.
Dr. John C. Ayers, Research Oceanographer, of the Great Lakes Research Division is in charge of this study.
At our request, a meeting was held in the fall of 1968 with representatives of the Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources to review the study outline so that all areas of concern to this State Agency could be taken into account tnd for us to gain the benefit of any State sponsored studies that had been done or that were projected.
Since this meeting, other State and Federal agencies have expressed an interest in the study and as a result there vill be participation by some of these agencies.
While the full degree of participation of each agency has not been finalized, the results of several meetings have indicated that a joint program vill follow resulting in a very satisfactory arrangement.
The report covering parts I, II, and III are being submitted with this Amendment No. 5 Sampling for parts III (Ecology and Radionuclide Reconstruction) was begun 5
in June 1969 Further sampling vill be carried out in May 1970 and will be continued prior to station operation to identify any trends in radioactivity levels or biological populations in the lake environ =ent.
In su= mary, The Toledo Edison Company has initiated a comprehensive lake survey program to provide background data for the design and operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
The program is being coordinated with State and Federal agencies and vill first be reported on in October, 1969 All reports prior to and following operation vill be distributed to interested parties. An outline of the program follows.
LAKE STUDY PROGRAM FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION I PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to gather lake data.
It vill be used to establish certain station design criteria and as a design aid to control or mininize any possible adverse affects upon Lake Erie from construction and operation of the proposed Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
II SCOPE The program is to include a description and evaluation of past, present, and projected future lake use, a field investigation to determine physical, 7
chemical, and biological characteristics of the offshore lake regime and to' evaluate the effect of station effluent on aquatic life.
s o
2D-1 Amendment No. 5
D-B A
III SCHEDULE
)
The gathering of data began in the summer of 1968 and, where necessary to establish trends or background, will continue until operation of the station.
IV OUTLINE OF STUDY The following is a briei' description of each portion of the Lake Study Which we feel is required to satisfy the requirements of the AEC and other interested State and Federal agencies.
Part I General Studies The General Area Bottom Sediments 5
Possible Shore Erosion Water Depths Temperature Profiles Part II Currents and Dilution Current Studies Dye Dilution Studies 5
Source Release Computations Part III Preliminary Biological and Radiological Studies Scope and Status of Studies Summary Statement Primary Zoop1'ankton Counts Benthos Data 1
Fish and Fisheries Radiological Analyses j
V STUDY The following reports cover parts I, II, and III and cover studies that have been completed to date. Additional study work is still in progress and vill be reported when completed.
OJ.9.7.
Amendment No. 8 2D-2
D-B t
HYDROLOGICAL SURVEYS FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE POWER STATION THE LOCUST POINT REGION PART I.
GENERAL STUDIES John C. Ayers and Robert F. Anderson 1
I Under contract with The Toledo Edison Company Special Report No. 45 of the Great Lakes Research Division The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 1969 0194 i(
r i
L PM-S
/rg@xx.R31r_3
D-B THE GENERAL AREA From the mouth of the Detroit River southwestward to Toledo on the mouth of the Caumee River at the western tip of Lake Erie, thence generally south-eastward to and beyond Port Clinton, Ohio, the land is the bottom at ancient Lake Maumee; it is low, flat, and virtually featureless.
This topography continues for miles inland in the sector from southeast to northwest of the lake shore.
Because of the low land upwind to the prevailing winds, the western basin of Lake Erie is well ventilated.
Winds from the north, east, and south quarters are less frequent than winds from the southwest to northwest, but they do occur.
It is probably in response to wave-activated sand movement during storms from these directions that most of the western and southwestern shores of Lake Erie have barrier beaches of greater or less extent and degree of development.
Between the barrier beaches and the mainland, lie marshes of various extents and degrees of inundation.
Tributary rivers and streams entering the western basin of Lake Erie s' a multi-branched and of low gradient; they and their branches contribute to the extent of the marshes behind the barrier beaches.
Culturally, the lake shore in this part of the western basin of the lake is dominantly of farmland and shore summer cottages with a minor portion occupied by the cities of Monroe, Michigan, and Toledo, Ohio.
Port Clinton, Ohio, at the eastern edge of the area of interest, has about 6,000 inhabitants.
Though obviously under the control of man, the barrier beaches and the edges of the mainland tend to a rank growth of trees, shrubs, and vines.
Turshes behind the barrier beaches range from small cattail marshes rimmed by trees, to very extensive lagoons edged by rushes, cattails and other marsh plants.
Most of the. larger =arshes arc dissect d by dlkes, cauceways, and 0195 M
2D-5 Amendment No. 5
D-B l
canals created by previous owners (many of whom were hunting clubs).
Most of the large marsh areas are now wildlife refuges maintained by the State of Ohio or by the federal government.
On the southwestern shore of the western basin of Lake Erie, Locust Point is a minor protuberance where the trend of shoreline changes from gen-erally southeast.
From Toledo to Locust Point is about 22 miles along the shore; from Locust Point to Port Clinton is somewhat less than 10 miles along shore.
i BOTTOM SEDIMENTS OF THE LOCUST POINT SITE In this section we follow the reconnaissance survey of bottom sediments that has been carried out in the western basin of Lake Erie by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources beginning in 1956 and supplemented by local studies since then (State of Ohio 1957). The findings of this survey are shown in Figure 1.
They have been checked and confirmed by our own observa-tions on an opportunity-offers basis during our own studies.
We have found nothing that causes us.to doubt any of the conclusions of the Ohio survey.
According to the Ohio survey and our own observations, the shore from Little Cedar Point at the east edge of Maumee Bay to Port Clinton east of the plant site is of low elevation and comprised of sand overlying a stiff lake-clay.
In the Locust Point area the beach and back-beach are of sand with shell admixed. The underwater bottom immediately off shore along the plant site is predominantly of sand with some shell and mud intermixed.
This sandy bottom shallowly overlays stiff lake clay and varies from 3/16 mile wide at the west edge of the plant property to 1/8 mile wide at the east property line.
Offshore of the sandy-bottom belt is a dominant band of the stiff lake clay,. presumably exposed by wave action, and varying in width from 3/8 mile 01 M Amendment No._5 2D-6
DR
,,, e p
e...
,,,e...
a.
.e._/=...-....y.............-
.e.
...........[............
...m,,..
u
..........- -......../.
.....c
.1....
WONROC
......f....................,s.
...-c
---.....=.....-....... -..... -.
=.....
c
....-.......=..--
...~......
9
=
c
.........-=--....o.
...-..............t
-.c j......*
.. - - =.....,..
~ - -==
...........er
= = -.
s.
- -..........-/'...y..
...'. 8HW d Nd.
..a
- 1. L -
.,.....f....
-- g.
-==--....=--
f.
.* =
=
-=
===- -; ---
.. -........_./..,..p,-..,...-.-..---.==-----==.-. =... - -. =. ~ =...
. E
.p. ^ -.
- r..
=..-
-..,. 9
....=.=....===.-.=.=.-..-.-c.
.. - -. = =. = = =
.==
-. ~
.g."
= * -. ' =. =.
= * *......P
.......'.p=
- -a-w-
.J..
.. *. * =. =....
.A.-
=.ke*.
' -. '.. =.. -..... *
.M.
~
".*.".".".=.*.*~="=**=*=*=..
-.***".?
% or.. -... '..
=
f..,==\\=.----....-..
y
.enem ~..........
--. /<- -
.\\-
..,..-..Ar.
+
.,.c.
- y.
.J-....------.%.-,
.....K...
, j-
.8._.--.--.-
.. s,/.....
-89
'. E J..
-,*/*..
..e.....
_ =
w
...s...
../ te Gers.n geg.gi.... -
Wed s.9.We.e--ggng
.a
.-.1sa-
+
4
. /.
9 9,,,,
.~-
.u..- - - -.---...-- - --- -- -
2 e gr
,,f..
-=.....
f.
==.........
..,. g e,,.,
.o
.,e,.
e.t s.' sas_t r e i., -
,.,,,, -..>4MtK.. /.. - --.
--.-e
.........-...s i
_.ert.e.v a'). _ Tu.,
,,. e f.. - -.-.
J s,,1y y.- -....
~.3 yy...ng,p, y,1
....-...=
..=tf..--
/
- =.
/^---- --
. p/
v.,e<-
=.
s~
n,.
... m.,,,,,Wo&.........
,%e$f*=----~~.~~~~~~.~.----.--------------
O/'ON//##
f gip /
_ _ __. - - - _. - g _ - _........,_ - _ _
__..t.._
m,
--e-4 ggg
-=.-
e
,,,.35.J..g.. y
.g t...,...
-.-u r..
i*,-
- ..f e. *.. e..' r * - -.. I none
...,e.*..'-a 4d
.n*,.**...
enamed verms '
'/,'S,,*.****,
's e, %. e. *,* **,...,...*...t-....e e*,
~m n. :...,.
- .,t-Meuger -
'_."=~;,*,, -
,)
- '; e,
.**.."....._?
e
- won.
. ~
v.,
a.,
+i e w
~,.
.,..4, n,~, o,:.
=..,.... =.
- .f...,...
h e. **%2;g. * #'"' N'%f ' ' ' L* U,.
so a crea, e
, e p '.'. VlW, LEGEno h.
C ',
k.' *,* w d
8"C
- e, $ 'j 1 *.*
GRAVEL TO BOULDERS S
.]. '
SAND
'p{
- ~ ~ ~j A'
LOCUST PQt NT
.. q
-..~..
WUD (SEMI.FLulD SILT AND CLAY SIZES) w.s ed M'
~~,
~.*
- J 2.,,s - - y
,t== - u e
CLAY S,>
.f.. e Q' 9,
..~o ROCK e,
e, y-i~
q Figure 1 (from State of Ohio 1957)
SCALE IN MILES a
O e
-2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
- m. -.
w.
u
D-B
\\
near the west side of the plant property to 1/4 mile at the east edge of the
'.X property.
fl Off the western side of the plant property the bottom at about 9/16 mile becomes sand with increasing amounts of gravel as one goes further off shore.
Eastward of about the middle of the plant property the offshore deposits become dominantly muddy sand. Offshore bottom sediments dominantly of mud do not begin until the mouth of the Toussaint River has been passed going castward.
In the far-offshore area, 3 to 8 milo., there are four small areas of bedrock, each less than a mile in any dimension, located off the west and central parts of the plant property.
Nc, such reefs are situated of f the east side of the plant property. These reefs are important in the local fish ecology as spawning grounds; they are, however, not apt to be reached by the plant effluent which should travel eastward.
)
Beyond these reefs, to the International Boundary at more than 15 miles,
/
the bottom is of mud.
POSSIBLE SHORE EROSION EFFECTS OF Tile INTAKE STRUCTURE It is noted that the sheet-pile-and-fill structure protecting the plant's intake channel will extend lakeward from shore at nearly a right angle.
The shore throughout the Locust Point property is primarily of sand overlying stiff lake clay (State of Ohio 1957).
Hartley (1964) and Braidech (1969; personal communication, Appendix A) both indicate a southeastward movement of sand in the littoral drift from Locust Point toward Port Clinton.
Both Braidech and the U.S. Lake Survey charts indicate that west of Locust Point the net littoral drift is westward; the charts show sand = collection on the east sides of groins and jetties.
Amendment No. 5 2D-8 t
D-B These sorts of information confirm the finding's of Hartley, Herdendorf and Keller (1966) that the current of the Detroit River crosses the western basin of Lake Erie and divides into eastward and westward flows at Locust Point.
Drift card studies by Olson (1951), as reported by Hutchinson (1957),
indicata an scillatory current off Locust Point.
Braidech, correctly, we believe, points out that winds from east to northeast have a longer open-water fetch bearing upon Locust Point, and that wave-generated littoral currents to the westward might be dominant (however slightly) over e-cvard littoral drift generated by waves under the prevailing SW winds that have relatively littic fetch before Locust Point.
We believe that Olson's deduction of oscillatory currents off Locust Point is a reflection of the fact that his cards were in general far enough off shore for the hydraulic pressure of the outflow of the Maumee River to have cancelled the effect of the longer fetch available under easterly winds.
From the total of the evidence available we cannot say that the intake structure will capture littoral sand from the east or the west, in all likeli-hood it will capture sand from both directions.
It is certain that the State of Ohio will oppese any capture of sand that would interfere with the natural littoral transport of sand and hence result in beach-building or shore crosion.
We recommend that the intake structure be equipped with a facility for the pumped by-passing of sand in either direction.
Unfortunately there appear to be no data on the size of littoral transport of sand.
It appears that the by-pass mechanism need not be excessively large, but that it should be capable of being run in either direction.
has DFDTHS OFF THE PLANT SITE i
During the first two weeks of October 1968 a detailed survey of water 03.99 e
D-B depths off the plant property was carried out.
The entire frontage from west of the west property line to east of the east property line was measured and used in constructing baseline segments.
The centerline of the access road running out tb the beach near the west end of the property was used as the reference; this rocd is shown in Figure 2 by two parallel lines near the west boundary.
From the road centerline projected to the beach, all the beach front was measured by steel tape into six straight-line segments each with a transit station at each ende All the baselina segments were related to each other, and hence back to the access road centerline, by forward and back azimuth angles.
Soundings were taken by an outboard launch carrying a Raytheon portable recording fathometer.
Sounding lines were run from 12 feet of depth-of-the-day toward shore along parallel courses approximately to the southwest along visual bearings provided by portable range targets set one on the water's edge and the second as far back on the backbeach as possible. The launch, operating at constant rpm, kept the range targets aligned as it came inshore.
At the start of each sounding line the launch raised a fluorescent orange flag, and continued to do so at one-minute intervals during its run toward shore; when it was aground on the beach the flag was raised a last time re-gardless of time since the last raising.
At each raising of the flag, the fathometer record was marked and the two transit-men recorded true-compass azimuth angles to the flag from the ends of the known-position baseline segment in use.
Fixes during the sounding runs ranged from nine to sixteen.
Between sounding-line runs the portable range markers were moved forward by equal steel-taped distances parallel to the baseline segment in use.
In the region of the proposed intake channel near the west side'of the 3
J property sounding lines were run on 100-foot spacings.
Between the region 0300 Amendment No. 5 2D-10
D-B i
l,. -.,,
d' 3
/
LAKE ERIE si e
,e
'+
~
sem
.ao
,iw o
,ow
,cw
,u, CEPTMS A8hE REFENRLD ?Q (OW WAT(4 DATLM.. $68 0 FT.
g
'/g i
)
/g Je j'
.ror i +*
/
Sd p'
Figure 2 t'atcr Depths off Locust Point, October 1968.
0201.
g_n Amendment No. 5
D-B of the intake channel and the outflow channel the spacing between sounding lines was opened to 200 ft and then to 400 ft; as the outfall region was y
approached the spacing of sounding lines was reduced to 200 ft and then to 100 ft.
Heavy amounts of detail in the intake and outfall regions were thus obtained.
Corrections applied to the raw depth records to bring them to lake datum were the algebraic sums of: monthly mean lake level above datum, the stage of the daily seiche activity (including wind effects), and the depth of the fathr;aeter transducer below water surf ace.
Because a local water-level gauge at Anchor Point (Turtle Creek) was a research gauge not referenced to real lake level, it was necessary to refer the correction factors for seiche activ-ity and monthly mean above datum to the Toledo gauge where both are magnified by the pointed lake-end to greater values than apply at Locust Point; the final corrected depths shown for Locust Point in Figure 2 are, therefor-
. ultraconservative: there is somewhat more water depth at Locust Point than the Figure shows.
Contouring of depth done in Figure 2 is ordinary contouring -- each contour line connects the most inshore occurrences of that depth.
This is not the ultraconservative contouring employed (for navigational safety) by the U.S. Lake Survey, who traditionally draw each depth contour outside the out,ormost occurrences of that depth.
)
There are in the finished survey shown in Figure 2 three matters worthy of comment.
Deeper water comes closer to shore off the eastern two-thirds of the plant property.
Comparison to U.S. Lake Survey boat-sheets of 1962-65 show that there has been erosion off the region of the proposed intake channel and water depths there are deeper than formerly.
The presence of three (or four) sand bars parallel to shore and close to the beach indicates a predominance of currents parallel to the beach; the fusion of the two innermost 0S,0?*
'l Amendment No. 5 2D-12
D-B
,e.
sand bars into a sand flat off the eastern end of the station property probably I
)
is an expression of some interference with the alongshore currents by the discharge of the Toussaint River.
At both the vestern and the eastern ends of the station property, dashed portions of the 12-foot contour are estimates based on solid values of 11.75 to 1198 ft just inshore of them.
TEMPERATURE PROFILES IN WESTERN LAKE ERIE Te=perature profiles in vestern Lake Erie are relevant in conn' ction with the Davis-Besse Station in that they have bearing upon the te=perature of water entering the station intake channel.
According to present plans the intake channel vill be open to the lake at 11 feet of depth below Lov Water Datus at its lakevard end and vill deepen to 1h.6 feet after the intake channel crosses the lake beach.
In this study we have drawn upon the records of 250 selected te=perature soundings made by bathyther=ograph in vestern Lake Erie and in the island region by the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey (Herdendorf 1967) and by the Canadian Coast Guard Ship PORTE DAUPHINE (Rodgers 1962). The two sources contain data for the years 1952,1953,195h,1963, and 1966 from Ohio and for 1961 from the Canadians.
The selected records cover the months May to November inclusiv,e.
The criteria involved in the selection of the records used were: 1) only records from the shallow island-region and the shallow vest end of the lake vest of the islands were used because the Davis-Besse Station vill drav vater from 0203 Rm
D-B the shallov vest end of the lake; 2) records from Maumee Bay and the Detroi.t
,n River were included in those selected because the Locust Point region is affected by both these sourcs.s of influent water (Hartley, Herdendorf, and Keller 1966); 3) records from stations less than 10 feet deep were eliminated because water so shallow could show supratypical var =ing or cooling not appli-cable to the Davis-Besse intake; and h) records from stations deeper than 35 feet were eli=inated because these deeper waters =ight show subtypical varming or cooling not applicable to the Davis-Besse intake.
To eliminate so far as realistically possible any spurious temperature effects from diurnal te=perature eycles and from shallow floating water masses from local streams, ve have worked out from the 250 selected te=per-ature soundings the =onthly mean te=peratures at 10 feet of depth for May through November. Monthly =ean increments cf te=parature of surface water over temperature at 10 feet were worked out and added to the 10-foot tempera-tures to obtain =onthly mean surface water te=peratures.
For the months of January and February, when ice can be considered to be present, 32 F was used for both depths.
For the months of March, April, and December, when the vest end of the lake is isother=al from surface to bottom, we have used data from the Collins Park Water Treatment Plant at Toledo. The Toledo intake is at 22 feet.
The monthly mean data derived from the selected bathyther=ograph soundings were plotted on the day of the =onth deter =ined by weighted average of the numbers of observation' =ade on different days of the month. Data from other sources are plotted at mid-=onth.
The resulting data, basic to the two temperature curves shown in Figure 3, are presented in Table 1.
It is evident that water of mean te=perature over 75 F vill be drawn by the intake during much of July and August. Whether or not increased cooling A
0204 Amendment No. 5 2D-lh
D-B O
/n h
ar:
2:
O u)
L:
I o
.r-tada O
O m
m I
O O
Cn
~
.Co (L
W I
Q O
44 O
a4 O
O is.
.t:
o O
eq "3*.
g y
m A
C
.J c
L
.7 0
d ei o
ti d
., 4 Le (s.4 1.
- 1 l
'n 1
O d
OL J
D E
cJ C
f4 c:
m
..)
u.
- 4.
- E m
M b
O t te B
C
(?
',4 0
Z h
O e4 d
(
C
'0305 x
4 a
O fr.
O O
O O
O to O
CN 4
m
-t m
M
Tab 12.1.
Monthly mean water temperatures in 10-35 feet in western Lake Erie.
No. of Weighted Mean Mean 10-foot Mean Delta-T, Mean Surface Month Stations Day of Month Temperature 10'-to-Surface Temperature January" 15th 32.0*F 0.0*F 32.0*F February
- 14th 32.0 0.0 32.0 March **
15th 37.0
- 0. 0-37.0 April **
15th 46.0 0.0 46.0 May 32 14th 54.2 0.9 55.1 June 99 23rd 69.7 1.3 71.0 g
7 i
tu M
July 31 20th 75.9 0.5 76.4 August 6
21st 72.7 0.0 72.7 September 7
19th 69.7 0.4 70.1 October 45 17th 58.5 0.1 58.6 November 30 18th 45.4 0.0 45.4 December **
15th 36.0 0.0 36.0
- Ice presumed present
- 1966 data of Collins Park Water Treatment Plant, Toledo l
CN i
O u.
D-B r
water pumpage during this period would be desirable will be a company decision.
l 1
1 1
O i
)
l i
i J
l 0207 l
l l
2D-17 Amendment No. 8 l
D-B The lengthwise setup or wind tide produces the greatest disturbance of wa er level. The water level gauging station at Toledo is the major gauging e
station nearest the plant site.
U.S. Lake Survey records of instantaneous maximum and minimum vater levels at the Toledo gauge go back to 1941; records based upon hourly scaled values go further back.
From the Lake Survey reco:as we have obtained for the years 1941-1967 inclusive each year's maximum and minimum instantaneous stand of water level at Toledo, expressed as feet above or below the monthly mean lake level at Toledo for the month in which the maximum or minimum occurred.
For the 27 years available these maxima and minima of water-stand have 5:en categorized by 1-foot intervals and r educed to recurrence intervals in years per case.
The results are as follows:
Tabic 2.
Toledo annual maximum instantaneous icycls above monthly mean.
~
Cat.:gories 1 foot 2 feet 3 feet 4 feet 5 feet Cases 3
10 11 2
1 Cases 1 27 24 14 3
1 Recurrence Inter-1.00 1.125 1.925 9.00 27.00 val, years per case Table 3.
Toledo annual minimum instantaneous levels belou monthly mean.
Categories 3 feet 4 feet 5 feet 6 feet 7 feet Cases 5
9 8
4 1
Cases 1 27 22 13 5
1 Recurrence Inter-1.00 1.23 2,08 5.40 27.00 val, years per case 0208 2."-19 Amendment No. 3
D-B Each of these sets of data was plotted on a semilog graph and a leaat D
squares regression line computed for it, each regression line being extended
/
y to the 100-year recurrence interval. The results are shown in Figure h.
The regression lines show that a maximum probable water level rise of 7 feet may be expected at Toledo once in 100 years, and that, a maximum probable fall of water level of 9.3 feet may be expected at Toledo.
As an additional estimate of the =aximum stor= tide dravdown of water level at Toledo, recourse was had to the data on 76 vind tides in the 20 years 19ho-59 inclusive which were studied by Irish and Plat =an.
These data were hourly data and were kindly loaned by Dr. Platzman.
For each of these stor=s the minimum hourly water level (maximum drawdown) at Toledo was deter-mined and expressed in feet below the Toledo monthly mean water level of that =onth.
From the 76 stor=s there were 75 in which the fall of water level at Toledo equalled or exceeded 2 feet. The results are given in the following table:
Table h.
Toledo drawdowns, Irish-Platzman vind tides.
Categories 2 feet 3 feet h feet 5 feet 6 feet 7 feet Cases 15 35 13 7
3 2
Cases 3 75 ri0 25 12 5
2 0.267
- 0. 333 0.800 1.67 h.00 10.0 al as e ase These data were plotted on a semilog graph and a least squares regression line computed; the regression line was extended out to the 100 year recurrence interval. This graph is shown in Figure 5 This graph differs from the graph of minimum instantaneous levels only in that it indicates a =aximum probable dravdown of 10.3 feet as opposed to 02.09 Amendment No. 5 2D-20
D-B 100 j
50 f
20
/
/
E
/
10
/
b o
m E
8s o
5 a
- r4 d
t a
n 0
2 8
b 8
a:
lo 5
02J O
.2 1
ft.
3 5
6 7
3 gg, 7
9 la Tole'do Ma
7nstantaneous Levels Toledo Min. Instantaneous Levels t
D-B 100 50
/
20 S
a 4 10 a!
e 5s 5
5 r-i
.5 l2 7
e 8
1 O
e5 l
0211 2
T]
1 ft.
3.-
5 7
9 10 11 13 15 Toledo 'clater-Level Drops, Plateman'c 75 Storms.
h
D-B 9 3 feet.
Having no reason to prefer either of these estimates of the probable m
k minimum water level at Toledo, we have accepted the average of the tu 9.8 3
feet.
Some, but not all, of the roughly cyclical variations in Lake Erie water level could be additative to the maxima and minima at Toledo.
The main uninodal lengthwise seiche of Lake Erie might, when a major storm occurs before the seiche from a previous storm has subsided, provide some increment of wind-tide water-level rise or fall at Tola to but that incre-ment vould be included in the observed water level changes. The =aximum amplitude of the lengthvise uninodal sciche cannot occur until the storm has lessened or passed, and the setup at one end of the lake or the other has been freed to oscillate. We consider it physically impossible for a maximum vind setup or dravdown at Toledo during a storm to coincide with the maximum amplitude of the uninodal main lengthvise seiche because that maximum ampli-tude must occur after the storm.
The maximum probable T-foot rise at Toledo might occur at the top of a h.2-foot long-tern high lake level.
It could, further, occur at the top of the 2.75-foot maximum annual rise of record, and it might also occur under sach conditions that the transverse seiche of the western basin was adding 1 foot of elevation. The total of this combination is 14.95 feet above datum at Toledo.
The maximum probable 9.8-foot drop of water level at Toledo might occur.
at the bottom of the 1.2-foot low-lake stage of record.
It might, also, occur at the bottom of a 2 75-foot maximum annual variation in level. And it might occur at a time when the transverse seiche of the vestern basin had removed 1 foot of water level. The total of this particular combina is 14.75 feet below datum at Toledo.
02i?,
i 2D-23 Amendment No. 5
D-B The Davis-Besse Station is, however, not to be at Toledo which is in y
O narrowed and constricted Mau=ee Bay at the extreme vestern end of the lake.
j Outside of Mau=ee Bay the cross-section of the lake 12 creases rapidly, and water-level changes which have to be referred to the Toledo gauge =ay be expected to diminish accordingly.
Apparently only Hunt (1959) has given consideration to the stand of lake level along the lake axis during the major vind tides. Two figures from Hunt for setup levels in the WSW storm of 8 Nove=ber 1957 are given in Figure 6.
The upper of these figures indicates that the Davis-Besse Station is located at about 0.8 of the straight-line distance from the nodri poa.nt of the wind-tide setup to Toledo.
The lover of Hunt's figures indicates that at 0.8 of the distance from the nodal point to Tolado the fall of water level vould be at least 2 feet less severe than that at Toledo.
Deducting 2 feet from the lb.75 feet of vorst-case dravdown at Toledo leaves minus 12 75 feet, and indicates that the ll-foot-deep d
te channel at Davis-Besse Station =ight, at the minimum probable lake leve2 be de-watered by a combination of vind tide on top of long-tern and annual lake level variations topped by the short-term transverse seiche of the vestern basin of the lake.
If materials now in our hands are cor.ect, the plant is t,2 be protected against flooding to 585 feet (16.h feet above lee datum).
If, as Hunt implies, the relationship of lake proportions and depths to setup at Toledo under ENE vinds is the same as for setup at Buffalo under WSW winds, then it is appro-priate to subtract 2 feet from Toledo's probable =aximum setup of lk.95 feet in order to approximate the condition at Davis-Besse.
Under these conditions it appears that the station's 16.h feet of pro-
)
tection against flooding is adequate.
0213 Amendment No. 5 2D-2h
.g j__.,
l t
Port Stanley y *,
{
(Actual 572.65) 1 f
M Toledo I
/
Port Cc1 borne I
(Gage out)
( Ac te:a1 576.95) f
\\
Nodal g
Po nt g
'/ Buffalo
}
/
- (Actual 578.1S) g o
.O,-Erie Es e
0$
Cleveland (Actual 569.70)
Fig. 10.
Contours of camputed water levels for 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />, 8 November 1957.
o 580 m<g J
D >o.
/
ON s p. $ 575 N_
i
.r A&
_f SO 570 e
me i
=:
~
_;u o<
7 Nd
/
j h
565 '
6 8
o 5
Fig. II.
Profile of computed water levels for 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />, 8 November 1957.
A-4 t
D
D-B THE MAXIMUM WIND-WAVE Wind-generated waves are limited in their dimensions by wind velocity, by fetch (open-water distance available for vind action), and by duration of the vind.
Higher vind velocities, longer fetches, and longer vind durations all increase the heights, lengths, and velocities of the waves.
Neither vind velocity nor duration of vind are subject to control by the lake basin, but fetch is a physical characteristic of the lake basin.
At the Davis-Besse site the available fetch plays an important part in the question of the height of the =aximum wave that might arrive at the station, on top of the maximum high water from other causes.
The maximum probable high water that could occur at the Davis-Besse site is predominantly the result of vind setup under prolonged strong vind from the ENE. The station site is in the western basin of Lake Erie, and vind-waves generated by ENE vinds over the rest of the lake find thei? access to the western basin almost completely blocked by the islands the.t separate the vestern basin from the central basin. Those parts of waves from the eastern parts of the lake that succeed in passing through the islands are damped, refracted, and reflected into a confused sea around the vestern sides of the islands.
a here the ENE vind must construct the maximum.vave that vill bear upon Locust Point. Toward eastnortheast from the station's site the maximum fetch is 12.5 statute miles, or 20.1 kilometers.
Among the four expressions com=only employed in computation of the =axi-mum vind-wave, that of Stevenson (1852) consistently gives the highest computed
(
" highest waves under the strongest vinds".
Stevenson's empirical formula is :
H = 1/3 7 where H is in =eters and F (fetch) is in kilometers. Though the Steve' son equation is empirical and old, it has not been disproven. Defant (1961,Vol.2,p.95) 0215 M dment No. 5 2D-26
D-B says of it:
"The formula was established by means of data from lakes, where the value of (fetch] ranged from a few kilometres up to 250 km.
For the Mediterranean Cornish has verified the relation for fetches up to 830 km, and it is generally assumed that the relationship holds for values of (fetch) up to 1000 km."
Hutchinson (1957, p. 356) says of the Stevenson equation:
"For Lake Superior, with a fetch of h82 km., the formula gives T.3 m. as the height of the highest vaves, in good agreement with the 6.9 m. reliabl,y re-corded."
Since the Stevenson relation was evolved on lakes, since it has apparently performed well in Lake Superior, and since it gives the greatest predicted wave height, it has been accepted in this case.
Substituting in the equation:
H =1/3,/20.1km H = 1.h9r or 4.9 ft as the highest wave possible in the fetch available between the islands and Davis-Besse site under ENE vinds.
Taking the ratio of wave height to wave length to be 1:10 instead of the theoretical =aximum 1:7, we have the wave length of the h.9 foot wave as h9 feet.
Sverdrup e_t_ al_.
(second printing, 19h6, pp. 536-537) say: "Short t
vind waves are nearly unstable in deep water and they therefore break shortly after they have felt bottom....".
' Feeling bottom' consists of the local depth of water becoming less than half the wave length, therefore the maximum vave at the station site of h9 feet wave length should break in something like 2h feet of water depth.
If this wave comes in on top of the 12 95 foot maxi =um probable water level from all other causes, it should break in about 11 feet of charted water depth.
Eleven feet of charted depth occurs at 2100 feet from shore at a total distance of 6,900 feet from the station.
In this distance another, smaller, =aximum wave would form. Applying Stevenson's formula again gives
(
0.h8 m or 1.6' feet for the height of this wave.
Its wave length, co=put as before, would be 16 feet and its half wave-length 8 feet.
0216 t
i
D-B Waves approaching the station from the EE during a high water of 12 95 feet would enter the station property between the diked intake and outflev channels. The top of the intake channel dikes are to be 13.h feet above lake datum and the top of the discharge channel dikes are to be 11.h feet above lake datum. The top of intake channel dikes would be.h5 feet above the maximum probable water level and the discharge channel dikes vould be covered by 1.55 feet of water. Then the lakevard dikes of the two channels vould either stop or trip all but very small waves and cause them to break into the channels. The landvard two dikes of the two channels vould offer additional wave-breaking capacity if it was needed.
By the time the second wave has been broken directly in front of the station, no fetch remains for additional waves to develop.
We foresee two additional factors that vill tend to reduce the possi-bility of flooding from the maximum vave. Many trees and shrubs of more than 13 feet height exist in the marshes behind the beach; these vill be left in place and should have some disruptive effect on waves coming inshore during extreme hi h water. The sides of the dikes along the two channels vill be 6
sloped much more steeply than nor=al underwater topography. Waves co=ing inshore during extreme high water vill encounter the steep dike sides too abruptly to permit the center of the waves crests to outrun the edges; the harbor-surging type of phenomenon is not expected.
Runup of the Maximum Wave In our opinion the physical conditions described above preclude runup of the maximum wave as a producer of flooding at the station.
a ORi <
Amendment No. 5 2D-28
D-B References k
l8 HARTLEY, R. P.
196h. Effects of Large Structures on the Chio Shore of Lake Erie. Division of Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, State of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, Report of Investigations No. 53.
iv and 30 pp., 34 figures.
HARTLEY, R. P., C. E. HERDENDORF, and M. IMml. 1966. Synoptic Water Sampling Survey in the Western Basin of Lake Erie, pp. 301-322 in_
Proc. 9th Conf. Great Lakes Research, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
HERDENDORF, C. E. (compiler). 1967 Lake Erie Pathythermograph Recordings 1952-1966. Infor=ation Circular No. 3h, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Colu= bus, Ohio.
iii and 36 pp., 2 figs., many tables.
l8 OLSON, F. C. W.
1951. The Currents of Western Lake Erie.
Doctoral Thesis.
Ohio State University, Colu= bus, Ohio.
l8 RODGERS, G. K. (compiler).
1962. Lake Erie Data Report 1961.
Preliminary Report Series - No. 3, Great Laket Institute, Univ, of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
iii and Ih1 pp., lh figs., many tables.
STATE OF OHIO. 1957 Bottom Deposits of Western Lake Erie.
h pp. and one chart. Division of Shore Erosion, Department of Natural Resources, State
(
of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio. Technical Report Number 4. April 1957 8
'24 e
2D-29 Amendment No. 8 r
D-B HYDROLOGICAL SURVEYS FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE POWER STATION THE I4CUST POINT REGION PART II.
CURRENTS AND DILUTION John C. Ayers and Robert F. Anderson i
Under contract with The Toledo Edison Company Special Report No, h5 of the Great Lakes Research Division The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan August 15, 1969 Ok'.19 2D-31 A=endment No. 5
.3
D-B CURRENT STUDIES IN THE LOCUST POINT REGION O
Procedure Field work was carried cut from a Boston Whaler outboard cruiser.
Currents were measured with a shortened version of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey current pole and Rhodamine 3 dye.
The current poles consisted of 4-foot lengths of commercini 2x4 dimension stock.
Each carried a brick at its lower end for ballast and for extra cur-rent drag.
The poles floated vertically with about 10 inches exposed above the water surface.
Each pole was numbered and carried a small orange pennant at its top.
The current poles were set under different wind conditions in front of the plant property in positions so chosen that they would pass over the position of the future plant discharge plume.
Positions of setting, positions during the run, and positions of pole recovery were determined by sextant fixes tc charted landmarks ashore.
Setting positions and during-run positions are indicated by small dots along the tra-jectory of each pole in Figures 1 through 20.
Recovery positions are indicated by arrowheads in these figures.
The identifying pole numbers are indicated at either the start or finish of the pole run.
Wind velocities were measured in the field with a hand-held anemometer.
Each pole was followed as long as the conditions of the day permitted.
Results The results consist of current pole runs with simultaneous wind data.
Runs were made on July 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, August 1, 6, 13, 14, 15, September 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18.
Current velocity results and wind data
(
are presented in Tables 3 through 21 and the trajectories of the current poles are given in Figures 1 through 20.
M 2D-33 Amend =ent No. 5
D-B On July 18 there were two current p' ole runs with resetting between.
The wind directions under which results were obtained are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Wind directions under which results were obtained.
Date Winds from July 18, 1968 SW 220*
July 19, 1968 NNW 330' July 23, 1968 E
90*
July 25, 1968 ENE 60*
July 26, 1968 NE 40' July 30, 1968 E
90*
July 31, 1968 SSW 210' Aug. 1, 1968 NE 45*
Aug. 6, 1968 WSW 240*
Aug. 8, 1968 SW 200*
Aug. 13, 1968 SW 225*
Aug. 14, 1968 NNW 330*
Aug. 15, 1968 ENE 75*
Sept. 6, 1968 WSW 250' Sept. 10, 1968 SW 220*
Sept. 12, 1968 NW 315' Sept. 12,13. 1968 NW 315' Sept. 17, 1968 SSE 150' Sept. 18, 1968 SSE 150' At the Davis-Besse plant site the missing wind directions (N, SE, S, and W) are well enough bracketed by observed winds that the currents there may be considered quite well known.
On 12 September both a dye patch and a set of current poles were followed simultaneously.
Figures 16, 17 and 18 show the almost identical movements of the two kinds of current indicators.
The poles were allowed to run sver-night and were recovered on 13 September.
Only four readings of dye concentration in the dye patch were obtained before it faded into the background reading.
Positions of the patch were
, fixed four more times after reading of concentration was discontinued.
02W.
Amendment No. 5 2D-3h
D-B 7-As a test of the gene'ral validity of our results we have computed mean current apeeds as percentages of the mean winds.
Primarily this is a test of whether direct wind pressure on the emergent portion of the current pole was introducing spurious elements of speed.
If the indicated current speed; appear correct, then the poles were probably moving with the current alone.
Moving with the current alone they would have little or no directional error from direct wind pressure.
This test is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Ratios of daily mean current and wind velocities.
Date Mean Current Mean Wind Current / Wind July 18, 1968 0.378 mph 14.5 mph 2.60%
July 19, 1968 0.545 14.5 3.76%
July 23, 1968 0.418 10.5 4.00%
July 25, 1968 0.210 13.0 1.60%
July 26, 1968 0.296 6.0 4.90%
July 30, 1968 0.353 13.0 2.70%
July 31, 1968 0.265 14.5 1.80%
Aug. 1, 1968 0.207 8.0 2.60%
Aug. 6, 1968 0.570 12.0 4.80%
Aug. 8, 1968 0.230 8.0 2.90%
Aug. 13, 1968 0.209 9.5 2.20%
Aug. 14, 1968 0.308 6.0 5.10%
Aug. 15, 1968 0.550 14.5 3.80%
Sept. 6, 1968 0.213 10.5 2.00%
Sept. 10, 1968 0.164 8.0 2.10%
Sept. 12, 1968 0.310 6.0 5.20%
Sept. 12,13, 1968 0.218 6.0 3.60%
Sept. 17, 1968 0.373 12.0 3.10%
Sept. 18, 1968 0.490 17.0 2.90%
Grand Mean 3.25%
The norm to which the test is compared is the finding in Lake Erie that the mean value of surface current is "about 2%" of the wind velocity (see Hutchinson, A Treatise on Limnoloev, Volume I., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957, page 291). Within the limitations of the norm our results appear to be valid.
0222 saae m
D-B Conclusions The current poles used appear to have contributed valid data.
Under most wind directions the local currents at Locust Point are downwind.
Under winds from northeast, eastnortheast and east, however, water is driven into the embayment between Port Clinton and Locust Point and from there slides away along shore in a northwestward direction.
Under these winds the local currents at Locust Point are dominated by the escapement of water from the embayment.
Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 13 show this effect.
It is noted that the runs on 12-13 September under northwest wind were deflected lakeward away from the Camp Perry water intake.
It appears that there may be clockwise eddy set up along the shore near Camp Perry under this wind.
On the 26th of June, under a northeast wind the Toussaint River was dis-charging a plume of warm discolored water which tailed of f northward along the shore and cooled as it went.
It is shown in Figure 5.
3 0223 Amendment No. 5 2D-36
N
-t Table 3.
July 18,.1968.
Wind - SW 220*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph g
7 2775
.53 1
47
.36 220* 10-15 12-17 6
2400
.45 1
36
.33 g
i M
2 3600
.68 1
56
.44 3
1450
.28 1
16
.24 Reset f
3 4800
.91 3
57
.26
[g 7
7175 1.36 3
29
.44 g
6 7200 1.36 3
11
.44 2
6500 1.23 2
43
.51 TABLE 3, FIGURE 1, July 18,1968, Wind - SW 220
a e
-A s
m G
5 D-B
-r J g D
to o
~
%N
,O I
(O CO 6
m*
o C
r4U N.'
H A
H 3
7 N ~%7 j
O a.
s g
b TO o
O_
h s7Y b
Q
<-l
~~
o gn O
-g N
O
~
O9 d
i 9
~
h gr Z <
O l
58 0225 e
Table 4.
July 19, 1968. Wind - NNW 330'.
W~nd Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots sph 1
6525 1.24 3
15
.39 330* 10-15 12-17 f
3 6400 1.21 2
06
.59
?
W 8
6650 1.26 2
-08
.61 7
- 6200 1.17 2
00
.59 NN E
Ch 8
S E
Y TABLE 1, FIGURE 2, July 19, 1968, Wind - NNW 330 4
D-B
'W to o
0
'g 4
o _,I_._
to I
CO 4
Id cc
- d a-to os H
N H3 CN H
O n.
na M
co oa t-o N
%O o
to 4
c
~qt y
O o
tO CO l
0-g
\\
~
" 8
~O LtJ s
d D Z<
u.
CE O
E
- 8
02.27 9
Am:ndment No. 5 2D-40
t
/
/
Table 5.
July 23, 1968. Wind - E 90*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 6
13,450 2.55 5
27
.48 90*
8-10 9-12 0
3 12,300 2.33 5
06
.46
?
b 7
12,500 2.37 5
16
.46 1
10,950 2.07 5
33
.39 8
10,950 2.07 5
21
.40 9
8,950 1.70 5
24
.32 W
e N
e iu ff F
O TABLE 5, FIGURE 3. July 23,1968, Wind - E 90
}-B
~
9
.C' g l J
ro o
/
4
/
l 5a t$
c Gs r-4 h
N~
m 3
E
.)
ak O
O a.
O Ou bit s
D to o
~
r O
o O
O
'Q y
h e
~ 8 tu D
3 e
eE<
F.
o 0239 i o 8
Amendment No. 3 2D-h2
c n
Table 6.
July 25, 1968.
Wind - ENE 60*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 6
4900
.93 4
58
.20 60*
10-12 12-14 e
1 9
7325 1.39 5
40
.26 s
M 3
5250 99 5
32
.19 7
6700 1.27 6
13
.21 1
6870 1.30 6
42
.21 8
6105 1.16 6
07
.19 C
O L
g TABLE 6, FIGURE I, July 25, 1968, Wind - ENE 60 4
4 D-B r 1 l
co M
fO p
1 o
DJo o\\
fO 14 g
(
c'.e cs p~
to W
Ch d
b r\\dn t
n' C1
.)
d r.d M
e c
&o 4
g ou o
-5 D
s
.a I4 g
to 8
a_
- 2
- =. Y u.1 N
5 Occ Z 4 w
5 w
g g
o I
02.31 Amendment 30* 5 2.n-hh
l Table 7.
July 26, 1968.
I:ind - NE 40*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 1
1450
.27 1
05
.26 40' 4-6 5-7 ts
.j_
7 1900
.36 1
05
.34 t'n 9
1600
.30 1
05
.29 ug o
r) o (J
m NO P
sa i
f TABLE 7, FIGURE 5, July 26,1968, Wind - NE 100 4
D-B lo
?
J to o
W
~
N O
o r0 CO r21=
t n
e D
d 4
os H
- o.
u#a y u
h d
c ft 9
'il
(!
"8$';, 7 * -" N,$
o o
a a
oa J
e,*
ci c
[
S n
g oa j
O 0
1 d
ep r0 O
2 o
-1 D
Q 0
~
~
O tO
.C o
-8 N
o
~
id
~
(3 2 <
h-a l
0233
.j l
Am;r.dment No. 5 2D-46
~
)
e i
1 i
I Table 8.
July 30,1968. Wind - E 90*.
Wind I
Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity
'i.e.
velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 1
7500 1.42 4
06
.35 90*
10-12 12-14
@j 7
7925 1.50 4
11
.36
~"
e j_
9 6675 1.26 1
58
.35 S
l.
?
t
- s
' !F
. \\/l e
nuts a, nGURE 6, July 30,1968, Wind - E 90
D-B s
TO o
N O
O (9
CO
/
/
3
/l
/
C
/
/
'?
l
/
h
!/
M3
/
m/
l
- J
~
M
.9
\\ k
?
O k
\\[)
TO
.c.
o E
N
,/
M c
.a he
-~
I
~ '
c TO
~
C
"$~
O 8
~
'n La C<
l~
o 0~>3u~
~)
A' a*
o SDh ent ![o, 5 2D-48
Table 9.
July 31, 1968. Wind - SSW 210*.
Nind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 9
4175
.79 4
52
.17 210* 10-15 12-17 o
k 7
3850
.73 2
41
.30 Es 1
3900
.74 2
36
.31 3
4900
.93 4
15
.22 8
5250
.99 4
06
.24 6
6200 1.17 3
35
.35 d
0 db R
DJ y
C3 CO-E m
TABLE 9, FIGURE 7, July 31,1968, Wind - ssW 210 t
D-B 4'
s O
r0 o
bY O
o -
TO CO
~
~
65 C']
-d C
H 2:
to
'O H
b H
?
An co..
Qc s
_ x__
es m
tw IO iO 0
O k
b
%<f Y
.a Q
o 10 CO og N
~ Q 153 99z<
w C--
1-
~
.-)
0237 3g_
Am*.ndment No. 5 2D-50
y-.
l Table 10.
August 1, 1968. Wind - NE 45*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph g
1 4000
.76 3
54
.22 45' 6-8 7-9 e
2 4400
.83 3
55
.23 s
N 9
3800
.72 4
57
.16 7
4450
.84 4
48
.19 8
4450
.84 4
44
.19 6
4300
.81 3
55
.23 3
5050
.96 4
12
.23
=
O l
4)
CD b
[
TABLE 10, FIGURE 8, August '1,1968, Wind - NE 45
9
.D-B fo o
O o-f0 CO 9
a w~
N C
d 8
~x D
N 2
-4
.T r-i J
c1 es 3
C0 o
r-i O
C.
l Lo to l
l f0 0
s l
I4 et o
m CD o
/
o i
/
o l
O
- 8 i
h z<
O
')
2~8 0239
Table 11.
August 6, 1968. Wind - WSW 240*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 10,675 2.02 3
48
.58 240*
10 12 1
12,175 2.31 4
39
.53 ts 8
12,000 2.27 4
27
.53 s
6 11,575 2.19 3
37
.65 3
10,350 1.96 3
47
.56 5
CD FJ 4:.,
CD TABLE 11, FIGURE 9, August 6,1968, Wind - WSW 240"
-~
D-B
/
aus
's
~
to o
N O
O N
fO
/
CD D
a D
RN
~
a a
.o E
E e
O O
m cs b
kl
\\
S c
o
'\\_-
~
e
- b w
E az<
'W
- o I
\\
%g
-)
02Ai W
~
.~
Table 12 August 8, 1968.
Wind - SW 200*.
Uind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 9
3025
.57 4
17
.14 200*
6-8 7-9 g
7 2400
.46 2
16
. 21.
p 3
2850
.54 2
20
.26 w
8 2500
.47 1
52
.31 f.
O N
m A
N TABLE 12, FIGURE 10, August 8,1968, Wind - SW 200
1 D-B
,o o
i
'm T O
o IO CO En tc
- d...
to o
Ch H
4)
LO b
p
'4 to m
C1
'd rn N
e m
,-io a.
%O d
to a
o c)
~
s q Q.
S O
ari o
w TO CO o
O 8
o
- 8 W
i az<
O m)
J o
8 024o 0
l Amandment No d g
Table 13.
August 13, 1968. Wind - SW 225*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 6
7050 1.34 6
13
.22 225' 6-10 7-12
[g 2
8600 1.63 6
06
.27 o
8 1
5350 1.01 5
39
.19 to N
8 5950 1.13 5
34.
.21 3
4700
.89 5
15
.17 9
3825
.72 4
57
.16 0
5450 1.03 4
30
.24 s.)
i Ob TABLE 13, FIGURE 11, August 13, 1968, Wind - SW 225
}
D-B D
c'?
r0 o
T NO o
r0 u
Q 55 o
C
- rA 5
e to som H
o 9d n
es 04 m
e-1 LO 1
O a
O e
H 10 H
o 0
~
k q@
6 O
M o
w 10
~
CO 8oa
- 8g y
00 Eez<
t--
O i3oo J
9 0245 Amendment No. 5 2D-56
f
^s
}
Table 14.
August 14, 1968. Wind - Ntm 330*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velosity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots sph 13 1950
.37 1
39
.27 330*
4-6 5-7 y
12 2000
.38 1
29
.29 to 10 2025
.38 1
20
.32 11 2175
.41 1
18
.35 O
N 9
h n
T-P a
TABLE 14, FIGURE 12, August 14, 1968, Wind - NNW 330
?w
'6 e
3 1
'2 4 0
i 3
8 l-r, iM dn i
it 8
691 tsugu tI 41 o
snu R
e l
^
"t o
o P
t e
2 s
2 a
i 1
s s
e
'4 4 ru O
g i
l F
3 8
00
. 0 2
0 0
01 E
T E
U NA E
R F
T
. 0 L.
. 0 w0 0
1
. O p; I
i BW&a, E. v
@aa
(
\\.
Table 15.
August 15, 1968. Wind - ENE 75*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots sph 14 8300 1.57 2
48
.63 75*
10-15 12-17
?
!n 10 5650 1.07 2
17
.49 W
P 15 8675 1.64 3
'25
.51
.16 7225 1.37 2
31
.59 13 9375 1.78 3
38
.53 f
Cy b
2 TABLE 15, FIGURE 13, August 15, 1968, Wind - ENE 75
D-B p
C
'N lg se
.G r0 o
Y OJ O
o to CD idU s
t o-e c
2 G kN to ocs ed co
/
a
//
3
/
m~
Oc2 O
H O
C.
O m
r0 M
o a
4
.T T g
O_L w
o N
to CD o
- 8 N
t 8
_ e to Sa<
i--
O 3 8 9
j 0249 1
Amendment No. 5 2D-62
(
r\\
i Table 16.
September 6, 1968. Wind - WSW 250*.
l Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots mph 11 6000 1.14 4
01
.28 250' 8-10 9-12 0
i 10 5800 1.10 4
18
.26 h
ts 12 6500 1.23 4
10
.30
$3 li i
O C
N O!
O k
TABLE 16, FIGURE lk, September 6, 1968, Wind - WSW 250
)
t
D-B O
TO O
'N W O
o TO CD 1
N
=
9 En
=.
tc N
to C
0%
H E4o
.Orio Oa.
o en c
aW
'/
M e::5
/
o M
r, s
O o
-:t M
_o H
8 o
o
'T k
3 i
9 O
e j
O l
- 8
.s A
e
- ~
W to 5
s D
CO Z<
cc f--
_ o 4
i8
.9
)l 0251 l
Am:;ndment No. 5 2D-64
6 o
1 Table 17.
September 10, 1968. Wind - SW 220*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph).
from. knots mph 13 4250
.81 5
32 15 220' 6-8 7-9 E}
14 3900
.74 5
17
.14 e,
!n 15 5125
.97 5
10
.19 E,
17 4550
.86 5
03
.17 10 3850
.73 3
57
.20 11 3800
.72 3
53
.20 12 2700
.51 4
07
.13 16 2200
.42 3
17
.13
!5g
=
-e
- P
[g Ut w
N
~
TABLE 17, FIGURE 15, September 10, 1968.. Wind - SW 220 c
D-B
/%
'D
)
10 o
'V Y C
O
~
o~
lO CD tin
'o C
ri
- ?:
^s so Os r-l 4o
,o tioaga rn o
~
o
~
r-i e
o n
b-s n
(O
,-i 10 o
o 4
4 T 6
o
.~
o --
w
-~
10 A
O
-8 N
8
- 9
$ [.J$z<
l--
O o
- 8 0253 Amendment No. 5 2D-66
m s.
Table 18.
September 12, 13, 1968. Wind - NW 315*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from. knots mph 10 28,625 5.42 25 28
.21 315*
4-6 5-7 E$
12 7,500 1.23 6
07
.20
$7 e
13 32,250 6.11 26 54
.23
$3 14 31,250 6.10 26 21
.23 D
CD F.;
TABLE 18, FIGURES 16 and 17, September 12, 13, 1968, Wind - NW 315 I
li a
R a,
-l co
/
l v.
g 83 00' 82 55' 50' y
SW q-41 35' j 4! 35' 41 35' io
)
y STATUTE MILES cunTON M
Figure 16. Run of Pole 10, 12-13 Septenber 1968. Wind Ird.
\\
,)
e 5
3 s
1
'0 4
5 2
8 n
l f
T@
O d
tci lP 0
8 6
5 9
3 1
re 1
'5 4
ba r
5h e
tp 2
T e
8 I
S N
L C
31 T
2 1
ncnun s
e i 4 1
l o
5 P
3 N
7 1
1
'0 4
e 0
r l
ug 3
i 8
F S
2 E
1 I
L M
E T
U TA i.
T S
7 i
t
N a
B
<+
ts P
u Table 19.
September 12, 1968 Wind - NW 315'.
~
Wind Dye Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir, velocity Positions feet miles hr.
min.
(mph) from knots sph 1
2640
.50 1-21
.41 315*
4-6 5-7 2
1840
.35
~
0 2382
.92 g
3 528
.10 h
O'
- 4 3.,
.23 y
a 4
1267
.24 0.'
.i. 45 I.
.53 to a
- o
?
i
~
r
?
O
C TABIE 19, FIGURE 18, September 12, 1968 Wind - NW 315 G
-l k_j
()
m
?w DYE 83 00' 62 55' 1 2 l'4135' hp 3
41 35' d}
h 4
w....e i
O
.5 1
2 3
i STATUTE M:LES TRUE N
A CN C!l O
1
________ E _@lf_1N* Dye Run 12 September 1968. Wind.ini.
o
u 8
e
.E m
Table 20.
September 17, 1968. Wind - SSE 150*.
Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(oph) from knots mph 11
,12,200 2.31 6
07
.38 150*
10 12 0
12 12,350 2.34 6
31
.37 ts h
E 16 12,475 2.36 6
21
.38 17 12,300 2.33 6
43
.36 4
ON Ut
~
CD TABLE 20, FIGURE 19, September 17,1968, Win:1 - SSE 150
/
g U
V xJ
to D-B o
os H
~
.o
.O f3o CN 4 H C.f4 o CO O CO CO L;5 WQ LQr-4 C d
H
- D to C0 Ct:
c) r-i O
D rn
/
o r9 "oy q
o
~8~
8
~ e
=
fxp n
C. E q me e
. o l~
a 2 0 2.O
/
k Q
/
0260 2D-73 N-
I a
3 i+
vi Table 21.
September 18, 1968. Wind - SSE 150*.
Wind Pole Distance traveled Elapsed time Current velocity Dir. velocity no.
feet miles hr. min.
(mph) from knots oph
'f 16 5825 1.10 2
07
.53 150*
15 17
?
p 11 5950 1.13 2
20
.51 W
17 5500 1.04 2
26
.46 12 5650 1.07 2
35
.46 a
TABLE 21, FIGURE 20, September 18, 1968, Wind - SSE 1500 CN (DP k.-
V
._)
?*
,l 6
3 1
4 2
0, 3
S Ess dn i
t 0
69 1
rco
'me tpe S
81 snu R
e lo P
\\ 8
'G
\\
\\
0 3
2 I
e
\\
4 ru O
g N
j i
\\5
?\\
\\\\F I
F J
I 2 7 0
l 1
1 0
1 0
6 1
2 00 i
0 E
1 T
E U NA E
F RT 0
r e
e C7C)N 4
n 0
e i
00 M$
8
D-B
/
i DYE DILUTION STUDIES IN THE LOCUST POINT REGION 7
ll Our in situ studies of natural dilution rate in the alongshore water off the plant site used the red fluorescent dye, Rhodamine B.
Stock dye in a 40%
solution in acetic acid was used.
It has a small negative buoyancy and requires dilution with an alcohol to become neutrally buoyant.
Our dye sets consisted of one quart of the dye stock diluted with six quarcs of methanol antifreeze.
Concentration at setting was taken to be 6%.
Dilutions were made in a plastic garbage can and introduced by gently lowering the can into the water until the dye floated out.
Af ter an interval to allow surface tension effects caused by the alcohol to die away, the initial measurement of dye concentration was made by slowly coasting the boat through the visibly-heaviest part of the dye patch.
Slow coasting with the screw stopped allowed the boat to pass through the dye with little if any artificial mixing.
Error from rapid spreading due to the surface tension effect of the alcohol has been compensated in the calculations.
Measurements of dye concentration were made with the ultraviolet fluorometer of Noble and Ayers (Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 6, No. 4,1961).
In this instrument the fluorescence of the dye under ultraviolet light is measured photoelectrically and converted by calibration curve to concentration of dye.
Colored water of the dye patch was pumped continuously through the fluorometer during each pass through the patch.
Only the highest concentration noted during
,each pass was re:orded and used in dilution computations, to obtain the most conservative dilution figures.
The stations for setting of the dye patches were in 4-6 feet of water, between 200 ft and 1000 ft offshure from the plant outfall.
We have no reason to think that dilution figures obtained off other parts of the plant property s 1 l
would be significant.ly different from those presenced here (Table 22).
vl In Table 22 the incremental dilution between two successive passes through 0263 amendment No. 5 2D-76
D-B a dye patch was obtained by dividing the earlier dye concentration by the later.
?
\\
Each initial incremental dilution was severely rounded off to compensate for surface tension effects of the alcohol.
Cumulative dilution was obtained by progressive multiplication of the incremental dilutions.
After each multi-plication the product was rounded to the nearest whole number before the next multiplication.
In the dye dilution experiments deliberate effort was exerted to run experiments on the calmest days possible, for low wind and minimum wave action produce least mixing and dilution, hence giving " worst condition" figures for dilution.
Effort was also directed to obtaining observations under winds from as many directions as possible.
Successful dilution experiments were run on 6, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 September.
The alongshore current direction shown by the dye patch observed on September 12 (Tabla 19, and Fig. 18) is reported in the section on local currents. All the d_e dilution data are summarized in Table 22.
On the basis of the data available, there appears t.
oe a reasonable dilution rate inherent in the natural regimen of alongst.r e currents. The natural regimen will, however, be modified by the current created by the flow of plant effluent.
G s
D-B Table 22.
Results of Dye Dilution Experiments.
~
Time Since Set Dye Concentration Incremental Dilution D
n 6 Sept. 1968 Wind WSW 9-12 mph Set at regular station Set 6 X 10-N
-6 1 hr. 15 min.
S.A X 10 7000X
-6 1 hr. 38 min.
3.0 X 10 20000X
-6 2 hr. 01 min.
2.3 X 10 26000X
-6 3 hr. 05 min.
1.2 X 10 49000X
-7 3 hr. 31 min.
3.0 X 10 197000X 10 Sept. 1968 Wind SW 7-9 mph Set at regular station
-2 Set 6 X 10 1500X
-5 1 hr. 18 min.
3.0 X 10
-0 3 hr. 15 min.
8.4 X 10 3400X
-6 4 hr. 08 min.
3.1 X 10 10000X
-6 4 hr. 40 min.
1.2 X 10 26000X 12 Sept. 1968 Wind Nw 5-7 mph Set at regular station
-2 Set 6 X 10
-6 1 hr. 21 min.
2.9 X 10 20000X
-6
.1 hr. 59 min.
2.8 X 10 22000X
-0 2 hr. 42 min.
1.1 X 10 57000X
-6 3 hr. 27 min.
1.1 X 10 57000X 16 Sept. 1968 Wind ENE 12 mph Set at regular station Set 6 X 10-10000X 1
-0 1 hr. 01 min.
5.5 X 10 10000X 2.4X
-0 1 hr. 28 min.
2.3 X 10 24000x
-6 1 hr. 58 min.
1.1 X 10 50000X 1.0X
-6 2 hr. 22 min.
1.1 X 10 50000X J
om Amendment No. 5 2D-78
D-B Table 22.
(Continued)
Time Since Set Dye Concentration Incremental Dilution 17 Sept. 1968 Wind SS-
'2 mph Set at regular station Set 6 X 10~
-6 1 hr. 05 min.
5.0 X 10 10000X
-6 1 hr. 43 min.
2.2 X 10 23000X
-6 2 hr. 21 min.
1.1 X 10 46000X
~7 2 hr. 51 min.
2.3 X 10 140000X 18 Sept. 1968 Wind SSE 17 mph Set at regular station Set 6 X 10~
-6 1 hr. 00 min.
5.2 X 10 11000X
-6 1 hr. 30 min.
2.4 X 10 24000X
-6 2 hr. 00 min.
1.6 X 10 36000X 2 hr. 54 min.
7.2 X 10" 82000X
~7 3 hr. 33 min.
4.6 X 10 130000X The studies reported c.bove we.re designed to measure the present-day ability of the Locust Point area to dilute conservative material batch-released in the absence of the plant's plume of effluent warmed water.
They underestimate the dilution conditions that will exist for batch releases during the presence of a warm-water plume.
Diluting lake-water will be entrained into the plume at its source. The released materfal will travel outward through the floating plume until, along the plume perimeter, cooling breaks down the temperature-induced density gradient and the released material can " fall off the edge" of the plume into the ambient lake water along an extensive line rather than at a point source.
1 0266 2D-79 Amendment No. 5
D-B i
COMPUTATIONS FOR A CONTINUOUS POINT-SOURCE RELEASE This section consists of computations which were hired, because of our unfamiliarity with the model used. They were made by Dr. Joseph C-K. Huang, formerly of the University of Michigan, who is now with Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California.
Because ve cannot do so, Dr. Huang will answer questions stensning from this section. He should be addressed directly.
Per our instructions Dr. Huang has computed for that possibly unlikely case (see Figures 16 and 17) wherein a northwest wind was to hold the plant plume tightly against shore from Locust Point to well beyond the Camp Perry water intake.
Dr. Huang's results are presented verbatim below.
Estimation for Concentration Distributions for Conservative Material Released from a Continuous Point Source on the West Basin of Lake Erie Joseph C-K. Huang Most mathematical models describing the distribution of conservative material in a plume emanating from a continuous fixed source in the atmos-phere or ocean are besed on the assumptions that the turbulent field is homogeneous and stationacv.
The theoretical steady-plume models are deduced from the super-position of an infinite number of patch distributions in the presence of a mean current.
If the flow field has a detectable mean velocity the diffusion in'the direction of the current can be ignored.
Furthermore, if the material distribution within any individual disk-element,in the plume is assumed Gaussian, which is in general approximately the case, then the concentration at any point in a plume can be estimated by Gifford's (1959) two-dimensional,model. In the lake, the mean concentration at any point 0267 l
n,a & a kusa
D-B downstream from the continuous point source is given by i
f
- P i
(1) 2-2 -,
O C (x, y, z) =
2
-2 Exp -
+
f
-2
-2 DgOy 0
'S Of 0}~
- where x, y, z are coordinates, x is in the direction of mean current, y is horizontal and perpendicular to the current direction, z is vertical; Q is the steady rate of discharge of conservative material from a point source in
-2#
units /sec; G f are the coordinate variances of the material distribution in 2
em;U is the mean current speed ir em/sec.
Note that the above diffusion model is anisotropic.
The peak concentration on the surface of the lake is O
b) "
(}
kh max 2
In a stationary homogeneous turbulent field, after a long period of time the diffusivity is considered to approach asymptotically a constant.
Csanady (1964) and Okubo and Farlow (1967) studied the turbulent dif fusion in the Ucst Basin of Lake Erie and have shosm the effective lateral eddy diffusivity is about 10 cm /see to 6 x 10 cm /see and the vertical eddy diffusivity is about 1 - 10 cm /sec.
Knowing the mean velocity 6f the current and the longitudional distance from the source, the mean coordinate variances can be estimated from
'A 2 Kx 6
(3)
=
U where K is the diffusivity.
During the summer of 1968, we ran patches of Rhodamine B dye near Locust
~
Point in Lake Erie. At the same time the mean currents were measured by surface drogues.
The peak concentrations of the dye patch as a function of
(
g 268 2D-81 Amendment No. 5
D-B time (or distance) were recorded from the fluorometer readings. The mean concentration distribution across the patch is approximately Gaussian.
As we are more interested in the concentration distribution of.the con-servation material in the effluent under the worst conditions, that is diffusion under an along-shore slow current, the lowest observed mean current about 10 cm/sec along the lake shore is used in this study.
The lower limit of coordinate variances for the continuous point source are taken from the variances calculated by equation (3) of the dye patch study with a lower limit value of diffusivity.
Equivalently the concentrations predicted by equation (1) using the dye patch variances are the upper limit of the material concentration distributions.
Conservatively we are using the following data for the calculation of the point source concentration distributions:
1 unit /see Q
=
10 cm/sec U
=
103 2
cm /sec Ky
=
2 1 cm /see Kz
=
Then from equation (3), the variances are 2 x 102 X,
=
0.2 X.
=
The surface concentration distribution is plotted as shown in Figure 21.
The concentrations along the beach (maximum cone.) and 100 m. away from the beach for each successive 1 Km downstream are listed in Table 23.
l In treating the large scale diffusion phenomena, such as in this case
.with a large volume of discharged effluents from the power plant, it is more realistic to use the two-dimensional volume source model.
In the volume 1
source equation the variances at the origin is an essential parameter in y
O.269 Amendment No.-3 2D-82
L,..i.:.
l. !, 1,...
.,., i.
. t..
d'!.
.is :.
u.. e, l,_t., i
!.. ;.i. @..i. r,
. _ _i_..
.pg. -.I i.: +
. +q ;..... _
M..c 3.H..
._t_..
.H,..n I -. '._
u
- +. _j a.:.
n....L...g..j. l. ;._j._
.. :._j. _
i o
. t
.i p.
.... ~.._,.,_..
..._f...a j _,..
- l.. ;_D.._., ;
.J.. 4. _ _;. !. ( H r'.L. L.1_ L.. _ 1
,.L._.-
..~_....__._;.
...,4
_;. l - 4.
..i 1
...l...-.-6_.
.t
._.l..-... '
..J
- i L.
i-L.-..
.-2..,
...o
'.!. 6
^
'@. s.
_q
. v _L.
i g.
-4 L
.l
.v e
,.,,..,...Q, w.2
.y..m.r
.a_
._.a...p._.._
_.._ )
+.. _
n-
.~.
.......g...
4 i
a.....
...6-
..~
.j
.-..r.
' i 4.
l
...m
.L,_.,_ : L
.1. L
..m
. J ')..
..a..'.C..
-._'.1...'.;.* ' ',.....,
p'. _,!_._.._
..}
4
(
). t... '.. '. '. '.
i. _ __ _i' f
.!.l.
4..
T*""'
~'
'_*L***_*'.*..'
i......*
._._...i 4
.7-
- -- + -
'p-f -....*
.. Ah_ Q.
3 4.] a.
y.u
. _ L.. _4. ;-
.,..._.,l..__.t...-
~.. _.
. _. _ ~.. _ _..
-.. ~
I_._._........
u.
t__
..i... _- _._
..i..
i I
- t..
-. -q,.
\\-.
.-..t, n
r a. - -
.4
+
n te j,
......}
...._d..._..
... T. _. l t
.J..
.._.a r
_e_-.
..,4.
f
....l....
. a. L.:
.4 t
l
,_L.'.
- 6. l. l'..t. _..
4_'
_L.
..a 4....-.
L.L.
J.
l..... '
.._i_
.. ' L.
_.._..I....y_.j l.
7...e
-.i n.
.s
~
1 I '. _..
., ~.
.w 4J L i
.. _ '..L' '.
1 1i_
1_
_b i 4 4_.....
_....b j u _... _.
l..... '._ p., dy..'.
._ j.. l.1.I_ ' l..
.(
3 s
l.A
..i....... - _.
w.
u._
' d.
3.
4 4-
-.......',_..--..I!..+[_.
. I.....
J.1 1.
Id 1.I..
}
s.
e
.4 l 4., _. i..
.. _.....t
_..._1
.....,...,..a_.--_.b.,
..r..
..'.h....I.
1_.- -_e.
4 4., _.--
_ _........e...
i g
k
~.r
. t i
4
..... - l..... k. f..
[..
m 4..,. 6.1.... I. D.
I..
l.
r.L. _. _.. : _.._2
_..L. _ - 4....
-. J. 4 -.....
q..l N
.....,.L..
..I.....
... I
-l
. I.;.. t 3
'... t'.....__
...'L._._}_-.
k
. s..._.......
.a f
{ -
.4
.g._....
.._...b; 8
_.... _,..,...,.-,.'.7
.... g
.. _. _ _J l
.'
- u O.-
1__...
.._t.
- 4...._ a __
s
- a..a
. O. _. --. =. i
. _:_ _.. (.__;
, _ w.._
._ l..a. W.
..... L
...a
_... l.
.2..;
~..
_..._l
...... _ - :. :.J...., -..
,...,_s.
t
.,e e _...p
__t {
.__.._i.:_...
.__. _.....) _ _...._ 7_.o._
s.
. t __. 1. _.-_\\
_...y..__..
- i..... _
t
-.c
. j. i.._. j _t _.1 _ j g._, '....l.__ g.
s u. ___.
.. i.q.
.1..
_c L_____.
..._ p _
._7 7..L_..__.
..m.
l.
i_.
a
,._.m t..
i7 i
..f
.-......,..,4.
....._ l i
e
\\.
__. L l. _ _ :.... Ys _,__
i w,
i.._. ;.I._4
.g
- i. A%.
]._.
_.. _ p._..\\...
- z. a-...s. _...
...--..__g a..i n
. _. _ j _.... _
4 _.. g._ _
__._..c.
7
..{_ -
. }.....
...m.,._...
s._
m.
6-
. t... u.. _ _ _ _
. _.. Q S.
3 7.
+Q e
L._
i
.._4..
...\\ f.
u
.r
..\\...
i t
%L L _ y.. _ '
..._.i......
...j_1.. -.
i
- a... ). ' '_
J._L.
L. g.
..\\..
r, J
O_
.... h Q _.i. L
\\
Q a+. \\. _._.. L_
_1___'..
1._ a..._._
.. _ _ _ _ -.i
...:. j _L 2.
, - L.
. \\. '._.. L.\\..... _.
. _.a.
- d. j'.4,._..;...
_Lg.
..,.y..._..j_-..__
_LA
_...,_a..
i i
4.
,._.;....... p 4 j..g._
_ p _.....
....,. 7..
- 7. _
- 4..
._ a,
_.\\,_,,,._
___g
-._ L
-.h.'.'t -h.".>
,._... _. _. a ' _.
.. _1 J.._.._. _
. a _l.
_.......L...._.j.
_L.. __._.
9....
.___...\\ _..
t. i,.__...
_t.p.
_...N
'.,,... J, a. -., _m_._5_..._...
..___./
t
.i - w.._.......__...;.t__.,.
a N
t
__\\._ L_ }
I I
.... D
}
..9. _'
4 i.
.%).
.__...s
....._t L
_.a.
....T..._.
.t
..p.g.
- j_..._.:.
o g.
1
.t.\\. t
.. ?.._.. _ _...
t.
.t._____.....
.. a
,.. _.... _{
i q. _ _'.
,_-_._4.
_ _ _1
___.)...__._..
es
.n i
i
_.._,.......'j......__.(_
_ i i..
L.
...]
..g
(.._
m...
.\\..
t.
i _. _.
t w
.p
\\. )
..7_.
.., _ p.
9..
w
_w.
\\.
.. l.
h,,.
\\
.\\
t
_.L Q.... p.. __.
i
_q p...
r--
--.' - - _ -w -- (. _
.. _- Q _ - !.-.. _ -. - - -
.,....g..
.... s.. ;.
t.
.1
..1 y
s.,..._..__r*.L m
..Qj
..g
_. L.;....
t,_.
... __i_....
...a.
_._....l_..
. \\
8 9
.g.
'~
t..-
. 1._ ;..'._.
_t_.l.___._.. _. -.. { A.
\\ \\. \\,.
_.I 1
1 a
. g.
..._.4
_..__...q.....p_..___L..
s.
_ 9 _.ji..
. q __ gL.
..q.__..,_..
._..._.....l_.._o.,
_ !..... I 4
.n,._A,.._
_.___.._.L..__..
s..
._. !.. -.... +....
._j..._
3 L.
J _._;...._....,j
... g..\\. Q 1_
.L....__
}._ _ _ -__q_...__. _ _ _.
g.. y. _Q __.
...,.4..._.
~. _.. _...
T.
_ _. _. g _
,_.7.__....._.__ _.._._.i...-_.
4_x.. T..
- g -
i
. _ _ j.__..
.. __ _.. p p_.__ _ _.j. -
j..;......
.\\
.....t...
.. _ _.. l.._. _7.i _........ _....
u \\,.
. t,
- s..g 1.....
,g,
...(
. u _.__. _...;. g.
u 5 (..
LT
--.........o
.... _.. _...... -. _......._. ]..
..t._..._...
...+
%m.
t___
k
.. - I v
h. s.
Q,\\. }. o.....
_L....,._...
{.. __._, u l..
\\
._h-1...._
.. i
.W.Ml
\\
i
.~!,_._..._._..:.
_. _ [__...__.,._ n.
\\
,.1~.
..__..j_..
. j..
.t._...
. i. _. t.. _.
- ... l.. n... L
.o
_.. u;..... -...
....I.
.. ;_;. O
-..t
.h-1 '
g... _..
1.
..t.....
I.
. ~
...[....
s..
.q
. % _..i.
I.
.... g....
. 1,.......u... -
. _... _ o..]. _.
.y i
o
. +,...
.... ~,.,...
(.h
- W e
r...
.. 1.
..7
. g
.l.-+.I_._.
.. }
. _.... h..
4_
.s.
i 6
.. -.._s_
4_.I.--+
.._b
.4.
6
....g.
-..... ;.) ;yQ %. y lI)..
-_L,--..
ew..'.. -
.2. k._ 3.L 1. y_ j.-. -_.-4
. s.:,.s.
..,. 0
. --- _s
. -..m a-v r-
D-B describing the concentration distributions.
Since we have no similar survey m
to estimate the original variances of the volume source effluent, we cannot
.)
but use the point source equation which results in higher concentration dis-tributions than the volume source (Foxworthy, et al. 1966).
Note that the point source equation is not valid at the origin.
Due to our conservative estimation, using the lower limit of variance and the high concentration-predicting equation, the concentration distribution shown in Figure 21 is higher than that expected in the realistic situation in the lake away from the. source.
Table 23.
Surface concentration distribution along the beach and 100 meters away from the beach in the downstream direction from a unit /see continuous point source.
istance. X
""*7 Conc. along beach from the beach in Km
-7
-17 1/10 2.5 x 10 3.5 x 10
-8
-9 1
2.5 x 10 2.1 x 10
-8
-9 2
1.3 x 10 3.6 x 10
-9
-9 3
8.4 x 10 3.6 x 10
-9
-9 4
6.3 x 10 3.4 x 10
-9
-9 5
5.0 x 10 3.1 x 10
-9
-9 6
4.2 x 10 2.8 x 10
-9
-9 7
3.6 x 10 2.5 x 10
-9
-9 8
3.1 x 10 2.3 x 10
-9
-9 9
2.8 x 10 2.1 x 10
-9
-9 10 2.5 x 10 2.0 x 10 l
m.
a he 2D-d t
D-B References 1.
Csanady, G.
T., Turbulence and Diffusion in the Great Lakes, Publ.
No.11, Great Lakes Research Divicion, University cf Michigan, 326 (1964).
2.
.orthy, J.
E., R. B. Tibby, and G. M. Barsom, Dispersion of a Surface Waste Field in the Sea, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 38, No. 7,1170 (1966).
3.
- Gifford, F., Statistical Properties of a Fluctuating Plume Dispersion Model, Adv. Geophys., y, 117 (1959).
4.
Okubo, A. and J. S. Tarlow, Analysis of Some Great Lakes Drogue Studies, Proc. 10th Conf. on Great Lakes Research, 299, (1967).
1 l
l
~
0272 6
N
1 D-B b
HYDROLOGICAL SURVEYS FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE POWER STATION THE LOCUST POINT REGION PART III.
PRELIMINARY BIOLOGICAL, FISHERIES, AND RADIOLOGICAL STUDIES John C. Ayers
~
Robert F. Anderson Norbert W. O'Hara Dean E. Arnold Charles C. Kidd Under contract with The Toledo Edison Company Special Report No. h5 of the Great Lakes Research Division The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan January 16, 1970
(
0273 2D-87 Amendment lio. 5
D-B
/
This report covers those biological and radiological studies that have been completed to date. Additional biological and chemical analyses are still in progress and will be reported when they reach completion.
The materials reported here are:
1.
Locust Point Phytoplankton, May 1969 Zooplankton, May 1969, October 1969 Benthos, May 1969, October 1969 2.
Enrico Fermi Phytoplankton, June 1969 Zooplankton, June 1969' Benthos, June 1969 3.
Locust Point Preliminary assessment of fish data 4.
Locust Point, Big Rock, Fermi Studies on radionuclide uptakes by parts of the food chain Still being processed are the phytoplankton samples from the Locust Point survey of October.
Still to be processed are bulk samples of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthos; these will be analysed for the stable isotopes of metals to be expected in radwaste.
Heavy pressure on the analytical equipment makes it unlikely that these analyses can be carried out before March.
The three surveys here reported were carried out to investigate biological conditions at Locust Point and to give comparison data from the region of the Enrico Fermi plant at Lagoona Beach in shallow northwest Lake Erie.
Station designations were arbitrarily chosen so that they showed the survey involved.
Stations bearing an LPP (Locust Point Power) indicate the May 1969 coverage of the Locust Point region.
Stations labelled with PL (Point Locust) mean the October 1969 coverage of Locust Point environs.
Stations headed FP (Fermi Power) designate the June 1969 survey at Fermi.
0274 2D-89 Amendment No. 5 v
D-B The October Locust Point survey revisited the stations of the May survey, but the same station numbers were not retained.
The station equivalency is as follows:
PL-19 LPP-9 PL-17 LPP-1
=
=
PL-11 LPP-10 PL-16 LPP-2
=
=
PL-12 LPP-ll PL-2 LPP-3
=
=
PL-9 LPP-12 PL-3 LPP-4
=
=
PL-8 LPP-13 PL-20 LPP-5
=
=
PL-18 LPP-14 PL-14 LPP-6
=
=
PL-6 LPP-15 PL-15 LPP-7
=
=
PL-5 LPP-8
=
The same station designations were used by C. Kidd in parts of the radio-logical studies which are reported below.
The surveys were in spring and fall to avoid the height of summer when emergent species of the benthos temporarily reduce the benthos by their nuptial flights.
By fall the offspring of the mating flights are again back in the benthic community.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS Although our studies of the data are far from complete, there are certain preliminary results that can be reported at this time.
May Phytoplankton. Locust Point:
Stations LPP-1, LPP-6, and LPP-9 immediately along the front of the plant property had relatively low phytoplankton counts, though lower ones occurred at stations off the mouth of the Toussaint River and off Camp Perry.
May and O'etober Zooplankton. Locust Point:
In general, May zooplankton counts over the whole area tended to be higher and October counts tended to be low.
As a rough index the sum of the numbers present in_ both months in the duplicated stations of both cruises has been used.
When the catches are summed, the least total is 37.50 organisms per liter for Station LPP-6 (= PL-18); followed by 41.40 at Station LPP-9 (= PL-17); then 0275 Amendment No. 5 2D-90
~
D-B 46.09 for LPP-3 (= PL-12); with 69.39 at LPP-15 (= PL-15); and 76.51 at LPP-1
[
(= PL-19); the remaining duplicated stations have substantially higher combined counts.
Except for station 15, the low values are along the shore of the plant property.
May and October Benthos. Locust Point:
Benthos in the Locust Point region are sparse compared to areas further offshore. This'is attributable to wave action which winnows out finer sediments and detrital food materials.
In the inshore stations most apt to be effected by the plant discharge (LPP-1, 6, 9, 13, 2, and 3; PL-19, 10, 18, 7, 17 and 4) the benthos are exceedingly sparse.
June Phytoplankton. Fermi:
In summary the phytoplankton types off the Fermi plant were about the same as those off Locust Point.
There were some additional genera and species at I
some of the Fermi stations, which may be related to the direct influence of the Detroit River.
Phytoplankton cell counts per liter were consistently lower than at Locust Point, probably reflecting the greater degree of pollution in the Detroit area.
June Zooplankton. Fermi:
Except at station FF-1 which is in Brest Bay about 6 miles from Fermi, the zooplankton of the area were very rare. Again, this appears to be a reflection of pollution in the area.
June Benthos. Fermi:
At Fermi.only the Sphaeriids (finger nail class) and the pollution,-tolerant oligochaetes were more numerous than at Locust Point.
The clean-water loving amphipods were practically absent from the Fermi region.
\\' ~-
)
0 %76 2D-91 Amendment No. 5
D-B
SUMMARY
STATEMENT Preliminary assessments of the biological data now worked up show that the inshore waters at Locust Point are, compared to regions further offshore, a sort of " biological desert" only sparsely inhabited by plankton and benthos.
Such is also true at other plant sites we have studied.
Preliminary examination of the fishery data available, suggests that the sampling stations used are too far from Locust Point and too far offshore to be adequaraly representative of fish populations close to the Point. This conclusion is preliminary and may be modified by further study.
It may be significant that local fishermen reduce or cease their operations at Locust Point during the height of the summer "because the fish leave the area" (Ohio Division of Wildlife).
Present evidence, though incomplete, suggests that in the critical peak-of-summer condition there are but few biological organisms present to be damaged in the area of the plant outfall where the greatest of waste heat will exist.
Comparative studies in the Fermi region are disappointing because they predominately indicate the polluted nature of the area.
In radiological studies presently completed the amphipod, Pontoporeia af finis, shows a greater. affinity for zine-65 than for cerium-144, manganese-54, cesium-137, zirconium-95, ruthenium-106, or s trontium-90.
Uptake of zinc. and strontium was enhanced somewhat when the amphipod was cultured with sediment in the aquarium.
Lake Erie chironomids (tendepedidae) and oligochaetes when similarly cultured with sediments also showed their affinities for zinc-65 to be greater than for manganese-54, cesium-137, or strontium-85.
Lake Erie clams similarly cultured had soft-tissue affinities for cesium-137 greater than for zinc, manganese, or strontium.
Clam shell appeared to concen-trate both cesium and manganese mre readily chan the others.
0277 Amendment No. 5 2D'92
D-B Despite the fact that Fermi has operated nuclear there are no significant
(.
differences in gross beta activity or cesium-137 activity between Fermi and Locust Point sediments.
Amphipods captured in the vicinity of the Big Rock reactor showed small increases in groes gamma and gross beta activities in a limited area in fror.t of the plant.
h 0278 k..
f 3 2D-93 Amendment No. 5
D-B STATION MAP OF LOCUST POINT PROJ EC T M AY 19 6 9, SAMPLING TRUE NORTH
/
0 12
- 2. 5 mile:
O 7
11 X l.4 miles e4 X8 f
m,i y5
. ]
10 O 100 yards O 3 j
access t O2 t
LOCUST O6 p
d 0
15 7
5@
X 14 O 13 CAMP O
COMPLETE STATlON PER RY X
SHOR T STATION 0479 A=;ndment No. 5 2D-94
D-B STATION MAP OF LOCUST POINT OCTOBER 1969, S AMPLING
(
TRUE NORTH
/
25' MAG.
33' MAG.
22'TRUE 30* TRUE 38' MAG.
3 2.5 miles 6
I 9
2
. 1. 4 miles 5
60* MAG.
8 l
.5 miles 12 16 IOOyds.
17 access r 7
!8 4
LOCUST 4
d "I 40*MA.
C POINT 4
site to V
37*
TRUE 15 TOOSSA\\
l lt O
CAMP COMPLETE STATIO N PE R RY
! ' c.
O ' SHORT STATION
~0280
D-B Phytoplankton Population Locust Point, 15-16 May 1969 Diatoms
}
Diatoma tenuis v. elongata Melosira binderana Melosira granulata Synedra ulna Synedra acus Fragilaria intermedia Fragilaria capucina Fragilaria crotonensis Asterionella formosa Cyclotella spp Navicula spp Tabellaria fenestrata Surirella spp Nitzschia spp Stenhanodiscus spp Cymbella spp Gomphonema spp Greens Ulothrix spp Pediastrum duplex Scenedesmus abundans Scenedesmus quadricauda Dictyosphaerium pulchellum Ankistrodesmus spp Ankistrodesmus falcatus Scenedesmus spp Micractinium pusillium Occystis solitaria Lagerheimia longiseta Golenkinia radiata Actinastrum Hant::schii Closteriopsis longissima Blue Greens Oscillatoria spp J
02S1
D-B Phytoplankton Ste. tion LPP-1, Locust Point 15 May 1969 7s i
Organism No. of Colonies Cell per Liter Oscillatoria spp 3 747 51,,937 Fragilaria crotonensis 1,874 524 Ankistrodesmus falcatus Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 42,156 287,598 66,558 526'651 513 482 Melosira binderana 6
L9, Asterionella formosa Fragilaria capucina 49,651 2,243,636 Cyclotella spp 7,494 Navicula spp 937 Occystis solitaria 937 Scenedesmus quadricauda 937 Synedra ulna 937 Tabellaria fenestrata 4,684 30,914 Surirella spp 937
(
02S2 2D-97 Amendment No. 5
D-B Phytoplankton 1
Station LPP-2, Locust Point 15 May 1969
'q,
, j Organism No. of Colonies Ce1Js per Liter Synedra ulna 17,666 Synedra acus 6,625 Tabellaria fenestrata 2,208 15,458 Pediastrum duplex 2,208 Melosira binderana Ec M. granulata combined 516,742 4,891,385 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 99,;74 1,355,896 Asterionella formosa 24,291 249,538 Fragilaria crotonensis 4,417 117,040 Frac 11 aria capucina 105,998 5,284,625 462 Cyclotella 6,
Scenedesmus abundans 2,208 Oocystis solitaria 2,208 Oscillatoria spp 2,208 m
0283
~
Am.ndment No. 5 ATil
D-B Phytoplankton C
Station LPP-$, ' Locust Point 15 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies Cells per Liter Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 47,917 242,675 Oscillatoria spp 1,546 Ulothrix spp 1,546 Melosira binderana 61,828 930,512 Synedra acus 4,637 Synedra ulna 6,183 Fragillaria intermedia 17,003 630,646 Fragillaria capucina 4,637 98,925
\\
l
-1 0284 q
D-B Phytoplankton Station LPP-4, Locust Point 15 May 1969
@w Orcanism No. of Colonies Cells ner Liter Synodra ulna 13,138 Tabellaria fenestrata 10,049 57,202 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 66,478 672,510 Melosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 202,526 937,649 Fragilaria crotonensis 1,546 58,748 Asterionella formosa 17,006 135,275 Fragilaria capucina 85,030 3,237,324 Lagerheimia longiseta 773 Golenkinia radiata 773 Cyclotella spp 2,865 3
.Oscillatoria spp 1,,319 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum 546 Scenedesmus quadricauda 773 Synedra a'cus 2,319 N,
's' s
0?.85 s.[s Amendment No. 5 2D-100
D-B Phytoplankton kJ Station LPP -6, Locust Point 15 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies Cells per Liter Fragilaria crotonensis 2,132 14,066924 1
Surirella spp Synedra ulna 6,,396 Synedra acus 1,066 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum 1 066 Ankistrodesmus spp 1,066 Oscillatoria spp 2,132 Tabellaria fenestrata 7,462 33,046 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 74,620 380,562 Melosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 105,534 891,176 Fragilaria capucina 49,036 1,557,426 Scenedesmus abundans 1,066 Closteriopsis longissima 1,066 l
02Sa
- c.. -
i
D-B Phytoplankton Station LPP-7, Locust Point
~
15 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies, Cells ner Liter Synedra ulna 4,986 Surirella sp 997 Occystis solitaria 997 I'closira binderana &
M. granulata combined 101,714 622,253 Diatoma tenuis v. elo'ngata 50,857 283,205 Asterionella formosa 9,972 81 770 Tabellaria fenestrata 3,989 12'964 Fragilaria capucina 49,860 1,471,,867 IIicractinium pusillum 1,994 Oscillatoria spp 1,994 0287 m
Nynr.'lrria'k J&oN~ _3 MA,S.r6@)
D-B Phytoplankton h
Station LPP-9, Locust Point 15 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies
_ Cells cer_ Liter Oscillatoria spp 5,888 Micractiniun pusillum 1,472 Scenedesmus quadricauda 1 472 Synedra ulna 8 832 Cyclotella spp 10 304 Gomphoneta op 1,472 Stephanodiscus spp 2,944 Synedra acus 7,360 lielosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 113,344 1,149,632 Asterionella formosa 5,888 27,968 Tabellaria fenestrata 1,472 8 832 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 75,072 450,,432 Fragilaria crotonensis 2,944 79,488 Fragilaria capucina 41,216 585,856
(
(
02S8
.$@-l@@
Amendment No. 5
D-B Phytoplankton Station LPP-lO, Locust Point 16 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies Cell oer Liter Fragilaria crotonensis 6,183 74,191 Synedra acus 15,183 457 Synedra ulna 6,
Oscillatoria spp 15,457 Melosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 420,196 417 3,159,309
'Fragilaria capucina
- 108, 2,550,323 Scenedesmus spp 3,091 Cyclotella spp 9,274 Ankistrodesmus falcatus 3,091 Hit::schia spp 9,274 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 272,034 1,415,815 Asterionella formosa 365 83 12,183 27,,465 Tabellaria fenestrata 6,
823 l
i 0289 Amendment No.5 2D-10h
~
D-B Phytoplankton Station LPP-12, Locust Point
{'
16 May 1969 Organism Ilo. of Colonics Cells per Liter Synedra ulna 314 4,470 6,
Oscillatoria spp Actinastrum Hantzschii 2 157 Diatome. tenuis v. elongata 42,058 208,,131.
Melosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 73,331 815,270 Asterionella formosa 4,314 38,822 Tabellaria fenestrata 5,392 20 Fragilaria capucina 21,570 628,,490 707 Scenedesmus abundans 1,078 Cyclotella 3,235
(
0290 2D-105 Amendment No. 5
D-B Phytoplankton Station LPP-13 Locust Point h
16 May 1969 Organism No. of Colonies Cells ner Liter Scenedesmus quadricauda 1,546 Oscillatoria spp 12,368 Stephanodiscus spp 9,276 Synedra acus 822 10,184 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum 6
Ankistrodesmus spp 3,092 Actinastrum Hant::schii.
3,,092 Cyclotella spp 9,276 Micractinium pusillum 3,092 Synedra ulna 6
Taballaria fenestrata 6,184 30,184 920 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 123,680 1,004,,900 Molosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 536,462 5,468 1,45o,,202 Fragilcria capucina 40,196 332 Cymbolla sp 1,546 Asterionella formosa 4,638 30,920 O'!O.t.
Amendment No. 5 2D-106
D-B Phytoplankton f
Station LPP-15 Locust Point 15May1969 Organism No. of Colonies Cells per Liter Oscillatoria spp 6 624 Ankistrodesmus spp 2,,208 Navicula sp 1 104 Synedra acus 4,416 Fragilaria crotonensis 1,104 37,,536 Melosira binderana &
M. granulata combined 59 616 623 760 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 44,,160 195,408 Tabellaria fenestrata 9 936
,848 Asterionella formosa 1,104 40,040 11 Fragilaria capucina 28,,704 1,065,,360 Synedra ulna 2,208 Cyclotella spp 6 624 Closteriopsis longissima 1,,104
(
f f
0292 ll 2D-107 Amendment No. 5
POWER PLANT SURVEYS - PRIMAP.Y ZOOPLANKTON COUNTS - LOCUST POTNT. IAKE ERIE (NO. ORG./ LITER)
LPP-1 PL-19 LPP-3 PL-12 LPP-4 PL-9 LPP-6 PL 18 LPP-7 PL-6
(=LPP-1)
(=LPP-3)
(=LPP-4)
(=LFP-6)
(=LPP-7 )
5/15/69 10/29/69 5/15/69 10/21/69 5/15/69 10/21/69 5/15/69 10/29/69 5/15/69
/abf16/27 4
CALANOID COPEPODS:
)
Diaptomus sp.
3.82 0.71 2.76 0.40 4.21 0.48 1.37 7.43 0.15 Eurytemora affinis 0.59 0.20 0.13 0.46 Othnrs CYCLOPOID COPEPODS 29.72 3.18 14.60 3.69 33.97 4.96 10.88 0.47 77.86 2.39 ROTIFERS:
Asplanchma sp.
3.47 0.12 1.75 0.30 1.81 0.48 2.05 5.99 (Others too small for this net)
?
CLADOCERA:
W D phnia retrocurva 15.62 1.06 5.51 0.66 34.66 0.31 14.47 0.13 46.33 0.25 Other Daphnia 0.20 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.20 Bosmina sp.
3.20 13.55 4.24 11.23 4.09 10.70 3.76 3.48 5.15 4.62 Chydorus sphaericus 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.07 Ceriodaphnia reticulata Leptodora kindtii 0.27 0.12 0.35 0.03 0.84 0.04 0.63 0.98 Sida crystallina llydra OTHER GROUPS:
0.51 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.05 (Ostracods unless othsrwise noted)
REMARKS:
9 Very. dirty CD sample l'd LD 00 C
v.8 o)
~'
~'}
POWER PLANT SURVEYS - PRIMARY ZOOPLANKTON COUNTS - IDCUST POINT. IAKE ERIE (NO. ORG./ LITER)
LPP-9 P L-17 LPP-10 PL-16 LPP-12 PL-3 LPP-13 PL-20 LPP-15 PL-15
(=LPP-9)
(=LPP-10)
(=LPP-12)
(=LPP-13)
(=LPP-15) 6/15/69 AS/29AGf 5/16/69 10/28/69 5/16/69 10/24/69 5/16/69 10/29/69 5/16/69 10/27/69 CALAN 0?D COPEPODS:
Diapt-mus sp.
1.65 3.76 0.62 6.51 0.04 28.77 0.15 5.63 0.37 Eurytemora af finis 0.71 1.87 0.32 0.53 0.51 Others CYCLOPOID COPEPODS 9.97 0.59 42.34 3.50 56.55 1.56 132.80 2.05 53.53 1.11 ROTIFERS:
A planchna sp.
1.24 0.12 12.62 0.19 1.11 0.23 0.30 1.83 0.03 (Others too small for this net)
E!
?
W h CLAD 0CERA:
o Daphnia retrocurva 8.16 0.82 22.87 2.74 12.30 0.28 4.49 0.38 1.90 0.10 Other Daphnia 0.08 0.10 Bosmina sp.
2.95 13.67 8.01 30.53 2.87 6.94 19.79 14.94 2.47 1.01 Chydorus sphaericus 0.03 0.03 Ccriodaphnia reticulata 0.06 0.15 Leptodora kindtii 1.49 3.46 0.05 0.34 0.12 0.15 0.07 0.03 g
Sida crystallina R
0.67 g OTilER GROUPS:
(Ostracods unless f
otherwise noted)
O w
REMARKS:
{Q (O
i Sh 4
POWER PLANT SURVEYS - PRIMARY 200PI.ANKTON COUNTS - 10CUST POINT. I.AKE ERIE (No. ORG./ LITER)
PL-1 P L-2 PL-4 PL-5 PL-7 PL-8 PL-10 PL-ll PL-13 PL-14
(
fall only fall only f all only fall only fall only fall only fall only fall only f all only f all only 10/24/69 10/24/69 10/24/69 10/24/69 10/21/69 10/21/69 10/21/69 10/21/69 10/20/69 10/20/69 CALANOID COPEPODS:
Dirptomus sp.
0.69 0.06 0.04 0.56 0.57 0.30 0.16 0.57 0.38 Eurytemora affinis 0.44 0.84 0.67 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.05 Othnrs
.CYCLOPOID COPEPODS 2.71 P 95 1.52 0.28 7.89 2.62 3.28 0.94 2.53 2.10 ROTIFERS:
A:pirnchna sp.
0.13 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.26 0.14 (Others too small for this net) y to CLAD 0CERA:
Daphnia retrocurva 0.57 0.19 0.39 0.61 0.27 0.55 0.31 1.09 1.39 Other Daphnia Bosmina sp.
7.24 4.05 9.53 3.15 15.61 7.22 7.07 3.56 11.04 11.09 Chydorus sphaericus Cariodaphnia reticulata Leptodora kindtii 0.08 Diaphanosoma 0.06 leuchtenbergianum OTHER GROUPS:
(Ostracods unless otherwise noted)
REMARKS:
N (D
(,
^r
~.
LOCUST POINT POWER PROJECT Benthos Data Station Organisms per meter Number Date Amphipods 011gochaetes Sphaeriidae Tendipedidae Other Ratio: Amphi/011go LLP-1 5/15/69 0
4877 17 965 Snail 52 0
-2 5/15/69 26 5364 26 1165 0
0.0048
-3 5/15/69 0
86 0
43 Snail shells 0
-4 5/15/69 8
1452 34 991 Daphnia 26 0.0059
-5 5/15/69 52 2269 34 565 Daphnia 17 0.0229
-6 5/15/69 0
26 0
78 Snail 17 0
Cyclops 43 Copepod 8
-7 5/15/69 26 2399 121 39 Cyclops 113 0.0108 Daphnia 443 p
Snail 339 b$
-8 5/15/69 52
- 1217 17 286 Cyclops 43 0.0428 Daphnia 34 Snail 782
-9 5/15/69 17 165 0
199 Daphnia 43 0.1052 Cyclops 252
-10 5/16/69 26 121 0
234 0
0.2142
-11 5/16/69 34 808 8
452 Daphnia 8
0.0430
-12 5/16/69 26 26 8
982 Snails 26 1.0000 Cyclops 130 7
Daphnia 956
-13 5/16/69 0
113 0
191 Snail 8
0 fi Daphnia 460
(
Cyclops 156
-14 5/16/69 0
895 8
295 Cyclops 78 0
fk Daphnia 60
($
-15 5/16/69 0
686 8
1278 0
0 CPJ L
I
k LOCUST POINT POWER PROJECT u
k Benthos Data p
h Station Orranisms per meter
,o
. Number Date Amphipods 011gochaetes Sphaeriidae Tendipedidae Other Ratio: Amphi/ Oligo
'a P1-1 10/24/69 0
1139 0
348 Clam 9
0
-2 10/29/69 0
678 0
730 Leech 9
0 Clam 9
-3 10/24/69 0
556 17 565 0
0
-4 10/24/69 0
3148 0
270 0
0
-5 10/24/69 0
956 17 565 0
0
-6 10/24/69 17 1026 17 539 Clam 17 0.0166
-7 10/21/69 9
522 0
70 0
0.0172
-8 10/21/69 35 1252 0
130 Leech 26 0.0280 f
-9 10/21/69 104 391 278 70 Leech 174 0.2660 I'
t2s h
-10 10/21/69 43 461 17 165 Leech 9
0.0933
-11 10/21/69 0
617 78 130 0
0
-12 10/21/69 400 130 96 52 Leech 9
3.0769 Clam 9
-13 10/20/69 104 96 26 78 Laech 9
1.0833 15 14 10/20/69 78 157 9
35 Leech 17 0.4968 10/29/69 61 261 35 130 Leech 35 0.2337
-16 10/29/69 00 70 0
61 0
0 l
-17 10/29'/69 0
0 0
0 0
0 l
-18 10/29/69 0
26 0
0 0
0
-19 10/29/69 17 96 35 87 0
0
-20 10/29/69 9
1530 0
78 0
0 l
C)
I ty QD
- 1 O
i
/'
m,
)
0 STATION M AP-FERMI PLANT SURVEY g
12, 1 6 JUNE 1969 b&
g statue miles 83*l5' gisiiji nij
[
y POINT OUILLE 42 00' 41* 5 5'
. DETROIT RIVER LT.
O COMPLETE STATIO SWAN CREEK i
o SHORT STATION a4 M
/
a 66 f,
TONY CREEK 67 8
i 69 0 10 POINT AUX EAUX
^
83*05' STONY POINT I
s BREST BAY Oil 41' 5 5
LAKE ERI E 01 i
O b
RIVER RAISIN e
J Vv '
Phytoplankton Station FP-1, near Enrico Fermi n
12 June 1969 1,.j Organism No. of Colonies Cells per Liter Cyclotella spp 32,621 Oocyscis spp 546 1,184 Actinastrum Hant::schii 6,802 Scenedesmus spp 6
- 1!icractinium ? spp 6,493 Dictyosphaerium spp 2,010 Ankistrodesmus spp 1,237 Peridinium sp
,618 Gomphosphaeria lacustris 155 Oscillatoria spp 7,421 Closteriopsis longissima 701 M31osira spp 1,546 1,121 9,
Synedra sp 1,237 Asterionella formosa 155 618 Fragilaria pinnata 309 5,411 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 155 618 Stephanodiscus sp 618 Coolastrum sp 773 Tetraedron sp 309 Coscinodiscus sp 155 Pediastrum sp 309 Closteridium sp 309 Kavicula sp 309 Hitzschia sp 309 T
M 0Z99
'd Amendment No. 5 2D-114
D-B Phytoplankton Station FP-3, near Enrico Fermi
/
16 June 1969 Organism Ilo. of Colonies Cells per Liter Dinobryon divergens 1,288 18,032 Oscillatoria spp 7,084 Synedra acus 27,048 Synedra ulna 17,388 656 Rhizosolenia eriensis 47,644 llitzschia sp 540 848 22,948 155,484 Tabellaria fenestrata 10,456 71,024 Asterionella formosa 94, Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 15, 08 144,900 Fragilaria capucina 4,5 Helosira binderana &
I1. granulata combined 1,932 12,880 Gloeocystis sp 2.576 Cyclotella spp 10,644 304 IU.cractinium sp r
0300
~
t.
N 2D-ll5 Amendment No. 5
D-B Phytoplankton G
Station.FP-5, near Enrico Fermi
),
16 June 1969 1
(_ pnism Ho. of Colonies Cells ner Liter Occystis sp 86 Diatoma spp 602 2 494 Tabellaria fenestrata 774 4,,816
- elosira spp 258 2,322 Synedra spp 1 204 Fragilaria pinnata 344 7,224 Asterionella spp 258 1,,290 Cyclotella sp 344 l
l l
[
g 0301 Amendment No. 5 2D-116
D-B Phytoplankton I
Station FP-8, near Enrico Fermi 16 June 1969 Organist No. of Colonies Cells per Liter Stephanodiscus spp 883 Synedra acus 4,416 7,386 3
Synedra ulna 949 Cyclotella spp 24,,030 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 4,564 290 1,
Hitzschia spp M91osira binderana &
M. granulata combined 12,366 92,889 3,091 117,621 Fragilaria pinnata Fragilaria crotonensis 1,325 25,320 Navicula spp 442 Coelastrum sp 147 Oscillatoria spp 442 Rhizosolenia spp 442 Occystis solitaria 147 Actinastrum iiant schii 294 Coscaritun sp 294 Anhistrodesnus sp 147 i
Dinobryon sp 294 Tabellaria fenestrata 8,244 67,569 Asterionella formosa 3,091 23,406 Pediastrum duplex 442 Cymbella sp 147 Coscinodiscus sp 147 e
0301
/
k M*
D-B Phytoplankton Station FP-10, near Enrico Fermi 16 June 1969 Crganism Lio. of Colonies Cells per Liter Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 6 901 37,801 Tabellaria fenestrata 6,,283 327 Asterionella formosa 4,223 83,385 Cscillatoria spp 30,133 ahicosolenia spp 1,030 1,
Fediastrum sp 309 Stephanodiscus sp 515 Synedra spp 13,184
- elosira spp 7,210 48,925 Cyclotella spp 1,545 Fragilaria crotonensis &
F. pinnata com'oined 5,562 194,876 i:itsschia spp 515 Dino~oryon spp 1,236 12,875 linkistrodesmus sp 206 Scenedesmus sp 103 l
I l
l l
0303 4
Amendment No. 5 2D-118
D-B Phytoplankton Station FP-12, near Enrico Fermi 16 June 1969 Organism Ho. of Colonies Cells per Liter Micractinium spp 10,626 Asterionella formosa 7,728 51,728 7
Coelastrum sp
,198 Ankistrodesmus falcatus 2,898 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum 5 796 Cyclotella spp 176,778 Melosira spp 178,710 1,109,936 804 Diatoma tenuis v. elongata 11,592 90,932 Rhizosolenia eriensis 966 1,728 7,
Pediastrum sp Hitzschia sp 1,932 Actinastrum Hantzschii 15,456 Oscillatoria spp
- 163, 4
Scenedesmus spp 29 e
Tabellaria fenestrata 22,218 118'818 Synedra spp 35 742 Fragilaria capucina 5,796 165,084 Fragilaria crotonensis 1,932 69,898 552 Oocystis sp 2, 66 9
Havicula sp Anabaena sp 966 o
0304
\\
2D-x29 Amendment No. 5
-s lI POWER PLANT SURVEYS - PRIMARY ZOOPLANKTON COUNTS - ENRICO FERMI. IAKE ERIE (NO. ORG./ LITER) d FP-1 FP-3 FP-5 FP-8 FP-10 FP-12 a
S 6/12/69 6/16/69 6/16/69 6/16/69 6/16/69 6/16/69 g
vi CALANOID COPEPODS:
Dieptomus sp.
0.53 0.41 0.10 0.13 0.21 0.07 Eurytemora affinis 0.05 0.04 Others CYCLOPOID COPEPODS 122.01 0.51 0.24 1.00 0.08 11.28 ROTIFERS:
Asplanchna sp.
0.66 0.29 0.63 1.48 0.07 (Others too small for this net) g e,
8 a
$ CLADOCERA:
o Daphnia retrocurva 0.75 0.04 2.38 Other Daphnia 0.10 Bosmina sp.
0.32 0.41 0.05 0.75 0.13 1.98 Chydorus sphaericus 0.53 0.31 0.19 0.07 Ceriodaphnia reticulata 0.07 Leptodora kindtii 0.11 0.10 Diaphanosoma leuchtenbergianum OTilER GROUPS:
(Ostracods unless otherwise noted)
O CO REMARKS:
C CN
1 ENRICO FERMI POWER PLANT Benthos Data Station Organisms per meter hmber Date Amphipods Oligochaetes Sphaertidae Tendipedidae Other Ratio: Amphi/ Oligo FP-1 6/24/69 0
2964 0
1312 0
0
-2 6/29/69 0
4817 17 1043 0
0
-3 5/18/69 0
2060 1399 530 Egg Sac 156 Snail 321 0
-4 6/16/69 0
95 8
0 0
0
-5 6/25/69 0
1869 8
34 0
0
-6 6/20/69 0
5634 60 17 0
0
-7 7/1/69 8
69 17 8
0 0.125
-8 6/23/69 0
339 0
60 0
0 g
4
-9 6/16/69 0
1243 26 95 0
0 W
to P
-10 6/16/69 0
'790 321 17 0
0
+
-11 6/25/69 0
921 460 90 Snail 26 0
Leech 8
-12 6/26/69 0
1225 43 52 0
0
=
e OQC CD
(,
u J
D-B FISH AND FISHE:.IES IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED LOCUST POINT POWER PLANT Due to lack of time and equipment, data on the fish sit-uation was not collected directly, but was obtained from various government reports and from interviews with fisheries biol-ogists working in the area.
The U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries established an "index" station, known as Bono or No. 7, in 1959.
Annual collections were made at this station until 1965 and are summarized in table 1.
The station is loc-ated 8-1/2 miles northwest of Locust Point and is 2 miles off-shore with a depth of 20 feet (figure 1).
Unfortunately the bottom at the Bono station is mostly mud, whereas the bottom at the same distance and depth off Locust Point is sandy gravel (Herdendorf, 1968; Ayers and Anderson, 1969).
This dif-ference and the distance involved may cause significant dif-ferences in the relative abundance of various fish species at the two locations.
Nevertheless, these data provide a con-venient summary of the fish populations in the Locust Point area.
Growth rate data, which would also be of interest in evaluating power plant effects, is available for only a few species and times.
Since the fish populations of Lake Erie have been somewhat unstable over the last decade, and the USBCF data extends only through 1965, present relative abun-dance of the fish species may be somewhat different from that implied by table 1.
The Ohio Division of Wildlife fishery studies in western Lake Erie are concentrated on the walleye, which is the only remaining "high-value" (in the traditional sense) fish in the commercial catch, and which is in danger of population collapse (Arnold, 1969a; Regier, Applegate, and Ryder, 1969).
They also j
have records from trap net and haul seine commercial fisheries near Locust Point but inasmuch as the fishermen specialize in one or two species and generally report only those fish selected for market, this data was not particularly useful for our purposes.
Approximately 14 major and 5 minor species of fish occur
\\
around Locust Point.
The species composition is heavily in-0307 M
(kans of 210-minute hauls of 26' trawl, 3-(//7) station of USPCR index co11cetiona at Dono Tablo la funmarf-inchmesh.)
O Species are June Aug. Oct.
Aug.
Aur.
Aur.
AuP.
Aug.
- Aug, j
rroup 1959 1950 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196h 1965 Tellow Perch adult 26 15 3
6 3
h h6 97 73 yearlinF 2h 3
h9 8
260 37 29 young of year 195 1hh 109 519 162 loh 25 205 Emerald Shiner adult 76 89 78 3
55 55 1
52 yearline 139 986 L7 1
92 2
young of year 1
1 Spottail Shiner,dult 6
23 61 L8 17 h
21 22 3
yeerline 17 9
19 12 72 36 8
youno of year lh 67 97 56 2
29 66 2h6 Snelt edult 1
yearling young of year 1
66 9
1 Troutperch adult 5
3 22 15 1
1 2
yearlint 7
2 1
h 3
8 younc of year 3
22 7
9 38 22 Sheepshead adult 1
6 1
3 10 yearline 9
1 2
6 younc ci' yr 1
1 3
71
)
J Channel adult h
1 1
1 Catfish yearline 1
1 younc of year Welleye sdult 1
yearline youno of year 1
2 1
Ca:p adult I
h yearling 1
1 young of year 1
Alewife adult yearline young of year 10 80 265 2h 56 3
ihite Bass adult vearline young of year 15 6
19 153 165 121 17 10 i
Others 3
1 1
1 5
21 20 2
y:
J l 0308
D-B
[
--~
.. 7...,' ;.4
.L rJ 1
'c
[g N
... I :
/
4.....
i
, e...
\\
U$3c f I'-
l L
Gcw
\\[
- * ' ' ~ ' '
i l
l sra.
4 l
. e...
,\\
~ '5 f $,.
i
.:F -,y 3
..b.1,;,, : I NlJg l.- ' -(".."*ql.~.."--
4 q
1 I
i'. s.
l i
l I
i
' f.I..
- 1./ ] :
i O
l I
.. L.
l 1
~
s Figure 1:
Western Lake Erie showing major islanc s and reefs plus USBCF sampling station #7
" Bono").
Modified from Herdendorf, 1968.
1 0309 l
'~
\\
~
D-B fluenced by the extensive marsh habitat in the vicinity, which serves as spawning and food pr oducing area for some species and primary habitat for others.
The commarcial fishery in the area consists largely of trap nets, plus a shore seine fishery for carp which operates in spring.
The fisheries are somewhat res-tricted by test firing from Camp Perry.
The chief species taken are walleye (discussed below), white bass, yellow perch, sheepshead, carp, goldfish, channel catfish, and suckers, plus a few whitefish in spring.
The latter species, however, is already at or near its upper temperature limit in this area.
Several forage fishes are present in abundance, partially con-tributing (along with the spawning reefs) to the persistence of fairly good walleye populations in the Locust Point area while those in many other areas have almost disappeared.
These species include shiners, troutperch, gizzard shad, and alewife.
The Kelleys Island - Bass Island reef and the reefs off Locust Point (figure 1) are the only remaining spawning areas used by significant numbers of walleyes (Regier, et al., 1969).
Walleyes tend to move counterclockwise around the basin on a yearly cycle, being concentrated near the north shore in fall and arriving on the spawning reefs during the winter.
In 1968, peak spawning occurred between April 10 and 18, when water temp-eratures ranged from 45 to 52 degrees F.
(Baker, 1969).
It is generally believed that the upper limit for walleye spawning is about 55 degrees F.
(W. Hartman; personal communica tion).
Locust Point Reef, the spawning area closest to the plant site (figure 2) showed a higher number of eggs per sample than five of the other areas in 1968, and was reported as a major spawning area for the first time (Baker, 1969).
This reef is less than 3 miles offshore, while the other reefs (figure 2) range from 3 to 7 miles off.
According to present best predictions if, due to unfavorable wind ar.d current conditions, the plant discharge plume were to reach the reef area, walleye spawning would be exposed to a rise of 1 or 2adegrees.
A prolonged rise might induce earlier spawning if the rise were uninterrupted, but it is more likely that the spawners would move out rather than spawn in warmer water.
W 0310 asa m
V D-B (C) -
m
~
$f
- d,c.=2
{
g-
\\
o k
w%
o
~~~b kl j
~"
]-'Q.
~ ""
~ -- 12e) g~
~ ~ .h, g..
'~
-. J g ~ ~
G 3.
s, b
~h'
.-y I g--
a
-.z
?.
/sw c,
s Asf
)
\\
o G
l-..,
N
/ op" \\N AN N
e
- -.w...,. _.. _
)
N".;r,~:: ~.
'uJ
~t F y
Figure 2:
Major spawning reefs in western Lake Erie.
From Hartley, Herdendorf, and Keller, 1966.
d g
0311
D-B f^
Another concern relates to blooms of blue-green algae, which are becoming common in western Lake Erie (Casper, 1965),
and were particularly bad in 1969 (W. L. Hartman, personal communication).
These al~gae are favored'by warm temperatures and are unfavorable to forage fish and invertebrate fish food organisms (Gorham, 1965; Arnold, 19695).
ZOOPLANKTON IN THE LOCUST POINT AREA Zooplankton samples showed considerable differences bet-ween spring and fall, and within each season were quite consistent throughout the sampling area.
May samples were dominated by cyclopoid copepods (mostly Cyclops bicuspidatus) and the clad-oceran Daphnia tetrocurva.
In the October samples, these groups were relatively low in abundance, and the cladoceran Bosmina bpcame highly dominant.(see attached tables).
These I
conditions were not unexpected on the basis of previous studies, but a large part of the Bosmina appeared to be of a new species or subspecies.
This possibility is now being studied.
D. E. Arnold - 1/8/70 N
0312
(
Y
D-B TABLE 2.
COMPARISON OF 'iALIEYE EGG SAMDLTMG DATA BV INDEX STATrons 1960 THPTUGH 1968 (From Baker, 1969)
O YrAR STATICH GR RFFF APEA i
- 23A d25
- 26
, r31
- 33 no fr 9 STAFVE lKELLE7S
'IT AGARA CRIB GULL TOUSSAINT tJEST TOTALE 1960 No. of Samples 8
5 6
5 2
1 27 I
No. Eggs per Sample 202 178 973 189 190 60 363
% Viable 37.5 62.2 h9.5
.hb.2 h6.5 66.9 h9.5 1961 No. of Samples 16 22 15 13 13 79 No. Eggs PerSample 198 609 910 106 3h LC6 11.1 21.6
% Viable
,23 3 18.1 29.0 9.7 1962
?!o. of Samples b
b 5
5 h
6 28 No. Eggs PerSample LC8 256 1h6 38 3 16 35 180 l 5 Viable lLh.9 35.h 33.h 35.2 38.6 15.7 37.h -
1963 No. of Sanples 12 13 9
13 13 12 11 83 No.7ges PerSample l131 1h3 189 217 112 19h 1.3 1h2 I
f Viable
{30.0 27.0 h6.0 30.0 21.0 33.0 7.0 31.8 i
196h No. of Sanples 11 8
9 10 9
8 7
62 No.EggsPerSamplel682 301 157 1,072 58 699 L.1 h55
% Viable 38.h 50.9 62.9 11.h 12.8 32.2 55.1 35.3 1965 Mo. of Samples 12 10 13 11 9
11 13 79 No. Eggs PerSample h6 91 266 3,325 155 177 11 569
% viable h8.7 h5.3 h5.7 28.8 1h.8 LL.6 kl.1 35.h 1966 No. of Samples 18 21 23 23 15 25 16 1h1 No. Eggs PerSamole 119 111 262 38 0 1h 177 L3 17h
% viable 25.h 31.9 15.9 11.5 39.7 25.9 19.2 19.h l 23 1967 No. of Samples 2h 21 19 1
25 10 123 Mo. Fags PerSample 121 139 279 119 3
238 2
16h 0313
% Viable 38.3 33.5 3h.9 25.2 33.3 ho.6 0.0 35.3 1968 "o. o f Samp,les 26 26 2i 17 25 13 127 No. Tgs PorSample h5 78 63 376 12h 6
110
% Viable 26.1 2h.8 17.8 17.1 26.1 3h.1 21.9
D-B g,
REFERENCES
\\
- Arnold, D. E.
1969a. The ecological decline of Lake Erie.
New York Fish Game J. 16(1):27-45.
- Arnold, D. E. 1969b. Feeding studies on Daohnia pulex using seven blue-green algae. Ph. D.
thesis, Cornell Univ. 89 p.
- Ayers, J.C.,
and R. F. Anderson. 1969. Hydrological surveys for the Locust Point power plant.
Spec. Rep. 45, Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. Mich. 75 p. + app.
- Baker, C.T.
1969. Walleye spawning area study in western Lake Erie. Job Completion Report F-35-R-7, Dingell-Johnson Program, Ohio Dept. Nat. Res. Mimeo. 27 p.
(
- Casper, V. L. 1965. A phytoplankton bloom in western Lake Erie. Great Lakes Res. Div. Univ. Mich. Pub. 13:29-35.
- Gorham, P.R.
1965. Toxic waterblooms of blue-green algae.
P. 37-43 i.rt C. M. Tarzwell (ed.), Biological problems in water pollution (3rd seminar). U. S.
Public Health Service Pub. 999-WP-25.
- Hartley, R.P.,
C. E. Herdendorf, and M. Keller. 1966.
Synoptic water sampling survey in the western basin of Lake Erie. Great Lake s Res. Div. Univ. Mich. Pub. 15:
Jul-322.
Herdendorf, C.
E.
1968.
Sedimentation studies in the south shore reef area of western Lake Erie.
Proc. lith Conf.
Great Lakes Res. 188.-205.
[
- Regier, H.A.,
V. C. Applegate, and R. A. Ryder. 1969. The ecologyandmanagementofthewalleyeinwesternLak()y Erie. Tech. Rep. 15, Great Lakes Fish. Comm. 101 p.
12/5/69 D-B CURRICULUM VITAE O
Dean Edward Arnold
-/
B. Elmira, N. Y. 4/8/39, M.
1964, 1 child. S.S.# 080-30-8061 A. B. University of Rochester, 1961. General scierce, biolc gy M. S. Cornell University, 1965. Fishery biology, limnology Ph.D. Cornell University, 1969. Aquatic ecology, fishery science, phycology.
U. S. Navy, 1961-1963 (lieutenant j.g.,
engineering officer of oceanographic survey ship)
Research Assistant, Cornel'1 University, 1963-1965 (fisheries)
Research Associate, Assistant Project Leader, Warmwater Fish-eries Investigations, Cornell University, 1965-1966 Teaching Assistant, Cornell University, 1966-1968 (limnology)
N. I.H. Predoctoral Fellow, Cornell University, 1967-1968 (aquatic ecology)
Assistant Research Limnologist, University of Michigan, 1969-Professional Societies:
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography International Assogiation for Theoretical and Applied w
Limnology j
American Fisheries Society (Certified Fishery Scientist)
Ecological Society of America International Association for Great Lakes Research Publications and theses:
1966. Marking fish with dyes and other chemicals.
M. S. Thesis, Cornell University.
1966. Marking fish with dyes and oth'er chemicals.
Tech. Paper 10, U.
S. Bureau Sport Fish. Wildl.
44 p.
i 1966. Use of the jaw-injection technique for marking i
warm water fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
95 (4) :
432-433.
1967. An unusually dense population of the creek chub-sucker. N. Y. Fish Game J. 14(1):79-81.
1968. (with A. W.
Eipper, et al.) Thermal pollution of Cayuga Lake by a proposed power plant. Ithaca, N. Y.
11 p.
4 19 68. * (wi th C. A. Carlson, Jr., et al.) Radioactivity and a proposed power plant on Cayuga Lake. Ithaca, N.Y.
12 p.
1969. The ecological decline of Lake Erie. N. Y. Fish Game J. 16(1):27-45.
1969. Feeding studies on Daphnia pulex using seven blue-
.s green algae. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.
f j
0315 1
D-B
[
Radiological Analyses The following reports by Charles C. Kidd present a part of the studies of accumulation of radionuclides in the food chain, which have been carried on with funds from Indiana and Michigan Electric Company and from Toledo Edison.
Other studies, similarly supported are incorporated in a PhD thesis by Kidd which should be completed in the near future.
These reports by Kidd have just recently been received.
J. C. Ayers e
0316
(
/
Amendment No. 5
D-B RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT "THE ACCUMULATION OF RADIONUCLIDES BY PONTOPOREIA AFFINIS" Submitted by, CHARLES C. KIDD 0317 sJ M
A=endment No. 5 2D-132
D-B C
l 1
INTRODUCTION:
l Earlier experiments conducted by the writer during the period 1 Aug. 1968 thru 31 Oct. 1968 were designed to reveal the ability of the amphipod, Pontoporeia affinis, to accumulate radioactive elements in solution.
In these experiments the amphipods were exposed to waste waters from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and a nuclear power reactor.
These wastes contained significant quantities of radioactive zinc, zirconium, ruthenium, barium and cesium.
Results of these experiments indicated that the organism only demonstrated an affinity for zine as indicated by the accu-mulation of zinc-65.
The concentration of radioactive zine in
~
the amphipods was approximately 250 times greater than the con-centration of the isotope in solution after a 3-day exposure period.
In order to confirm this observation, and to measure the ability of Pontoporeia to accumulate other radioactive elements the experiments described in this report were conducted.
Some of the radioactive elements used in these experiments are peculiar to waste from nuclear facilities (activation products) and some may be present in the environment as a result of nuclear facilities operations or testing of nuclear devices (fission products).
In some of the experiments the amphipods were exposed to radioactive elements in the absence of sediment from which they are known to obtain most of their food.
By comparing experimental results of 2 318 2D-133 Amendment No. 5
D-B tests "with" and "without" sediment those accumulated isotopes
/
involved in metabolic processes will be identified.
METHODS AND MATERIALS:
The seven radioactive elements used in these experiments were cerium-144', manganese-54, zinc-65, cesium-137, zirconium-95, ruthenium-106 and strontium 00.
A total of 14 plastic aqu-aria were used each containing 250 ml. of lake water.
Thirty grams of sediment was added to 7 of the aquaria.
Equal volumes of each solution containing a radioactive element were added to an aquarium without sediment and to one with sediment.
Twelve amphipods were placed in each aquarium and all test animal, were maintained at 10*C for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
At the end of this time all the water in the aquaria with sediment was slowly siphoned off into plastic cups.
The amphipods were removed by flushing the sediment through a screen which retained them.
Amphipods were removed from the aquaria without sediment with a small tea strainer.
The 12 amphipods from each aquarium were divided into 3 groups of 4 animals each.
The wet weight of each group of amphipods was determined immediately.
All amphipods and water from tests involving gamma emitters with and without sediment were analysed for 200 minutes by a gamma spectrometer.
Pontoporeia which had not been exposed to radioactive isotopes in the laboratory and J
were from the same area of Lake Michigan were also weighed and i
radioassayed.
Af ter adjusting each spectrum of gamma radioactivity obtained from analysis of the amphipods for the contribution of 0339 g
A endsent No. 5 2D-13h
D-B activity from unirradiated amphipods the specific activity, f
t picocuries (pCi) per gram, was calculated for each isotope under both sets of test conditions.
The residual activity per ml. in all tests waters was also calculated.
Amphipods exposed to strontium-90 were wet-digested with nitric acid and the neutra-lized dry residue counted for 50 minutes in a Beckman Low 'Back-ground Beta Counter.
A sample of unirradiated amphipods was also analysed in this manner.
Waters from the strontium tests were evaporated to dryness and analysed in the low background beta counter.
RESULTS:
Tables #1 and #2 are " budgets" which reveal the fate of I
radionuclides used in each experiment.
Significant percentages of all radioisotopes with the exception of ruthenium were removed by the amphipods in the tests without sediment.
The largest accumulation multiple, (pci per gram /pci per ml.) r.sulting from this experiment was 29 as observed for manganese and zinc.
(see table #3).
Results of the experiment with s ediment revealed that significant percentages of manganese-54, zinc-65, strontium-90 were removed by the amphipods.
Accumulation multiples for these isotopes were 29, 273 and 70, respectively.
It was observed also 1
that a large percent of each isotope added became associated with j
i the sediment and thereby available to the amphipods.
l
)
l CGL?A)
(
?
s
~
2D-135 Amendment No. 5
i l
D-B CONCLUSIONS:
The results of the experiments described above indicate that Pontoporeia affinis has a greater affinity for zine than any other isotope tested.
It is also concluded the accumulation of strontium and. zinc are enhanced by their availability in the sediment and that their accumulation involves metabolic processes.
Experiments will be initiated shortly to determine maximum accumulation multiples for radioactive strontium, zine and mangan-ese.
Strontium-85, a gamma emitter, will be used in these exper-iments to permit the simultaneous measurement of radioactivity due to all three isotopes by gamma spectrometry.
Having reached a maximum specific activity test organisms will be placed in aquaria containing no added radionuclides.
The loss of activity in time will permit the calculation of the effective and biological half-lives.of each radioisotope in the amphipod.
f v
l M
0321.
t Amendment No. 5 2D-136
D-B
[
TABLE #1 BUDGET OF RADIONUCLIDES FOR 72 HOURS LABORATORY UPTAKE EXPERIMENT WITHOUT SEDIMENT:
RADIONUCLIDE TOTAL ACTIVITY ACTIVITY REMAINING ACTIVITY REMOVED PERCENTI ADDED (pCi)
IN SOLUTION (pCi)
BY AMPhlPODS
- REMOVAL, (pci) 144 144 Ce
-Pr 820 818 2
0.24%
54 Mn 214,000 212,843 1,157 0.54%
65 Zn 32,300 32,132 168 0.52%
1 Cs 1,745 1,736 9
0.52%
95 Zr
-Nb 2,950 2,948 2
0.06%
l6 1
Ru
-Rh 30,600
>30,599
<1
<0.003%
9 Sr
-Y 1,825 1,819 6
0.33%
03:32 2D-137 Amendment No. 5
D-B TABLE #2 2.
BUDGET OF RADIONUCLIDES'FOR 72 HOUR LABORATORY UPTAKE-EXPERIMENT WITH SEDIMENT:
RADIONUCLIDE TOT. ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ACTIVITY REMOVED ADDED (pCi)
REMAINING REMOVED BY AMPHIPODS IN SOL.
BY SED.
(pCi)
(pCi) % RE-(pCi)
% REMOVAL MOVAL 144 144 Ce
-Pr 820 338 482 58.80%
0 0
54 Mn 214,000 30,942 182,937 85.44%
121 0.06%
Zn 32,300 1,696 30,541 94.50%
63 0.20%
Cs 1,745 280 1,465 84.00%
0 0
Zr
-Nb 2,950 374 2,576 87.30%
0 0
Ru
-Rh 30,600 6,833 23,764 77.61%
3 0.01%
Sr
-Y 1,825 765 1,052 57.60%
8 0.50%
0323 1
s Amendment No. 5 2D-138
D-B I
TABLE _#3:
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES AND ACCUMULATION MULTIPLES IN PONTOPOREIA AFFINIS RESULTING FROM 72 HOUR LABORATORY UPTAKE EXPERIMENTS:
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (pCi/ gram)
ACCUMULATION MULTIPLE (pci/gran pCi/ml.
.fITHOUT SED.
WITH SED.
WITHOUT SED.
WITH SED.
144 l44 CD
-Pr 46 0
20 0
Mn 24,450 3,641 29 29 65 Zn 3,730 1,854 29 273 Cs 155 0
22 0
Zr9 5_g95 109 0
9 0
l Ru
-Rh 6
71 0.8 3
Sr 0_790 122 2n D
m 0324 i
L t
D-B ACCUMULATION OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES BY
')
)
LAKE ERIE BENTHIC WORMS:
C. Kidd, 24 July '69 ISOTOPE SAMPLE #
TYPE WET WT. (g) 7-DAY ACTIVITY CONCEN-TRATION In water In worms FACTOR cpm cpm Mn 1
Chironominae 0.112 4.18 417 98.3 ml g
2 Oligochaetes 0.129 388 93.0
[*
467 9"
Cs 3
Chiron.
0.259 3.95 118 g
4 Oligo.
0.201 323 81.7 65 C[*1692 U
- Zn 5
Chiron.
0.039 2.30 736 6
Oligo 0.176 369 160
)
Sr 7
Chiron.
cpm cpm 8
Oligo.
0.071 30.2 676 22.4 ml g
0325 M
Amendment No. 7 2D-lh0
,m c.
)
ACCUMULATION OF RADIOISOTOPES BY FRESHWATER CLAMd (LAKE ERIE) :
C. Kidd 24, July 1969:
72 Hour Test SOFT TOT.
(cpm /g)
(cpm /ml)
CONC.
TISSUE ACTIVITY CONC. OF ACT.
FACTOR WEIGHT TOT.ACT.
CONC. OF CONC.
ISOTOPE SAMPLE WET IN SOFT ACTIVITY CONC.
IN OF IN ACTIVITY FACTOR WEIGHT TISSUE IN SOFT IN SOFT SHELL SHELT.
IN SHELL IN (cpm)
TISSUE WATER TISSUE (cpm)
(cpm /q)
SHELL 8
32.1 387 12.1 0.61 30.5 533 17.5 0.88 85 9
28.1 309 11.0 0.55 7.20 501 69.5 3.56 19*9 10 32.7 139 4.25 0.21 8.30 444 53.4 2.68 13 87.9 688 7.83 0.39 61.9 878 14.2 0.71 8
32.1 536 16.7 2.42 30.5 2011 65.9 9.55 137 9
28.1 1095 39.0 5.65 7.20 1774 246 35.7 s
6.90 10 32.7 1675 5.18 0.75 8.30 1164 140 20.2 13 87.9 1428 16.2 2.34 61.9 2441 39.4 5.7 8
32.1 209 6.51 1.97 30.5 304 9.96 3.02 54 9
28.1 90.0 3.20 0.97 7.20 377 52.4 15.9 Mn 0
f' 10 32.7 0
0 0
8.30 420 506 153
?
13 87.9 17.0 0.19 0.06 61.9 542 8.75 2.65 5
N 8
32.1 151 4.70 1.45 305 209 6.85 2.12 Z"65 9
28.1 0
0 0
7.20 332 44.7 13.8 3.23 10 32.7 2.00 0.06 0.02 8.30 288 34.6 10.7 13 87.9 30.0 0.34 0.11 61.9 433 6.99 2.16 I
CDm 10 CD
D-B RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF C. Kidd SEDIMENT SAMPLES July 24, 1969 SAMPLE SAMPLE WET WEIGHT GROSS /
Cs NO.
STATION OF SOIL DEPTH ACTIVITY ACTIVITY SAMPLE (g) cpm /g pCi/g cpm /g PCi/g 1
LPP-15 239.3 7m 1.68 21.2 0.33 3.25 2
FP-9 352.1 0.68 8.57 0.07 0.69 3
FP-6 316.7 0.65 8.19 0.07 0.69 4
FP-4 432.2 0.75 9.45 0.09 0.89 5
FP-10 574.4 0.62 7.31 0.09 0.89 6
FP-8 213.5 1.91 24.1 0.43 0.42 7
FP-1 229.5 1.15 14.5 0.18 1.77 8
FP-7 131.8 1.57 19.8 0.17 1.68 9
FP-12 394.8 0.97 12.2 0.18 1.77 10 FP-3 238.8 1.79 22.6 0.40 3.94 11 FP-2 209.4 1.43 18.0 0.25 2.47 s
12 FP-5 205.1 1.10 13.9 0.15 1.48 13 FP-11 345.8 1.26 15.9 0.29 2.86 14 LPP-13 208.0 2m 1.09 13.7 0.19 1.87 15 LPP-10 136.5 3m 1.75 22.0 0.30 2.96 16 LPP-1 164.9 5.5 m 1.46 18.4 0.14 1.38 17 LPP-6 222.3 1.5 m 1.11 14.0 0.09 0.89 18 LPP-4 175.8
,5.5 m 1.44 18.1 0.18 1.77 19 LPP-7 142.2 5.m 0.54 6.80 0.14 1.38 20 LPP-9 139.2 1.5 m 0.83 10.5 0.15 1.48 21 LPP-2 181.5 5m 1.55 19.5 0.19 1.87 22 LPP-3 157.5 1.5 m 1.29 16.3 0.12 1.18 M
0327 Amendment No. 5 2D-lh2
J-B
$,,n REPORT OF RADIOASSAY OF FIrr.n SAMPLES t
SUBMITTED BY, CHARLES C. KIDD 0328
(..
3 Amendmen, No 5
~
D-B 4
l
.16.1 pCi O, '
AVE. LPP - STATION:
GROSS / - ACTIVITY
=
9 s',
l37 1.80 pCi/g Cs ACTIVITY
=
14.6 pCi/g AVE. FP - STATION:
GROSS / - ACTIVITY
=
1.96 pCi/g Cs ACTIVITY
=
]}
0339 v
Amendment No. 5 2D-1kh
D-B I
INTRODUCTION:
Radioassay of macrobenthos samples collected in July, 1968 during an environmental survey of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of The Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant indicated that levels of gross beta and gamma radioactivity in Pontoporeia affinis might possibly reflect the influence of radionuclides released in the waste from the plant.
However, the samples taken at that time did not contain many amphipods.
Moreover, there were insufficient sampling locations to discern any pattern or trend in levels of radioactivity.
On October 18, 1968 the writer returned to the area and working off The Great Lakes Research Division's ship "The Mysis", obtained more benthos samples from nine sampling points (see figures #1 and #2) in the vicinity of The Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant.
The obj ective of the study described in this report is to detect any pattern in the dis-tribution of radioactivity as results from the radioassay of the amphipods collected.
The degree to which Pontoporeia affinis responds to the low levels of radioactivity encountered in the study area is reflective of their usefulness as biological indicators of environmental radioactivity.
0330
\\
2D-ll+5 Amendment No. 5
D-B METHODS AND MATNRIALS:
m J
Bottom samples were taken with a Ponar Dredge.
The dredge was lowered four times at each sampling point.
This represented a sampling area of approximately 0.25 square meters.
Sampling depth ranged from 70 feet to 300 feet.
All samples were washed free of mud and put in 1-pint Mason Jars.
A small amount of Formalin was added to preserve each sample.
In the laboratory the Pontocoreia were picked from each sample and weighed.
They were daen wet digested in nitric acid.
The neutralized residue was dried on stainless steel planchets and analysed for 200 minutes in a gamma spectrometer.
The samples were also analysed for 200 minutes in The Beckman Low-Eackground Beta Counter.
The average gamma detection efficiency for the 5 inch NaI(Tl) crystal and multichannel analyser combination is 20%
-)
over the energy range of 0.02 to 2.0 million electron volts.
This value was used to calculate the gross gamma radioactivity as indicated by the 200 minute count.
The efficiency of the low-background beta counter was 42% for gross beta counting.
Gross gamma and beta radioactivity was calculated and recorded as picocuries per gram (pCi/ gram) of amphipod (see table #1).
RESULTS:
Gross beta radioactivity in the amphipods ranged from 0.55 to 10.93 pCi/ gram.
The range of gross Jamma radioactivity in the amphipods was 4.07 to 40.20 pCi/ gram.
When gross beta and gamma activities were plotted on a scaled map of the study area the
)
0331 Amendment No. 5 2D-lh6
D-B
('
patterns of radioactivity shown in figures #1 and #2 were drawn.
CONCLUSIONS:
The patterns of both types of radioactivity reveal the influence of the nuclear power plant on levels of environmental radioactivity.
Water from an area near the discharge channel of the power plant was previously assayed and contained 54 pci per liter, gross gamma activity.
Gross gamma activity in P. affinis used in this experiment apparently exceeds the concentration in the water tested by from 76 to 745 times.
More water samples from the study area are being analysed for gross radioactivity.
The results of these tests will be compared with levels of radioactivity reported for the study area prior to plant operation.
N I
0332
(
M 1
2D-147 Amendment No. 5
D-B TABLE #1:
4,,,Th
.y RESULTS OF RADIOASSAY OF PONTOPOREIA AFFINIS FROM BENTHOS SAMPLES TAKEN IN THE VICINITY OF THE BIG ROCK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT:
SAMPLING POINT
- WET WEIGHT RADIOACTIVITY (pci/ gram)
OF SAMPLE (GRAMS)
GROSS BETA GROSS GAMMA 1
0.89 1.66 7.83 2
1.79 1.27 4.20 3
1.22 1.44 4.91 4
1.65 1.25 4.07 5
1.32 1.69 7.05 6
0.74 1.10 14.69 7
2.32 0.55 4.86 8
0.10 3.44 40.20 9
0.79 10.93 9.86
- SEE FIGURES 1 & 2 FOR LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS.
0333 Amendment No. 5 2D-lh8
[
~
f)
FIGURE *I ISO-ACTIVITY CONTOURS, GROSS GAMMA u>
RADIOACTIVITY,(pCi/gr0m)in PONTOPORIEA AFFINIS BENTHOS SAMPLING POINTS g
s"*
J t
10 20 LITTLE TRAVERSE 30
((9-MILE PT.
k LAKE MICHIGAN BIG ROCK NUCLEAR POWER u
h PLANT 2
m i
W f
i Q
t M
g M
O t
i
\\
x l-INCn'= 1. W MILES
/
lLAKECHARLEVOlX CHARLEV0lX
FIGURE *2 ISO-ACTIVITY CON TOURS, GROSS BETA R ADIOACTIVITY,(p Ci/ gram) in PONTOPORIE A AFFINIS l
BENTHOS SAMPLING POINTS-e 9
b S
S
.y/
9 9
'o 3
LITTLE TRAVERSE
?
8 BAY 9-MILE PT.
~
a
[
BIG ROCK NUCLEAR POWER E
PLANT gs l$!
8 h
Q f
I-INCH: 1 '/4 MILES X
CHARLEVOlX LAKE CWARLEVOlX
\\J
HEFERENCE A t
D-B b
.foliN C. AYERS Professor of Oceanography, Depart =cnt of Meteorology and Oceanography; Research Oceanogra*pher, Great Lakes Research
(
i Division, University of Michigan Born:
Marcellus, Michigan, October 4, 1912.
Education:
Kalamazoo College AB in Chemistry, 1934 Kansas State College MS in Zoology, 1936 Duke University PhD in Zoology, 1939 Positions Held:
Instructor in Biology, Univ. of South Carolina, 1939-*1.
Adjunct Prof. of biology, "
1941-43.
Instructor, Physics & theory of flight, U. S. Naval Flight Prep. School, 1943-44.
Research Associate, Woods llole Oceat agraphic Institution, 1944-49.
Asst. Prof. of Oceanography, Cornell University, 1949-52; Assoc. Prof.
1952-56, Assoc. Prof of Zoology, Univ. of Michigan, 1956-58; Prof., 1938-63.
l Research Director, Great Lakes Research Instituce, Univ. of Michigan, 1956-60.
t Research Oceanographer, Creat Lakes Research Division, Univ. of Michigan,
[
1960.
Prof, of Occanography, University of Michigan, 1963.
(
Scientific Societies:
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Vice President 1962-63; President 1963-64.
Chairman, comm. on Education & Recruitment 1961.
Co-chairmaa, Program Committee, 1964.
i American Association for the Advancement of Science i
Sigma Xi Honorary Society International Association for Great Lakes Research Professional Activities:
Member of Corporation, Marine Bielogical Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massa-chusetts, 1953.
f Of ficial collaborator, Marsh Ecology Research, N. Y. State Dept. of Con-servation..1958. -
General Chairman, *hird Conference on Great Lakes Research.
1959.
Consultant to Power Reactor Development Company, 1958-1961; Canadiane American Committee on Great Lakes Water'?ollution, 1959; Upper Peninsula Office, Michigan Dept. of llealth, 1959; lluron-Clinton Metropolitan Park Commission, 1960; Consumers Power Co., 1961; American Electric Power Service Corporation, 1966-; Oxford Paper Co.,
1967-68; Toleuu 'idison Co., 1968-; Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1968.
Principal Publications:
(
Relationship of habttat to oxygen consumption by certain estuarine crabs.
Ecciogy, 19: 523-527, 1938.
033G W
D-B Actinn of antifouling paints.
VI.
Effect of nontoxic pigments on tha performance of antifouling paints.
(With B. H. Ketchum)
Ind. &
Eng. Chemistry,~40, p. 2124, 1948.
The oceanography of New York Bight.
(With B. H. Ketchum and A. C. Red-
/
field.)
Pap. in Phys. Oceanog. & Meteor., 12(1) 46 pp., 1951.
The principal fouling organisms.
Chapter in Marine Foulina and Its Pre-vention.
(With H. J. Turner.)
pp. 118-164.
U. S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Md., 1952.
l 1
A method for rendering wood resistant to marine borers.
Bull. Mar. Sci.
1 Gulf & Caribbean, 3(4): 297-304, 1954.
1 Population dynamics of the marine clam, Mya arenaria.
Limnol. Oceanogr.,
i 1:26-34, 1956.
Currents and water masses of Lake Huron.
(With D. V. Anderson, D. C.
Chandler, and G. H. Lauff.)
Pub. No. 1, Great Lakes Research Institute, Univ. Michigan, 101 pp.
47 figs., 12 tables, 1956.
A dynamic height method for the determination of currents in deep lakes.
Limnol. Oceaaogr., 1:150-161, 1956.
Simplified computations for the dynamic height method of currect deter-mination in lakes.
(With R. W. Bachmann) Limnol. Oceanogr., 2:155-157, 1957.
Currents and water masses of Lake Michigan.
(With D. C. Chandler, C. H.
)
Lauff, C. F. Powers, and E. B. Henson.)
Pub. No. 3, Grcr.t Lakes J
Research Institute, Univ. Michigan, 169 pp., 52 figs., 16 tables, 1958.
The hydrography of Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts.
Limnol. Oceanogr.,
4:448-462, 1959.
Sources of hydrographic and meteorological data on the Great Lakes.
(With C. F. Powers and D. L. Jones.)
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Spec.
Sci. Rept.--Fisheries No. 314, 183 pp., 1959.
Water transport studies in the Straits of Mackinac region of Lake Huron.
(With C. F. Powers'.) Limnol. Oceanogr., 5:81-85, 1960.
The bottom sediments of the Straits of Mackinac region.
(With G. H.
Lauff, E. B. Henson, D. C. Chandler, and C. F. Powers.)
Pub. No. 6 Great Lakes Research Division, Univ. Michigan, 1961.
A portable photocell fluorometer for dilution measurements in natural
. waters.
(With V. E. Noble.)
Limnol. Oceanogr., 6:457-461, 1961.
Great Lakes waters, their circulation, and physical and chemical charc-teristics.
P. 71-88 in " Great Lakes Basin," Pub. No. 7, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C.
-s p l 0337 Amendment No. 5 2D-152
D-B Hydrology of Lakes and Souuip3.
(With James H. Zumberge.)
Section 23 (33 p.)
in Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
Ven,Te Chow, Ed.
McGraw-Hill,
{
N. Y. 1964.
The. climatology of Lake Michigan.
Univ. Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division Pub. No. 12, 1965.
73 p.
The people, the alpha and the omega.
Kalamazoo College Review 24(2):
15-17, 1967.
Studies on the environment and eutrophication of Lake Michigan.
(With D. C. Chandler, Eds.)
Univ. Michigan, Great Lakes Res. Div. Spec.
Rep. No. 30, 1967.
415 p.
Current patterns and lake slope.
(With F. R. Bellaire.)
Proc. 10th
- j Conf. on Great Lakes Res., p. 251-263, 1967.
i o
-j i
i
,I 9
i i
i i
i I
h h
C 0338 t
6 w