Text

1985 Annual Environ Rept,Nonradiological,Duquesne Light Co, Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 & 2
	ML20141H883
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Carey J, Cody W, Shema R; DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:	Murley T; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
	NUDOCS 8604250228
	Download: ML20141H883 (146)
	v • d • e

- - -

O

)I I

I i

1985 ANNUAL ENVIROlGUDfAL REPORT NON-RADIOLOGICE l'

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNITS NO. 1&2 I

I I

nr=n88: Busier

)I a

1 I

I E 1985 AletRL ENVIBOREMENTAL REPORT NON-RADIOLOGICAL

, I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATICM UltITS NO. 1 & 2 I

I I

Prepared by:

Robert Louis Shema William R. Cody I Gary J. Kenderes David K. Waldorf Aquatic Systems Corporation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and

I J. Wayne McIntire Duquesre Light Company Shippingport, Pennsylvania I

I I

I .

I

I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... iv i L I ST O F TAB LE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM ................ 1 B. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................... 1 II.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ................................. 7 III. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ............ I1 IV. MONITORING NON-RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENTS ................... 12 A. MONITORINC CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ...................... 12 B. HERBICIDES ......................................... 12 V. AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM .............................. 13 A. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 13 B. BENTH0S ............................................ 16 Objectives .................................... 16 Methods ....................................... 16 16 I Habitats ......................................

Community Structure and Spatial Distribution .. 17 Comparison of Control and Non-Control I Stations ....................................

Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data ........................................

28 28 Summary and Conclusions ....................... 30 C. PHYTOPLANKTON ...................................... 32 Objectives .................................... 32 I Methods .......................................

Seasonal Distribution .........................

Comparison of Control and Non-Control 32 32 I Transects ...................................

Comparison of Preoperation and Operational Data ........................................

40 40 Suc: mary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 D. ZOOPLANKTON ........................................ 44 Objectives .................................... 44 I Methods .......................................

Seasonal Distribution .........................

44 44 i

I

I I TABl.E OF CONTENTS (Continued)

I Page i Comparison of Control and Non-Control 51 Transects ...................................

Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data ........................................ 55 I Summary and Conclusions ....................... 58 E. FISH ............................................... 59 I Objectives .................................... 59 Methods ....................................... 59 I

Results ....................................... 61 Comparison of Control and Non-Control Transects ................................... 67 Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data ........................................ 70 I Summary and Conclusions ....................... 70 F. ICHTHYOPLANKTON .................................... 72 I Objectives ....................................

Methods .......................................

72 72 Results ....................................... 72 Comparison of Preoperational and Operational i Data ........................................ 76 Summary and Conclusions ....................... 76 G. FISH IMPINGEMENT ................................... 79 lbjectives .................................... 79 M*thods ....................................... 79 Re mits ....................................... 79 I Comparison of Impinged and River Fish ......... 84 Comparison of Operating and Non-Oper. ting g Intake Bay Collections ...................... 84 5 Summary and Conclusions ....................... 95 H. PLANKTON ENTRAINMENT ............................... 96

1. Ichthyoplankton ............................... 96 Objectives .................................... 96 Methods ....................................... 96 Results ...........................'........... 96 I Seasonal Distributfon ......................... 97 Spatial Distribution ......... ................ 97 Summary and Conclusions ....................... 97

2. Phytoplankton ................................. 102 Objectives ............... .................... 102 Methods ....................................... 102 I Comparison of Entrainment and River Samples ... 102 Summary and Conclusions ....................... 103 11 I

I

-I TABLE OF CONTEhTS (Continued)

Page

3. Zooplankton ................................... 103 Objectives .................................... 103 Methods ....................................... 103 I Comparison of Entrainment and River Samples ... 103 Sun: mary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 VI. REFERENCES APPENDIX 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION I UNITS NO. 1&2 I

I I

E I

I E

E E

I '"

I

I LIST OF FIGURES I FIGURE Page I-l VIEW OF THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, BVPS ...... 2 I-2 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, SHIPPINGPORT, PENNSYLVANIA ................ 3 I-3 OHIO RIVER DISCHARGE (FLOW cfs) AND TEMPERATURE

(*F), RECORDED AT EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO (MP 40.2)

BY THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION I COMMISSION (ORSANCO), 1985 ......................... 5 V-A-1 SAMPLING TRANSEC.S IN THE VICINITY OF THE BEAVER i VALLEY AND SHIPPINGPORT POWER STATIONS ............. 14 V-B-1 BENTH0S SAMPLING STATIONS, BVPS .................... 18 ,

i V-B-2 MEAN PERCENT COMPOSITION OF THE BENTH0S COMMUNITY IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS DURING PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL YEARS .............................. 27 V-C-1 MONTHLY PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN THE OHIO RIVER DURING PREOPERATIONAL (1974-1975) AND OPERATIONAL (1976-1985) YEARS, BVPS ... ........................ 35 I .

V-C-2 PHYTOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES FOR ENTRAISMENT SAMPLES, 1985, BVPS ................................ 36 V-D-1 MONTHLY ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN THE OHIO RIVER DURING PRECPERATIONAL (1974-1975) AND OPERATIONAL I (1976-1985) YEARS BVPS ............................ 47 V-D-2 ZOOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985, BVPS ......................................... 50 V-E-1 FISH FAMPLING STATIONS, 8VPS ....................... 60 V-F-1 ICHTHYOPLANKTON S/ MPLING STATIONS , BVPS . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 V-G-1 INTAKE STRUCTURE, BVPS ............................. 80 I

I i 1.

I

I LIST OF TABLES I TABLE Page I I-1 OHIO RIVER DISCHARGE (Flow cfs) AND TEMPERATURE

(*F) RECORDED AT EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO (MP 40.2)

BY THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION (ORSANCO), 1985 ......................... 6 Tv -A- 1 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM FAMPLING DATES, 1985

< BVPS ............................................... 15 V-B-1 SYSTEMATIC LIST OF MAC20 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL YFARS IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS .................................... 19 8 V-B-2 2 MEAN NUMBER OF MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES (Number /m ) AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF OLIGOCHAETA, CHIRONOMIDAE, MOLLUSCA AND OTHER ORGANISMS, 1985, BVPS ........... 24 i

V-B-3 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATS DENSITIES (Individuals /

I m2), MEAN OF TRIPLICATE FOR BACK CHANNEL AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MAIN CHANNEL 0HIO RIVER, MAY 15, 1985, BVPS ..................... 25 V-B-4 BEhTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATE DENSITIES (Individuals /

i m2 ), MEAN OF TRIPLICATE FOR BACK CHANNEL AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MAIN CHAh3EL OHIO RIVER, SEPTEMBER 19, 1985, BVPS ............... 26 V-B-5 MEAN DIVERSITY VALUES FOR BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN THE OHIO RIVER, 1985. BVPS ............ 29 2

V-B-6 BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATE DENSITIES (Number /m )

FOR STATION 1 (CONTROL) AND STATION 2B (NON-I CONTROL) DURING PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL YEARS, BVPS ........................................ 31 V-C-1 MONTHLY PHYTOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES (Number /ml)

AND PERCENT COMPOSITION FROM ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, i

1985, BVPS ......................................... 34 V-C-2 PHYTOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY MONTH FOR i ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985, BVPS .................... 37 V-C-3 DENSITIES (Number /ml) 0F MOST ABUNDANT PHYTOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED FROM ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 1985, BVPS ........................ 38 8

I -

I

I LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

I TABLE Page V-C-4 PHYTOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES (MEAN OF ALL SAMPLES 1973 TO 1985) NEW CLHBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, BVPS ................................... 41 V-D-1 MONTHLY ZOOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES (Number / liter)

AND PERCENT COMPOSITION FROM ENTRAIh3ENT SAMPLES, 1985, BVPS ......................................... 46 V-D-2 MEAN ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES (Number / liter) BY MONTH FROM 1973 THP0 UGH 1985, OHIO RIVER AND BVPS ........ .3 V-D-3 DENSITIES (Number / liter) 0F MOST ABUNDANT ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED FROM ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 1985, BVPS ................ 52 V-D-4 ZOOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY MONTH FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985, BVPS .................... 54 V-D-5 MEAN ZOOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY MONTH FROM 1973 THROUGH 1985 IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS ...... 56 i V-E-1 FAMILIES AND SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CLHBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970-1985, BVPS ............................................... 62 V-E-2 NLHBER OF FISH COLLECTED AT VARIOUS TRANSECTS BY GILL NET (G), ELECTROFISHING (E) AND MINNOW TRAP I (M) IN THE NEW CLHBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985, BVPS ......................................... 64 I V-E-3 NLHBER OF FISH COLLECTED PER MONTH BY GILL NET (G),

ELECTh0 FISHING (E). AND MINNOW TRAP (M) IN THE NEW CLHBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985 BVPS . . . . . . 65 V-E-4 NUMBER OF FISH COLLECTED BY GILL NET, ELECTROFISHING AND MINNOW TRAP AT TRANSECTS IN THE NEW CLHBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985, BVPS ................. 66 V-E-5 ELECTROFISHING CATCH MEANS (5) AT TRANSECTS IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND Pt JL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1974-1985, BVPS .................................... 68 V-E-6 GILL NET CATCH MEANS (5) AT TRANSECTS IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL THE OHIO RIVER, 1974-1985, BVPS .... 69 vi E

I I ~

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

TABLE Page V-F-1 NUMBER AND DEN 5ITY OF FISH EGGS LARVAE, JUVENILES, I AND ADULTS (Number /100 m8 ) COLLECTED WITH A 0.5 m PLANKTON NET IN THE OHIO RIVER BACK CHANNEL OF I PHILLIS ISLAND (STATION 2B) NEAR BVPS, 1985 ........ 74 ;

s l

! V-F-2 DENSITY OF ICHTHY 0 PLANKTON (Number /100 m ) j l

COLLECTED IN THE OHIO RIVER BACK CHANNEL OF PHILLIS j ISLAND (STATION 2B) NEAR BVPS, 1973-1974, 1976-1985 ............................................... 78 V-G-1 FISH COLLECTED DURING THE IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS, 1976-1985, BVPS .................................... 81 V-G-2

SUMMARY

OF FISH COLLECTED IN TMPINGEMENT SURVEYS W CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24 HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK DURING l 1985 BVPS ......................................... 83 V-G-3

SUMMARY

OF IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS PATA FOR 1985, l

BVPS ............................................... 85 l V-G-4 S17 MARY OF FISH COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS, 8 1976-1985, BVPS .................................... 87 lgg V-G-5 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ANNUAL TOTAL OF ?ISH COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AND IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND FOOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985, BVPS ................. 88 i

i V-G-6

SUMMARY

OF CRAYFISH COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMEh"r SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985, BVPS ......................................... 89 V-G-7

SUMMARY

OF Corbicula COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985 BVPS ............................................... 91 I V-G-8

SUMMARY

OF MISCELLANEOUS INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985, BVPS ........................ 93 V-H-1 NUMBER AND DENSITY OF FISH EGGS, LARVAE, JUVENILES, AND ADULTS (Number /100 mS ) COLLECTED WITH A 0.5 m 8 PLANKTON NET AT THE ENTRAINMENT RIVER TRANSECT IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS, 1985 .................. 98 8

I -1 8

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I. INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of the non-radiological environmental data collected by Duquesne Light Company (DLCo) during calendar year 1985, for the Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit 1, Operating License No. DPR-I 66. This study was initiated in the interest of providing a non-disruptive data base between the start up of BVPS Unit 1 and that of Unit I 2. This is pri:narily an optional program, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on February 26, 1980, granted DLCo's request to delete all of the aquatic monitoring program, with the exception of fish impingement (Amendment No. 25), from the Environmental Technical Specifi-cations (ETS), and in 1983, dropped the fish impingement studies from the ETS program of required sampling along with non-radiological water qual-ity requirements.

A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAll The objectives of the 1985 environmental program were:

(1) to assess the possible environmental impact of plant operation (including impingement and entrainment) on the plankton, benthos, fish and ichthyoplankton communities in the Ohio River, and i

(2) to provide a long and short range sampling program for establishing a continuing data base.

B. SITE DESCRIPTION BVPS is located on the south bank of the Ohio River in the Borough of Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, on a 501 acre tract of land.

The Shippingport Station shares the cite with BVPS. Figure I-l shows a I view of both stations. The site is approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) from Midland, Pennsylvania; 5 miles (8 km) from East Liverpool, Ohio; and 25 miles (40 km) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Figure I-2 shows the site location in relation to the principal population centers. Population density in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively low. The I

1 I

h"- -- _

LI DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT pmjg; =- t,, q- :

-aE y4g- -

- }g.i , j.s

.. q 9' :2- - : .

. . % , y;

, . e S, j' .% -

7

$pf4 hef,+%p\"'y),'i,.9)t'/

.h .

E */

[X35=i.

.. S!

{ ..

h'; 'j'

[g s s f. . o

,$g, t

a b pa- ?. y.3f t, -

I l

is g y, - a:

. . , m 9 g .

s.-. ..-

//)gl)

((Y, -' t, *Ii .

'. f ()

~

g' .

, rndt; ** ,

- l s, 1,

~ U W.

I f ] ..;

I >. . 4 jm 1

Lp%. i.

o.- g >g i %. .;' f f *E) <

\

g l"

l . .j .gI , ., /

s

+ , ; v 3.. .. 1> m m 's.. -

i !v k' . . ; ll - w

l 1 ,k Y

1

.4 8 3c',A 'f F

g (,.

n

. st ,

+

a c

e}

R 3, g, 't S

[ $f3y.h.; "Y (

a.wsr

[ -

l Tu '

,lf <

i', ../

!t

. & h. . ' -

A nw. .

="

-I 2

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 7.it.'.".:

[

l

-E

% 15 - 1 e Cs Q_ -

ej.L ..-. , ~jc ..

' * " h

_s ,.

.-e a + #

/

a y*/\

I seavsa vanaw $ -

w .s.ivano. 'y

. ~

. id.0L / ,"""{. --/ ...\

I j 4 w aeam G //

b_

/ . _ ,

cm y' c'/

E

, N) .: -

\ \ J s

k 1 I

g y.

f /g /f-I Wtjkh '

/

BL AVt R V A L LIV

/

PLM1R 5l Allo #J

'll$11 l'1 I ,N l I \ g\u . ._._./

~

\ '.

s f x Q,- . . b- b 4.

t 6~ c. . .nei I FIGURE I-2 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, SHIPPINGPORT, PENNSYLVANIA BVPS I 3

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRO!EENTAL REPORT I

population within a 5 mile (8 km) radius of the plant is approximately 18,000 and the only area of concentrated population is the Borough of Midland, Pennsylvania, which has a population of approximately 4,300.

I The site lies along the Ohio River in a valley which has a gradual slope extending from the river (elevation 665 ft. (203 m) above sea level) to an elevation of 1,160 f t. (354 m) along a ridge south of BVPS. Plant entrance elevation at the station is approximately 735 f t. (224 m) above sea level.

The station is situated on the Ohio River at river mile 34.8, at. a loca-tion on the New Cumberland Pool that is 3.3 river miles (5.3 km) down-stream from Montgomery Lock and Dam and 19.4 miles (31.2 km) up-stream I from New Cumberland Lock and Dam. The Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia border is 5.2 river miles (8.4 km) downstream from the site. The river flow is regulated by a series of dams and reservoirs on the Beaver, Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio Rivers and their tributaties. Flow gen-erally varies from 5,000 to 100,000 cubic feet per second (cf s) . The range of flows in 1985 is shown on Figure I-3 as well as Table I-1.

0 to 82 0 Ohio River water temperatures generally vary from 32 (0 to 28 0 C). Minimum and maximum temperatures generally occur in January and July / August, respectively. During 1985, minimum temperatures were observed in January and maximum temperatures in August (see Figures I-3 and Table I-1).

I BVPS Unit I has a thermal rating of 2,660 megawatts (Mw) and an electri-cal rating of 835 Mw. The circulating water system is a closed cycle system using a cooling tower to minimize heat released to the Ohio I River. Commercial operation of BVPS Unit 1 began in 1976.

I I

I 4 I .

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

MAXIMUM DAILY 200 ~-

MONTHLY AVERAGE MINIMUM DAILY 150 - 1 fx

\

l l -

~ - I

\

l' I I "o l \

~

l E

100 -

I I

\

I e

' l E I I I ~

J

- /

t g

\ / \ l f

L 50 - , ( / g f

\

L.' " /

)

I 0 J l FlM iA IM iJ lJ lAI5iO i NI DI

,N,#

E 80 - ,s"~

I

,/' , / *\ \

, \

70 - ' ./ s

. \

,/ . \

~

60 -

/

\

g

/

N I

's 3 -

\

/

$ \

I

\

@ 50 - f CL /

b -

N I

- N/

I 40 - V .

./*

JIF lMlA lM l J IJ l Als10l Ni Dl MONTH FIGURE I-3 OHIO RIVER DISCHARGE (FLOW cfs) AND TEMPERATURE (OF)

RECORDED AT EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO (MP 40.2) BY THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION (ORSANCO), 1985 g swS 5

N N U E E E E E E M M M M M TABLE I-l OHIO RIVER DISCHARGE (Flow cfs) AND TEMPERA 7URE (OF) RECORDED AT EAST LIVERiOOL, OHIO (MP 40.2) BY '[HE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION (ORSANCO) 1985 A3 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr M Jun Jul Flow (cfs x 103)

Max. Daily Value 73,5 177.0 165.3 155.3 44.2 39.7 63.7 17.2 12.7 25.0 127.5 141.3 Monthly Average 37.4 61.0 82.8 58.8 21.8 22.7 25.2 10.1 8.3 10.9 64.2 58.7 #@

O Min. Daily Value 15.3 8.2 44.5 14.7 12.7 11.3 9.0 6.7 0.8 5.7 7.2 6.4 gg h

Se ss m

Temperature (OF) $

Max. Daily Average 45.1 39.1 58.9 68.0 70.5 74.7 78.1 80.1 79.2 69.7 59.5 47.8 Monthly Average 37.6 35.2 44.1 59.8 67.5 70.6 76.0 78.5 74.4 64.4 51.6 38.1 r>

E Min. Daily Average 32.7 34.1 39.4 49.9 64.1 67.6 73.6 76.3 70.1 59.2 46.5 31.6 g N

i

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I II. SUPEARY AND CONCLUSIO!?S I

The 1985 BVPS Unit 1 non-radiological environmental monitoring program included surveillance and field sampling of Ohio River aquatic life.

This is the tenth year of operational monitoring and, as in the previous operational monitoring years, no evidence of adverse environmental impact to the aquatic life in the Ohio River or vegetation near BVPS was observed.

The aquatic environmental monitoring program included studies of I benthos, fish, ichthyoplankton, impingement and plankton entrainment.

Sampling was conducted for benthos and fish upstream and downstream of the plant during 1985 to assess potential impacts of BVPS dischargea.

These data were also compared to preeperational and other operational data to assess long term trends. Impingement and entrainment data were examined to determine the impact of withdrawing river water for in-plant use. The following paragraphs summarize these findings.

Benthos. Substrate was probably the most important factor controlling I the distribution and abundance of the benthic macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River near BVPS. Soft muck-type substrates along the shoreline were conducive to worm and midge proliferation, while limiting macroinverte-brates which require a more stable bottom. At the shorelina stations, Oligochaeta accounted for 86% of the macrobenthos collected, while Mollusca and Chironomidae each accounted for about 10% and 3% respec-tively. Corbicula were present in the 1981 through 1985 benthic surveys.

I An Appendix to this report contains the results of a Corbicula monitoring program conducted inplant and in the Ohio River System.

Community structure has changed little since preoperational years and there was no evidence that BVPS operations were affecting the benthic community of the Ohio River.

I Phytoplankton. The phytoplankton community of the Ohio River near BVPS exhibited a seasonal pattern similar to that observed in previous years.

I This pattern is common to temperate, lotic environments. Total cell I 7 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRO MENTAL REPORT I densities were within the range observed during previous years. Diver-sity indices of phytoplankton were as high or higher than those previ-ously observed near BVPS.

I Zooplankton. Zooplankton densities throughout 1985 were typical of a temperate zooplankton community found in large river habitats. Total densities were within the range of those reported in previous years.

Populations during late spring and summer of 1985 maintained high densi-ties except in July with the peak annual maximum occurring in August.

Protozoans and rotifers were always predominant. Common and abundant I taxa in 1985 were similar to those reported during preoperational and other operational years. Shannon-Weiner diversity, number of species and evenness were within the ranges of preceding years. Based on the data collected during the ten operating years (1976 through 1985) and the three preoperating years (1973 through 1975) , it is concluded that the overall abundance and species composition of the zonplankton in the Ohio River near BVPS has remained stable and possibly improved slightly over the thirteen year period from 1973 to 1985. No evidence of appreciable harm to the river zooplankton from BVPS Unit 1 operation was found. The I

data indicate that increased turbidity and current from high water condi-tions have the strongest effects of delaying the population peaks and temporarily decreasing total zooplankton densities in the Ohio River near BVPS.

Fish. The fish community of the Ohio River in the vicinity of BVPS has been sampled from 1970 to present, using several types of gears electro-fishing, gill netting, and periodically minnow traps and seines. The I results of these fish surveys show normal community structure based on species composition and relative abundance. In all the surveys since 1970, forage species (minnows and shiners) were collected in the highest numbers. This indicates a normal fish community, since sport species and predators rely heavily on this forage base for their survival. Varia-tions in total annual catch are attributable primarily to fluctuations in the population size of the small species. Small species with high reproductive potentials frequently respond to changes in natural environ-I 8 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I mental factors (competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) with large changes in population size. These fluctuations are naturally occurring and take place in the vicinity of BVPS.

I Although variation in total catches has occurred, species composition has remained fairly stable. Since the initiation of studies in 1970, forage fish of the family Cyprinidae have dominated the catches. Emerald shiners, gizzard shad, sand shiners and bluntnose minnows have consis-tently been among the most numerous fish, although the latter two species may have declined in recent years. Carp, channel catfish, smallmouth and I spotted bass, yellow perch, and walleye have all remained common species.

Since 1978, sauger has become a common sport species to this area.

Differences in the 1985 electrofishing and gill net catches, between the Control and Non-Control Transects were similar to previous years (both operational and pre-operational) and were probably caused by habitat preferences of individual species. This habitat preference is probably the most influential factor that affects where the different species of fish are collected and in what relative abundance.

I Data collected from 1970 through 1985 indicate that fish in the vicinity of the power plant have not been adversely affected by BVPS operation.

Ichthyoplankton. Gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and cyprinids dominated the 1985 ichthyoplankton catch from the back channel of Phillis Island.

Peak densities occurred in July and consisted mostly of the early to late larval stages. Little or no spawning was noted in April and May. No substantial differences were observed in species composition or spawning I

activity of most species over previous years.

Fish Impingement. The result of the 1985 impingement surveys indicate that withdrawal of river water at the BVPS intake for cooling purposes has little or no effect on the fish populations. One hundred and sixty-four (164) fishes were collected, which is the third fewest collected since 1.. '91 operation of BVPS in 1976. Gizzard shad were the most numerous fish, comprising 22.0% of the total annual catch. The total 9

I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT weight of all fishes collected in 1985 was 2.37 kg (5.2 lbs), Of the 164 I fishes collected, 60 (36.6%) were alive and returned via the discharge pipe to the Ohio River.

Entrainment. Entrainment studies were performed to investigate the impact on the ichthyoplankton of withdrawing river water for in-plant use. Entrainment-river transect surveys for ichthyoplankton were con-I ducted to ascertain any changes in spawning activity occurring in the Ohio River adjacent to the BVPS intake. As in previous years, ichthyo-plankton were most abundant in June and July; collections were dominated by cyprinid (minnows and carps) and gizzard shad which together comprised 90.9% of all eggs, larvae and juveniles collected. Assuming actual entrainment rates were similar to those found in 1976 through 1979, river abundance of ichthyoplankton indicate no substantial entrainment losses should have occurred in 1985 due to the operation of BVPS. Assessment of monthly phytoplankton and zooplankton data of past years indicated that under worst-case conditions of minimum low river flow (5,000 cfs), about I 1.25% of the phytoplankton and zooplankton passing the intake would be withdrawn by the BVPS circulating water system. This is considered to be a negligible loss of phytoplankton and zooplankton relative to river population.

I I

I 10 I

^

l DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIROtMENTAL REPORT !

I III. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE In accordance with BVPS Unit 1 ETS, Appendix B to Operating License No.

1 l

DPR-66, significant environmental change analyses were required on benthos, phytoplankton, and zooplankton data. However, on February 26, 1980, the NRC granted DLCo a request to delete all the aquatic monitoring program, with the exception of fish impingement, from the ETS (Amendment No. 25, License No. DPR-66). In 1983, the NRC deleted the requirement I for additional impingement studies. However, in the interest of provid-ing a non-disruptive data base between the start-up of BVPS Unit 1 and that of Unit 2, DLCo is continuing the Aquatic Monitoring Studies.

I I

I I 11

e I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I IV. MONITORING NON-RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENTS I A. MONITORING CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS The Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) that were developed and included as part of the licensing agreement for the BVPS, required that certain non-radiological chemicals and the temperature of the discharges be monitored and if limits were exceeded they had to be reported to the NRC. During 1983, the NRC (Amendment No. 64) deleted these water quality requirements. The basis for this deletion is that the reporting require-ments would be administered under the NPDES permit. However, the NRC requested that if any NPDES permit requirements were exceeded, that a copy of the violation be forwarded to the Director, of the Office of I Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

B. HERBICIDES Monitoring and reporting of herbicide used for weed control during 1985, is no longer required as stated in Amendment No. 64; thus, this informa-tion is not included in this report.

I I

I 1 1,2

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I V. AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRI.M I A. INTRODUCTION -

The environmental study area established to assess potential impacts consisted of three sampling transects (Figure V-A-1). Transect 1 is located at river mile (RM 34.5) approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) upstream of BVPS and is the Control Transect. Transect 2 is located appro::imately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) downstream of the BVPS discharge structure. Transect 2 is divided by Phillis Island; the main channel is designated Transect 2A and the back channel Transect 2B. Trancect 2B is the principal Non-Control Transect because the majority of aqueous discharges from BVPS I

Unit 1 are released to the back channel. Transect 3 is located approxi-mately 2 mi (3.2 km) downstream of BVPS.

Sampling dates for each of the program elements are presented in Table V-A-1.

I The following sections of this report present a summary of findings for I each of the program elements.

I I

g n

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

' " O / ggw ,J N .h 34ai ...e

( ,.";1.:

' - l. i 'l I'.zA.

s- -

QY *12,$w;lDL. ANp ,. g y M .

,y.1

( m e Eg, N 7 TRANSECT ;p3 j*%y..' 4 @:. 6t \ y; e ,,, "g g

y ypy

. :s -

) ; w, j g,-

I , --

NQ \ ,=aus. Ey Q -e e , n

. ' " " ." ' . . 't. TRANSECT I N9

=;g TRANSECT 2A cy gz up ,g ia as , U o -<

tEGEND e e 04 BE AVER VALLEY DISCHARGE f; ca 02 SMlPPtNGPORT DISCHARGE 03 INDUSTRI AL DISCHARGE F! *=*** 1 g

e AtD TO NAVIGAllON . DEAVER

TR Ansui$sioN uwE TRANSECT 2B gPP_IN,Gg,R y LEY ,,,,,,,,

STATION FIGURE V-A-1 SAMPLING TRANSECTS IN 'IEE VICINITY OF THE BEAVER VALLEY AND SHIPPINGPORT POWER STATIONS BVPS

m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V-A-1

! AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING DATES 1985 BVPS Month Benthos Fish Impingement Ichthyoplankton Phyto- and Zooplankton i

. January 4, 11, 18 11 -

! February 15, 22 15 20 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 15 28

March c: g S

April 5, 12, 19, 26 18 19 mM de 15 14, 15 3, 10, 17, 24, 31 14 17 May Q$

4 e

' 7, 14, 21, 28 10 14 June i

July 11, 12 5, 12, 19 al 12 $h l g4 j August 9, 16, 23, 30 16 g

o d

September 19 18, 19 6, 13, 20, 27 13 I

I October 4, 11, 18, 25 18 i

l November 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 15 December 23, 24 6, 13, 20, 27 15 f

i

~

q DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY l 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l

B. BENTHOS Objectives To characterize the benthos of the Ohio River near BVPS and to determine the impacts, if any, of BVPS operations.

I Methods Benthic surveys were performed in May and September, 1985. Denthos I samples were collected at Transects 1, 2A, 2B an 3 (Figure V-B-1), using a Ponar grab sampler. Duplicate samples were taken off the south shore at Transects 1, 2A and 3. Sampling at Transect 2B, in the back channel of Phillis Island, consisted of a single ponar grab at the south, middle and north side of the channel.

I Each grab was washed within a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and the remains placed in a bottle and preserved with 104 formalin. In the laboratory, macroinvertebrates were sorted from each sample, identified to the lowest 2

possible taxon and counted. Mean densities (numbers /m ) for each taxon were calculated for each of two replicates and three back channel samples. Three species diversity indices were calculated: Shannon-Weiner, evenness indices (Pielou 1969), and the number of species (taxa).

I Habitats Substrate type was an important factor in determining the composition of I the benthic community.

River near BVPS.

Two distinct benthic habitats exist in the Ohio These habitats were the result of damming, channeliza-tion, and river traffic. Shoreline habitats were generally sof t muck substrates composed of sand, silt and detritus. An exception occurs along the north shoreline of Phillis Island at Transect 2A where clay and sand predominate. The other distinct habitat, hard substrate, is located I at midriver. The hard substrate may have been initially caused by channelization and scoured by river currents and turbulence from commer-cial boat traffic.

I I -

sw

l g

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Forty-two macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 1985 moni-toring program (Table V-B-1). Species composition during 1985 was similar to that observed during previous preoperational (1973 through 1975) and operational (1976 through 1984) years. The macroinvertebrate assemblage during 1985 was composed primarily of burrowing organisms I typical of soft unconsolidated substrates. Oligochaetec (worms) and chironomid (midge) larvae were abundant (Tables V-D-2, V-B-3, and V-B-4). Common genera of oligochaetes were Limnodrilus, Nais, and Paranais.

Common genera of chironomids were Procladius, Cryptochironomus, Coelotanypus, and Chironomus. The Asiatic clam (Corbicula), which was collected from 1974 through 1978, has been collected in the 1981 through 1985 surveys. None were collected during 1979 or 1980 surveys.

No ecologically important additions of species were encountered during I 1985 nor were any threatened or endangered species collected.

Community Structure and Spatial Distribution Oligochaetes accounted for the highest percentage of the macroinverte-beates at all sampling stations in both May and September (Figure V-B-2).

I Density and species composition variations observed within the BVPS study area were due primarily to habitat differences and the tendency of certain types of macroinvertebrates (e.g., oligochaetes) to cluster.

Overall, abundance and species composition throughout the study area were similar.

I In general, the density of macroinvertebrates during 1985 was lowest at I Transect 2A and higher at Transects 1, 2B, and 3 where substrates near the shore were composed of soft mud or various combinations of sand and silt. The lower abundance at Transect 2A was probably related to sub-I. strate conditions (clay and sand) along the north shore of Phillis Island.

I I

I .

17

m m m m m m m m m m m m m M m m W t

"~'

e -

p -

7.,

w C~ ,,,,

[5, * [Lf- i Yb

-y was >

{?^ 3 E Y ..,2W

w. DI A N. L.;;,44 i

C oC A h ' ... * ' ' \-

g h

'~

N Y 4y,7 H J _j.} u ,3 *w e*-a- 92

s m

_ -l ;b;. e g ,--.

m

, Q'%,fWyj ,

yy y ,. , yy o .. .. .-

. .e m 2 T

o -4 4

mm ss .

n E -,- 0'. N

-4 e*

IEGEND .SMllDL1

./!12A

i os eE AVER V ALLEY DISCHARGE -

kN es g' A sal.4PLING STATION l 02 SHIPPtNGPORT OlSCH ARGE *[ y , ig 1-3 STATION NUMBER D3 INDsJSTRIAL DISCHARGE 28 l e AID TO NAVIGATION I BEAVER

T R ANSWISSION LINE L V "'""

O ER ST 10N gR STATION 1

FIGURE V-B-1 1

BENTHOS SAMPLING STATIONS BVPS

M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE F B-1 SYSTENATIC LIST OF MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL YEARS IN TIIE 01110 RIVER !! EAR BVPS Ptecperational Operational 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1965 Pc.ritera Spongilla fragilis X Cnidaria Hydrozca Clavidae Cordylophora lacustris X X X X ltydridae .

Craspedacusta sowerbyl X liydra sp. X X X X X X X g oo Platyhelminthes u Tricladida X X X X X pe Rhabdocoela X X X gj cc Nemertea X X X X X X :8 M hematoda X X X X X X X X X X X X "$

mm

] Entoprocta $ r*

Urnatella gracilis X X X X X X X X X X X X X gg o :I:

l Ectoprceta yH Federicella sp. X X X mn ZO Faludicella articulata X X Fectinatella sp. X $k Plumatella sp. I t* P W

Annelida M .

Oligxhaeta o Aeolosomatidae X X X X W X X X X X X X X d

Enchytraeidae X X Naididae Amphichaeta leydigli X Amphichaeta sp. X X Arcteonais lomond! X X X Aulcphorus sp. X X Chaetogaster diaphanus X X X X X X C. diastrorhus i X X k ro digitata X X X G ivea X X k ro sp. X X X X X X X X X X E barbata X X Gre t sche ri I X X X X X N. cresun t s x X X X

[.elineuis I 1

M M M M M M M M TABLE V-B-1 (Continued)

Preopergtional Operational 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1918 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19R4 1985 N. variabilis X X Rats sp. X X X X X X X X X X X X UiJiToonaie serpentina X X X Paranais frici X X X X X X X X X X X X Paranais sp. X Pristina osborni X I X P. sina X X X X Tristina sp. X Slavina appendiculata X 5tephensoniana trivardrana X X X X X X 5tylaria lacustris X X X X Uncinais uncinata X Vejdovskyella intermedia X X G to Tubificidae Aulodrilus limnobius I X X X X X X X X X

A. frueti X X X X X X X X X X X gCC I. p ur seta X X X X X X X X yc k rthrioneurum veldovekyanum X X X X X X cg Branchiura sowerbyi X X X X X X X X X X X k ,,

g Ilyndrilus templetoni X X X X X X X X X X X Z Limnodrilus cervix X X X X X X X X X X X MM

$ L. cervix (variant) X X X X X X X X X k ta E. claparedetanus X X X X X X X X X X X yy E. hotimeisteri I X X X X X X X X X X X X o :2:

E. spiralis X X X yd E. udekemianus X X X X X X X X X X X X X en n Etanodrilus sp. X %C Feloscoles multisetosus longidentus X X X X >k t* >

P. m. multisetosus X X X X X X X X X X X X Potamothrix moldaviensis I X X xk P. vejdo skyi I X X y Psanssorvet ides currisetosus X o Tutifex tubifex X X X X X X y thidentified inunature forms:

with hair chaetae X X X X X X X X X X X X X without hair chaetse X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1.tztriculidae X X Hirudinea Clossiphentidae Helot,della elongata I X Helctdella stagnalis X Eclodtella sp. X Erpot.dellidae Erpobdella sp. I h reobdella microstoma X X

m m M M M M M M -

M M M M M M TABLE V-B-1 (Continued)

Preoverational Operational 1973 1974 1975 1976 1971 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1964 1965 Arthropoda Acarina X X X X X Ostracoda X X X Amphipoda Talitridae W allela azteca X X C - ridae Cransonn pseudogracilis X Craneonn sp. X Cour.arus fasciatus X X X Cananerus sp. X X X X X X X X X X X Decapoda X Collemt, olla X -

Ephemeroptera $

on Heptageniidae X X Stenacron sp. X X ye Stenonema sp. X z c:

Ephemeridae $$

> rn Hexarenta sp. $'t X F$

Caenidae Caents sp. X X M tn

$ 1ricorythodes sp. X $g Eptemeridae MM Ephetera sp.

hegleptera X $$

%H Statis sp.

Odenata I %n 2: O Ccephidae p$

Dromogosphus spoliatus X t-* g Drosegamphus sp. X ,g Geephus sp. X X X X m Trichoptera @

Psychceyidae :c Polycentropus sp. I H Hydropsychidae I Cheumatopsyche sp. X X Hvdropsyche sp. X Hycreptilidae Rydreptila sp. X Oxverhira sp. I laptoceridae Decetis sp. X X X X X Coleoptera X Hydrophilidae X Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus I Lubtraphia sp. X X X Eclichus sp. X

[

n l

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E TABLE V-B-1 (Continued)

Preoperational Operational 1971 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1933 1984 1985 g enelmis sp. X X X Psvphenidae Diptera l'ridentified Diptera X X X X X X X X Psychodidae X Pericosa sp. I Faychoda sp. X Telmaroscopus sp. X L'nidentifled Psychodidae pupae I Chaoboridae Gaoborus sp. X X X X X X X Simulidae Similita sp. I g Otronocidae cn Chironominae X X u Otronominae pupa X X X X y ty Otronomus sp. X X X X X X X X X X X Zc Cladopelma sp.

X X

X

>M Cryptochirecomus sp. X X X X X X X X X X Dicrotendipes nervosus X X X X X F$

MM Eicrotendipes sp.

[ Clvptorer.dtpes sp. X X X $p Harnischia sp. X X X X X X X X X X MM Micropsectra sp. X $$

Microtendipes sp. X X

gH Parachironorus sp. X n Polypedilum (s.s.) convictum type X o P. (s.s.) simulans type Folvpeatita sp. X X X

X X X X X e>

Theotanytarsus sp. X X X X X X X z$

M 5:enochironemus sp. X X X X 5tictochironomus sp. X X

m Tanytarsus sp. X X X X d

Xenochirenomus sp. X Tanypodinae TanyTodinae pimae X Ablabesavia sp. X X X X Coeletanvpus scapularis X X X X X X X X X Procladius (Procladius) X X X Frocladius sp. X X X X X X X X X X X X X l Thiener.annimyia group X X X X X l Zavrelicyta sp. X

! Orthocladiinae X i Orthocladiinae pupae I

! Cricotopus ticinctus X

! C. (s.s.) trifascia X fricotepus (Isocladius) sylvestris Croup X C. (Isocladius) sp. X 1

[

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W TABLE V-B-1 Montinued)

Preoperational Or,erational 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1960 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Cricotopus (s.s.) sp. X X X X X Eukiefferiella sp. X X X Hydrobsenus sp. X Linnephyes sp. X Nannocladius (s.s.) distinctus X X X X X Nannocladius sp. X X Orthocladius sp. X X X X X X X X X Farametriocnemus sp. X X Faraphaenocladius sp. X X Esectrocladius sp. X X Pseudorthocladius sp. X Pseudosmittia sp. X X Smittia sp. X X X X X -

Dia:ne sinae $

t.n Diamesa sp. I Potthastia sp. X pe Ceratopogonidae X X X X X X X X 7. c Dolichepodidae X X y@

Empididae X X X X X >m Wiedemannia sp. X C' y Ephydridae I mm

[^u' hiscidae X X %p Rhagionidae X sH Tipulidae I yQ Strattomy11dae I tr H Syrphidae X n Lepidoptera Pbllusca X X X gg yq Castropoda t~ g Ancylidae yg Ferrissia sp. X X X X m Planorbidae X ]

Valvatidae w Valvata perdepressa d Pelecypoda X Corbiculidae Corbicula manilensis* X X X X X X X X X X Sphaeridae X X X Pisidium sp. X X Sphaerium sp. X X X X X X X X X inidentified inmature Sphaeriidae X X X X Entonidae Anadonta grandis X Elliptio sp. I I.cidentified immature Unionidae X X X X X

iiecent literature relegated all North American Corbicula to be Corbicula fluminea.

m W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W TABLE V-B-2 2

MEAN NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (Number /m ) AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF OLIGOCHAETA, CHIRONOMIDAE, MOLLUSCA AND OnlER ORGANISMS, 1985 BVPS STATION 1 2A 2B 3 8/m 2 % f/m 2 1_ 3/m 2 g gj,2 g May 15 h w

Oligochaeta 2,256 100 60 55 703 81 1,428 99 >@

E Chironomidae 30 27 164 19 dO Mollusca $@

Others 20 18 10 1 y

% Totals 2,256 100 110 10u 867 100 1,438 100 gh September 19 1"h ca 3 Oligochaeta 778 76 374 81 460 50 1,124 90 $

Chironomidae 158 15 88 19 341 37 70 6 E Mollusca 88 9 98 11 50 4 h Others 14 2 10 1 8 Totals 1,024 100 462 100 913 100 1,254 101 ,

l

l DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-B-3 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITIES (Individuals /m2) , MEAN OF TRIPLICATE FOR BACK CHANNEL AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MAIN CHANNEL OHIO RIVER, MAY 15, 1985 I BVPS STATION Taxa 1 2A 2B 3 Nemertea 10 Entoprocta t Federicella sp. +

Annelida Oligochaeta egg + + +

Enchytraeidae 10 I Amphichaeta sp. 10 1

f Nais bretscheri 20 l Nais communis 30 l f Nais elinguis 10 Nais variabilis 10 Nais sp. 10 20 10 Paranais frici 58 39 88 I Pristina aima 10 vejdovskyella intermedia 10 t Aulodrilus limnobius Linnode11us ceevix Limnodrilus cervix (variant) 10 30 13 10 10 10 Limnodrilus claparedianus, 10 ,

i Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Limnodrilus udekemianus 443 10 33 33 295 20 l

l Peloscolex 2m multisetosus 7 l Potamothrix vejdovskyi 20 7 10 8 Imatures w/o capilliform chaeta 1,477 512 718 Imatures w/ capilliform chaeta 178 39 217 I Diptera Chironominae Chironomus sp.

10 144 Tanypodinae pupae 20 Procladius_ sp. 13 Nanocladius sp. 7 Terrestrial diptera 20 Total 2,256 110 867 1,438 E + ~s '- ~ ' - -

I I .

I DUQUESNE I,IGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I

TABLE V-B-4 BERI' HIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITIES (Individuals /m2 ), MEAN OF TRIPLICATE FOR BACK CHANNEL AND DUPLICATE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MAIN CHANNEL OHIO RIVER, SEPTEMBER 19, 1905 I BVPS STATION Taxa 1 2A 2B 3 Nemt.toda 10 Entoprocts I Urnatella gracilis Ectoprocta

+ +

Federicella sp. + + +

Annelida 8 Nais comunis 20 Nais sp. 7 Ophidonais serpentina 10 I Pristina sima Stylaria lacustris 10 13 Branchiura nowerbyi 502 20 10 Limnodrilus cervix (variant) 13 10 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 10 108 52 404 Limnodrilus udekemianus 236 7 30 Potamothrix vejdovskyi 13 i Imature w/o capilliform chaetae 10 246 309 650 Imature w/ capilliform chaetae 20 26 I

Arthropoda cammarus sp. 7 Trichoptera Oecetis sp. 7 Diptera i Chironomini pupae 7 Chironomus sp. 50 10 39 30 Cladopelma sp.

I 7

Cryptochironomus sp. 68 78 52 40 Polypedilum sp. 72 Rheotanytarnus sp. 20 7 Coelotanypus scapularis 105 8 Procladius sp. 20 52 Mollusca Corbicula_ manilensis 88 98 40 f Sphaerium sp. 10 Total 1,024 462 913 1,254

+ Indicates crganisms present.

I 26 I

8 n 0 M 5 zH Eg,*

W 2EcE m5 $m2 - =qg~ r G

W s 5

8 9

1 W q -

.* . d i.

q 4

8 9

1 3

W ga$2 g

zg" 8

9 1

S Y 2 R T W " p s4 8

9 A I 1 E N Y U f

2 ;- ,

1 9 f

8 L O S S

9 1 A CGR N NA SIE 0 OI ORY HU 8

9 T TDL S 1 A N A R ESN 9 E BPO g 7 P 9 O VI EBT A

1 S 2 I

1 1RR 8 B AE g 7 9 V

- FEP ONOS 1

P M 7 E

R NRDV OENB 7

9 U IVA 1

G TI I IRL W - ,

6 7

F S OON PIO A

9 MHI 1

OOT C A S S ER TI E I

NTP A E 5 R E O T ASDR 7

9 A E

CNE RIR EI 1 M AM E H 4 Y E P

P HO T m 7 L C N n u

9 A N OO O 1 A N E M GR L I I 3 O I

M LHL OCA "q-- 7 T 9 A 1

R W 2 E 7 P Rf"IE

- O 0 -

7 E _

W - - - - - - - - -

9 1 R P _

0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 W 1 wo<s5or 0. (

M W

li ,i l li ,' j

! l DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY W 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l Comparison of Control and Non-Control Stations No adverse impact to the benthic community was observed during 1985.

This conclusion is based on a comparison of data collected at Transect 1 (Control) and 2B (Non-Control) and on analyses of species composition and densities.

i Data indicates that oligochaetes were usually predominant throughout the l3 study area (Figure V-B-2) . Abundant taxa at Transects 1 and 2B in both l May and September were immature tubificids without capilliform chaetae !

(Tables V-B-1 and V-B-4) . In May, the oligochaetes which were common or abundant at both stations were Paranais frici and Limnodrilus 1

hoffmeisteri. In September, the oligochaetes Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, l

Limnodrilus udekemianus, and Branchiura sowerbyir midges Procladius sp., l t Coelotanypus scapularis, Cryptochironomus sp. and Chironomus sp.; and the clam Corbicula fluminea were the common organism collected at both stations.

In previous surveys, a greater variety of organisms have been found at Transect 2B than at Transect 1. This usually results in a slightly higher Shannon-Weiner diversity and evenness at Transect 2B (Table V-B-I 5). In May, 1985, a slightly greater diversity of organisms was col-lected at the control station, however, the mean nu.abe r of taxa and Shannon-Weiner indices for the back channel were within the range of i values observed for other stations in the study area. Differences observed between Transect 1 (Control) and 2D (Non-Control) and between other stations could be related to differences in habitat. None of the differences were attributed to BVPS operation.

8 Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data Composition, percent occurrence and overall abundance of macroinverte-I brates has changed little f rom preoperational years through the current study year. Oligochaetes have been the predominant macroinvertebrate in the community each year and they comprised approximately 86% of the individuals collected in 1985 (Figure V-B-2). A similar oligochaete assemblage has been reported each year. Chironomids and mollusks have I

\)

I

I DL9UESWE LIGilT COMPANY 1985 APNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

'5 1

TABLE V-B-5 MEAN DIVERSITY VALUES FOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES I COLLECTED IN THE 01110 RIVER,1985 BVPS l STATION 1 2A 2B 3 DATE: May 15 No. of Taxa 8 4 6 10 8 Shannon-Weiner Index 1.56 2.09 1.34 1.95 Evenness 0.52 0.97 0.49 0.65 i

DATE: September 19 i No. of Taxa 9 4 10 7 Shannon-Weiner Index 2.22 1.63 2.48 1.79 i Evenness 0.70 0.81 0.81 0.64

~

8 1

I I

8 i

I I

E-

.__,__:._.~._

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY j

=

1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PEPORT ,

ur composed the remaining fractions of the community each year. The poten- 5 tial nuisance clam, Corbicula, had increased in abundance from 1974 through 1976, but declined in number during 1977. Since 1981, Corbicula $

have been collected in the benthic surveys including 1985.

- ]

-8 Total macroinvertebrate densities for Transect 1 (Control) and 2B (Non-i Control) for each year since 1373 are presented in Table V-B-6. Mean ,

y densities of macroinvertebrates gradually increased from 1973 through a g 1976 (DVPS Unit 1 start-up) through 1983.

The 1985 data, although show-W ing no increase, is well within the range of pre-operational and opera-tional year data. Mean densities have frequently been higher in the back channel of Phillis Island (Non-Control) as compared to densities at Tran-k- .

sect 1 (Control). In years such as 1985 (also 1984, 1983, 1981, 1980, '

1979) when mean densities were lower at Transect 2B than at Transect 1 5 the differences were negligible. These differences could be related to ,

substrate, variability, and randomness of sample grabs. Higher total 8 densities of macroinvertebrates in the back channel (Transect 2B) as

[

compared to Transect 1 was probably due to the morphology of the river.

g Mud, silt sediments and slow current were predominant at Transect 2B 3 h creating conditions more favorable for burrowing macroinvertebrates in -

comparison to Transect 1, which has little protection from river currents 7

and turbulence caused by commercial boat traffic.

~

Summary and Conclusions -

Substrate was probably the most important factor controlling the dis- g I .

tribution and abundance of the benthic macroinvertcLeates in the Ohio River near BVPS. Soft muck-type substrates along the shoreline were conducive to worm and midge proliferation, while limiting macroinverte- j brates which require a more stable bottom. At the shoreline stations, i

1

r. Oligochaeta accounted for 86% of the macrobenthos collected, while 5

1 Mollusca and Chironomidae each accounted for about 10% and 3% respec- ,

i tively. -

E Community structure has changed little since preoperational years and =

8 there was no evidence that BVPS operations were affecting the benthic a y

, community of the Ohio River, j g e 2C i e

m a

3

TABt2 V-8-6 s

BENTHIC MACRothvERTEBRATF DENSITIES (Number /a ) FOR $7ATION 1 (Cl* DOL) AND STATION 2B (NLW{.ONTROL) ISING PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL ITARS BYFS Preoperational Years operational Years 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1987 1983 1984 1985 1 7B 1 2B 1 29 1 79 1 2B 1 2B 1 78 1 2B 1 78 1 28 1 79 1 73 1 28 January February 205 0 703 311 358 200 312 1.100 1,499 2,545 1,029 1,2%

b Harch 425 457 Oc 41:

Aprit g May 248 500 1,116 2.197 927 3,660 6 74 848 351 126 1,004 840 1,041 747 209 4% J,490 3,026 3,590 1,314 2,741 621 2,256 667 W' yh rm y June 5 40 507 686 mh July 653 119 421 410 Er xH WG AuBust 99 244 143 541 1,017 1,124 851 785 591 3,474 601 1,896 1,185 594 h mn 1,523 September 175 92 448 2,185 912 2,956 3.364 4,172 4,213 1,%1 828 1,024 913

]O October 256 239 FD WM November 149 292 318 263 75 617 388 1.295 108 931 386 1,543 . 812 806 @

O December h Mean 211 206 483 643 546 071 631 1,485 421 1,588 109 1,528 856 673 1,198 8 30 1,197 684 3,223 3,272 3,881 2,764 2,041 725 1,640 890 I

f DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT C. PHYTOPLANKTON Objectives Plankton sampling was conducted to determine the condition of the phy-toplankton cormunity of the Ohio River in the vicinity of the BVPS and to assess possible environmental impact to the phytoplankton resulting from 1 the operation of Unit 1.

Methods One entrainment sample was collected monthly. Each sample was a one-gallon sample taken from below the skimer wall from one operr. ting intake bay. This one-gallon sample was preserved with Lugol's solution and was used for the analyses of both phytoplankton and zooplankton.

t In the laboratory, a known aliquot of well-mixed sample was concentrated i by settling, the supernatant was decanted and the concentrate adjusted to a final volume. An aliquot of 0.1 m1 from the final concentrate was placed in a Palmer-Maloney cell and examined at 400X magnification. A minimum of 200 cells were identified and counted in each sample. For l each collection date, volume of the final concentrate was adjusted depending on cell density, however, the same area of the Palmer cell was I examined for all samples. A Hyrax diatom slide was also prepared monthly from each sample. This slide was examined at 1000X magnification in order to make positive indentification of the diatoms.

Densities (cells /ml), Shannon-Weiner and evenness diversity indices (Pielou 1969), and richness index (Dahlberg and Odum 1970) were calcu-lated for each monthly sample.

l8 l Seasonal Distribution Total cell densities of phytoplankton from stations on the Ohio River and I in the intake samples have been similar during the past years (Annual Environmental Reports 1976-1984). Species composition has also been similar in entrainment samples and those from the Ohio River (DLCo 1980). Therefore, samples collected from the intake bays should provido an adequate characterization of the phytoplankton community in the Ohio River.

I 32 1

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT During 1985, the January, February and March samples had the fewest phytoplankton present, with mean densities of 460 to 510 cells /ml (Table V-C-1 and Figure V-C-1) . Total mean densities increased in April and May. Densities peaked in June and October and decreased in November and December (Table V-C-1) to 608 cells /ml (Figure V-C-1).

I Diatoms (Chrysophta) , green algae (Chlorophyta) and blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) were generally the most abundant groups of the phytoplankton during 1985 (Table V-C-1 and Figure V-C-2) . The relative abundance for the group microflagellates was highest in November and December, making up 52% and 40% of the total nt:mbers observed in these months respec-tively. Ralative densities of blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) were highest E during February (33%) and August (14%) (Table V-C-1) .

Diversity indices for the phytoplankton during 1985 are presented in Table V-C-2. Shannon-Weiner indices ranged from 2.57 to 4.44, evenness values from 0.43 to 0.78, and richness values from 4.71 to 8.48. High diversity values occurred,in 11 of the 12 months. The lowest value for Shannon-Weiner Index occurred in October; however, the lowest number of species occurred in February when microflagellates and Schizothrix calcicola (blue-green) were predominant. Highest number of taxa (61)

I occurred in October.

Phytoplankton communities were generally dominated by different taxa each season. The most abundant taxa during winter (January through April) were microflagellates, Asterionella, Schizothrix calcicola and small centric / diatoms (Table V-C-3) . In May, Scenedesmus spp. (green algae) were most abundant. Small centric diatoms, which were present in all I phytoplankton samples, were the most common organisms in the summer and early fall. They included several small (4 to 12 um dia.) species. Posi-tive species identification was not possible during quantitative analysis at 400X magnification. Burn mount analysis at 1000X magnification revealed the group "small centrics" included primarily Cyclotella atomus, C. pseudostelligera, C. meneghiniana, Stephanodiscus hantzschii, and S. astraea. Small centrics and microflagellates were the most abun-dant organisms collected in November and December.

E n

i 1

I .J W M N H M M M' H M M N H H M M M M M M TABLE V-C-1 MONTIILY Pl!YTOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES (Number /ml) AND PERCENT COMPOSITION FROM ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985 BVPS Jan Feb Mar Apr May' Jun Group t/ml % I/ml % 9/ml % 9/ml % 8/ml 4 t/ml 1 Chlorophyta 105 21 29 5 68 15 88 6 10,491 74 C,956 33 g Chrysophyta 277 54 178 28 248 54 793 36 2,668 19 13,488 64 p, Cyanophyta 44 9 207 33 35 8 13 1 238 2 21 <1 v' Cryptophyta Microflagelletes 75 8 2 15 210 2 41 34 11 98 2

21 69 442 5

31 405 270 3

2 260 225 1

1 gbO e

Other Groups 1 <1 0 0 0 0 5 41 14 <1 42 <1 p Total 510 101 626 100 460 100 1,410 99 14,086 100 20,992 99 h H H v>

89 t

za Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Group f/ml 1 $/ml % t/ml 1 8/ml % 8/ml 1 8/ml 1 ," b5 G

36 18 125 80 12

E h Chlorophyta 662 33 4,561 42 3,109 3,501 8 Chrysophyta 556 27 4,154 38 4,236 49 12,960 68 501 33 236 37 Cyanophyta 41 2 1,505 14 469 5 1,796 9 66 4 53 8 h

Cryptophyta 239 12 167 2 310 4 66 <1 24 2 16 2 .H Microflagellates 510 25 405 4 495 6 720 4 780 52 255 40 Other Groups 19 <1 35 <1 45 <1 14 <1 2 (l 0 0 l i

l Total 2,027 99 10,827 100 8,664 100 19,057 99 1,498 99 640 99 j

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I e JAN-JUL 1974, AUG-0CT 1974 S IS75, NOV-DEC 1975 I

22,000- - - - - - AVERASE 1974-1984 1945 to ,000 -

I 18,030 -

16.000-I l4,000 -

t =

D=

/g

\\

2 12.000- / [

-j [ /'

I 5 I

i \\

l

& ' / g

-j i0,000 - /

I

, i o h l v' ',

l\ '

l \'

I\

I 8,000-l I t l\I

\

/

l l

\

\'

l l 6,000-l l \

l \

\ l l 's

\

4.000- \

l \

/N\

2,000- # g i \

\

l /

N' 1

l I

i

'/

0-

~* "

J 'F 'M '

A M 'J '

a' A 'S o' N 'D '

MONTH I

FIGURE V-C-1 MONTHLY PHYTOPLANK' ION DENSITIES IN THE OHIO RIVER DURING PREOPERATIONAL (1974-1975) AND I OPERATIONAL (1976-1985) YEARS BVPS 35

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I

CHLOROPHYTA CHRYSOPHYTA I e : CYANOPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA th MICROFLAGELLATES 13,500-Il s' II lI 12,000- 1I lIg li l

10,500-li\

1 I l\

,I I !

ll t

t

!t i I 9,000- 1 I I '

t l \ I\'

i e 1 ! l i 3 7,500- l l I 3 1 I

l l .

a I \

l \

5 l I I I S I

-j 6,000 - l I I i g

, l 8 I

l I t I l I~

4,500- I '

l i l l \ l \

l I i 3,0- -

}

l i I I

/ i

\

l I I s e i 1 1,500 - I *

/ k O

A_. fw e

J F M A M J J A S' 0 N 'D I MONTH ;

I I

FIGURE V-C-2 PHYTOPLANK' ION GROUP DENSITIES FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985 BVPS se I

l

W W W W M M M M W W mmmmeem TABLE V-C-2 PHYTOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY MONTil FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985 BVPS Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun No. of Species 41 38 53 39 46 52 Shannon-Weiner Index 3.80 3.31 4.44 3.00 4.24 2.95 5

Evenness 0.71 0.63 0.78 0.56 0.77 0.52 $

MC Richness 6.42 5.75 8.48 5.25 4.71 5.12 g,8

0 km Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X

.4 C

'd No. of Species 53 58 50 61 50 39 48 89 5O Shannon-Weiner Index 4.16 4.28 3.59 2.57 3.15 3.26 3.56 b8 Evenness 0.72 0.73 0.63 0.43 0.55 0.61 0.64 E g .<

Richness 6.83 6.14 5.40 6.09 6.70 5.88 6.06 6 N

TABLE V-C-3 DENSITIES (Number /ml) OF MOST ABUNDAlff PHYTOPIANKTON TAXA (Fif teen Most Abundant Ort Any Date)

C011ECTED FROM ElfrRAllMEfff SAMPLES JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 1985 BVPS Taxa Jan Feb Mar AE My Jun Jul M Sep Oct Mov Dec CYANOPHYTA Anabaena circinalis 70 Aphanisonenon flos-aquae 1 1 70 14 4 Coelosphaerium naegellanum 1,470 Lyngbya spp. 4 12 4 2 Merismopedia tenutssima 32 1,288 168 112 Microcystis aeruginosa 238 [

oscillatoria subbrevis 126 o3 7 1 W

oscillatoria tenuis oscillatoria spp. 6 3 5 2 >g Schtrothrix calcicola 32 157 30 8 238 21 36 70 14 66 50 47 @o dC CHLOROPHYTA hhz Ankistrodessus convolutus 15 1

1 1

1

13 20 405 540 1,440 98 2

41 14 28 49 28 245 49 4

25 2

@M

< t*

Ankistrodesmos falcatus

$ Chlamydomonas spp. 6 22 15 360 270 2 21 45 45 $$

chlorophyta I 22 22 8 22 540 75 540 270 180 30 g coelastrum micropirum 112 19 378 161 168 Crucigenia crucifera 91 Q Crucigenia quadrata 60 56 46 lt Dictyosphaerium pulchelium 448 1,372 588 1,080 336 65 p%

Micractinium pustitum 364 35 14 70 112 2 Pediastrum duplex 420 77 371 7 14 @"

Scenedesmus acuminatus 5 280 280 10 140 56 46 7 g Scenedessus bicellularis 15 1,575 720 180 1080 630 900 m Scenedessus dimorphus 2,905 H Scenedessus obollensis 28 112 24 21 56 122 Scenedessus quadricauda 4 1,208 168 86 273 140 287 7 20 Selenastrum minutum 8 270 765 405 90 315 Sphaerocystis schroeter11 74 140 Tetrastrum heteracanthum 140 29 28 56 Ulothrix spp. 11 Weste11a botryoides 126

TABLE V-C-3 (Continued)

Taxa Jan Feb Mar AE May, Jun Jul M Seg, Oct Nov Dec CHRYSOPHYTA Achnanthes minutissima 15 8 30 30 4 Asterionella formosa 148 9 37 176 658 112 2 Dinobryon sertularia 1 19 70 22 4 Fraq11 aria crotonensis 70 154 62 47 Gomphonema parvutu:s 1 2 11 2 2 Mallomonas tonsurata 1 Melostra ambigua 9 16 42 539 182 256 29 9 Helostra distans 15 1 15 41 63 322 182 203 133 5 Melostra granulata 54 154 12 497 42 74 14 Fa Melostra varians 4 12 17 4 14 7 14 45 32 11 $

m Navicula cryptocephala 10 34 19 11 21 7 45 7 4 11 Navicula minima 15 30 ya Navicula viridula 10 27 27 17 7 21 24 21 4 18 13 $C Nitzschia dissipata 11 2 5 1 2 4 4 5O Nitzschte holsetica Nitzschia pales 1 3 11 168 175 7

31 22 63 35 19 9

%Qsg Skeletonema potamos Surirella ovata 5 90 585 180 5

@M 4e

$ Synedra filiformis 15 10 1 16 203 154 26 54 7 180 5 yy Synura uvella 3 22 45 13 428 1,215 11,655 45 225 2,385 3,510 12,060 150 135 g

Small centries 15 CRYPTOPHYTA Cryptomonas erosa 6 2 24 270 224 29 77 175 21 9 9 :;g Rhodomonas minuta 2 8 45 135 36 210 90 135 45 15 7 gM MICROFIAGELIATES 75 210 98 442 270 225 510 405 495 720 780 255 8

Total Phytoplankton 510 625 460 l',386 14,086 20,992 2,027 10,827 8,664 19,057 1,498 640 Total of Most Abundant Taxa 479 594 398 1,350 12,114 20,173 1,902 10,147 8,096 18,315 1,395 592 Fercent Composition of Most Abundant Phytoplankton 94 95 87 97 86 96 94 94 91 96 93 92

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I Compatiern of Control and Non-Control Transects Plankton samples were not collected at any river stations af ter April 1, I 1980, due to a reduction in the scope of the aquatic sampling program, therefore, comparison of data was not possible in 1985.

Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data The seasonal succession of phytoplankton varied from year to year, but, in general, the phytoplankton taxa has remained generally consistent.

I Phytoplankton communities in running waters respond quickly to changes in water temperature, turbidity, nutrients, velocity and turbulence (Hynes 1970). The phytoplankton from the Ohio River near BVPS generally exhibited a bimodal pattern of annual abundance. During the preopera-tional year 1974, total densities peaked in August and October, while in operational years of 1976 through 1979, mean peak densities occurred in June and September (DLCo 1980) . Total phytoplankton densities also dis-played a bimodal pattern in 1985, when peaks occurred in June and October (Figure V-C-1).

I In general, the phytoplankton community in 1985 was similar to those of preoperational and operational years. No major change in species compo-sition or community structure was observed during 1985. The small dif-ferences in the phytoplankton community between 1985 and the previous years are believed to be due to natural fluctuations and were not a result of BVPS operations.

Yearly mean Shannon-Weiner diversity indices from 1973 through 1985 were similar (except during 1973 when the value was much lower) ranging from a low of 3.56 in 1985 to a maximum of 4.36 in 1975 (Table V-C-4) . Evenness values were also similar, except during 1973 and 1974 when values were lower. From 1975 through 1985, evenness ranged from 0.64 to 0.83. The maximum evenness diversity value is 1.0 and would occur when each species is represented by the same number of individuals. The mean number of taxa each year ranged from 19 in 1973 to 48 in 1984 and 1985. The highest I number of taxa (66 in July) ever observed in phytoplankton studies at BVPS occurred during the operational year 1982.

I l e

I

m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V-C-4 PHYTOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES (HEAN OF ALL SAMPLES 1973 TO 1985)

NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER BVPS Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I 1973 No. of Specieg,) 7 2 13 24 27 28 30 24 17 16 19 Shannon Index 1.55 0.54 No 0.63 1.64 2.28 3.55 3.72 No 3.37 3.25 3.27 2.38 Evenness 0.33 0.15 Sample 0.11 0.25 0.35 0.55 0.52 Sample 0.50 0.54 0.53 0.38 Richness 1.24 0.29 1.50 2.63 3.17 3.61 3.46 3.24 2.89 2.80 2.48 1974 No. of Species 12 8 17 22 44 46 47 60 34 47 34 Shannon Index 2.96 2.23 3.18 3.50 4.89 4.40 4.03 ,4.25 3.85 5.02 yo 3Wg, 3.83 Eveness 0.55 0.46 0.57 0.58 0.62 0.62 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.58 0.56 Richness 2.55 1,82 3.05 3.74 5.56 5.45 5.46 6.49 4.77 5.44 4.43 [g co 1975 LA 4'

No. of Species 52 34 43 32 40 40 > cs Shannon Index 4.53 4.22 4.37 4.22 4.48 4.36 % C:

No Sample Evenness 0.80 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.85 0.83 !!i$

Richness 5.57 3.96 4.89 3.92 6.19 4.91 y; [j z

c- 1976 [3 td No. of Species 31 35 31 38 47 49 46 43 38 33 35 38 39 Os e4 Shannon Index 3.98 4.36 3.90 4.25 4.14 4.27 4.28 4.30 3.93 4.16 4.24 4.45 4.19 g; y; Evenness 0.80 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.75 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.80 c3 oc Richness 5.15 5.89 4.92 4.70 4.68 4.79 4.72 4.34 3.85 4.17 4.95 5.79 4.83 gP "i

Mo 1977 25 C3 No. of Species 20 26 31 24 36 30 44 39 37 32 33 27 32 3)bh Shannon Index 1.96 3.31 3.00 2.78 4.16 3.52 4.36 4.26 4.29 3.92 4.12 4.00 3.64 r* g Evenness 0.44 0.70 0.61 0.60 0.80 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.73 pa .4 Richness 3.14 4.57 4.44 2.95 3.53 2.77 4.63 4.26 3.87 3.98 4.18 3.72 3.84 [y o

1978 Pd "i

No. of Species 37 29 32 42 28 42 36 37 35 37 34 32 35 Shannon Index 4.08 3.68 3.77 4.67 3.30 4.16 3.95 4.17 3.81 3.99 3.80 4.44 3.99 Evenness 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.87 0.69 0.78 0.77 0.80 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.90 0.78 Richness (b) 1979 No. of Species 18 16 19 36 34 27 34 24 29 25 28 38 27 Shannon Index 3.49 3.36 3.79 3.22 3.78 3.84 4.10 3.88 4.12 4.07 3.68 4.32 3.80 Evenness 0.84 0.82 0.88 0.62 0.74 0.81 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.77 0.83 0.81 Richness 2.97 2.64 3.36 4.69 4.08 2.98 3.46 2.72 3.26 3.52 3.57 5.19 3.54

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M "J M M M M TAI,LE V-C-4 (Continued)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct __Nov _ Dec Y 1980(c)

No. of Species 28 18 24 25 21 18 30 16 32 24 33 37 24 Shannon Index 3.88 2.64 3.78 3.82 3.28 3.26 3.61 3.45 4.10 1.54 3.73 4.56 3.57 Evenness 0.81 0.64 0.83 0.82 0.75 0.78 0.74 0.86 0.82 0.17 0.74 0.81 0.78 Richness 4.07 2.65 3.49 4.02 2.50 2.38 2.90 1.94 3.33 2.59 4.01 5.40 3.15 1981 No. of Species 22 35 37 39 34 33 33 51 35 27 40 32 35 Shannon Index 3.92 4.39 4.39 2.29 3.66 4.56 4.13 4.59 4.07 3.90 4.00 4.32 3.95 Evenness 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.43 0.72 0.90 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.86 0.79 Richness 3.91 5.84 6.10 4.58 3.69 4.61 3.73 5.76 3.85 3.56 5.00 4.55 4.60 1982 No. of Species 51 41 46 22 55 45 66 54 53 35 50 49 47 G Shannon Index 4.68 f. 80 4.96 1.88 4.79 4.33 4.72 4.54 4.22 3.97 4.09 4.66 4.30 oo 0.79 0.78 0.74 0.77 0.72 0.83 0.77 'a Evenness 0.82 0.90 0.90 0.42 0.83 0.79 Richness 7.17 6.43 6.88 2.36 6.15 4.96 6.65 5.33 5.23 3.61 5.36 6.23 5.53 go 1983 $

No. of Species 36 42 51 52 25 42 37 40 37 45 37 52 41 %y Shannon Index 4.27 4.01 4.60 4.74 3.67 4.41 4.16 4.28 3.56 3.51 4.17 4.72 4.18 25 o Evenness 0.82 0.74 0.81 0.83 0.79 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.64 0.80 0.83 0.78 g rrs N Richness 5.17 6.45 7.35 6.64 2.98 4.18 3.63 4.17 3.83 4.46 4.38 6.48 4.98 <= r 1984 55 o .c No. of Species 31 60 36 46 41 51 57 54 51 53 54 44 48 yH Shannon Index 4.02 4.89 4.30 3.06 4.37 4.48 4.34 4.03 4.38 4.00 4.59 4.10 4.21 mn Evenness 0.80 0.83 8.95 0.82 6.54 0.55 6.98 0.81 5.55 0.79 6.41 0.74 7.29 0.70 5.97 0.77 5.43 0.70 5.70 0.80 7.10 0.75 6.71 0.76 6.47 Richness 5.05 gm 1985 :xs No. of Species 41 38 53 39 46 52 $3 58 50 61 50 39 48 Q Shannon Index 3.60 3.31 4.44 3.88 4.24 2.95 4.16 4.28 3.59 2.57 3.15 3.26 3.56 o Evenness 0.71 0.63 0.78 0.56 0.77 0.52 0.72 0.73 0.63 0.43 0.55 0.61 0.64 %

Richne ss 6.42 5.75 8.48 5.25 4.71 5.12 6.83 6.14 5.40 6.09 6.70 5.88 6.06

'" Shannon-Weiner Index (b)No data I*I Data for period April 1980-December 1985 represents single entrainment samples collected monthly.

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I Summary and Conclusions

, The phytoplankton community of the Ohio River near BVPS exhibited a seasonal pattern similar to that observed in previous years. This pat-tern is common to temperate, lotic environments. Total cell densities were within 'he t range observed during previous years. Diversity indices l of phytoplankton were as high or higher than those previously observed near BVPS.

lI l

I I l I

f I

,I lI I

I I

I e

l g

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT D. ZOOPLANKTON Objectives Plankton sampling was conducted to determine the condition of the zoo-plankton comunity of the Ohio River in the vicinity of the BVPS and to I assess possible environmental impact to the zooplankton due to the opera-tion of Unit 1.

Methods The zooplankton analysis was performed on one liter aliquots taken from the preserved one-gallon samples obtained from the intake bay. (see Phytoplankton methods, in Part C above). One liter from each sample was filtered through a 35 micron (.035 m) mesh screen. The portion retained was washed into a graduated cylinder and allowed to settle for a minimum I

of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . The supernatent was withdrawn until 10 ml of concentrate remained. One ml of this thoroughly mixed concentrate was placed in an inverted microscope cell and examined at 100X magnification. All zooplankters within the cell were identified to the lowest practicable taxon and counted. Total density (individuals / liter), Shannon-Weiner and evenness diversity indices (Pielou 1969), and richness index (Dahlberg and Odum 1970) were calculated based upon one sample, which was collected I below the skimmer wall from one operating intake bay.

Seasonal Distribution The zooplankton community of a river system is typically composed of protozoans and rotifers (Hynes 1970, Winner 1975) . The zooplankton com-munity of the Ohio River near BVPS during preoperational and operational monitoring years was composed primarily of protozoans and rotifers.

I Total organism density and species composition of zooplankton from the Ohio River and entrainment samples were similar during 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979 (DLCo 1980). Samples collected from intake bays are usually representative of the zooplankton populations of the Ohio River.

During 1985, protozoans and rotifers accounted for 96% or more of all zooplankton on all sample dates (Table V-D-1) . Total organism densities during the winter and early spring (January through April) were less than I .

I !

DUQUESEJ LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I 485/ liter (Figure V-D-1, Table V-D-1). Total organism densities increased in May and June, declined in July, and peaked (10,000/ liter) in August. Zooplankton populations in the Ohio River usually exhibit a bimodal pattern. The maximum zooplankton density in the Ohio River near BVPS frequently occurs in the spring, although it is sometimes delayed until summer or early fall (Table V-D-2, Figure V-D-1) . Below average precipitation in summer provided optimum conditions for zooplankton pop-ulations to develop in August. The effect of a dry year and low river I

discharges was noted by Hynes (1970) to favor plankton populations.

The seasonal pattern of zooplankton densities observed in the Ohio River near BVPS is typical of temperate climates (Hutchinson 1967) . Zooplank-ton densities in winter are low due primarily to low water temperatures and limited food availability (Winner 1975) . In the spring, food avail-abililty and water temperatures increase, which stimulates growth and I reproduction. Zooplankton populations ciecrease during the fall and winter from the summer ~ maximum because optimum conditions for growth and reproduction decrease during this period.

Densities of protozoans during January through April of 1985 were between 230 and 455/ liter (Table V-D-1) . Protozoans increased in May and June, decreased in July and increased August through October, peaking in August (6,680/litar). Protozoans progressively decreased in November to densi-ties to 520/ liter in December. Vortice11a sp. and Strobilidium spp.

occurred fairly consistently throughout the year. The most common I protozoan during 1985 was Vorticella sp. which dominated the protozoan assemblage during eight months (Table V-D-3) . The most abundant protozoa in the other months were Difflugia and Strobilidium. These taxa have been a main part of the protozoan assemblange of the Ohio River near BVPS since the studies were initiated in 1972.

I The rotifer assemblage in 1985 (Figure V-D-2) displayed a typical pattern of rotifer populations in temperate inland waters (Hutchinson 1967).

Rotifer densities increased from a minimum of 10/ liter in April to a maximum of 3,240/11ter in May and a secondary peak in August (Table V-D-2). Rotifer populations generally decreased after August to densities of I

I

~

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W M M TABLE V-D-1 MONTIILY ZOOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES (Number / liter) AND PERCENT COMPOSITION FROM ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985 BVPS Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Group t/l 1 ff'1, t 8/l % 9/1 % t/1 % t/l 1 Protozoa 365 89 455 94 230 90 355 97 3,280 50 4,440 71 g m

Rotifera 40 10 30 6 25 10 10 3 3,240 50 1,820 29 Crustacea 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 <1 g

$m Total 410 100 485 100 255 100 365 100 6,520 100 6,280 100 g@

C mo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec gy Group t/l 1 t/l t 9/1 1 8/l 4 t/l 4 8/l 1 n o

Protozoa 1,340 70 6,680 67 1,860 40 4,080 86 670 90 520 91 @

Rotifera 580 30 2,880 29 2,740 58 660 14 70 10 40 7 h a

0 0 440 4 80 2 20 <1 0 0 10 2 8 Crustacea Total 1,920 100 10,000 100 4,680 100 4,760 100 740 100 570 100

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l

JAN-JUL 1974. AUG-0CT 1974 81975.NOV-DEC 1975

AVERAGE 1976-1984 10,000- 1986 l

I 9.000-I 8.000-7,000-I -

w 6,000 -

3 I !U 5.000-a 4 ,CCO - .

IsN

. #g 3,900 -

,/ . . ,~/. / \ *

/

\/ s .

l

~

/ \ \.

2,000- / g \

' * \

\

l ,

/ / s '\-

i ,0- -

j j s g l , ----:- '_.

}

' / -

O ' ' ' ' ' ' '

J F M A M J J 'A S O 'N 'D MONTH FIGURE V-D-1 MONTHLY ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN THE OHIO RIVER I DURING'PREOPERATIONAL (1974-1975) AND OPERATIONAL (1976-1985) YEARS BVPS 47

W W W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V-D-2 HEAN ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES (Number / liter) BY Horr11! FROM 1973 TilROUQi 1985, 011I0 RIVER AND BVPS Total Zooplankton Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul h Sep Oct Nov Dec I" 588 945 1,341 425 180 87 1973 50 - 90 154 -

1974 78 56 96 118 299 625 4,487 3,740 1,120 4,321 - -

1975 - - - - - - -

4,426 3,621 1,591 2,491 623 1976 327 311 347 10,948 2,516 5,711 3,344 3,296 3,521 518 446 577 1977 147 396 264 393 5,153 4,128 1,143 1,503 3,601 553 934 486 1978 31 30 20 35 403 1,661 1,526 800 1,003 435 297 60 1979 357 96 228 534 2,226 599 2,672 4,238 950 370 542 550 1980 320 265 389 270 530 420 3,110 490 2,020 3,820 1,030 700 1981 190 360 220 580 840 310 3,800 1,940 4,490 1,850 760 370 1982 400 320 340 880 4,650 1,020 5,630 5,170 5,520 6,410 2,300 1,030 1983 285 330 1,415 540 480 8,220 4,780 6,010 3,280 2,880 950 560 g 1984 270 290 295 290 560 1,520 610 1,380 6,700 6,080 570 390 cn 1985 410 485 255 365 6,520 6,280 1,920 10,000 4,680 4,760 740 570 v' Protozoa Nj c:

1973 -

45 -

63 82 188 56 331 -

346 135 58 >M 1974 50 42 72 91 138 409 1,690 716 1,006 4,195 - -

s. 1975 - - - - - - -

835 3,295 1,141 2,239 452 gM 03 1976 278 274 305 10, J . , 1,S8 6 1,% 3 1,676 808 425 396 492 <= t*

1977 135 365 236 312 4,509 2,048 808 947 2,529 401 825 344 HH 1978 18 14 14 27 332 1,360 407 315 256 222 227 26 $0 1979 312 64 188 380 2,052 459 340 1,620 712 609 1,180 326 454 328 yH 1980 244 250 354 190 390 370 380 3,010 760 640 mn 1981 130 310 180 510 480 230 730 1,250 4,020 1,580 550 330

$0 1982 1983 350 250 310 320 310 315 820 500 1,300 390 870 6,940 2,360 1,320 1,560 5,030 1,590 1,100 4,850 1,670 2,060 890 980 490 t~ 2l; 1984 225 280 285 260 500 1,190 530 1,210 5,000 5,300 530 360 :xs Q 1985 365 455 230 355 3,280 4,440 1,340 6,680 1,860 4,080 670 520 M o

Rotifera :ts H

1973 -

5 -

25 64 388 859 1,001 -

75 43 27 1974 26 12 22 24 155 213 2,783 2,939 115 120 - -

1975 - - - - - - -

3,339 313 444 250 164 1976 48 36 38 169 808 4,864 1,398 1,597 2,643 89 48 78 1977 12 31 26 76 631 1,984 328 539 1,022 147 108 136 1978 29 33 15 14 16 24 72 61 67 47 22 48 1979 44 33 37 151 172 135 2,255 3,482 324 42 86 220 1980 72 14 33 80 140 50 1,470 110 790 780 260 50 1981 40 50 40 70 340 80 2,800 630 470 260 210 40 1982 50 10 30 50 3,340 130 3,250 1,550 3,840 1,520 240 40 1983 30 10 1,100 40 90 1,270 3,440 880 1,930 1,190 60 70 1984 45 10 10 30 40 330 80 160 1,700 780 40 30 1985 40 30 25 10 3,240 1,820 580 2,880 2,740 660 70 40

m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABI.E V-D-2 (Continued)

Cruttacea Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul h Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 -

1 -

1 3 12 29 9 -

3 2 2 1974 2 2 3 3 6 3 14 85 7 6 - -

1975 - - - - - - - -

51 12 6 3 6 1976 2 1 5 4 10 141 43 23 69 3 2 8 1977 - -

2 5 13 96 7 17 50 5 1 6 1978 4 6 3 2 6 48 12 27 75 9 5 5 1979 1 0 3 3 2 4 78 44 17 2 2 2 1980 3 1 1 0 0 0 20 0 50 30 10 10 1981 20 0 0 0 20 0 270 60 0 10 0 0 1982 0 0 0 10 10 20 20 60 90 40 0 10 1983 5 0 0 0 0 10 20 100 250 20 0 0 1984 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1985 5 0 0 0 0 20 0 440 80 20 0 10 5 5

> ts

No sample collected, bE hh "G

s G"

5 C 8e 3a m

is

" !E 2

4 e

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANV ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I PROTOZOA ROTIFERA a a CRUSTACEA I

6pOO -

5900 -

I a:

l I f 3

4000 -

h !

I a f

z 3p00 -

I\ N.

l \ 3 I ,

l 'r,

\ /

l

\

l 2p00 -

l I

\

l g

\

\ l I

l l \

\

I I,000 -

l I

I \

\

\;l l

l \

\

g l 'v' ( k 0 ._ l . /\. -

iJ8 F8 M iA8 M i J 8 J i A 8 3 iO3 N 8 0 i MONTH FIGURE V-D-2 I ZOOPLANKTON GROUP DENSITIES FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES, 1985 BVPS I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVYRONMENTAL REPORT 40/ liter in December. Rotifers were usually the second most abundant group during 1985. Keratella cochlearis and Polyarthra dolichoptera were the most abundant rotifers during most of the year (Table V-D-3).

Crustacean densities were low (0 to 440/ liter) through 1985 (Table V-D-

1) . Most crustaceans were collected during late summer and fall (Figure V-D-2).

I Crustacean densities never exceeded protozoan or rotifer densities and constituted from 0 to 4% of the total zooplankton density each month (Table V-D-1). Copepod nauplii were the most numerous crustaceans collected during 1985. Crustacean populations did not develop high densities due to unfavorable high flow / turbidity river con-ditions through most of 1985. Crustaceans are rarely numerous in the open waters of rivers and many are eliminated by silt and turbulent water (Hynes 1970).

The highest Shannon-Weiner diversity value of 3.72 occurred in September,

) whereas the maximum number of species (32) occurred in August (Table V-D-4). Evenness ranged from 0.49 in April to 0.80 in July. Richness varied from a low of 1.44 in March to a high of 3.37 in August. The number of species ranged from 9 in March to 32 in August. Low diversity indices in February, March, April and December reflect the dominance of vorticella sp.

Comparison of Control and Non-Control Transects Zooplankton samples were not collected from stations on the Ohio River af ter April 1, 1980; therefore, comparison of Control and Non-Control Transects was not possible.

I I

I n I

M M M M M M M W M M M TABLE V-D-3 DD4SITIES (Number / liter) OF MOST ABUNDANT 200PIANKTON TAXA (Greater than 28 on any date)

COLLECTED FROM ENTitAINMDIT SAMPLES JANUARY THROUGH DECEMIER, 1985 BVPS Taxa Jan Feb Mar Agr Mig Jun Jul Aug Sgg Oct Nov Dec P RCyrOZOA Arcella sp. 15 15 100 20 50 11 Askenasta sp. 40 20 100 20 Barsaria sp. 160 320 60 Carchesium sp.

codonella cratera 30 100 320 260 640 10 >d Diffluqta acuminata 5 40 3,720 800 40 $$

40 Ln Euglypha ciliate nilophyrid ciliate 20 140 60 ty Lionotus sp. 5 10 g, es jj Naclearia simplex 280 200 80 20 23 Opercular'la sp. 35 75 5 40 y' g3 Paradileptus sp. 120 =

10 10 20 M E1 Paramecium sp. 40 15 g Phascolodon vortice11a 180 20 40 1,140 20 10 < t*

Ln Staurophrya elegans 220 hj (j

"# Strobilidium qvrans 5 15 120 40 120 240 20 10 C) 3:

Strobilidium sp. 20 5 20 60 280 40 240 100 1,160 80 10 6 "I Sactorian ciliate 20 40 80 () g Tintinnidium fluviatile 5 300 440 60 100 300 10 Tarantella sp. 1,000 400 llg8 ~6 Vortice11a sp. 240 300 170 265 1,860 2,580 220 1,000 180 360 290 390 $$

Ciliate unidentified 10 10 40 25 40 300 80 40 40 100 40 40 gj "4 m

ROTIFERA

&3 Boelloidea 5 10 Brachionus budapestinensis 240 Brachionus calyciflorus 5 200 120 160 140 40 Brachionus urceolaris Conochilus dossuarius 360 serate11a'cochlearts 15 5 1,000 1,280 360 400 880 560 10 10 P31yarthra dolichoptera 20 1,280 20 160 560 920 20 10 20 Polyarthra vulgaris 20 60 20 240 80 40 synchaeta sp. 5 5 460 200 200 Trichocerca rouss 720 160 Rotif er unidentified 10 5 5 60 100 20 40 60 30

W o5 t

ObgmM eHO LcD nEHM 8'$

ln a34 W c e

D 0

1 0

7 5

1 4

5 5

9 W v o

N 0

4 7

0 5

6 8

8 W t c

0 2

0 6

6 9

O 7, 5, 4 4 W _

g 0 2

0 8

6, 0

8 2,

1 9

4 4 W

g 0 0

2 0

0 0,

0 2

3, 3

9 M 0 1

9 l 0 0 7 u 2 6 9 J 9, 8, M 1 1 n 0 0 0 9 u 2 8 2 9 M J 2, 6

2, 6

)

0 0 9 M 3 u d

e g 2 5,

4 4,

9

- n 6 6 Di t

Vn o

C

(

M g 5 6

3 5

6 3

0 0

1 r 5 5 6 a 5 4 9 M 2 2 b 5 0 7 e 8 7 9 F 4 4 n 5 0 5 9 a 1 0 9 J 4 4 a n x

a ft o

T ok n

t na n ol a ip d t o n io u sz M a x

mb T A o pt T

a K mn N t oa A s Cd I o n P M eu A i O gb E i O f aA C l p

E o t A nt T u L L es S

U N a A T

A T ce rt R

C O

T O

T P e

1" U

I'

E E E E E E E E E O E E E E E E E E E TABLE V-D-4 ZOOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY MONTH FOR ENTRAINMENT SAMPLES,1985 BVPS i

Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun No. of Species 13 12 9 10 16 19 Shannon-Weiner Index 2.32 1.98 1.72 1.64 2.90 2.91 5

Evenness 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.72 0.68 $

e Richness 2.00 1.78 1.44 1.52 1.71 2.06 p@$

"0 it m Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X .

HN (n No. of Species 18 32 27 20 19 13 17 @O

~q Shannon-Weiner Index 3.35 3.60 3.72 3.27 3.25 1.97 2.72 8 Evenness 0.80 0.72 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.53 0.66 B E

Richness 2.25 3.37 3.08 2.44 2.72 1.89 2.19 3 0

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I

Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data Population dynamics of the zooplankton community during the seasons of preoperational and operational years are displayed in Figure V-D-1.

Total zooplankten densities were lowest in winter, usually greatest in I sumer and transitional in spring and autumn. This pattern in the Ohio River sometimes variet from year to year which is normal for zooplankton populations in other river habitats. Hynes (1970) concluded that the zooplankton community of rivers is inherently unstable and subject to constant change due to variations of temperature, spates, current, turbidity and food source. Total densities of zooplankton during 1985 were within the range established during the preoperational years (1973 through 1975) and operational years (1976 through 1984) (Figure V-D-1) .

In 1985, the data indicate that the peak zooplankton densities were I delayed until August because of above average river flow, precipitation and turbidity.

The species composition of zooplankton in the Ohio River near BVPS has remained stable during preoperational and operational years. The common or abundant protozoans during the past ten years have been Vorticella, I Codonella, Centropyxis.

Difflugia, been Keratella, Strobilidium, Cyclotrichium, Arcella The most numerous and frequently occurring rotifers have Polyarthra, Synchaeta, Branchionus and Trichocerca.

and Copepod nauplii have been the only crustacean taxa found consistently.

Community structure, as compared by diversity indices, has been similar during the past eleven years (Table V-D-5). In previous years, low I diversity indices and number of species occurred in winter; high diver-sities and number of species usually occurred in late spring and summer.

In 1985, the diversity indices and specien numbers were lowest in February, March and April which is typical for months of winter and early spring. Shannon-Wiener diversity indices in 1985 ranged from 1.64 to 3.72 and were roughly equivalent to the range of 1.80 to 3.28 that occurred during preoperational years from 1973 to 1975. The variation in evenness during 1985 (0.49 to 0.80) was at the upper portion of the range I reported from 1973 to 1984 (0.21 to 0.93).

55 I

O O E O N O O E E N O O N O N E O O O TABLE V-D-5 HEAN ZOOPLANKTON DIVERSITY INDICES BY HONTil FROM 1973 THROUCll 1985 IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS Jan Fe'o Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973

(*) 8.44 15.29 21.28 25.07 21.96 22.86 16.33 14.40 14.30 NuiiEer of Spege Shannon Index 1.80 3.06 3.08 2.79 2.25 2.20 2.21 2.31 3.10 Evenness 0.37 0.63 0.58 0.46 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.44 0.61 1974 Number of Species 14.64 9.18 14.92 17.75 23.25 15.56 21.14 18.89 9.56 14.47 Shannon Index 3.18 2.53 2.91 3.06 3.25 2.32 3.28 2.24 2.15 1.84 Evenness 0.62 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.41 0.60 0.41 0.42 0.30 1975 Number of Species 24.75 18.75 14.38 17.44 15.38 Shannon Index 3.20 1.86 2.90 2.01 3.20 Evenness 0.69 0.44 0.77 0.49 0.82 $"

w 1976 g t, Number of Species Shannon Index 7.00 1.67 9.13 2.64 8.69 2.24 17.56 0.89 19.19 3.06 23.56 2.33 28.06 3.36 23.50 3.63 23.56 2.76 11.19 2.73 8.75 1.60 11.75 2.64 gj c c:

Evenness 0.60 0.84 0.73 0.21 0.72 0.51 0.70 0.80 0.61 0.79 0.51 0.75 yM ,

u 1977 yM Nunber of Species 4.00 10.00 12.00 13.31 21.00 25.62 22.88 25.50 36.75 16.88 20.31 15.31 .c: t-'

Shannon Index 1.53 2.59 3.01 2.98 3.15 3.45 3.32 3.60 3.71 3.35 3.42 3.42 HH Evenness 0.78 0.79 0.87 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.73 0.77 0.71 0.82 0.79 0.86 $$

1978 h

mn Number of Species 0.12 7.12 4.31 5.12 7.62 6.25 10.25 11.25 12.50 0.25 10.88 10.38 $Q Shannon Index 2.48 2.41 1.53 1.70 1.53 1.33 2.50 2.44 2.53 2.28 2.15 2.00 :> .o Evenness 0.83 0.85 0.74 0.71 0.52 0.50 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.73 0.62 0.83 t-* g

g 1974 M Number of Species 10.62 6.00 10.25 15.88 17.25 14 25 16.88 21.50 18.12 12.00 14.62 14.00 $

W Shannon Index 2.51 2.52 3.05 3.42 2.36 3.02 2.42 3.30 3.36 2.99 2.84 3.10 d Evenness 0.74 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.58 0.80 0.60 0.74 0.80 0.84 0.74 0.83 l

1980(c)

Number of Species 11.62 11.00 12.50 10.00 8.00 15.00 21.00 15.00 18.00 22.00 18.00 18.00 Shannon Index 2.51 2.70 3.03 2.41 2.00 2.91 3.63 2.79 3.23 2.88 3.26 3.36 Evenness 0.70 0.78 0.84 0.72 0.66 0.74 0.82 0.71 0.77 0.64 0.78 0.80 1981 Number of Species 8.00 12.00 7.00 11.00 19.00 12.00 23.00 24.00 20.00 21.00 17.00 10.00 Shannon Index 2.14 3.02 2.28 2.32 3.44 2.73 2.96 3.55 2.62 3.05 2.66 2.47 I Evenness 0.71 0.84 0.81 0.67 0.81 0.76 0.65 0.77 0.60 0.69 0.65 0.74

O E U E E N M E E E $ $

TABLE V-D-5 (Continued)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul g Sep Oct Nov Dec 1982 Nur.ber of Species 10.00 9.00 11.00 22.00 27.00 20.00 37.00 36.00 40.00 34.00 19.00 17.00 Shannon Index 2.99 2.22 2.89 3.59 2.46 3.20 3.82 4.28 3.86 3.09 3.54 3.14 Evenness 0.90 0.70 0.83 0.80 0.52 0.74 0.73 0.83 0.72 0.61 0.83 0.77 1983 Number of Species 18.00 10.00 23.00 14.0? 17.00 24.00 34.00 30.00 37.00 33.00 17.00 18.00 Shannon Index 3.20 2.39 2.41 3.09 3.54 2.36 3.56 2.65 3.92 3.43 3.28 3.54 Evenness 0.76 0.71 0.53 0.81 0.86 0.51 0.70 0.54 0.75 0.68 0.80 0.85 1984 Number of Species 17.00 10.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 18.00 12.00 18.00 23.00 19.00 14.00 11.00 Shannon Index 3.29 2.64 0.82 2.10 2.26 2.63 2.40 2.28 3.62 2.84 2.89 2.52 Evenness 0.80 0.79 0.28 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.54 0.80 0.67 0.74 0.72 >-

e 1985 $

Number of Species 13.00 12.00 9.00 10.00 16.00 19.00 18.00 32.00 27.00 20.00 19.00 13.00 e Shannon Index 2.32 1.98 1.72 1.64 2.90 2.S1 3.35 3.60 3.72 3.27 3.25 1.97 $ c:

Evenness 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.72 0.68 0.80 0.72 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.53 @@

2 MM

$ (a) Blanks represent periods when no collections were stade. yn (b)Shannon-k'einer Index %$

I* Data for period April 1980-December 1985 represents single entrainment samples collected monthly. Ok n

ma

> *C

=

2 m

i l

IY DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Summary and Conclusions Zooplankton densities throughout 1985 were typical of a temperate zoo-plankton comunity found in large river habitats. Total densities were within the range of those reported in previous years. During the late spring and summer of 1985 populations maintained high densities, except s

in July. Peak diversity was found to occur in August. Protozoans and l rotifers were always predominant. Comon and abundant taxa in 1985 were

't similar to those reported during preoperational and other operational years. Shannon-Weiner diversity, number of species and evenness were within the ranges of preceding years. Based on the data collected during the nine operating years (1976 through 1984) and the three preoperating years (1973 through 1975), it is concluded that the overall abundance and

, /i species composition of the zooplankton in the Ohio River near BVPS has remained stable and possibly improved slightly over the thirteen year 8E period from 1973 to 1985. No evidence of appreciable harm to the river zooplankton from BVPS Unit 1 operation was found. The data indicate that increased turbidity and current from high water conditions have the strongest effects of delaying the population peaks and temporarily decreasing total zooplankton densities in the Ohio River near SVPS.

I E : .

I I . .

t l '

I I -

I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1985 A N UAL ENUZRONMENTAL REPORT E. FISH Objective Fish sampling was conducted in order to detect any changes which might occur in fish populations in the Ohio River near BVPS. -

I Methods Adult fish surveys were performed in May, July, September and December 1985. The final survey was intended to be conducted in early November, however, high flow conditions prevented collection until late December.

During each survey, fish were collected at the three study transects (Figure V-E-1), using gill nets, electrofishing and minnow traps.

I Gill nets, consisted of five, 25-ft, panels of 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 inch square mesh. Two nets were positioned close to shore at each tran-8 sect, with the small mesh inshore. As transect 2 is divided by Phillis l Island into two separate water bodies consisting of the main river chan- l nel (2A) and the back channel (2B), south of the island, a total of eight gill nets were set per sampling month. Nets were set for approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . All captured fish were identified, counted, measured for total

(

+

length (mm) and weighed (g) . l 1

i Electrofishing was conducted with a boat-mounted boom electroshocker.

i Direct current of 220 volts and one to two amps was generally used.

Shocking time was maintained at 10 minutes per transect for each survey.

The shoreline areas of each transect were shocked and large fish pro-cessed as described above for the gill net collections. Small fish were immediately preserved with 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory for analysis. Non-game fish were counted and a batch weight obtained for the entire sample. The length range was determined by visual inspection and measurement of the largest and smallest fish.

i Minnow traps were baited with bread, cheese and sucrose and placed next l

to the inshore side of each gill net on each sampling date. These traps were painted black and brown with a camouflage design and were set for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . All captured fish were preserved and processed in the laboratory in the manner described for electrofishing.

I 2

I

l l

.E cC@m5 [n% g !j _

>2Z N ,5aoyg # j% ;

O _

_E RG E

8l N P f

Ei l

A US I R

N TT T

_E N UEW 1 0 RN 0 l T #

" L fCLr

- a e '" O l AE L l

i TLI 4 M SEGf

.E e'

e y M3 -

I =

l

_ ~

_ :- ~

.E i*

Q "

{"

N ,

,'. '9 \ s$ Ry N EE RO G e,

. , I VLE T ALWA EAOT O BVPS N

. u IO RIT S _

O PAT N _

O _

O G S N I Y'.n-8

PR I

T

~*' .,

l i

P IW HO E

1 A

T g,$- - A " E S E Qgg(Q .. '

,IF""[8bSP

[

2

V GS NP Ydg ,4. ;.".p, [ _

E IV .

0': .

s i

R LB _

U P 4.[" .d' u .

0. e 4 E g 1',.

$.y -

0 %'

G I

M A

F S h%4

%.a..;%g g c,t gh,Q H

)

. l1h , " S O a i - .

y . dgJ. i ' . w' e g:.

I F

f t I,, ',.S.

??

' a 'h

. .wY ,

E %{3. . ;QN.4 ,,

a.k*

E

-. G

, R E A G E S H RE C A G b O S I

D ll R CA SHC OI L N N E

T

"' Y O B

I E S T E 3, '

L.

L R TD I

A N G O I

A OL lvS VPAI O A IS

- R Hl TR N M E OS V PS T N E D N

A ' U f E Hl NDD l A

H B S I A T E

N G -

E i 2 5 L D D0 e-E -

E s

oo E

lll!ll

h

=

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Results Fish population studies have been conducted in the Ohio River near BVPS from 1970 through 1985. These surveys have collected 62 fish species and two hybrids (Table V-E-1). In 1985, 29 fish species were collected, all of which had been captured previously. A combined total of 420 individ-uals were collected in 1985 by gill neeting, electrofishing and minnow I

traps (Table V-E-2) .

A total of 297 fish, representing 17 species was collected by electro-fishing (Table V-E-3) . Collectively, the minnows and shiners accounted for 46.1% of the total electrofishing catch in 1985. Gizzard shad, also a forage species, represented 28.3% of the catch. Carp, smallmouth bass, and freshwater drum accounted for 9.8%, 2.0%, and 2.0% of the catch.

Each of the other taxa accounted for less than 2t of the total. Most of 8 the fish sampled by electrofishing were collected in May (46.8%) .

The fewest fish were collected in December (3.0%).

It should be noted that " observed" fishes were included in the catch per unit effort. This was necessary because of the turbidity and swif tness of the high water. Since the netters could not physically collect these stunned fishes, they were recorded as " observed". This acccunts for the numbers of electroshocked fishes being identified to the genus level.

I The gill net retults varied by month with the highest catch in the month of September (38 fish). May was the next highest month with 36 fish.

July and December catches resulted in 25 fish and 9 fish, respactively.

Gill net sampling typically results in catching more fish in warmer weather when fish are usually more active, thus the low sample numbers encountered from December are to be expected (Table V-E-4) .

5 A total of only 14 fish were captured using minnow traps in 1985 (Table V-E-2). Again, the poor sampling success was attributed to high river flows and resultant turbidity encountered.

The most common species (i.e., those which contributed more than 1% to the annual total catch) collected through the use of gill nets, electro-I 61 I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-E-1 I (SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME)1 FAMILIES AND SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1.970-1985 BVPS Family snd Scientific Name Common Name Lepisosteidae (gars)

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar f

} Clupeidae (herrings) i Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad f

Salmonidae (salmon and trouts)

Salmo gairdneri Rainbow trout Esocidae (pikes) 8 Esoy lucius Northern pike i

l l E,. masquinongy Muskellunge E. lucius X E_. masquinongy Tiger muskellunge Cyprinidae (minnows and carps)

Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller Carassius auratus Goldfish I Cyprinus carpio Common carp C. carpio X Carassius auratus Carp-goldfish hybrid I Ericymba buccata Nocomis micropogon Notemigonus crysoleucas Silverjaw minnow River chub Golden shiner Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner N. chrysocephalus' Striped shiner 2 I N. hudsonius Spottail shiner N. rubellus Rosyface shiner I N. spilopterus N_. s trariineus N_. volucellus Spotfin shiner Sand shiner Mimic shiner Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 8 Rhinichthys atratulus Semotilus atromaculatus Blacknose dace Creek chub Catostomidae (suckers)

I Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Catostomus commersoni White sucker I Hypentelium nigricans Ictiobus bubalus Northern hog sucker Smallmor h buffalo

1. niger Black buffalo I Moxostoma anisurum M. carinatum d.duquesnei Silver redhorse River redhorse Black redhorse I M_. e ry thru rum M. macrolepidotum 62 Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorse I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-E-1 (Continued)

I Family and Scientific Name Common Name I Ictaluridae (bullhead and catfishes)

Ictalurus catus I. melas White catfish Black bullhead I. natalis Yellow bullhead I I. nebulosus I. punctatus Noturus flavus Brown bullhead Channel catfish Stonecat Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish Percopsidae (trout-perches)

Percopsis omiscomaycus Trout-perch Cyprinodontidae (killifishes)

Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish Atherinidae (silversides)

Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside Percichthyidae (temperate basses)

Morone chrysops White bass Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

I Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish I L. gibbosus L. macrochirus 51cropterus dolomieui Pumpkinseed Bluegill Smallmouth bass M. punctulatus Spotted bass I M. salmoides Pomoxis annularis P. nigromaculatus Largemouth bass White crappie black crappie Percidae (perches)

Etheostoma blennioides Greenside darter E. nigrum Johnny darter E. zonale Banded darter I Perca flavescens Yellow perch Percina caprodes Logperch P. copelandi Channel darter I Stizostedion canadense Sauger S. vitreum vitreum Walleye Sciaenidae (drums)

Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum I 1 Nomenclature follows Robins, et al. (1980).

A former subspecies of N_. cornutus (Gilbert, 1964) and previously reported as common shiner.

O I

N O U M N U U U E N U N N N N U N N E TABLE V-E-2 NUMBER OF FISil COLLECTED AI VARIOUS 9tANSECTS BY CILL NET (C), ELECTROFISHING (E),

AND HINNOW TRAP (H) IN THE NEh C1HBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985 BVPS Pe rcent 1 2A 2B 3 Crand Total Annual Annual Taxa C E H C E H C E H C E H C E H Total Total L:>ngnose gar 1 1 1 0.2 Cizzard shad 1 18 3 46 1 9 7 11 12 84 96 22.9 Muskellunge 1 1 1 0.2 Tiger muskellunge 1 1 2 2 0.5 Pike sp. I 1 2 2 0.5 Cermon carp 6 9 3 4 7 14 2 2 18 29 47 11.2 Emerald shiner 4 10 4 5 28 1 47 5 52 12.4 Spctfin shiner 2 4 6 6 1.4 g Bluntnose minnow 1 1 1 3 3 0.7 $

Shiner sp. 2 35 6 44 87 87 20.7 g thite sucker 1 1 1 0.2 2j Out11back 1 1 2 2 0.5 yQ River carpsucker 1 1 1 0.2 P' y e Silver redhorse 2 2 2 1 2 5 7 1.7 5M Colden redhorse 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 10 2.4 3[

Shcrthead redhorse 1 1 2 2 0.5 yQ Redhorse sp. I 1 1 1 2 0.5 yH Channel catfish 3 2 8 9 1 22 1 23 5.5 yQ Flathead catfish 1 1 1 0.2 gQ Treut perch 2 2 2 0.5 r*

khite bass 2 2 2 0.5 g Fock bass 1 1 2 3 6 1 7 1.7 y Creen sunfish 1 1 1 0.2 y Pumpkinseed 1 1 1 0.2 Bluegill 1 1 1 0.2 Sunfish sp. I 1 1 0.2 Sma11routh bass 2 2 2 6 6 1.4 Spotted bass 8 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 21 3 2 26 6.2 Eass sp. 2 1 1 1 5 5 1.2 Ehite crappie 4 4 4 1.0 Black crappie 1 1 2 2 0.5 Sauger 1 5 2 5 3 8 1.9 Walleye 2 2 2 0.5 Fresbvater drum 2 4 6 6 1.4 Total 22 45 1 11 105 7 24 49 4 52 98 2 109 297 14 420

m M- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V-E-3 hUMBER OF FISil COLLECTED PER MON'D1 BY C111 NET (C), ELECTROFISillNC (E), AND MINNOW TRAP (H)

IN Tile NEW ClHBERLAND POOL OF Tile OHIO RIVER, 1985 BVPS Percent May Jul Sep Dec Crand Total Annual Annual Taxa C E M C E M C E M G E M C E M Total Total longnose gar 1 1 0.2 Cizzard shad 4' 1 19 5 17 6 1 12 84 96 22.9 Muskellunge 1 1 1 0.2 Tiger riuskellunge 1 1 2 2 0.5 Pike sp. I 1 2 2 0.5 Common carp 6 10 5 13 7 3 3 18 29 47 11.2 Emerald shiner 4 2 35 7 3 1 47 5 52 12.4 Spotfin shiner 6 6 6 1.4 Bluntnose minnow 2 1 3 3 0.7 G Shiner sp. 69 14 2 2 87 87 20.7 $

khite sucker 1 1 1 0.2 e Quillback 2 2 2 0.5 gE River carpsucker 1 1 1 0.2 %@

Silver redhorse 1 1 4 1 2 5 7 1.7 F@

ch Colden redhorse 1 4 5 5 5 10 2.4 @M Shorthead redhorse 1 1 2 2 0.5 $[

2edhorse sp. I 1 1 1 2 0.5 @Q Channel catfish 11 2 1 9 22 1 23 5.5 yH Flathead catfish 1 1 1 0.2 @@

Trout perch 2 2 2 0.5 %i@

khite bass 1 1 2 2 0.5 F@

Rock bass 3 3 1 6 1 7 1.7 %d Green sunfish 1 1 1 0.2 @

Pumpkinseed 1 1 1 0.2 y Bluegill 1 1 1 0.2 Sunfish sp. I 1 1 0.2 Smallmouth bass 2 3 1 6 6 1.4 Spotted bass 10 1 4 2 7 1 1 21 3 2 26 6.2 Bass sp. 2 1 2 5 5 1.2 W ite crappie 2 2 4 4 1.0 Black crappie 1 1 2 2 0.5 Sauger 1 3 3 1 5 3 8 1.9 Walleye 1 1 2 2 0.5 Freshwater drum 4 2 6 6 1.4 Total 36 139 3 26 110 0 38 39 11 9 9 0 109 297 14 420

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I TABLE V-E-4 NUMBER OF FISH COLLECTED BY GILL NET, ELECTROFISHING AND MINNOW TRAP AT TRANSECTS IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985 BVPS I

Transect Gill Net 1 2A 2B 3 Total Average May 12 2 11 11 36 9.0 July 2 3 1 20 26 6.5 I September 8 6 11 13 38 9.5 December 0 0 1 8 9 2.2 Total 22 11 24 52 109 Average 5.5 2.8 6.0 13 Electrofishing May 13 69 18 39 139 34.8 I July September December 24 7

1 15 18 3

18 10 3

53 4

2 110 39 9

27.5 9.8 2.2 Total 45 105 49 98 297 Average 11.2 26.2 12.2 24.5 Minnow Trap May 0 1 0 2 3 0.8 July 0- 0 0 0 0 0.0 September 6 4 0 11 2.8 I December 0 1

0 0 0 0 0.0 I Total Average 1

0.2 1.8 7 4 1.0 0.5 2 14 I

I I

I I s I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I fishing and minnow traps included the following gizzard shad; common carp; emerald shiner and shiners spp.; golden redhorse and silver red-horse; channel catfish; rock bass, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, bass spp.; sauger; and freshwater drum. The remaining 18 species each accounted for 1% or less of the total.

I Comparison of Control and Non-Control Transects Comparisons of the data obtained from the Control Transect (1) with that from the Non-Control Transects indicate that the fish populations have fluctuated slightly since 1974 (Table V-E- 5 ) . However, comparisons between years include many natural variables and can be misleading.

Fluctuations in catches occur with changes in the physical and chemical properties of the river's ambient water quality. Since electrofishing efficiency depends largely on the water's conductivity, any sampling conducted during extremes in this parameter will affect catch-per-unit-effort. In addition, turbidity and current affects the collectors' I ability to observe the stunned fish. Direct sunlight also influences where fishes congregate, thus determining their susceptibility to being chocked. Electrofishing collects mostly small forage species (minnows and shad) and their highly fluctuating annual populations were reflected in differences in catch-per-unit-effort from year to year and station to station. However, gill nets catch mostly game species and are more I indicative of true changes in fish abundance. When comparing gill net data (Table V-E-6) , little change is noticed either between Control and Non-Control Transects or between pre-operational and operational years.

The 1985 gill net catch-per-unit-e" fort (fish /24 hours) averaged near the upper end of the range established by previous collections with 2.7 and 3.3-4.0 for the Control and Non-Control Transects respectively. Con-tributing to these increased yielde are notibly high catches of carp, channel catfish, and spotted bass.

Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data I Electrofishing and gill net data, expressed as catch-per-unit-effort, for the years 1974 through 1985 are presented in Tables V-E-5 and V-E-6.

These twelve years represent two preoperational years (1974 and 1975) and ten operational years (1976 through 1985). Fish data for Transect 1 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT e O. O. O. em. O. .m. e. .. C. O. .m. O. e. e. sm. O. O. e. e. O. Q. O.

E e se eee e e se e o e == e e e e se e o e ce o O se e es se e e O e se e e ee e m se ce 4 e O e e3 O ee ce e se e O e e e se e m o e ee sue 9 .4 ert

. O. es. em. em. em. O. em. O. em. em.em. O. O. O. em. O. em. O. em. o. art. am. O. em.

e I

e e -e e C e se

O e n e se a eOe e eCe o O se e e e e eOOeOe e o e se se se O e @ e s.e ** O s's e O O e e e se e

J4 ce ce 4 se ce T

et e. O. em. em. O. O. O. e. em. em. em. em. O. O. em. O. em. em. o. e.

e eea e o e e m O e a 4 e 8% e Mo e o eOe e e e ce C e e O e en e 89 e *

e s en e 4 en ce e e e e e em o e e e 4

@ *e @ M sa

- 4 e I

W ee es. e. ce. e. O. e. e. **. es. e. e. O. ce. e. es. es. e. e. are. e. m.

s **e a ee e 4 O ce o == ce 4 4 e e a e e e e O e we e=e e e ** e O e oe o eOOOeemOOe a e e eOe e e a N e

en em ce ee se o me g-e s e ce em. ce. o. en. e. ce. ce. ce. e. ce. ce. ce. .. en. es. ce. ce. e.e. en. e. e. ce. O.

e m art eee e e e a O e O O e O == a o e e oO OOOOeeOOe

8 e eOOe e e 4 e e ce

== e eOe e e e e e e O O.e n I

e se ce N es" g **

e= O em. e. ce. O. O. e. O. es. ce. e. en. es. em. . e. en. ce. e. es. ce. em.ce. m.

e e*** e e

O 4 e s= eOe e e to se O e O e eOOOeOe sa a e m e ceee en en s=e O e e e e eOe o eOe o eOeOe eOe e

as =

c.

. u es e. *

- e . a. M. . em. ce. es. e. e. se. m. m. e. en. am. ce. e. me em. . es. es. ce. e..

9 e= e ce

Oe e e se e m o O em es O e O O e O O e e e e e o eCeoe e e e e O e O e O ee O e eOOOOe e e e e.

e em 4 4 e I .

3.o se e

m. m. e. @. em. m. M. 4 as. e. e. e. d. et. se. 88% . es. su.s amo

. se. e. em. 4 M.

c.

ye. ye. se.

se em.

ce

e. eOe eCe o e e m oreO m Oao **ree e e eOOeOOeOOOOeOOeOO e O O se e O e O e O e OOe e e e e e em O s=

.a g u e- e.. ce. e. e. ee. n. e. e,. e. m. m. .e. m. 4. O. e. o. e. c.. m. e.

I A g

e.

f e=

oOe e e e e se eM e e 4ee e en e e e e eOOOeOe e e e ** e e e e a e 4

O es =* O 4 se to O e e e e eOe o e e M es re w 4 4 ce e e s=. we. es e. a. e. ce. N. N. em. en. e. . m. 4 m.

en - e se e e e e e C e m o e M ee e e e e o e e e e e e eOOOe e e e eO e e O O e O e ao e eOOe e o e e e em E P se ' em ( ee g se I G 3

W

.e O.

eme e e e eOe F eMM

e. e. O. O.

e.

. e.

emo e e s'teOe o e e o e e oM e e e e e o e

O. e. e.

e eOOe e e e e e o.

- e e e e e e ee.

e E @ M art se ce M ha I e

.Ee em a

an.as M e e

we ee W

O O.

0 -e em. O.

m. .. .

e e o e m * - e 4 e= a e e e e e ee e e e o eOOe e e e o e e e **

ere

. O. em.

e e e omeee o e e se o e e et se e e m o ce e e e e e *

e o e O. e'.s

. e. . .. .

o. eme O.

e. ..

o e e se. e O O se e e O s=e o e o e a e e.

e e e e e m ** e M e en e e a se e e e em.

e.

O.e s

e.

2 J p ce se g M ** r.

ee es e H se E one e to .

et a.s 4sae 9

.e

.Me

e. e. o. em. O. e. O. en. O. em.

e -. e o e me o e se ce e ce m e 4 e e e e me o e e ee .e e o a re a e e e e e ese em

o. en em. en. em. e. S e.

e e a se se e e e 4 e o e me eee e O. O. e.

me 4

re l se .* e'Jb w as T-I et C e. O. O. O. ert. em. O. O. em. em. em. e. e. en. en. em.

ee e=

Z s ** e o e o e eCe@pedeeee o e e e se e == e se e e e e e e o e o e f e e em e e ** em a 4 4 e e e es er*. e o e o e o e e.

e

- N g3 4 ml 9

as3.e p e e. m. e. o. O. sm. O. m. O. O. e. e. e. e. O.

E eOe e e *Om e4emeeme e e e e e eOe eOe e o eOe e o e *

eOeeeOe e e o e e e e o e e

{ m n -

. .e. a.

E tm 9 ce O. e. e. em. N. O. O. em. e. e. em. O. em. e.

E w me as.

em e

e se e sai e a e e e em O se e eeeeo

.e em se ce se e e s e e e e e se O e oOe e e e e e e e e se a m me e e e e eOee e e e ce ce ce 5 , e e e e .

eg C . e. m. e. m* e. ,. * . e e.

I W = c F

eeOe e o re C e me + e a N e9

em e e e o e e e e e ** e e o e e se* e e e e o e e e e 4 4 O e se* e o e e e e e e e*

et em se 4 L3 s= me E .

=

E Wp em. J. e. e. 4 O. em. e. e. en. e. em. e. em. e.

e c 4 85 e e eOe e e e eeo e 8't se @ e e e o e e e e se e o e e e e e e e e e eOOOe O ce e e e eOOOe e a e O

==.

es e e% e e e g - ea N I t

.sJ w

o e

e-e 9,

wc.

e o e e e o e sees c=

O.

e-o s e e 9

e. e. m. e. e. s.

O.

e es e O se O.

en O. *. O. m. e.

e. m.

O.

e.

O ** e e e eOOe eCe e e eCe e e e Oe s e . .e e e e e e s e e e e e s e e

e. e. e. m. o. e.

e s e c e O

s,. ,.e O.

o O O **

O e se e e e oOOe e e e P. O. e

e. m.

e e s e t e e s e e e.

en e

e.

. _e-e-e.--Os e e -

E .,

e en e o e eOe s e e m e. s,

-emco e e

. . e.

e o e e e o e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e, e _. o~e e e a e e e o eco e e,,

m

, sue me c . ce. e. es.

I -

e-e e e e e e s-o 9 e-e a e e e . e o e e e e e e e o e o e e e e e e e . e e e e e e e o e e e e e.

.. .. ....m... .. . . . e.

I

- e e e o e e e e e Oe e e e e s . e e e e o e e e o edeOO-e e e e e . e e e e O

1. see.eO-emOe e e e

.e n

h

. g

eO

& "y , 25 I

,4 i

. e. e. . . a.: ,

..s .

. . . n.

_: : a r

ees e a. . .. 2 ee

. 2.-.u --..a 2

. , . es2 . . ,.

e.. .s,,e.e.,.es. . -- - .

,w,~-

e e z

e

. . ,.._e: . . .. .e

,.........s. ..- s , . ee t .. t n. e t.1.._., . . t, e x.n e . ,, .. ,

..t....

n .e.

sa.. . . . .

.t. g .s: .x_. . s. . e. n e. . e . .. 2.t -

3u..2 , n. e. _ . i. :

. e . .

e...- ..e a _2 . _ex_ _

..- ..e..- .e._.

tyn- . .

.. - e_

y,*-,-

I m a a a 3 a. $.ie n a c a u a m u z a g _: gu m y y , a: : yuj .sg.u s u y _ .s y _ . - ., , . . .

F I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT S

S -- c -- -~ - .- ~ - e~

i idds idded -~

W -l-.$ pdingpid inds iddefis s idfidign

_ - _ ~_- -- - - ~ ___. o

, il ibs ie e s ibi bi i ibis i bdbi I

'77 olooigoooo

977 9 Nm 77 7 9797 7 599999999 *

i so ' ' '?6?'*? ' '9'8- *6

. - --- ~~ - -m- sen,

l~~--l gdingied I t y

ififiied i

ifiifffiie i . .ie i ie i . e i i iddifie iindgiidadd ediiifie i

ifa indada

-_~__

I e - --~ -- . -- ~-

g *g -liiigspfd i ngfiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiiiddi dfi7 .:

M. - n ---- c - -----n 9

. id i afffgie i e i e ise ifie iiigandfd 7 lifi p --- n - - . - -- --~ %

iiefffis iedidiiie e i ediif...iff idadij a

I E - - -. - ~-- - o ---- ----~~~ q R

g

\C idise add aidff iiiifiiae igaddigdgaddfijA I E e "$I i i e i

-~

igd i ifiie ...

ifigdii..

__~----

idadffdde ej

~

.m I $ , N 7es m 9 7 999 9 g %'l g i o n i s s io i iiiiiioi s i-s io. . oi s ioooin

@ h' gl i cN i . a s ic e m "9 s e io. i i i iiocio. . .. . .

a

.Noi s i soi N

e~

7 E *

g. 'gl 7 ios i ecio 7

7 s i iiiios i . i i *. o io."i i i i i.-e s i i i i~

q

_l

i^!.,E e u , - ~ - - -.

$lied I E .. d e s e e . i idis i i iiiiiidi e .iiiiidd bee *'

w , -

a79 9

9 .m*7

%p g gl i o .

i ioio io. i i i i i i i oici s s i .e o-ci sooo9

~.

g E

lid......

{

i . died....

..eiiiiiiiddis ided4

~

-c <~~.

tl g .....id s idia i s i s s i s ide a i s i s i s s i . edied I

g s2 : i , , s l $l' o ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '*' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

d #

I U l' gj i iiis i ng 7 9

. . . i igiiiiiiioi ece '

9 -

9 9

mm 99-

'990

sesooo NN 7 aan

'4e 2

9~

ll' g ...isono . . oi s i e sion ici eoos ioi 19 9 9 9 -*a N 9 9 *

%liiecioso g s ioo. . . . . . . . oi eoia i s eosoooi in

%' N en h$

I 9 7 7 N gl o e i s i n ce i soi s i s i s i s i s i is ion s .NNcos iooi eu ,,

ge ~ - . - ~ . 4 m

s e e i s e .J s a idiiiis s a . idindis i e nda ids i id .

@MM./ .I I y.

gl i s . . . . .d

. . . . . . . . . d i. .......

-~

.e48

-ga Jof hh E M3 a1.sz i . [3 , ell fsa

,, ,eJer

""2 0<

23 2 e I$j5a55fsjd f=3153 2R 22 8 t5 5 naamaaE"31$3)a$,ll=l5EG83.5=t)e 3 2a ] , . , .h Y

I as11aale 3 s e Asas es Jef' 69

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I (Control Transect) and the averages of Transects 2A, 2B and 3 (Non-Control Transects) are tabulated separately. These data indicate that new species are continuing to inhabit the study area and that, in gen-eral, the water quality of the Ohio River has steadily improved.

I Summary and Conclusions The fish community of the Ohio River in the vicinity of BVPS has been sampled from 1970 to present, using several types of gears electro-fishing, gill netting, and periodically minnow traps and seines. The results of these fish surveys show normal community structure based on I species composition and relative abundance. In all the surveys since 1970, forage species (minnows and shiners) were collected in the highest numbers. This indicates a normal fish community, since sport species and predators rely heavily on this forage base for their survival. Varia-tions in total annual catch are attributable primarily to fluctuations in the population size of the small species. Small species with high reproductive potentials frequently respond to changes in natural environ-mental factors (competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) with large cnanges in population size. These fluctuations are naturally occurring and take place in the vicinity of DVPS.

I Although variation in total catches has occurred, species composition has remained fairly stable. Since the initiation of studies in 1970, forage fish of the family Cyprinidae have dominated the catches. Emerald shiners, gizzard shad, sand shiners and bluntnose minnows have consis-tently been among the most numerous fish, although the latter two species I may have declined in recent years. Carp, channel catfish, smallmouth and spotted bass, yellow perch, and walleye have all remained common species.

Since 1978, sauger has become a common sport species to this area.

Differences in the 1985 electrofishing and gill net catches, between the Control and Non-Control Transects were similar to previous years (both operational and pre-operational) and were probably caused by habitat preferences of individual species. This habitat preference is probably the most influenzial factor that affects where the different species of I fish are collected and in what relative abundance.

70 I .

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENUIRONMENTAL REPORT I Data collected from 1970 through 1985 indicate that fish in the vicinity of the power plant have not been adversely affected by BVPS operation.

I i I

I l I

lI I

I I .

I I

I n .

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I F. ICHTHYOPLANKTON Objective I Ichthyoplankton sampling was performed in order to monitor the extent fishes utilize the back channel of Phillis Island as spawning and nursery grounds. This is important because of the area's potential as a spawning ground and relative proximity to the BVPS discharge structure.

Methods Four monthly surveys (18 April, 14 May, 10 June, and 11 July) were con-ducted during the spring and summer, which is the primary spawning season for most resident fish species. One surface and one bottom collection were taken at Transect 2B (back channel of Phillis Island) during each I survey (Figure V-F-1) . Tows were made in a zig-zag fashion across the channel utilizing a conical 505 micron mesh plankton net with a 0.5 m mouth diameter. A General Oceanics Model 2030 digital flowmeter, mounted centrically in the net mouth, was used to determine the volume of water filtered. Samples were preserved in the field using 5% buffered formalin containing rose bengal dye.

I In th'e laboratory, ichthyoplankton was sorted from the sample and enu-merated. Each specimen was identified as to its stage of de'relopment (egg, yolk-sac larvae, early larvae, juvenile, or adult) and to the lowest possible taxon. Densities of ichthyoplankton (numbers /100 m)3 were calculated for each sample using flowmeter data.

I Results A total of 13 eggs, 372 larvae, and 2 juveniles was collected in 1985 from 1,141.2 m 3 of water sampled (Table V-F-1) . Nine taxa representing six families were identified. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) accountad for 74.2% (287 larvae) of the total catch. Freshwater drum eggs (Aplodinotus grunnienn) represented 92.3% of the eggs collected in 1985. N) adults were collectd in 1985.

On a seasonal basis, ichthyoplankton was most abundant and displayed the

_st ei.ersity on 11,e1y . hen tota 1 eai1y eensity .a.117.5, inei.ieus1s g

72 l I j

W W W W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M g,,,,, - i

e esas a esae

,D'sf"%,fAg c.;

' s .: y , v a n.;

d .4R a

, J~

.., 4,. .:, ci MA 3

" r. ! ,hfM% N 4 .; - t u4p c... C o c

n

.. 0 -1 Q

e %. O' _s : 4; y i . >_ ? m N s'

. < t ::- s .n.

m=

2 m s >=

b $,...a f. "9,'29 t 'i ,-

-?.%,h s s

g e

bM y

w [ ;b].f

[.9, sq. ' --J.T .*-

b[m 2

Mil MI

......5 2 w e . >

[a]

'-,'.. i A5 m 2 4ag3 cy. $-<

.*~* se as pg I, U m

~

MGEND jj e.\

. .$.1MBOLS BE Avf M V Alt.EV DISCHARGE O A SURFACE TOWS De se W

D2 SillPPtNGPOHT DISCHARGE ,

' I 8H=at i o BOTTOM TOWS DS INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE O ABO TO N AVIGATION 8 4 o28

/ BEAVER J@

'" " LLEY

1R ANSWISSION LINE [ER ST T N wEq STATION FIGURE V-F-1 ICHTHYOPLANIGVN SAMPLING STATIONS BVPS

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V-F-1 NUM3ER AND DENSITY OF FISH EGGS, LARVAE, JUVENILES, AND ADULTS 3

(Number /100 m ) COLLECTED WITH A 0.5 m PLANKTON NET IN THE OHIO RIVER BACK CHANNEL OF PHILLIS ISLAND (STATION 2B)

NEAR BVPS,1985 Date Depth of Collection Total Collected and April 18 Surface Bottom Taxa Density 3 163.0 192.5 355.5 Vol. water filtered (m )

No. eggs collected 0 0 0 No. larvae collected 0 0 0 g No. juveniles collected 0 0 0 $

No. adults collected 0 0 0 po Density (number collected) @$

Eggs 0 0 0 C@

b Larvae O C 0 50 Total Density (number collected) 0 0 0 MN b

7 May 14 g9 24 Vol. water filtered (m )

3 119.1 102.0 221.1 hQ No. eggs collected 1 0 1 4@ i No. larvae collected 2 1 3 b R No. juveniles collected 0 0 0 @4 No. adults collected 0 0 0 g Density (number collected) @

Eggs Unidentified Egg 0.84 (1) 0 0.45 (1)

Larvae Dorsoma cepedianum (YL) 0.84 (1) 0 0.45 (1)

Etheostoma sp. ( EL) 0.84 (1) 0.98 (1) 0.90 (2)

Total Density (number collected) 2.52 (3) 0.98 (1) 1.81 (4)

June 10 3 127.6 269.5 vol. water filtered (m ) 141.9 No. eggs collected 3 9 12 No. larvae collected 10 14 24 No. juveniles collected 0 0 0 No. adults collected 0 0 0

r

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W TABLE V-F-1 (Continued)

Date Depth of Collection Total Collected and June 10 Surface Bottom Taxa Density Density (number collected)

Eggs Aplodinotus grunniens 2.11 (3) 7.05 (9) 4.45 (12)

Larvae Cyprinidae (EL) 2.82 (4) 2.35 (3) 2.60 (7)

Cyprinus carpio (EL) 2.11 (3) 7.05 (9) 4.45 (12)

Etheostoma spp. (EL) 0.70 (1) 0 0.37 (1)

Aplodinotus grunniens (EL) 1.41 (2) 0 0.74 (2) [

Unidentifiable (L) 0 1.57 (2) 0.74 (2) $l Total Denisty (number collected) 9.16 (13) 18.03 (23) 13.36 (36) >g Eo July 11 @C eE z 3 137.9 157.2 295.1 vol. water filtered (m ) gM J 'No. eggs collected 0 0 0 [

310 35 345 50 No. larvae collected No. juveniles collected 0 2 2 No. adults collected 0 0 0 Q

Density (number collected) g Eggs 0 0 0 Larvae @

5 Dorsoma cepedianum (YL) 1.45 (2) 0 0.68 (2)

Dor sona cepedianum (EL) 187.09 (258) 15.90 (25) 95.90 (283)

Dorsoma cepedianum (LL) 0.72 (1) 0 0.34 (1)

Cyprinidae (YL) 0 1.91 (3) 1.02 (3)

Cyprinidae (EL) 0.73 (1) 1.27 (2) 1.02 (3)

Notropis spp. (EL) 14.50 (20) 1.91 (3) 7.79 (23)

Pimephales spp. (EL) 1.45 (2) 1.27 (2) 1.36 (4)

Leposis spp. (EL) 2.18 (3) 0 1.02 (3)

Etheostoma spp. (EL) 0.73 (1) 0 0.34 (1)

Aplodinotus grunniens (YL) 2.90 (4) 0 1.36 (4)

Aplodinotus grunniens (EL) 13.05 (18) 0 6.10 (18)

Juveniles Ictalurus punctatus (JJ) 0 1.27 (2) 0.68 (2)

Total Density (number collected) 224.80 (310) 23.54 (37) 11.7.59 (347)

m m m m m m W W W W W W W W W W M M M TABLE V-F-1 (Continued)

Date Depth of Collection Total Collected and Yearly Mean Totals Surface Bottom Taxa Density Vol, water filtered (m 3) 561.9 579.3 1,141.2 No. eggs collected 4 9 13 No. larvae collected 322 50 372 No. juveniles collected 0 2 2 No. adults collected 0 0 0 Densities (number collected)

Eggs Aplodinotus grunniens 0.53 (3) 1.55 (9) 1.05 (12)

Unidentifiable 0.18 (1) 0 0.09 (1) g Larvae m Dorsoma cepiedianum (YL) 0.53 (3) 0 0.26 (3)

Dorsoma cepiedianum (EL)

Dorsoma cepiedianum (LL) 45.92 (258) 0.18 (1) 4.32 (25) 0 24.80 (283) 0.09 (1) h[

oc Cyprinidae (YL) 0 0.52 (3) 0.26 (3) ,$h Cyprinidae (EL) 0.89 (5) 0.86 (5) 0.88 (10) ges y Cyprinus carpio (EL) 0.53 (3) 1.55 (9) 1.05 (12) <g

Notropis spp. (EL) 3.56 (20) 0.52 (3) 2.02 (23) o Pimephales spp. (EL) 0.36 (2) 0.35 (2) 0.35 (4) $

Lepomis spp. (EL) 0.53 (3) 0 0.26 (3) p Etheostoma spp. (EL) 0.53 (3) 0.17 (1) 0.35 (4) hg Aplodinotus grunniens (YL) 0.71 (4) 0 0.35 (4) eg Aplodinotus grunniens (EL) 3.56 (20) 0 1.75 (20) gR Unidentifiable (L) 0 0.35 (2) 0.18 (2) g Juveniles m Ictalurus punctatus (JJ) 0 0.35 (2) 0.18 (2)

Total Density (number collected) 58.02 (326) 10.53 (61) 33.91 (387) aDevelopmental Stages YL - Hatched specimens with yolk and/or oil globules present.

EL - Specimens with no yolk and/or oil globules and with no development of fin rays and/or spiny elements.

LL - Specimens with developed fin rays and/or spring elements and evidence of a fin fold.

L - Specimens with undefinable larval stage due to deterioration.

f' DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT per 100 m 3 of water filtered (Table V-F-2) . Collections on 10 June 3

yielded 13.36 individuals per 100 m (mostly f reshwater drum eggs and cyprinid larvae) . The May 14 sample resulted in 1.81 individuals per 100 m3 collected. Sampling on 18 April yielded no ichth'yoplankton.

I Comparison of Preoperational and Operational Data Species abundance and composition was similar to that found in previous I years. Gizzard shad and minnows dominated the catch with other taxa represented by only a few individuals. Densities of ichthyoplankton collected in the backchannel (Station 28) from 1973-1974, 1976-1985, are presented in Table V-F-2.

I Summary and Conclusions Gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and cyprinids dominated the 1985 ichthyo-plankton catch from the back channel of Phillis Island. Peak densities occurred in July and consisted mostly of the early to late larval stages.

I Little or no spawning was noted in April and May. No substantial differ-ences were observed in species composition or spawning activity of most species over previous years.

I I

77 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL EUVIRONMENTAL REPORT I TABLE V-F-2 3

DENSITY OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON (Number /100m ) COLLECTED IN THE OHIO RIVER BACK CHANNEL OF PHILLIS ISLAND (STATION 23)

NEAR BVPS, 1973-1974, 1976-1985 I Date Density Date Density Date Density 1973 1974 1976 12 Apr 0 16 Apr 0 26 Apr 0.70 17 May 24 May 0 19 May 0 I

0 20 Jun 16.10 13 Jun 6.98 18 Jun 5.99 26 Jul 3.25 26 Jun 9.25 2 Jul 6.63 16 Jul 59.59 15 Jul 3.69 1 Aug 6.85 29 Jul 4.05 1979 I

1977 _1978 14 Apr 0 22 Apr 0 19 Apr 0 l 11 May 0.90 5 May 0 1 May 0 l 9 Jun 24.22 20 May 0.98 17 May 0.81 l I 22 Jun 7 Jul 20 Jul 3.44 3.31 28.37 2 Jun 16 Jun 2 Jul 4.01 12.15 13.32 7 Jun 20 Jun 5 Jul 0.39 11.69 14.82 lI p

(

1980 23 Apr 0.42 1981 20 Apr 1.10 1982 19 Apr 0 l 21 May 0.53 12 May 0 18 May 3.77 f= 19 Jun 9.68 17 Jun 26.40 21 Jun 7.54 31.66 l 22 Jul 107.04 22 Jul 17.14 20 Jul

!I 1983 1984 1985 i

13 Apr 0 16 Apr 0 18 Apr 0 11 May 0.66 10 May 0 14 May 1.81 14 Jun 4.46 8 Jun 15.46 10 Jun 13.36 12 Jul 44.05 12 Jul 44.23 11 Jul 117.59

!I I

I I

I -.

I -)

I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I G. FISH IMPINGEMENT

)

Objective I Impingement surveys were conducted to monitor the quantity of fich and other aquatic organisms impinged on the traveling screens.

Methods The surveys were conducted weekly throughout the 1985 for a total of 47 weeks (Table V-A-1) . Except when technical difficulties delayed the start of collections, weekly fish impingement sampling began on Thursday l

morninga when all operating screens were washed. A collection basket of i

O 25 inch mech netting was placed at the end of the screen washwater sluiceway (Figure V-G-1). On Friday mornings, after approximately 24 m hours, each screen was washed individually for 15 minutes (one complete revolution of the screen) and all aquatic organisms collected. Fish were identified, counted, measured for total length (m) and weighed (g).

Data were sumarized according to operating intake bays (bays that had pumps operating in the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months sampling period) and non-operating intake bays.

I Results The BVPS impingement surveys of 1976 through 1985 have resulted in the collection of 36 species of fish representing nine families (Table V-G-1).

A total of 164 fish, representing 19 species (20 taxa) was collected in 1985 (Table V-G-2). Gizzard shad were the most numerous fish, comprising 22.0% of the total annual catch, followed by bluegill (17.1%) freshwater I drum (15.2%), emerald shiner (9.8%), channel catfish (7.3%), spotted bass (6.1%), with all other species represented by less than 10 specimens.

Cheek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), which had not been collected in I previous years, was collected in 1985. All fishes ranged in size from 28 mm to 370 m, with the majority under 100 mm. The total weight of all fishes collected in 1985 was 2.37 kg (5.2 lbs) . Approximately 58.5% of the total weight of fish collected (both alive and dead) was comprised of the gizzard shads collected in January and February. No endangered or threatened species were collected (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,1985) .

I .

79

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ,

ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I. .. n n , ... ...

. . . . . . . . =,

r' ~. ,~ m . .. --...-- ::: .. .. ..

n...

n n... n ' ' - -

.- u.... .... ,,,,,

,./

~N n......, ( ...

yi n . o.u..u.n...i.n.

... .n n. ,..,n, I

k lis - . py f:::!'!."; !!!!';': ;

3

Id

\> 7"'

T

/

. .e ,,,-:' ;;; ::p;;;;;;, ::::

a .n . .

I I

'-- 6

( j"". .'.

g

. ,,, n ,.. .,,...

6 ;

e}': 9 ,

-J "'"'.a***"

KN-Q "iq ! ;ji sg. . p.

l'p,'A^r(f';y=wh'w n ! 3 ..

i,.. a., i n. ,

.. . I i rw -

. ; g "vi ' ' -i hl\}

its; j I ...u n.. ., ... . n .

a**.

N

.g; ;;.;;,;;n l,' 113;{In}[i,g{

u n . i i . , .. . .u.. .. ,, , , , . 3 p.

I (Three dimensional: Cutaway View)

I I

I s r . . .

J O r_ .t.

. g;y (. ...

ji ,.nc aart.ww ... .

, / - ,r. ins !

, ... . u.. -e a :-,84488 wl'#4. (n.*tt.3 I eQ , g

w 1

l 8

I 'l Soft thJf f7 * *"

I ,

I

(;

j,.

i.....w..

. ...t.

y e

.a.s. .

r. .e,

,i t, , _**

hm

..s*gr

..s.

_t *.

t . .

,......m

....t l,.....

!, ,;li

,....y L-......-

- . .!',77.' .:. ,

j' lr ,l ~ 3 N a /p

,'> f

, N e. ..... .

s n. . . .

(Two dimensional: Side view)

FIGURE V-G-1 INTAKE STRUCTURE DVPS 80

j DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I TABLE V-G-1 FISH COLLECTED DURING THE IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS, 1976-1985 BVPS I Family and Scientific Namel Common Name Clupeidae (herrings)

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Cyprinidae (minnows and carps)

Cyprinus carpio Common carp Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner N_. spilopterus Spotfin shiner N. stramineus Sand shiner N. volucellus Mimic shiner Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub jg Catostomidae (suckers) g Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Catostomus commersoni k'hite sucker

! Moxostoma carinatum River redhorse Ictaluridae (bullhead and catfishes) '

Ictalurus catus k'hite catfish I. natalis Yellow bullhead I. nebulocus Brown bullhead f I. punctatus Channel catfish Noturus flavus Stonecat Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish Percopsidae (trout-perches)

Percopsis omiscomayeus Trout-perch Cyprinodontidae (killifishes)

Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

Ambloplites rupestric Rock bass I Lepomis cyanellus L_. gibbosus L_. macrochirus Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass M. punctulatus Spotted bass M_ . salmoides Largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis k'hite crappie

,P,. nigromaculatus Black crappie cl

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANEUAL ENVIRODtENTAL REPORT I TABLE V-C-1 (Continued)

I Family and Scientific Name l Common Name Percidae (perches)

_Etheostona nigrum Johnny darter E. zonale Banded darter Perca flavescens Yellow perch Percina caprodes Logperch P,. copelandi Channel darter Stizostedion vitreum vitreum Walleye Sciaenidae (drums)

Aplodinctus grunniens Freshwater drum INomenclature follows Robins et al. (1980)

I I

c2 I

M M M M M M M m m TABI.E V-G-2

SUMMARY

OF FISH COI.LECTED IN IRINCEMENT SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24 HOUR PERIOD PER WEEE DURING 1985 BVPS OPERATING INTAKE BAYS I NON-OPERATING INTAKE BAYS Precent Alive Dead Alive Dead 14ngth Frequency Percent Weight Weight Weight Weight Range Taxa Nomber Occurrence Composition Number (q) Namber (q) Number (q) Number (q) (mm)

Cizzard shad 36 15 22.0 6 122 30 1,263 72-370 Common carp 2 4 1.2 1 150 1 1 55-310 Emerald shiner 16 4 9.8 8 16 8 8 45-60 Shiner sp. 10 6 6.1 9 9 1 1 30-37 Crsek chub 1 2 0.6 1 3 67 Socker sp. 1 2 0.6 1 60 210 g Tallow bullhead 1 2 0.6 1 18 110 0 3rown bullhead 3 4 1.8 1 5 2 2 28-75 $

Channel catfish 12 6 7.3 4 16 8 17 55-85 Fittdead catfish Crtfish sp.

1 2

2 4

0.6 1.2 2 2 1 3 83 40-51 hU

~

Trout-perch 1 2 0.6 1 2 51 h acek bass 1 2 0.6 1 1 31 $7, creen sunfish 5 10 3.0 4 65 1 22 39-115 m$

Blaeg ill 28 23 17.1 9 27 8 15 9 23 2 3 35-97 %p Smallmouth bass 1 2 0.6 1 22 118 wH

$ Spotted bass 10 12 2

6.1 0.6 5

1 102 82 3 25 2 57 70-165 175

$9 2: 4 Black crappie 1 Sunfish sp. 2 4 1.2 1 1 1 3 29-70 n Johnny darter 1 2 0.6 1 2 42 _O Tallow perch 1 2 0.6 1 6 89 sg togperch 2 2 1.2 2 14 78 g Freshwater drum 25 17 15.2 1 3 17 166 2 11 5 22 60-217 Q Unidentifiable 1 2 0.6 1 1 50 y O

Total 164 44 479 86 1,736 16 114 18 39 y 1 Intake bays that had pumps operating within .he 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months sampling period.

2 Intake bays that had no pumps operating within the 24 hout sampling period.

B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY' 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT i

The temporal distribution of the 1985 impingement catch cl'ely follows the pattern of catches of previous years (1976 to 1984) (Tables V-G-1 an V-G-4). During each year, generally the largest numbers of fish Iave been collected in the winter months (December-February) and then the catch has gradually decreased until the late summer period when another smaller peak has occurred.

Other organisms collected in the impingement surveys include 88 crayfish, 79 native clams, and 19 dragonflies (Tables V-G-6 and V-G-8) .

In addition,1,650 Asiatic clams (Corbicula) were collected (Table V-G-7).

Comparison of Impinged and River Fisl.

f A comparison of the numbers of fish collected in the river and traveling I screens is presented in Table V-c-5. Of the 35 species collected, 13 were observed in both locations, 6 species were collected only in the

! impingement surveys, while 16 species were taken exclusively in the river. The major difference in species composition between the two types of collections is the absence of large species in the impingement col-lections. Six species of suckers and/or redhorses, and four cpecies of

! sport fish (muskellunge, tiger muskellunge, walleye, and sauger) were collected in the river studies, but were not collected in the impingement surveys. Sport fish which were collected on the traveling screens (channel catfish and bluegill) were smaller than . individuals of those species collected by river sampling. Minnows and shiners constituted a large percentage of the river and impingement collections.

Comparison of Operating and Non-Operating Intake Day Collections Of the 164 fish collected during the 1985 impingement studies, 130 (79.3%) were collected from operating intake bays and 34 (20.7%) from I non-operating intake bays (Table V-G-2). However, due to differences between the number of operating (64) and non-operating (78) screens washed in 1985, the impingement data were computed with catch expressed as fish per 1,000 m 2of screen surface area washed. These results showed 11.4 and 2.4 fish for operating and non-operating screens, respectively.

As in previous years, the numbers of fish collected in non-operating bays I 84

h h O O E TABLI V-G-3 St2emRY OF IMPINGDElff $URVEY CA7A FOR 1S35 BVPS River Operating Intake Bays intake Elevation Non-Operattp Operating Nater Above Mean Date N aber of Fish Percent intake Iays intake Bays Annual Total Alive Dead Alive Dead A, B C D Temp FO Sea Level Month M Collected January 4 1 0.6 1 I 45.0 667.0 11 1 0.6 1 I 38.0 665.2 18 4 2.4 4 I 34.0 666.5 25 3 - - . . - - 38.0 665.0 3 - - - - - - -

February 1 33 15 0 0.0 I 39.0 665.5 g 22 2 1.2 2 I 40.5 665.5 g m

March 0 0.0 I 44.5 673.0 1

8 1 0.6 1 I 45.0 48.5 669.8 672.9

8 15 4 2.4 4 I Q 22 1 0.6 1 1

I 1

47.4 52.6 667.5 673.5

>g P

g 29 1 0.6 (1 t4 April 5 0 0.0 x 51.0 672.5 gp ww

12 0 0.0 I 51.6 669.0 IS 0 0.0 I I

61.2 70.3 668.2 667.2

@9@

26 0 0.0 May 3 0 0.0 I I 70.7 667.0 10 1 0.6 1 I 68.8 666.5 17 0 0.0 I I 75.0 667.3 24 0 0.0 I I 73.2 667.8 ps k I 75.4 667.4 M 31 1 0.6 1 I I 3

June 7 1 0.6 1 I 75.8 667.3 $

14 0 0.0 I I 73.5 667.7 21 0 0.0 I I 75.8 666.9 l

28 1 0.6 1 I I 78.2 667.0 July 5 0 0.0 I I 78.8 667.2 32 2 1.2 2 I I 77.6 668.3 19 2 1.2 2 I I I 77.7 665.4 26 8 - - I I 80.4 665.5

V<,- 3 (Continued)

River Operating Non-Operating Intake Bays intake X1evation Date & sber of Fish Pet ant Intake Bays l Intake Bays 2 Operating Water Above Mean Month Dg _ Collected Annual Total Alive Dead Alive Dead A B, C D Temp FO Sea Level -

August 24 -- --

X X 80.2 665.8 9 1 0.6 1 X X X 80.4 665.6 16 1 0.6 1 1 X X 81.8 665.7 23 2 1.2 1 1 X X 78.3 665.1 30 3 1.8 1 1 1 X X 77.0 664.5 September 6 3 1.8 1 1 1 X X 77.2 664.4 13 5 3.0 4 1 X X 76.8 665.5 20 2 1.2 1 1 X g -72.9 665.8 27 2 1.2 1 1 X X' 71.9 665.8 e

>=

October 4 2 1.2 1 1 X 63.2. 665.5

cn 11 6 3.7 1 2 3 X 65.4 665.8 on 18 4 2.4 2 1 1 X 64.5 665.9 ye 25 5 3.0 1 1 3 X 64.0 665.6 ,g C

n,vember 1 8 60 1 0.6 36.6 20 32 1

8 1

I 59.4 52.7 665.9 671.6

>g 15 4 2 z

2.4 2 X 53.8 671.6 [G 22 6 3.7 1 5 I 49.5 669.0 p co 29 9 5.5 2 6 1 X 48.4 679.7 MM m

R9 December 6 13 5

0 3.0 0.0 1 3 1 1 X

44.0 44.5 670.0 672.0 lO M

20 8 4.9 2 6 1 36.0 666.7 27 12 7.3 5 7 1 33.0 666.5

% J Total 164 44 86 16 z

18 10 M _

1 Intake bays that had pamps operating in the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months sampling period. "

2 Intake bays that had no pumps operating in the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months sampling period.

3 Irpingement could nct be conducted due to frozen discharge pipe.

8 Overhead erane in screenhouse was cat-of-servise, cancelling impingement. l w

TABLE V-G-4 SID9tARY OF FIFH 042.ECTED IN EMPINC7MFMT SURVEYS, 1976-1985 BVPS mober of Fish Collected 1976 1977 1978 1979 operating Ron-operating Operating Non operating Operating hoe operating . Operating hon-epwrating h th Intake Ba Intake Says' Tctal Intake Baye Intane Save Total Intake Says Intene Bays Tntal Intake Bays fetake Boys Total January 3,792 2,028 S,913 1,3 % 2,469 4,005 18s 41 227 66 16 82 February 1,087 1,0 % 2,121 3,622 2,039 S,661 99 73 172 9 4 17 March 260 128 388 314 72 184 36 113 149 15 10 25 April 19 El 30 7 3 10 3 1 4 1 0 I by 5 2 7 3 0 3 - - -

3 1 4 hw 4 1 5 4 3 7 2 4 6 2 0 2 July 20 12 32 27 5 32 9 3 12 5 2 7 August 27 10 37 6 1 7 6 12 48 20 34 M September S 6 14 1 4 5 7 15 72 9 9 18 october 35 8 43 a 3 11 4 14 18 21 6 27 w byenber 15 4 19 9 0 9 1 2 3 7 6 13 50 Decembe r 374 219 $93 174 12 104 20 3 23 8 4 12 CD (n

Total 5,646 3,456 9,102 5,311 S,0ll 10,322 373 281 454 162 100 262 pg ZC 2D

_ mmber of Fish Collected CC 1980 19s1 19s2 19s3 >= tT!

'Tperating non-eperat ing Ope rat ing k e operating Operating pon eperating Operetlag non operating F CA Month Inteke Beve I Inteke Seys' Total intake Save intehe Faye Tot el Intake Says intake Beye. Total Intake Beye Intake Baye Total 2 MM C' 0 5 5 6 30 16 44 9 0 9

%[

January 5 1 February 5 7 12 21 1 22 24 42 66 10 1 11 g March 16 13 29 4 2 6 4 7 11 5 5 10 gn Apst! 0 11 11 a 0 8 3 6 9 11 7 la o g:

May 0 2 2 7 2 9 1 1 2 16 3 39 */ H Aw 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 2 2 3 6 9 d July 3 10 13 5 2 7 4 S 9 1 3 4 MO August September 10 4

4 0

14 4

12 IS 4 1 Il 19 14 13 0

3 14 16 2

16 5

13 7

29 %O%

october 2 2 4 30 2 12 7 12 19 15 8 23 November 3 1 4 4 0 4 4 4 8 9 9 19 December 6 0 6 28 4 32 16 9 25 49 10 39 y M

Total 54 54 108 122 19 141 120 107 227 146 70 216 *ts O

W mober of Fish Cet tected d 1986 196%

Operating l pon-operating Operating Non operating Mocth intake saye raceke Bays' Total Intehe says Intene say. Total January M $ 39 4 2 6 February 19 11 30 2 0 2 Merch 23 7 30 3 4 7 April 15 4 19 0 0 0 ,

by 4 1 S 2 0 2 Am 7 2 9 1 1 2 July 27 2 29 4 0 4 August 7 I S 4 3 7 September 0 4 4 3 4 12 Oc t ot,e r 0 0 0 8 9 17 November I I 2 70 to 80 December 0 2 2 74 1 25 Toret 1 37 40 177 110 % 164 I Intake bays that had gesps operatles in the 24 hr sampling gerlod.

eintake bays that had no pumpe operating la the 24 br sampains pestod.

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COfiPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I

TABLE V-G-5 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ANNUAL TOTAL OF FISH COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AND IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1985 BVPS l

Total Number o* Percent of 8 Species (a)

Fish Collected Impingement River Impingement Annual Total River Longnose gar 5 Gizzard shad 36 1

41 24.3 0.4 16.4 Muskellunge 1 0.4 Tiger muskellunge 2 0.8 5 Common carp Emerald shiner 2

16 31 52 1.4 10.8 12.4 20.7 Spotfin shiner 6 2.4 Bluntnose minnow 5 Creek chub 1 3

0.7 1.2 White sucker 1 0.4 Quillback 2 0.8 l I River carpsucker 1 0.4 j Silver redhorse 7 2.8 Golden redhorse 10 4.0 '

Shorthead redhorse 2 0.8 Yellow bullhead 1 0.7 Brown bullhead 3 2.0 Channel catfish 12 23 8.1 9.2 I Flathead catfish 1 1 0.7 0.4 Trout-perch 1 2 0.7 0.8 g White bass 2 0.8 f _g i Rock baas 1 7 0.7 2.8 i Green sunfish 5 1 3.4 0.4 l Pumpkinseed 1 0.4 I Bluegill Smallmouth bass Spotted bass 28 1

10 1

6 26 18.9 0.7 6.8 0.4 2.4 10.4 White crappie 4 1.6 i Black crappie 1 2 0.7 0.8 Johnny darter 1 0.7 Yellow perch 1 0.7 Logperch 2 1.4 I Sauger 7 2.8 Walleye 2 0.8 Freshwater drum 25 6 16.9 2.4 Total 148 251 (a) Includes only those specimens identified to species or stocked hybrids.

i e

I

DUQUESNE LXGitT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL EINIROM!IENTRL REPORT I V-G-6

SUMMARY

OF CRAYFIS!! COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24-ilOUR PERIOD PER WEEK 1985 DVPS Number Collected Operating Non-Operating Date Intake Bays Intake Bays 8 Month g Alive Dead Alive Dead January 4 0 0 2 2 11 0 0 0 1 5 18 0 1 0 0 25 (a) _ _ _ _

Febtuary 1(a) . _ _ _

8(a) _ _ _ _

15 0 0 1 1 22 1 0 3 2 March 1 0 0 6 0 I 8 4 1 0 0 15 8 0 0 0 22 3 0 3 0 29 1 0 1 1 April 5 1 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 8 26 0 0 0 0 my 3 0 0 0 0

'I 10 17 1

0 0

0 1

3 0

24 0 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 June 7 0 14 2 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 t 28 0 2 0 0 July 5 2 1 0 1 I 12 1 0 1

0 0

19 1 26(D) - - -

At; gust 2(b) _ _ _

9 1 0 0 0 t 16 23 30 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 t

o I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPM3Y 1985 MMUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT V-G-6

~

(Continued)

I Number Collected Operating Non-Operating Date Intake Bays Intake Days i Month g Alive Dead Alive Dead September 6 1 1 1 0 8 13 20 0

0 0

0 27 1 1 0 0 October 4 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 3 25 0 0 0 0 November 1 0 1 0 1 8 4 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 December 6 2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 10 2 0 0 0 8 27 0 0 0 0 Total 41 10 20 17 (2) Impingement could not be conducted due to frozen discharge pipe.

(b) Overhead crane in sceenhouse was out-of-service, cancelling impingement.

I i

E 1

1

~

9 .

'70

~

3

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-G-7

SUMMARY

OF Corbicula COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985 BVPS Number Collected Operating Non-Operating Date Intake Bays Intake Bays Month Day Alive Dead Ayvg Dead January 4 0 0 3 2 I 11 18 25 (a) 1(a) 0 0

0 5

0 0

0 2

February _ _ _ _

I 8 (a) 15 22 0

0 0

1 0

0 6

1 I March 1 8

15 0

0 0

3 0

0 22 0 0 0 0 I April 29 5

12 0

0 0

0 19 0 0 0 0 1 May 26 3

0 0

0 18 0

0 0

9 10 2 1 6 16 17 0 8 24 0 1

2 1

0 0

0 31 4 3 0 0 June 7 0 1 0 3 I 14 6 4 0 2 21 1 5 0 0 28 I

7 16 0 1 July 5 5 7 0 1 12 7 2 1 1 19 11 9 0 0 I August 26(D) 2(b) 9 77 89 1

3 16 32 28 7 2 5 23 30 162 81 56 47 3

4 4

5 September 6 71 30 8 I

3 13 181 50 5 4 20 50 29 2 6 27 59 47 3 16 I October 4 11 18 0

9 11 3

5 9

1 5

3 13 6

5 25 1 4 5 5 n

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-G-7 (Continued)

Number Collected Operating Non-Operating Date Intake Bays Intake Bays Month Day Alive Dead Alive Dead November 1 3 3 3 7 8 4 12 124 16 8 15 22 0

0 2

0 4

0 2

2 29 0 0 0 0 December 6 1 4 2 23 13 0 1 0 0 20 1 0 5 2 27 0 0 2 1 Total 786 494 198 172 I (a) Impingement could not be conducted due to frozen discharge pipe.

(b) Overhead crane in screenhouse was out-of-service, cancelling impingement.

I t

8 I

l I

I I

I I "

t l

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE V-G-8

SUMMARY

OF MISCELLANEOUS INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED I IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985 BVPS Date Number of Organisms in all Bays Ibnth Day Mollusks (c) Dragonflies January 4 0 0 11 0 0 5 18 25(a) 0 0

February 1(a) _ _

I 8 (a) _ _

15 0 0 22 0 0 March 1 0 0 0 0 I

8 15 0 0 22 0 0 29 0 0 April 5 0 0 12 0 0 19 0 1 8 26 0 0 May 3 0 0 10 0 0 I 17 0 0 24 0 0 31 0 0 June 7 0 0 14 0 0 21 0 0 I 28 0 0 July 5 0 0 8 12 19 0

0 1

0 26 (D) - -

August 2 (b) _ _

9 0 0 16 0 0 I 23 30 0

5 0

1 I

93 3

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPRMY W 1985 RNNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT V-G-8 (Continued)

Date Number of Organisms in all Bays Month Day Mollusks (c) Dragonflies September 6 0 0 13 6 1 20 7 0 8 27 6 1 October 4 2 3 11 1 1 5 18 1 3 25 1 1 November 1 2 0 8 44 4 15 0 0 22 1 0 8 29 0 0 I December 6 13 20 0

0 3

1 1

0 27 0 0 8 Total 79 19 (a) Impingement could not be conducted due to frozen discharge pipe.

(b) Overhead crane in screenhouse was out-of-service, cancelling impingement.

(c) Other than Corbicula.

I I

8 8

8 8 9 8

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 8

indicates that fish entrapment, rather than impingement, accounts for some of the catch. Entrapment occurred when fish were lifted out of the water on the frame plates as the traveling screen rotates. Alterna- _

tively, when fish were impinged they were forced against the screens due 8 to velocities created by the circulating water pumps.

Of the 88 crayfish collected in the 1985 impingement studies, 51 (58.0%)

were collected from operating bays and 37 (42.0%) were collected from non-operating bays (Table V-G-6) . Adjusting these data for screen sur-face area washed (crayfish per 1,000 m2 ) the results show 4.5 and 2.7 crayfish for operating and non-operating screens, respectively. -

Corbicula collected in the 1985 studies included 1,280 (77.6%) in the 2 operating bays and 370 (22.4%) in the non-operating bays (Table V-G-7) .

I Again, adjusting these data for the screen surface area washed (Corbicula 2

per 1,000 m ) the results show 112.2 and 26.6 Corbicula for operating the non-operating screens, respectively. It should be noted that in November 1985, all bays were cleaned of silt by divers. During this pumping oper- -

ating, live Corbicula and shells were deposited in the basket at the end -

of the sluiceway. Although an accurate count was not possible, due to 8 the flushing action of the water being pumped, the remaining Corbicula _

volume in the basket was approximately 75 gallons for Bay D alone. The average size of these clams was approximately 1.7 cm. A further discussion of Corbicula occurrance at the BVPS may be found in an Appendix to this report. Y Summary and Conclusions The results of the 1985 impingement surveys indicate that withdrawal of -

river water at the BVPS intake for cooling purposes has little or no 8 effect on the fish populations. One hundred and sixty four (164) fishes were collected, which is the third fewest collected since initial operation of BVPS in 1976. Gizzard shad were the most numerous fish, I comprising 22.0% of the total annual catch. The total weight of all fishes collected in 1985 was 2.37 kg (5.2 lbs). Of the 164 fishes -

collected, 60 (36.6%) were alive and returned via the discharge pipe to the Ohio River.

95 8

x

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 8

H. PLANKTON ENTRAINMENT

1. Ichthyoplankton Objective The ichthyoplankton entrainment studies are designed to determine the species composition, relative abundance, and distribution of ichthyo-plankton found in proximity to the BVPS intake structure.

8 Methods Previous studies have demonstrated that species composition and relative abundance of ichthyoplankton samples collected in front of the intake structure were very similar to those ichthyoplankton entrainment samples taken at BVPS (DLCo 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979). Based on these results, I a modified sampling program was utilized from 1980 through the current sampling season which sampled the Ohio River along a transect adjacent to the BVPS intake structure (Figure V-F-1). Samples were collected I

monthly, from April through July, during daylight hours along a five station transect. Surface tows were made at Stations 1, 3, and 5 and bottom tows were taken at Station 2 and 4 utilizing a 505 micron mesh plankton net with a 0.5 m diameter mouth. Sample volumes were measured by a General Oceanics Model 2030 digital flowmeter mounted centrically in the mouth of the net. Samples were preserved upon collection in 5% buf-fered formalin containing rose dengal dye.

I In the laboratory, eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults were sorted from the samples, identified to the lowest possible taxon and stage of devel-opment, and enumerated. Densities of ichthyoplankton (number / 100m 3) were calculated using appropriate flowmeter data.

Results 4 A total of 64 eggs, 1,464 larvae and 2 juveniles representing eight taxa of fise families was collected from 2,490.3 m3 of water filtered during sampling along the river entrainment transects (Table V-H-1) . Gizzard shad and minnows (Cyprinidae spp.) were the most common taxa, represent-ing 79.2 and 11.8% of the total catch. Gizzard shad comprised 82.5% of the larvae and 50.0% of the juveniles collected. Minnows comprised 12.2%

of the larvae, and 50.0% of the juveniles.

96 I I l

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 8 Seasonal Distribution No eggs or larvae were collected during the first survey (18 April)

(Table V-H-1) . Samples collected on 14 May yielded 49 unidentified eggs and 39 larvae with an average per sample density of 15.68. Samples col- '

lected 10 June contained 15 eggs and 168 larvae. The June collections resulted in a per sample density average for eggs and larvae of 27.17/100 3

m. These consisted largely of cyprinids.

Greatest density per sample (237.01/100 m 3 ) was obtained at Station 5 on I 11 July. Greatest density per station was also obtained on this date at Station 5 (1,071.01/100 m 3). Gizzard shad larvae comprised 87.6% of the sample, t

Spatial Distribution I Larvae were dominant at all stations, being most abundant at Station 5.

Nearly all larvae collected at Station 5, the station furthest from the BVPS intake structure, were gizzard shad taken during a single sampling effort in July (N=793; 938.46/100 m )2 . Larval catch at Station 5 also exhibited tha greatest diversity of taxa. Stations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 yielded 198, 114, 59, 110 and 483 larvae respectively.

Summary and conclusions The similarity of species composition and relative abundance of ichthyo-I plankton taken in 1985 along the river transect to those of 1979-1984, combined with the close correlation between river sampling in front of the intake and actual entrainment sampling established in previous years (DLCo 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979) suggests little change in ichthyo-plankton entrainment impact by BVPS in 1985.

8 I

I t

97 8

TABLE V-H-1 NUPBER AND DENSITY OF FISII EGGS, LARVAE, JUVENILES, AND ADULTS (Number /100 m3) COLLECTED WITH A 0.5 m PIANKTON NET AT TtIE ENTRAINMENT RIVER TRANSECT IN THE OHIO RIVER NEAR BVPS,1985 Total Collected and Date Station 1(a) Station 2(b) Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Taxa Density 18 April 3

Vol. water filtered (m ) 100.1 150.3 176.8 169.6 127.4 724.2 No. eggs collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. larvae collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. juveniles collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. adults collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 Density (number collected)

Qgs 0 0 0 0 0 g e Larvae 0 0 0 0 0 co Total Stattor. Density (number collected) 0 0 0 0 0 0 >g o

C

. bb 14 May g g Vol. water f11tered (a 3) 101.2 119.0 126.8 120.1 94.3 561.4 g[

co No. eggs collected 3 0 5 41 0 49 :o c)

No. larvae collected 7 15 4 10 3 39 %

No. juveniles collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. adults collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 Density (number collected)

Egga g, Unidentified 2.96 (3) 0 3.94 (5) 34.14 (41) 0 8.73 (49)

Larvae Dorosoma cepedianum (EL) (c)

$d C.99 (1) 0.84 (1) 0 1.67 (2) 0 0.71 (4) g Dorosoma cepedianum (YL) 3.95 (4) 10.08 (12) 2.37 (3) 5.83 (7) 0 4.63 (26) y Cyprinidae (YL) 0 0 0 0.83 (1) 0 0.18 (1) d Cyprinus carpio (EL) 0 0.84 (1) 0.79 (1) 0 0 0.36 (2) g ostoma spp. (EL) 1.98 (2) 0 0 0 3.18 (3) 0.89 (5)

Etheostoma spp. (YL) 0 0.84 (1) 0 0 0 0.18 (1)

Total Station Density 9.88 (10) 12.60 (15) 7.10 (9) 42.46 (51) 3.18 (3) 15.68 (88)

(number collected)

TABLE V-H-1 (Continued)

Total Collected and Station 5 Tasa Density Date Station 1(a) Station 2(b) Station 3 Station 4 10 June Vol. mter filtered (m )

3 104.6 138.1 158.8 148.9 123.1 673.5 1 5 1 8 0 15 No. eggs collected 14 29 14 35 76 168 No. Larvae collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No juveniles collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. adults collected Density (number collected)

Egg s Aplodinotus grunniens 0.96 (1) 3.62 (5) 0.63 (1) 5.37 (8) 0 2.23 (15)

Larvae Dorsona cepedianum (EL) 0 0 5.67 (9) 0.67 (1) 28.43 (35) 6.68 (45) [

'Dorsona cepedianum (YL) 5.74 (6) 8.69 (12) 0 9.40 (14) 4.87 (6) 5.64 (38) cp 3.56 (24)

Cyprinus carpio (EL) 0.96 (1) 5.07 (7) 2.52 (4) 8.06 (12) 0 Notropis spp. (EL) 5.74 (6) 0.72 (1) 3 0 27.62 (34) 6.09 (41) >c Notropis spp. (YL) 0 0 0 2.01 (3) 0 0

0 0.45 (3) 0.30 (2) c2 c Aplodinotus grunniens (EL) 0 1.45 (2) 0 Aplodinotus grunniens (YL) 0.96 (1) 2.90 (4) 0 3.36 (5) 0.81 (1) 1.63 (11) $@

unidentifiable 0 2.17 (3) 0.63 (1) 0 0 0.59 (4) g Total Station Density 14.34 (15) 24.62 (34) 9.45 (15) 28.88 (43) 61.74 (76) 27.17 (183) [

yo e (number collected) O "*

11 July Vol eter filtered (m 3) 97.2 151.7 108.3 89.5 84.5 531.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 pp No. eqqs collected 177 70 41 65 904 1,257 2:

No larvae collected No. juveniles collected 1 0 0 0 1 2 %N No. adults collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 g Density (number collected) y 0 0 0 0 0 0 H Eggs Larvae Dorsona cepedianum (EL) 144.03 (140) 38.23 (58) 27.70 (30) 65.92 (59) 910.06 (769) 198.80 (1,056)

Dorsona cepedianum (YL) 4.12 (4) 3.30 (5) 0 1.12 (1) 3.55 (3) 2.45 (13)

Dor sona cepedianum (LL) 5.14 (5) 0 0 0 24.85 (21) 4.89 (26)

M M M W M M M M M W M M M TAatz V-ti-1 (Continued)

Total Collected and Taxa Density Date Station 1(a) Station 2(b) Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 11 July Cyprinidae (EL) 0 0 0 0 1.18 (1) 0.19 (1) 0 0 0 3.35(3) 2.37 (2) 0.94 (5)

. Cyprinidae (YL)

Notropis spp. (EL) 15.43 (15) 1,32 (2) 1.85 (2) 1.12 (1) 79.29 (67) 16.38 (87)

Notropia spp. (YL) 0 1.32 (2) 0 0 0 0.38 (2)

Pimephales spp. (EL) 0 0.66 (1) 1.85 (2) 0 11.83 (10) 2.45 (13) tapomis spp. (EL) 1.03 (1) 0 1.85 (2) 1.12 (1) 2.37 (2) 1.13 (6)

Etheostoma spp. (EL) 2.06 (2) 0 0 0 15.38 (13) 2.82 (15)

Etheostoma spp. (YL) 0 0 0 0 1.18 (1) 0.19 (1)

Aplodinotus grunniens (EL) 10.29 (10) 1.12 (2) 3.69 (4) 0 17.75 (15) 5.84 (31)

Aplodinotus grunniens (LL) 0 0 0.92 (1) 0 0 0.19 (1) y

.Juvenilea Dorsona cepedianum (JJ) 1.03 (1) 0 0 0 0 0.19 (1) $

Notropis athrenoides (JJ) 0 0 0 0 1.18 (1) 0.19 (1) p 183.13 (178) 46.14 (70) 37.86 (41) 72.63 (65) 1,071.01 (905) 237.01 (1,259)

Q Total Station Density (number collected) gg

2:

a SE

O O o

1"1 s

N*

ai 4

'N N -

M M M TABLE V-H-1 (Continued)

Total Collected and Station 2(b) Taxa Density Yearly Mean Tot al Station 1(a) Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 vol. water filtered (a )

l 403.1 559.1 570.7 528.1 429.3 2,490.3 No. eggs collected 4 5 6 49 0 64 No. larvae collected 198 114 59 110 983 1,464 No. juveniles collected 1 0 0 0 1 2 No. adults collected 0 0 0 0 0 0 Density (number collected)

Eggs Aplodinotus grunniens 0.25 (1) 0.89 (5) 0.18 (1) 1.51 (8) 0 0.60 (15)

Unidentified 0.74 (3) 0 0.88 (5) 7.76 (41) 0 1.97 (49) ,

Larvae Dorsona cepedianum (EL) 34.93 (141) 10.55 (59) 6.83 (39) 11.74 (62) 187.28 (804) 44.37 (1,105)

Dorsoma cepedianum (YL) 3.47 (14) 5.19 (29) 0.53 (3) 4.17 (22) 2.10 (9) 3.09 (77) [

Dorsoma cepedianum (LL) 1.24 (5) 0 0 0 4.89 (21) 1.04 (26) co Cyprinidae ( EL) 0 0 0 0 0.23 (1) 0.04 (1)

Cyprinidae (YL) 0 0 0 0.76 (4) 2.27 (12) 0.47 (2) 0.24 (6) 1.04 (26)

>g,o Cyprinus carpio (EL) 0.25 (1) 1.43 (8) 0.88 (5) 0 Notropis spp. (EL) 5.21 (21) 0.54 (3) 0.35 (2) 0.19 (1) 23.53 (101) 5.14 (128) C Natropis spp. (YL) 0 0.36 (2) 0 0.57 (3) 0 0.20 (5) h$

Pt.aphales spp. (EL) 0 0.18 (1) 0.35 (2) 0 2.33 (10) 0.52 (13) y 0.25 (1) 0.35 (2) 0.19 (1) 0.47 (2) 0.24 (6) g Lepomis spp. (YL)

Etheostoma spp. ( EL)

Etheostoma spp. (YL) 0.99 (4) 0 0

0 0.18 (1) 0 0

0 0

3.73 (16) 0.23 (1) 0.80 (20) 0.08 (2) h[

g O

Aplodinot3 grunniens (EL) 2.48 (10) 0.72 (4) 0.70 (4) 0 3.49 (15) 1.33 (33) g%

Aplotin >tus grunniens ( LL) 0 0 0.18 (1) 0 0 0.04 (1) 3plo"inotus g runniens (YL) 0.25 (1) 0.72 (4) 0 0.95 (5) 0.23 (1) 0.44 (11) -

U.tdentifiable 0 0.54 (3) 0.18 (1) 0 0 0.16 (4)

Juveniles pp Dorsoma cepedianum (JJ) 0.25 (1) 0 0 0 0 0.04 (1) Z Notropis athrenoides (JJ) 0 0 0 0 0.23 (1) 0.04 (1) hN Total Station Density %0.36 (203) 21.28 (119) 11.39 (65) 30.11 (159) 229.21 (9E4) 61.44 (1,530) :x:

(number collected) d (a) Station 1 -- South Shorelines Station 3-Mid-Channel Station 5 -- North Shoreline (surface tows).

(b) Stations 2 and 4 (bottom tows).

ICI Developmental Stages.

YL -- Hatched specimens in W11ch yolk and/or oil globules are present.

n. - Specimens in which yolk and/or oil globules are not present and in which fin rays and/or spiny elements have developed.

LL -- Specimens with developed fin rays and/or spiny elements and evidence of a fin fold.

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 8 2. Phytoplankton Objective The phytoplankton entrainment study was designed to determine the compo-sition and abundance of phytoplankton entrained in the intake water system.

{

Methods After April 1, 1980, plankton sampling was reduced to one entrainment sample collected monthly. Each sample was 1 gal taken from below the I skimmer wall from one operating intake bay.

1 In the laboratory, phytoplankton analyses were performed in accordance with procedures described above in Section C, PHYTOPIANKTON. Total densities (cells /ml) were calculated for all taxa. However, only densi-ties of the 15 most abundant taxa each month are presented in Section C of this report.

l Comparison of Entrainment and River Samples g Plankton samples were not collected at any river stations af ter April 1, l 1980 due to a reduction of the aquatic sampling program, ttarefore, com-parison of entrainment and river samples was not possible fer the 1985 phytoplankton program. Results of phytoplankton analyres for the entrainment sample collected monthly are presented in Section C, PHYTO-PLANKTON.

t W During the years 1976 throught 1979, phytoplankton densities of entrain-

{ ment samples were usually slightly lower than those of mean total denst-ties observed from river samples (DLCo 1980) . However, the species com-position of phytoplankton in the river and in the entrainment samples l were similar (DLCo 1976,1977,1979,1980) .

Studies frcm previous years indicate mean Shannon-Weiner indices, even-I ness and richness values of entrainment samples were very similar to the river samples (DLCo 1979, 1980).

I t .

102 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I Sumary and Conclusions I

Past results of monthly sampling of phytoplankton in the Ohio River near BVPS and within the intake structure showed little difference in densi-ties (cells /ml) and species composition. During periods of minimum low river flow'(5,000 cfs), about 1.25% of the river would be withdrawn into the condenser cooling system. Based on the similarity of density of phytoplankton in the river and the BVPS intake structure, and the small amount of water withdrawn from the river, the loss of phytoplankton was negligible, even under worst case low flow conditions.

3. Zooplankton Objective The zooplankton entrainment studies were designed to determine the com-position and abundance of zooplankton entrained in the intake water system.

I Methods I Plankton entrainment samples were collected and zooplankters were counted. For the zooplankton analyses, a well-mixed sample was taken and processed using the same procedures described in Section D, ZOOPLANKTON.

Af ter* April 1, 1980, plankton sampling was reduced to one entrainment sample collected monthly. Each sample was 1 gal taken from below the skimmer wall from one operating intake bay.

I Total densities (number / liter) were calculated for all taxa, however, only taxa which comprised greater than 2% of the total are presented in Section D, ZOOPLANKTON.

Comparison of Entrainment and River Samples Plankton samples were not collected at any river stations after April 1, 1980 due to a reduction of the aquatic sampling program, therefore, com-parison of entrainment and river samples was not pcssible for the 1985 zooplankton program. Results of zooplankton analyses for the entrainment sample collected monthly are presented in Section D, ZOOPLANKTON.

I I

m I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I During past years, composition of zooplankton was similar in entrainment I

and river samples (DLCo 1980) . Protozoans and rotifers were predominant, whereas crustaceans were sparse. Densities of the four most abundant taxa for each month (DLCo, 1976,1977,1979, and 1980) indicate the same taxa were present in both river and intake samples. In addition, they were present in similar quantities. Shannon-Weiner indices, evenness, and richness values for river and entrainment samples were also similar, further deconstrating similarity between entrained and river zooplankton.

I Summary and Conclusions Past results of monthly sampling of zooplankton in the Ohio River near BVPS and within the intake structure showed little difference in densi-ties (number / liter) and species composition. During periods of minimum, low river flow (5,000 cfs), about 1.25% of the river would be withdrawn into the condenser cooling system. Based on the similarity of density of zooplankton in ther river and the BVPS intake structure, and the small amount of water withdrawn from the river, the loss of zooplankton was I

negligible, even under worst case low flow conditions.

I I

I "

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY

, 1985, ANNUAL ENVIRONENTAL REPORT I VI. REFERENCES Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1985. Pennsylvania's Endangered Fishes, Reptiles and Amphibians. Published by the Pennsylvania Fish Conr.nis-sion.

I Dahlberg, M. D. and E. P. Odum, 1970. Annual cycles of species occur-I rence, abundance and diversity in Georgia estuarine fish popula-tions. Am. Midl. Nat. 83:382-392.

DLCo, 1976. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological Volume ll.

I Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station. 132 pp.

DLCo, 1977. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological Volume ll.

Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station. 123 pp.

DLCo, 1979. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological Volume $1.

Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station. 149 pp.

DLCo, 1980. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological. Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1.160 pp.

DLCo, 1981. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological. Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1. 105 pp. +

Appendicos.

DLCo, 1982. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiologier.l. Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1. 126 pp.

DLCo, 1983. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological. Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1. 124 pp. +

Appendix.

DLCo, 1984. Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological. Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1. 139 pp.

EPA, 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods. EPA-670/4-73-001.

Cincinnati, CH.

Hutchinson, G. E., 1967. A treatise on limnology. Vol. 2, Introduction to lake biology and the limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

New York. 1115 pp.

Hynes, H. B. N., 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toront.o.

ORSANCO, 1985. Quality Monitor. (Monthly summary of data for the State of Ohio.)

Pielou, E. C., 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley Interscience, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

I I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I

Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R.

N. Lea, and W. B. Scott, 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada (Fourth edition).

Amer. Fish. Sco. Spec. Publ. No. 12:1-174.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman, 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada.

Fisheries Research Bd. Canada. Bulletin 184. 966 p.

Winner, J. M., 1975. Zooplankton. n I_n,: B. A. Whitton, ed. River ecology. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. pp. 155-169.

I I

I ;

l l

I !

l I

I I

I '"

I I

I 1985 Corbicula MuttrIORING PROGRAM DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER MLLEY POWER SMTION UNITS NO. 1 & 2 I

I I Prepared by:

I Robert Louis Shema William R. Cody David K. Waldorf I Gary J. Kenderes Aquatic Systems Corporation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and J. Wayne McIntire I Duquesne Light Company Shippingport, Pennsylvania l

I ;

I I

E

. I

I I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MCNITORING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION I The introduced Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminoa, was first detected in the United States in 1938 in the Columbia River near Knappton, Washington (Burch 1944). It has since spread throughout the ecuatry, inhabiting any suitable I freshwater body. Information from prior aquatic surveys has demonstrated the presence of Corbicula in the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station (DVPS), and the plant is listed in NUREC/CR-4233 (Counts 1985) .

One adult clam is capable of producing many thousancis of larvae called veligers. These veligers are very small (approximately 0.2 mm) and may pass easily through the water passages of a power plant. Once toe veliger settles and attaches itself to the substrate, growth of the clam occurs very quickly. If clams develop within a power plant's water passagtes, they impair the flow of water through the plant. Reduction of flow may be so severe that I a plant shutdown is necessary, as occurred in 1980 'at Arkansas Nuclear One Power Plant. The clams are of particular concern when they develop undetected in emergency systems where the flow of water is not constant (IE Bulletin Pl-03, Attachment) .

I These clams are extremely hardyr they can live out of water for more than a week. Poisons and other water-borne contol methods have generally proved P.o I be inadequate because the clams can survive prolonged periods closed in their shells.

In light of increased concern about the effects of these clams, Duquesne Light Company expanded the scope of its existing Environmental Monitoring Program to include a focused Corbicula Monitoring Program in the Ohio River and in the circulating cooling water system of the BVPS (ircske structure and cooling I tower). This report describes this lionitoring Program and the results obtained during field and plant surveys conducted during the spring and fall, I 1985.

The two objectives of the Monitoring Program were to evaluate the infestation of Corbicula at the BVP3 and to assess the population of Corbicula in the Ohio River to evaluate the potential for infestation of the BVPS.

I '

e I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM

.I METHODOLOGY I In-Plant Collections were made during the end of May and the second week of September, 1985. Samples were collected using a (6x6") petite Ponar dredge in the innerbay and forebay regions of the intake structure and in the upper reservoir of the cooling tower. Two samples were collected from each of the four (A,B,C and D) forebay and innerbay areas, each at points approximately I one third distance from the walls of the intake structure and directly beneath the catwalk. No samples were taken behind the traveling screens, as this area was believed to have been inaccessible to adult clams. It was also perceived I that annual juveniles.

cleaning operations minimize colonization by veligers or Information gained during the December, 1985 cleaning revealed that these were false assumptions. Two samples were also collected on either side of the northeastern catwalk over the cooling tower reservoir. This area was chosen for all four sample locations because the water velocity elsewhere in the reservoir would not permit sampling with a Ponar dredge.

I The substrate of each sample was characterized at the time of collection. The samples were then returned to the laboratory and sorted for Corbicula within 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months of collection. This procedure increased overall sorting efficiency because formalin, normally used to preserve the samples for long periods of time, was not needed and live Corbicula could be seen moving in the sorting trays. Counts were made of live and dead Corbicula for each dredge sample.

2 These counts were converted to densities (clams /m ) for each collection with factors based on the area sampled by the dredge.

Plant operations personnel have the intake surveyed semi-annually by divers for silt buildup, and if necessary, the intake bays are cleaned. Flooding from record heavy rains in November, 1985 (>15 ft. above normal pool) caused excessive (>7 ft.) sia ation behind the traveling screens in Bay D, which prompted an unscheduled second cleaning of the bays for 1985.

I The cleaning operation was performed by divers using a Flygt 20 hp submersible pump. This pump has a capacity of 500 gpm (1,750 rpm) and uses a 5 inch propeller to push water and debris up a flexible hose (Jenkins and Logar 1985). Water and debris were sluiced through the drainage system of the I

l I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM intake structure, where some of the larger clam shells remained af ter the cleaning operations.

I Field Field collections were usually made during the same week as in-plant collections. Samplas were collected using either a regular Ponar (9x9") or a I

petite Ponar (6x6") dredge along transects across each of the water t ajies.

Eighteen transects were established along the Ohio River, ten upstream, seven (transect segments) downstream and one at the plant intake. Two transects below the BVPS were divided where samples were taken on either side of Phillis and Georgetown Islands. Each transect was selected in the field, based on suitable substrate (e.g., sand and/or gravel) or heated discharge (HD). Each station was identified by river navigation mile (Figure 1) . Two tributaries I were included to assess any contribution to the system from the Beaver River and Raccoon Creek (Figure 1). The collection and laboratory ~ethods were identical to those used for samples from the plant.

In May, duplicate samples were taken on the left and right shores of each transect. The samples collected in September included single, left, right and mid-channel stations.

I I

I I >

m e e e ee m W W W W W W M m e e m W IDEAVER ,

RIVER 1.0 N oo ROCHESTER l

8EAVER 23.4 28.2 I

2I" 2

$\ CONWAY j

j 37.5 37.0 33.o OHIOV W $\

0 l 22.2 A YARDS Ei

, 6 0.2 gg RAcc00N O5

IDLAND MONTGOMERY LOCKS 8 DAM = trs a GEORGETOWN 8ADEN ge I 2E 34.5 U$ .

VA LEY AllQUIPPA -

G-- 18. 8 3g j

POWER g ig 35.7 STATION -

I 35.4 34.8 0 4 17.6

/I MORIDGE y h-g f

1 35.0 SCALE MILES E I

i LEGEND SOUTH HEIGHTS H SAMPLE STATION e RIVER MILE POINT st 10 4 l 14.2 DASHIELDS LOCK 8 DAM I

FIGURE 1 Corbicula MONI'IORING PROGRAM SAMPLING STATIONS OHIO RIVER SYSTEM BVPS

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS I Results of the Corbicula survey within the intake structure and cooling tower are presented in Tables 1 (May) and 2 (September). Densities were calculated only for live Corbicula, as densities for empty shells do not translate into g potential colonizers, and such figures could be distorted by the 5 redistribution of dead clams by currents. Although the number of live Corbicula found was not large, more clams were found in the September samples than those collected in May. No live Corbicula were collected in the cooling tower reservoir; however, the presence of shells indicates that they were !

transported within the circulating water system.

I While performing the innerbay cleaning operation, the divers reported an unusually high concentration of Corbicula in Bays A, B, and D. Divers reported that the clams appeared to be distr ibuted in ring-shaped patterns within the bays and that they were mostly concentrated toward the back and downstream side of the bays. No clams were found in Bay C (Hammill 1985) . A l cut-away diagram of the intake structure is provided in Figure 2. The submersible pump used for cleaning was very successful in the removal of various size clams (largest 32 nrn) (Jenkins and Logar 1985) . The clams were I removed largely intact, with just over 1% of the live Corbicula showing any I

shell damage. Many dead clams were removed with both halves attached.

Photographs of Corbicula are provided in Figure 3.

The number of clams reported to have been cleaned from the intake bays was far more than any concentration of clams collected in Macroinvertebrate Programs since 1973. Approximately 75 gallons of live clams and shells (measured in 55 gallon drums) were retained in the drainage structure of the intake screens I after the cleaning of Bay D. Four one quart samples of these clams were taken to the laboratory and counted to obtain a per gallon estimate of 3,600 Corbicula (32% live) . 'Ihus , at least 86,800 live and 183,500 dead Corbicula were removed from Bay D, which corresponds to 3,750 clams /m2 . The diver in charge of this operation estimated that these numbers represented only 20% of the clams that were actually present in Bay D prior to cleaning; the remainder were washed out through holes in the drain structure. This estimate indicates that as many as 1,350,000 clams were present in Bay D prior to cleaning, or a live clam density of 6,000/m2 A roughly equivalent number of clams were also I '

e I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 1 I

i l

Corbicula COLLECTED INSIDE THE INTAKE STRUCTURE AND COOLING TOWER I MAY 31, 1985 BVPS Clams Collected Station Density Sample Location Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' l l l Innerbay A det 0 0 0 5 det 0 0 B det/gra 0 12 0 det 0 2

.I C det det 0

0 1

1 0

D det 0 1 0 I Forebay A det det san /det 0

0 1

2 1

14 22 I B C

san /det san /det det 0

0 0

1 2

8 0

0 I

dat 0 2 D det 0 1 0 det 0 0 Cooling Tower san /det 0 5 0 I det det det 0

0 0

4 I

I Substrate Codes:

det - detritu-gra - gravel san - sand I

I I

I I s

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY

, 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 2 Corbicula COLLECTED INSIDE THE INTAKE STRUCTURE AND COOLING TOWER I 1 SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 BVPS Clams Collected Station Density Sample Location Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' I Innorbay A B

det det det 1

1 0

5 5

2 43 0

I det 0 3 C det 0 4 0 det 0 4 D det 1 2 22 I Forebay A det

,det det/gra 0

4 0

11 1

6 86 B det/gta 1 6 22 det 0 7 C det 0 5 O det 0/

I

'6 D det 0 3 , O det 0 10 /

Cooling Tower det 0 2 t' 0 l

i I ,

7 det der / mud det' 0

0 0

6 1

3

!I S.b.erato cm ...

J det - detritus - ' I gra - gravel mud - mud l l

I I

lI ,

e I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicuin MONITORING PROGRAM I

(THREE DIMENSIONAL: CUTAWAY VIEW)

I =%x I >

RAC AREA CLEANED BY j DIVING OPERATIONS d " ;N- TRAVELING SCREEN D d I

B LL I g

1.,,, ,,

T .- i I

Forebay Sample innerboy Sample ' '

Location Location .

l BAY D (TWO DIMENSIONAL: SIDE VIEW)

I =

g TRAVELING SCREEN l

Trash Rock AREA CLEANED BY l DIVING OPERATIONS #

'/

I A sgsy me, c $

1g j ,2% IIV e \

ig

7 \

/ \

Innerboy Sample Foreboy Sample Location Location l

I FIGURE 2 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING STa.TIONS INTAKE STRUCTURE l BVPS l 8 L

I DUQUESNE LIGEIT COMPANY 1985 corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM I Cm l r, ' '

~

N t.

4" %

b.~ '

i

, y.

2 3 cody 1985 Aeuuc syste s corporatica FIGURE 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF Corbicula: (1 AND 3) SHOWING KEY CHARACTERISTIC (serrated hinges) FOR GENUS LEVEL IDENTIFICATION, AND (2) CLAM SHELLS FROM BAY D BVPS 9

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM removed from Bay A and a lesser number was removed from Bay B (Hammill 1985) .

Estimates of clam densities were not made for these bays. Calculations were performed for Bay D because this area was dry in October; therefore, it served as a reference point.

No Corbicula were found during a hand search conducted by the divers in the forebay areas of each of the four (4) bays, although sufficient substrate was present for colonization. A diver hand search was made in the innerbay region between the traveling screens and the bar rack. This area was also sampled by dredge in May and September resulting in few Corbicula collected.

The results of the Corbicula survey in the Ohio River are given in Tables 3 (May) and 4 (September) . Dead clams were not counted in samples of the I

regular macroinvertebrate monitoring program.

The clams displayed a preference for sand and gravel dominated substrates and for areas to the side of the main channel. Corbicula collected from the center channel areas came exclusively from back channel areas behind islands . No Corbicula were collected from the center of the main channel of the Ohio River, the Beaver River, or Raccoon Creek, all Corbicula collected I from the Ohio River were juveniles less than 12 mm in diameter.

Table 5 summarizes Corbicula frequency in past macroinvertebrate collections for the BVPS (1973 through 1985) . Peaks in population density are apparent in the years 1976 and 1981; no Corbicula were found d'tring 1973, 1979 and 1980.

Corbicula densities increased during fall collections.

Data, from collection of Corbicula during impingement sampling, are presented in Table 6. The number of organisms collected increased dramatically in August and September and gradually declined through the end of October. A I major exception to this pattern occured' during the week of November 8, where large numbers of clams were impinged during the flood.

I 10

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 3 Corbicula COLLECTED IN THE OHIO RIVER SYSTEM, MAY 31, 1985 BVPS Clams Station Sample River Collected Density _

Location. Mile Bank Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' Raccoon Cr. (0.3) R mud /sil 0 0 0 I R L

L mud /sil det det 0

0 0

Beaver River (1.0) R det 0 0 0 I R L

L det san /det det 0

0 0

0 5

2 0

(0.0) R san /det 0 1 0 I R san /det/gra 0 0 L san /det 0 1 0 L san /det 0 0 I Ohio River (14.2) R R

L gra san /gra 4

0 1

0 86 san /det 0 0 0 I (15.4)

L R

R san /gra san /det san /det 0

0 0

0 2

2 0

L IEI san /gra 1 2 64 L IE) gra 2 0 (17. 6) R san /det 0 1 0 R sil/ san /det 0 1 I (18.8)

LI I L IE)

R gra/ cob san /gra san /gra 0

0 0

1 0

0 I R L

L gra san /det san /det 0

0 0

1 0

(22.2) R san /gra 0 0 0 I R L

L san /gra det det 0

0 0

I (23.4) R R

L san /det san /det san /gra 0

0 0

1 0

0 L san /gra 0 1 (27.2) R gra 0 1 0 R gra 0 1

L sil/ san /det 0 0 0 l

t I (28.2)

L R

R sil/det san /gra san /gra 0

0 0 1 0

0 0

l L sil/ san /det 0 0 0 L sil/ san /det 0 0 11 l

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM I Table 3 (Continued)

Clams Station Sample River Collected Density Location Mile Bank Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' (33.0) R mud / san 0 0 0 l g R san /gra 0 0 l g L det 0 2 22 L det 1 5 (34.5)I1I R san /det 0 1 0 R det 0 1 L det 0 -

0 L det 0 - i I (34.8) R R

L san /gra san san /det 0

0 0

1 0

5 0

0 l I (Back channel)

(35.0) L(HD)

L(HD)

L det det det 0

0 0

2 3

1 0

( 35. 4) (2A) R san 0 0 0 I R L

L san sil sil/ san 0

0 0

'I I (Back channel)

(35. 4 ) (2B) R M

L det gra/det det 0

0 0

0 (35.7) M gra 0 I

0 0 (Back channel) M gra 0 2 L san 0 0 0 I (37.0) (3)

R((HD)

R HD)

L san san det 0

0 0

44 41 0

0 L det 0 -

(37.5) R san /gra 0 0 0 R gra 0 0 Substrate Codes: Footnotes:

cob - cobble (HD) - Heated Discharge I det - detritus gra - gravel mud - mud (1) - Transect 1 (2A) - Transect 2A (Main Channel)

(2B) - Transect 2B (Back Channel) l I san - sand sil - silt (3) - Transect 3 I

12

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 4 Corbicula COLLECTED IN THE OHIO RIVER SYSTEM SEPTEMBER 11 & 19, 1985 BWS Clams Station Sample River I

Collected Density _

Location Mile Bank Depth Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' Raccoon Cr. (0.3) R 2 det 0 0 0 M 7 det/ san 0 0 0 I L 5 det 0 0 0 Beaver River (1.0) R 5 det 0 0 0 I (0.0)

M L

R 12 3

8 det det det 0

0 0

M 18 ash /gra 0 0 0 L 2 det 0 0 0 I Ohio River (14.2) R 8 gra 0 2 0 M 25 gra 0 0 0 I (15.4)

L R

M(HD) 3 2

20 gra gra san 1

0 0

0 2

0 0

43 0

L 2 san /gra 0 0 0 I (17.6) R M

LI I 2

30 2

det/ san san /gra cob 0

0 0

2 0

0 0

(18.8) R 3 san 0 0 0 I M 18 cob 0 0 0 L 2 ash / cob 0 0 0 (22.2) R 3 san /gra 0 0 0 M 24 san / cob 0 0 0 L 5 det/ san 0 0 0 (23.4) R 3 det/gra 0 1 0 I (27.2)

M L

R 27 4

2 san /gra ash /gra cob 0

9 0

0 3

0 0

388 0

san /gra I

M 25 0 1 0 L 2 det/ san 0 0 0 (28.2) R 10 det 0 0 0 M 40 det 0 0 0 L 2 det 0 0 0 I (33.0) R 4 san /gra 0 0 0 M 19 san 0 0 0 I (34. 5) III R M

L 4 3

23 det gra san /gra 1

0 0

4 0

1 43 0

0 L 2 mud / san 6 118 I

L 2 mud / san 3 -

59 (34.8) R 4 det 0 1 0 M 25 san 0 0 0 L 18 det/ mud 2 6 86 13

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM Table 4 I (Continued)

Clams Station Sample River Collected Density I Location Mile Bank Depth Substrate Alive Dead Live Clams /m' I (Back channel)

(35.0) R M

L(HD) 2 20 21 san san /gra det/ mud 1

2 0 3 2

0 43 86 0

(35. 4) (2A) R 2 cob 0 0 0 I M L

L 18 2

2 san /gra san san 0

0 0

1 0 0

0 I (Back channel)

(35.4) (2B) R M

L 4

12 3

det san /gra/ cob 4 san 6

5 118 79 99 (35.7) R 2 det/ mud 0 4 I

0 (Back channel) M 13 san /gra 1 5 43 L 2 det/ mud 0 4 0 (37.0) (3) R IE) 12 det/ san 0 3 0 I M L

L 25 2

2 gra mud / san san 0

0 4

2 0

79 0

(37.5) k 2 gra 1 2 43 M 23 san 1 0 43 L 2 gra 0 3 0 (37.5) R 2 mud / san 0 1 0 I (Back channel) M L

25 10 gra gra 2

2 0

0 86 86 I

Substrate Codes: Footnotes ash - ash (HD) - Heated Discharge I cob det gra cobble detritus gravel (1) - Transect 1 (2A) - Transact 2A (Main Channel)

(2B) - Transect 2B (Back Channel) mud - mud I

(3) - Transect 3 san - sand sil - silt I

I I

14

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 5 2

Corbicula DENSITIES (clams /m ) SUMMARIZED FROM BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTIONS 1973 THROUGH 1985 BWS I 1 2A TRANSECT 2B Back 3

Date L M R L M R Channel L M R 1973 Nov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1974 May 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Jun Jul Aug 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

Sep 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1975 Aug, 26 Nov, 13 1976 Feb, 24 7

0 7

0 0

0 20 0

0 20 7

0 20 46 0

33 0

0 20 13 7

7 0

0 198 0

0 0

May, 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Aug, 18 40 20 290 99 0 53 92 0 20 0 Nov 0 0 356 13 475 20 139 7 422 13 1977 Feb, 24 0 0 7 7 53 508 7 0 7 0 May, 17 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 I Aug, 17 0 0 0 0 86 7 13 0 172 0

0 Nov 13 20 59 0 46 13 46 7 145 0 I 1978 Feb, May, Aug, 15 18 9

0 0

0 13 0

0 0

6 13 0

0 132 0

0 0

0 6

0 0

6 6 0

0 32 0

0 Nov, 14&l5 25 13 0 6 403 38 32 6 19 6 1979 Mar, 22 I May, 25 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Aug, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nov, 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1980 Feb, 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May, 21 0 - -

0 - -

0 0 - -

I Sep, 23 0 0 0 0 1981 May, 12 0 - -

0 - -

7 0 - -

Sep, 22 40 - -

90 - -

408 99 - -

1982 May, 18 0 - -

0 - -

0 0 - -

Sep, 23 0 - -

10 - -

0 0 - -

1983 May, 11 20 - -

0 - -

0 0 - -

Sep, 13 59 - -

20 - -

251 40 - -

1984 May, 10 0 - -

0 - -

7 0 - -

I Sep, 6 0 - -

0 - -

0 0 - -

1985 May, 15 0 - -

0 - -

0 0 - -

Sep, 19 89 - -

0 - -

99 40 - -

j

(-) indicates area not sampled 15

Ll DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE 6 '

SUMMARY

OF Corbicula COLLECTED IN IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS FOR ONE 24-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, 1985 BVPS lI Number Collected Operating Non-Operating I Month Date Intake Bays Intake Bays Dy Alive Dead Alive Dead j January 4 0 0 3 2 11 0 0 0 0 18 0 5 0 2 I February 25I *I 8

II 15 0 0 0 6 22 0 1 I March 1 0 0 0 0 1 3

8 0 0 0 0 fI April 15 22 29 0

0 0

0 5 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 l 26 0 0 0 0 I

,l May 3 0 18 0 9

}m 10 2 1 6 16 17 0 1 1 0 24 0 2 0 0 I June 31 7

4 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 14 6 4 0 2 21 1 5 0 I 28 7 16 0 0

1 July 5 5 7 0 1 I 12 19 26 (b) 11 7 2 9

1 0

August 2 (b)

I 9 77 89 1 3 16 32 28 7 2 23 162 56 3 4 I September 30 13 6

81 71 181 47 30 50 4

8 5

5 3

4 20 50 29 2 6 27 59 47 3 16 I

16

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY l

l 1985 Corbicula MONITORING pit 0 GRAM Table 6 i

(Continued)

Number Collected Operating Non-Operating I Date Intake Bays Intake Bays Month Dy Alive Dead Alive Dead October 4 0 3 1 13 11 9 5 5 6 1 18 11 9 3 5 I November 25 1

8 1

3 4

4 3

12 124 5

3 5

7 16 15 0 2 4 2 22 0 0 0 2 I 29 0 0 0 0 December 6 1 4 2 23 I 13 20 27 0

1 0

0 0

5 2

0 2

1 I Total 786 494 198 172 I (a) Impingement could not be conducted due to frozan diccharge pipe.

(b) Overhead crane in screenhouse was out-of-service, cancelling impingement.

I I

17

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM DISCUSSION I The nost unanticipated collections of Corbicula were taken in the innerbay I areas by the divers. Substantial numbers of clams were recovered from Bays A, B and D. However, more important than the actual numbers of Corbicula that were present behind the traveling screens following the November flood is the short period in which the Corbicula colonized these areas. Bay D was totally dewatered for a flange replacement in October and had been returned to service just prior to the flood. At that time, the floor of Bay D was bare and dry, containing no clams at all (Logar 1985) . Therefore, all of the clams later found in Bay D colonized the area within four weeks. It seems reasonable to presume that the large numbers of clams removed from Bays A and C were also transported there by the flood. However, these bays were last cleaned in May, I 1985; therefore, the exact time of colonization cannot be determined.

majority of clams were too large to have passed through the traveling screens The (average size 17 m, largest 32 m, for live Corbicula) . Thus, th.ey probably colonized the area by passing through the 1.5 to 2 inch (38 to 51 mm) opening on either side of the traveling screens.

I The large numbers of clams collected during the impingement studies the week of November 8 (Table 6) supports this hypothesis. During that week, only Bay A was operating, and 84% of the clams collected from ncn-operating screens were from Bay D. Bays B and C yielded 6.5% and 4.5% of the Corbicula, respectively. Therefore, eddy currents were probably influential in the distribution of clams into the bay areas.

Regional variation and this species adaptability appear to be key survival tactics for Corbicula and pose major challenges for those who study these organisms (Britton 1983). A number of natural phenomena regarding the I population dynamics of Corbicula are observable in the present data.

these phenomena have been observed previously.

Some of Corbicula in the vicinity of the BVPS and the upper Ohio River were found most often in near shore habitats with primarily gravel or sand substrates, although pa.it data (Table 5) show that Corbicula were present in mid-channel areas during periods of high population density. Corbicula were most of ten reported to prefer shallow, soft, sandy substrates (Dreier and Tranquilli 18

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM 1981, Gottfried and Osborne 1982). Our observations indicate that in the upper Ohio River the Corbicula also prefer gravel substrates. This preference may relate to interspecific composition, predation patterns, or an adaptation I to lotic systems.

Large unexplained die-offs of Corbicula populations have been reported in the literature (e.g., Sickel et al 1981, Walker 1982, Sickel 1985) . This could explain the year to year variation in Corbicula density in the vicinity of the BVPS. However, any such speculation should be considered tentative.

I Several theories have developed regarding the great natural distributive capacities of the Corbicula and how they can spread quickly throughout a watershed (McMahon 1982) . One way in which this species may be able to spread downstream is by drif ting in the water column using a mucous " drogue" as a flotation device (Prezant and Chalermwat 1984, Figure 4, Photo 2) . This relocation mechanism probably is used by the Ohio River population of I Corbicula. Live clams were commonly collected on the vertically oriented traveling screens during impingement surveys (Table 6); thus, they must be able to suspended themselves in the water column in order to have been I collected in this way. Another method for shell movement occurs when dying Corbicula produce a mucous sack that is inflated with decomposition gases that would cause bouyancy and downstream movement (McMahon 1983) . Corbicu_l,a, are generally known to be well established in the lower reaches of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers, where flooding occurred prior to the December cleaning of the DVPS intake structure. The colonization by large numbers of live Corbicula in the intake during November and early December was probably the I result of deliberate downstream drif t. This phenomenon has been documented for many aquatic insects in small streams. Perhaps the rising or receding flood waters acted as a cue to initiate this behavior in the Corbicula. If true, this insight advances our understanding of this species. The lack of clams on the river side of the traveling screens may have been the result of flow patterns during the flood or predation by organisms that use the sheltered waters of the intake structure as a feeding ground (e.g., catfish) .

I I 19

I I DUQUESNE LIG11T COMPANY 1985 corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM I

I eCm, b

.~. s I

(1) Cody 1985, Aquatic systesno Corporation I

I I

2 .;

gw, I

I (2) Presant and Chalerimwat 1984, courtesy of SCIFNCE MAGAZINE Copyr1Eht 1964 by the AAA$

I FIGURE 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF Corbicula: (1) SIZE RANGE COLLECTED FROM DAY D CLEANING OPERATIONS, AND (2) MUCOUS " DROGUE" EXCRETION AS A METHOD OF LOCOMOTION DVPS I 20

I I ,

.DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Cerbicula MONITORING PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS This investigation has shown that natural phenomena (e .g . , flooding) and the opportunistic methods of locomotion (e.g., mucous " drogue" excretion) provide Corbicula with a means to recolonize areas greater than 20 miles downstream.

Both the May and September collections (141 samples) revealed only 59 clams in the Ohio River Study Area. However, concurrent with the river flooding during November, Bay D had a dramatic infestation (an estimated 1,350,000) of clams I in only four weeks. It is highly unlikely that such a large population of Corbicula would have been missed in the May and September collections had they inhabited the Study Area.

It is significant to note the unusually high numbers of Corbicula collected in the intake bays considering the following factors. First, the physical positioning of the intake structure is parallel to the shoreline, designed to I reduce funneling of debris into the bays. - A skimmer wall located below the surface also prevents floating debris from being drawn into the plant.

Second, the percentage of river water withdrawn into the BVPS was very small compared with the total flow. Flow data,. provided by ORSANCO's East Liverpool, Ohio gage (MP 40.2) for November and December, 1985, show monthly averages of 64,200 and 58,700 cfs and maximum daily values of 127,500 and 141,300 cfs, respectively, with only approximately 60 cfs being withdrawn into I the DVPS. When comparing the high numbers of clams collected in light of the above factors, it becomes appearent that there was a very large Corbicula population inhabiting the upper Ohio River drainage, above the 1985 Study Area. These clams most likely utilized a mucous excretion to relocate a dt.:*ance m' greater than 20 m!1es downstream to the BVPS during the flood of November, 1985.

I It is also significant that, in spite of this very large infestation of clams into the intake, no problems were encountered at the BVPS and operations )

I continued normally throughout the event.

I I

21

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM I .

LITERATURE CITED Britton, J. C., 1983. Minutes of the Biology Panel Discussion, Second International Corbicula Symposium, Corbicula Newsletter 8(2):9-19.

Burch, J. Q., 1944. Checklist of West American Mollusks. Minutes, Concholcgy Club of Southern California 38:18 I C. C.

Counts, III, 1985. Distribution of Corbicula fluminea at Nuclear Facilities. Division of Engineering, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREGLCR. 4233. 79pp.

Dreier, H. and Tranquilli, J. A., 1981. Reproduction, Growth, Distribution and Abundance of Corbicula in an Illinois Cooling Lake, ILL Nat. Hist.

Survey Bull. 32(4):378-393.

I Hammill, Vincent, J., Jr. (Commercial Diver) personal communication, November 29, 1985.

Jenkins, Harold and Frank Logar, (DLCo Operations Personnel, BVPS) personal communication, January 10, 1986.

Logar, Frank, (DLCo Operations Personnel, BVPS) personal communication, December-3. 1985.

I McMahon, R. F., 1982. The occurence and Spread of the Introduced Asian Freshwater Clam, Corbicula fluminea in North America: 1921 t90. Nautilus 96(4):123-141.

McMahon, R. F., 1983. The Mollusca. Academic Press, Orlando, FL: 505-561.

I Prezant, R. S. and Chalermwat, K., 1984. Flotation of the Bivalve Corbicula fluminea as a Means of Dispersal. Science 225:1491-1493.

Sickel, J. B., Johnson, D. W., Rice, G. T., Heyn, M. W. and Wellner, P. K.,

1981. Asiatic Clam and Commercial Fishery Evaluation. Final Report, unpublished. (Cited Corbicula newsletter 6(2):15 with abstract.)

, 22

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I Sickel, J. B.,

1985 Corbicula MONITORING PROGRAM 1985. Other News. Corbicula Newsletter 9(1):2.

I Walker, M. W., 1982. Corbicula, Mortality in the Towaliga River, Georgia.

Corbicula Newsletter 7(1):1:

I I l I

l l

I I

l I

I I

n

m sa- s- u... s - - - , - w - - -

a _ - - e ---4 - .- - - - , ,

I ~

EI

I

I I ATTACHMENT OF NRC IE BULLETIN 81-03

'I I

i I

I lI

.I 1I

I

I I

!I

!I 4

i I ,

SSINS No.: 6820 Accession No.:

8011040289 IEB 81-03 UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 10,1981 IE Bulletin 81-03 : FLOW BLOCKAGE OF COOLING WATER TO SAFETY SYSTEM COMPONENTS BY CORBICULA SP. (ASIATIC CLAM) AND MYTILUS S?. (MUSSEL)

Description of Circumstances:

On September 3, 1980, Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Unit 2, was shut down after the NRC Resident Inspector discovered that Unit 2 had failed to meet the technical specification requirements for minimum service water flow rata through the containment cooling units (CCUs). After plant shutdown, Arkansas l Power and Light Company, the licensee, determined that the inadequate flow was due to extensive plugging of the CCUs by Asiatic clams (Corbicula species, a The licensee disassembled the service I non-native fresh water bivalve Clams water piping at the coolers.

mollusk).

were found in the 3-inch diameter supply piping at the inlet to the CCUs and in the cooler inlet water boxes.

Some of the clams found were alive, but most of the debris consisted of shells. The I size of the clams varied from the larvae stage up to one inch. The service water,.which is taken from the Dardanelle Reservoir, is filtered before it is The strainers on the service water pump discharges pumped through the system.

I were examined and found to be intact. Since these strainers have a 3/16-inch mesh, much smaller than some. of the shells found, it appears that clams had been growing in the system.

I Following the discovery of Asiatic clams in the containment coolers of Unit 2, the licensee examined other equipment cooled by service water in both Units 1 and 2. Inspection of other heat exchangers in the Unit 2 service water system I revealed some fouling or plugging of additional coolers (seal water coolers for both redundant containment spray pumps and one low pressure safety injec-tion pump) due to a buildup of silt, corrosion products, and debris (mostly I clam shell pieces). The high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump bearing and seal coolers were found to have substantial plugging in the 1/2-inch pipe service water supply lines. The plugging resulted from an accumulation of I silt and corrosion products.

Clam shells were found in some auxiliary building room coolers and in the I auxiliary cooling water system which serves non-safety-related equipment.

Flow rates measured during surveillance testing through the CCUs at ANO-2 had Flushing af ter plant shutdown initially deteriorated over a number of months. Proper flow rates were restored only resulted in a further reduction in flow.

af ter the clam debris had been removed manually from the CCUs.

and The examination of the Unit I service water system revealed that the "C" Clams were found in the 3-inch "D" containment coolers were clogged by clams.However, no clams were found inlet headers and in the inlet water boxes.

April 10, 1981 g Page 2 of 5 g

in the "A" and "B" coolers. This fouling was not discovered during surveillance testing because there was no flow instrumentation on these coolers.

The service water system in Unit I was not foulcd other than stated above, and the licensee attributed this to the fact that the service water pump suctions are located behind the main condenser circulating pumps in the intake structure.

I It was thought that silt and clams entering the intake bays would be swept through the condenser by the main circulating pumps and would not accumulate in the back of the intake bays. In contrast, Unit 2 has no main circulating l pumps in its intake structure because condenser heat is rejected through a cooling tower via a closed cooling system. As a result of lower flowrates of water through the Unit 2 intake structure, silt and clams could have a tendency to accumulate more rapidly in Unit 2 than in Unit 1. During the September I outage, clams and shells were found to have accumulated to depths of 3 to 4-1/2 feet in certain areas of the intake bays for Unit 2.

The Asiatic clam was first found inSince the United States in 1938 in the Columbia then, Corbicula sp. has spread across River near Knappton, Washington. The Tennessee Valley the country and is now reported in at least 33 states.

I Authority (TVA) power plants also have experienced fouling caused by these clams. They were first found in the condensers and service water systems at the Shawnee Steam Plant in 1957. Asiatic clams were later found in the Browns l Ferry Nuclear Plant in October 1974 only a few months af ter it went into operation. This initial clam infestation at Browns Ferry was enhanced by the fact that, during the final stages of construction, the cooling water systems were allowed to remain filled with water for long periods of time while the I systems were not in use. This condition was conducive to the growth and accumulation of clams. Since that time, the Asiatic clam has spread across the Tennessee Valley region and is found at virtually all the TVA steam-electric I and hydroelectric generating stations.

Present control procedures for Asiatic clams vary from station to station and I in their degree of effectiveness. The use of shock chlorination during surveil-lance testing as the only method of controlling biofouling by this organism appears to be ineffective. The level of fouling has been reduced to acceptable I levels at TVA stations by using continuous chlorination during peak spawning periods, clam traos, and mechanica] cleaning during station outages.

I The results of a series of tests on mollusks periormed at the Savannah River facility showed that mature Corbicula_ sp. had as much as a 10 percent survival rate after being exposed to high' concentrations of free residual chlorine (10 to 40 ppm) for up to 54 hours6.25e-4 days 0.015 hours 8.928571e-5 weeks 2.0547e-5 months . When the clams were allowed to remain buried I in a couple of inches of mud, their survival rates were as high as 65 percent.

In studies on shelled larvae, approximately 200 microns in size TVA reported I preliminary results indicating that a total chlorine residual of(0.30 to 0.40 npm..for 96 to 10R hours would be required to achieve 100 percent control of the Asiatic clans larvae.

I I

I IEB 81-03 April 10, 1981 l Page 3 of 5 Corbicula sp. has also shown an amazing ability to survive even when removed from the water. Average times to death when left in the air have b6en reported for low relative humidity as 6.7 days at 30*C (86*F) and 13.9 days at 20*C (68"F) and for high relative humidity as 8.3 days at 30*C and 26.8 days at I 20*C.

Corbicula sp. on the other hand, has shown a much greater sensitivity to heat.

I Tests performed by TVA resulted in 100 percent mortality of clam larvae, very young clams, and 2mm clams when they were exposed to 47*C (117*F) water for 2 minutes. Mature clams, up to 14mm, were also tested and all- died at 47*C I following a 2 minute exposure. A statistical analysis of the 2 minute exposure test data revealed that a temperature of 49*C (120 F) was necessary to reach the 99 percent confidence level of mortality for clams of the size tested.

To date, heat has been shown to be. the most effective way of producing 100 p,ercent mortality for the Asiatic clam. At ANO, the service water system was I flushed with'77"C (170 F) wate.r obtained from the auxiliary boiler for approx-imately one half hour; 100 percent mortality was expected.

A similar problem has occurred with mussels (Mytilus sp.). Infestations of I mussels have caused flow blockage of cooling water to safety related equipment at nuclear plants such as Pilgrim and Hillstone. Unlike the Asiatic clam, mussels cause biofouling in salt water cooling systems.

The event at ANO is significant to reactor safety because (1) the fouling represented an actual common cause failure, i.e., inability of safety ;ystem l redundant components to perform their intended safety functions, and (2) the licensee was not aware that safety system components were fouled Although the fouling at ANO-2 developed over a number of months, neither the licensee I management control system nor periodic maintenance or surveillance program detected the failure.

ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY LICENSEES Holders of Operating Licenses:

1. Determine whether Corbicula sp. or Mytilus sp. is present in the vicinity of the station (local environment) in either the source or receiving water body. If the results of current field monitoring programs provide reason-I able evidence that neither of these species is present in the local environment, no further act' ion is necessary except for items 4 and 5 in this section for holders of operating licenses.

I 2. If it is unknown whether either of these species is present in the local environment or is confirmed that either is present, determine whether I fire protection or safety-related systems that directly circulate water from the station source or receiving water body are fouled by clams or mussels or debris consisting of their shells. An acceptable method of

~

confirming the absence of organisms or shell debris consists of opening and visually examining a representative sample of components in po'tentially af fected safety systems and a sample of locations in potentially af fected

April 10, 1981 I

Pcg2 4 of 5 !

fire protection systems. The sample shall have included a distribution of components with supply and return piping of various diameters which ,

exist in the potentially affected systems. This inspection shall have l been conducted since the last clam or mussel spawning season or within the nine month period preceding the date of this bulletin. If the absence of organisms or shell debris has been confirmed by such an inspection or another method which the licensee shall describe in the response (subject I to NRC evaluation ar.d acceptance), no further action is necessary except for items 4 and 5 of actions applicable to holders of an operating license.

3. If clams, mussels or shells were found in potentially affected systems or their absence was not confirmed by action in item 2 above, measure the flow rates through individual components in potentially affected systems I to confirm adequate flow rates i.e., flow blockage or degradation to an unacceptably low flow rate has not occurred. To be acceptable for this determination, these measurements shall have been made within six months I of the date of this bulletin using calibrated flow instruments. Differ-ential pressure (DP) measurements between supply and return lines for an individual component and DP or flow measurements for parallel connected individual coolers or components are not acceptable if flow blockage or degradation could cause the observed DP or be masked in parallel flow paths.

Other methods may be used which give conclusive evidence that flow blockage or degradation to unacceptably low flow rates has not occurred. If another method is used, the basis of its acceptance for this determination shall I be included in the response to this bulletin.

If the above flow rates cannot be measured or indicate significant flow I degradation, potentially affected systems shall be inspected according to item 2 above or by an acceptable alternative method and cleaned as necessary.

This action shall be taken within the time period prescribed for submittal of the report to NRC.

4. Describe methods either in use or planned (including implementation date)

I for preventing and detecting future flow blockage or degradation due to clams or mussels or shell debris. Include the following information in this description:

a. Evaluation of the potential for intrusion of the organisms into these systems due to l'ow water level and high velocities in the intaxe structure expected during worst case conditions.

b. Evaluation of effectiveness of prevention and detection methods used in the past or present or planned for future use.

5. Describe the actions taken in items 1 through 3 above and include the following information:

a. Applicable portions of the environmental monitoring program including last sample date and results.

I -

IEB 81-03 April 10, 1981 Page 5 of 5

b. Components and systems affected.

c. Extent of fouling if any existed.

d. How and when fouling was discovered.

e. Corre.ctive and preventive actions.

Holders of Construction Perciits:

1. Determine whether Corbicula sp. or Mytilus_ sp. is present in the vicinity of the statinn by completing items 1 and 4 above that 4.oply to operating licenses (OL). .,

2. If these organisms are present in the local environment ar.d potentially affected systems have been filled from the station source ce receiving I water body, determine whether infestation has occurred.

3. Describe the actions taken in items 1 and 2 above for construction permit holders and in:1ude the following information:

a. Applicable portior:s of the environmental monitoring program ,*ncluding l b.

last sample date and results.

Components and systeas affected.

c. Extent of fouling if any existed.

d. How and when fouling was discovered.

e. Corrective and preventive actions.

Licensees of facilities with operating licenses shall provide the requested report within 45 days of the date of this bulletin. Licensees of facilities with construction permits shall provide the report within 90 days.

I Provide written reports as required above, signed under oath or affirmation, under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of the appropriate Regional Office and a copy forwarded to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, NRC, Washington, D.C. 20555.

This request for information was approved by GAO under a blanket clearance number R0072 which expires November 30, 1983. Comments on burden and dupli-cation should be directed to Office of Management and Budget, Room 3201, I New Executive Of fice Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

I

9 g '*

4 7T Ab Telephone (412) 3934000 huclear Group P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 0004 April 14, 1986 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Director Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406

Reference:

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334 1985 Annual Environmental Report Non-radiological - Volume #1 Centlement For your information, enclosed are two (2) copies of the 1985 Annual Environmental Report Non-radiological - Volume #1, for the Bea-ver Valley Power Station. Eighteen (18) copies have been provided to the Document Management Desk.

Very truly yours, 4

L,ys,

'JlJ.Careyfz,j,l)S fi V' ice President, Nuclear Enclosure cc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis.; ion Document Management Branch j Washington, DC 20555 l 1

-

ML20141H883

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML20141H883

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search