NUREG/CR-0474, Research Info Ltr 58 Discussing Results of Comparision of Simulation Models Used in Assessing Effects of Power plant- Induced Mortality on Fish Populations Discussed in NUREG/CR-0474

Research Info Ltr 58 Discussing Results of Comparision of Simulation Models Used in Assessing Effects of Power plant- Induced Mortality on Fish Populations Discussed in NUREG/CR-0474

ML19249E990
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1979
From:	Levine S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RIL-058, RIL-58, NUDOCS 7910020840
Download: ML19249E990 (6)

Text

'

i n nao UNITED STATES f

k.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON E

c(

k WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i

9, e

%,.'.... /

AAIG 2 9 tyg MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Saul Levine, Director i

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

RESEARCH INFORMATION LETTER # 58 - COMPARISON OF SIMULATION MODELS USED IN ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF POWER PLANT INDUCED MORTALITY ON FISH POPULATIONS Introduction and Sumary This memorandum transmits the results of completed research on comparison of simulation models used in assessing the effects of power-plant-induced mortality on fish populations. This work was perfomed by the Center for l

Quantitative Science at the University of Washington's College of Fisheries under the direction of the Environmental Effects Branch of RES.

Research Request NRR 78-7, " Evaluation of Ecosystem Simulation Models as Tools for Confirmatory Assessment of Power Plant Impacts,"' stated that the j

NRR staff lacks quantitative methodologies for predicting and assessing l

4 potential impacts on fisheries resources which may result from power plant effects.

It also stated that theoretical models and computer simulations provide a possible approach to resolving these inadequacies. This report provides infonnation on the currently available models and simulations, i

i documents their underlying assumptions, specifies data input and parameter estimation requirements and discusses their theoretical limitations and l

verification procedures.

Methodology The approach used to review the models for predicting the impact of power plant operation on economically important fish species involved several The model equations and underlying assumptions were compared.

Para-steps.

t meter values were compared and the data sources used in obtaining them were investigated. Since many of the models had differirg assumptions, parameter l

values or both, general simulators were developed to evaluate the relative i

predictive ability of thc various models.

i I

l INUREG/CR-0474, " Comparison of Simulation Models Used in Assessing the Effects of Power-Plant-Induced Mortality on Fish Populations" I

0NO q91 002 t

Harold R. Denton The eight models reviewed were partitioned into two submodels: A young-of-the-year model which simulates the annual effect of plant entrainment and impinge-ment on recruitment of young-of-the-year into the adult population, and a life-cycle model, which simulates the subsequent, long-tenn effect of reduced recruitment on the adult population. The interactive life-cycle model simulator developed to compare the available models is diagramed in Figure 1.

This model can accept density-deperdent assumptions for both young-of-the-year and fishing survival.

It allows parameters to be varied easily from run to run and allows plant operation to go on or off at any time.

Results Table 1 summarizes the predictions of percentage reduction young-of-the-year of the various models and Table 2 summarizes the predictions of impact on adult fish populations of the various life-cycle models. As shown in Table 1, the percentage reduction values for the ORNL l-D and LMS models differ greatly for similar cases. These models are complex and are the only models reviewed that consider migration explicitly. Therefore a large proportion of the text is devoted to an analysis of them. Because the predictions given in Table 2 are-not directly comparable, the authors developed their own life-cycle model simulator. Sensitivity studies and results are given for sex ratio, compensatory mortality, life-cycle parameters, and entrainment factors.

Conclusions and Recorrrnendations Major differences between the models include the life stage lengths, density-dependent or density-independent young-of-the-year mortality, density-dependent or density-independent fishing mortality, and the method for computing recruit-ment of young-of-the-year fish into the adult population. Major differences in parameter values include entrainment factors, total egg production, equilibrium population size, and survival probabilities for the life-cycle models.

No presently existing impact model can be used to make quantitative predictions due to the large year-to-year variability in young-of-the-year d7nsities and spatial distribution and the sensitivity of results to uncertairties in the parameters used in the density-dependent mortality function.

We recomend that additional research be carried out to develop a better model for predicting the impact of power plant operation on fisheries.

In the mean-time NUREG/CR-0474 can be used to evaluate the limitations of presently available models.

If you have any questions with regar'd to this report, please contact Mr. Frank Swanberg, Jr., Chief, Environmental Effects Branch (427-4358).

f

,w aul Levine, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

NUREG/CR-0474 10/4 149

~

300ROR{M1 START h

ENTER DATA SURVIVAL FRACTIONS. FECUNDITY, F15 MING MCRTALITY PARAMETER $

ENTER INITIAL (EQUlll8RIUM) CON 0lfl045 g

YES COMPUTE FECUNDITIE5 FROM REGRESSION EQUATION FECWolU PARAMETERS N0 d-d COMPUTE INITIAL Fl5 MING NO Fl5 MING SG2VIVAL PR08A81LITY ENTER FiSMikG SURylVAL PROSA81Ll TY d*de Y'o*Y ygg SURVIVAL f

ENTER PARAMETERS FOR SURVIVAL PR0rA3tLITY A5 FECUNDITY OF NuM8ER OF (CGS YES PLANT OPERATING OURING RUN7 ENTER PARAMETER $ FOR PR A5 FUNCTION OF NUM8tR OF EGG 5 g

{

T TIME = l O COMPUTE d-d FISMING SURVIVAL PR08A8 tLITY AND/0R $URVIVAL L PR08A81LITY (IF APPLICA8LE)

FOR y-o y AND FECUNelTIES COMPUTE hum 8ER IN EACM AGE CLA55 AT TIME t BY MATRIX MULTIPLICATION

1. ~

($

OCTAILED PRINT NtM8ER PRtKTOUT IN EACM AGE CLA5 PRINT YlELO. FISMING SURYlVAL NO ROSA 31LITY, TOTAL ADULT POPULAtl0N s

STORE NTPUT FOR Pt075 Y

hlME= TIME +1 wo TIME = EN07 YES FINISM Information required 6 Question promoted Operation per-for model operation y by the model formed by model Figure 1.

Flow chart for life cycle model simulator.

1U14

\\bd

Table

1. Comparison of predictions of percentage reduction (PR) for various models.

Entrainment Model Compensation factors PR Plants operating UfS 1-D liigh Best estimate 2.5 Indian Point Units 1 & 2 1967 liigh Maximum 4.0 LMS 1-D liigh Best estimate 2.77 Indian Point Units 1, 2, 1973 Low Best estimate 4.88

& 3 and Cornwall LMS 2-D liigh Best estimate 1.257 Indian Point Units 1, 2, Low Best estimate 3.138

&3 Low Minimum 2.44 ORNL l-D None Minimum 18.0 Bowline Unit 2. Indian None Best estimate 34.0 Point Units 1, 2, & 3, None Haximum 42.0 Roseton Units 1 & 2 ORNL 4.5 Sunnait Sununt t JHU l.0-5.0 Sumrnit Delmarva 0.71-5.53 Sununf t kw N

4 M

U-m e 58

---

~.--.--%,...*~.+=e

• --aw.

se s

e--

... - - +-,

Table 2.

Comparison of life cycle model impact predictions.

PR in y-o-y Model PR compensation PR in total adults 1-year-old fish Number of years Number of years 5

10 5

10 LMS 1-D(67) 2.07 High 2.52 3.93 2.71 4.01 3.42 Low 4.93 9.74 5.68 7.43 3.13 None 4.82 11.39 5.55 12.00 Humber of years Number of yeara 7

10 40 7

10 40 LMS 2-D 1.21 High 1.29 1.64 2.18 1.33 1.68 2.18 1.26 High 1.34 1.70 2.26 1.38 1.75 2.26 2.44 Lca 2.64 3.70 6.82 2.81 3.91 6.99 3.14 Low 3.46 4.86 8.95 3.61 5.03 8.99 4.47 Low 4.93 6.88 12.42 5.13 7.11 12.46 Y

~I Model PR Relative yield

, gg 1-ye

-o d fish Number of years Number of years 5

10 20 40 5

10 20 40 ORNL 19 None 0.96 0.90 0.85 0.83 10 14 17 18 25 None 0.88 0.75 0.64 0.60 25 33 38 42 50 None 0.78 0.52 0.35 0.26 50 62 70 75 s

t w

b U,

N s

-~~~e mm--e.~-

s---

s.o w e. s m ae,

..aa,e,s.

m own s.,

~~-

oon-.

Table 2.

comparison of life efcle model impact predictions - (continued).

y-o-y Model PR compensation PR in annual yield ORNL 0.5 None

( '. 01 Summit 2.75 None 0.77 5.0 None 3.7 JilU 2.5 None 0.45 5.0 None 1.7

~

y-o-y Model PR compensation PR in torni adults 35 years Winter 1.0 Best estimate 6.0 Flounder 1.0 None 9.0 k

~~;

4 L/-

s

--e.,==..-~....-,.

- _...