ML19320D546

Evaluation of Impingement Losses of White Perch at Indian Point Nuclear Station & Other Hudson River Power Plants.

ML19320D546
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	06/30/1980
From:	Barnthouse L, Kirk B, Van Winkle W OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
CON-FIN-B-0423, CON-FIN-B-423 NUREG-CR-1100, ORNL-NUREG-TM-3, NUDOCS 8007210498
Download: ML19320D546 (152)

Text

_ _ _ _ - - -

1 NUREG/CR-1100 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 l

! OAK .

RIDGE l

' ' NATIONAL

-LABORATORY Evaluation of Impingement Losses of White Perch at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and Other

Hudson River Power Plants W. Van Winkle L. W. Barnthouse B. L. Kirk

. D.S.Vaughan e

I . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION Publication No.1480 e

a w

i

• Prepared for the i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

~~

3 Under Interagency Agreement No. DOE 40-550-75 i ,1*  :

c. ~-

t

~

r . .

DOCUMENT CotFROL DESK l OPERATED BY 016 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION ,

35s POR THE 41NITEASTATES DEPARTMENT OF' ENERGY 1 007 'I 210 @$

t f

l' t

?

l j .-

l' I

- Printed in the United States of America. Available from l National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 L

Available from '

l GPO Sales Program Division of Technical information and Document Control U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Nemer the U nited StatesGovernment nor any agency thereof, not any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not intnnge p rivately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarity state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency .

thereof.

l 1

i

'M_

NUREG/CR-1100 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Distribution Category - RE Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 l

( EVALUATION OF IMPINGEMENT LOSSES OF WHITE PERCH I AT THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR STATION AND OTHER HUDSON RIVER POWER PLANTS

' W. Van Winkle, L. W. Barnthouse, B. L. Kirk, and D. S. Vaughan ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION Publication No. 1480 Manuscript Completed - April 1980 Date published - June 1980 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, D.C. 20555 Under Interagency Agreement No. DOE 40-550-75 NRC FIN B0423 Task: Methods to Assess Impacts on Hudson River White Perch 0AK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee- 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY l

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS l The authors thank J. M. Loar and S. M. Adams for their critical l . review of the manuscript. The data analyzed in this paper were made available to us by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. as part of the 316(b) hearings being held by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.

iii-

ABSTRACT

-W. VAN WINKLE, L. W. BARNTHOUSE, B. L. KIRK, and D. S. VAUGHAN.

1980. Evaluation of impingement losses of white perch at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and other Hudson River power plants. ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 and NUREG/CR-1100. Oak

-Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 152 pp.

This report evaluates two independent lines of evidence concerning impingement losses of white perch at the power plants on the Hudson l River. Based on regression analyses of impingement rate as an index of year-class strength versus year over the period 1972 through 1977, it is concluded that there is little evidence of a statistically significant downward trend. However, an analysis of minimum detectable differences in impingement rates indicates that a long time series of year-class strength would be required to detect even substantial reductions (e.g., 50%) . Second, based on our estimates of percent reduction in year-class strea ci:

3 due to impingement ( > 20% for the 1974 year class and > 15% for the 1975 year class), it is concluded that the level of impingement impact is not acceptable a_ priori from the point. of view of managing the white perch population. Our methodologies and results are compared with those of the utilities, and the bases for the substantial difference in estimate of impingement are discussed. Appendices are included on survival of impinged white perch, impingement rate as an index of population' abundance, and ability to. detect decreases in population abundance.

v ,

SlM4ARY '

~This' report presents two independent lines of evidence evaluating impingement' losses 'of white perch at the power plants on the Hudson River, based on data provided by the utilities and their consultants.

l - The first line of evidence involves analyzing the variation in l'

[ impingement rate among' years over the period 1972 through 1977. The second line-of evidence involves estimating the conditional caortality i rate'(or equivalently, the percent reduction in year-class strength in the absence of cnmpensation) due to impingement for the 1974 and 1975 year .cl asses. -

Impingement rate provides one index of year-class strength on a

. relative scale. As such, it reflects the effect of entrainment and j- impingement losses during the preceding months, as well as the effect j of any compensatory mechanisms which might alter survival during the

preceding months. Regression analyses of impingement rates of young-of-the-year white perch among years suggest that there has been no linear change in the size of the white perch population during the period.1972

through _1977. . In particular, there is little evidence of a statistically significant downward trend. However, given the large variability in impingement rates used in these regressions, the time i- series are relatively short (i.e., S - 6 years), and thus, the statistical . power ~of the test for a trend is not high. Based on a 4

-systematic' analysis of ' minimum detectable differences in annual cimpingementirates and the number of_ years required to detect a

=specified reduction in this index offyear-class strength, it is concluded'that long: time series of year-class strength would be l

vii  !

j 1

' ~

required to detect'even substantial reductions (e.g., 50%). In addition, based on an analysis comparing data on impingement rate and beach-seine catch per unit effort (CPUE), the relative accuracy of impingement rates as estimates of relative year-class strength is called into question. A final point relating to the use of impingement rate as an index of year-class strength is that a systematic decrease in year-class strength due to impingement mortality would only start to

~

manifest itself with the 1977 (or 1978) and subsequent year classes.

This delay is due to the age of sexual maturity for females, the multiple age-class composition of the spawning population of females, and the appreciable increase in impingement mortality starting in 1973 and 1974.

Our estimates of percent reduction in year-class strength due to impingement indicate that the level of impingement impact was probably greater than 20% for the 1974 year class and was probably greater than 15% for the 1975 year class. These estimates do not include consideration of entrainment, so the total power plant conditional mortality rate is obviously greater than the values presented in this report for impingement only. Given the information currently available, it is our judgment that this level of impingement impact is not acceptable a priori from the point of view of managing the white perch population.

In terms of the comparability of assumptions and values for input parameters used in the utilities' methodology and in ORNL's methodology for estimating percent reduction, the utilities' estimate of percent reduction due to' impingement for the 1974 year class of 11.3% is best I

viii

compared to ORNL's estimate of 25.5%. Five " decision points" accounting for this more-than-a-f actor-of-two difference are discussed. The utilities' choice at every one of these five decision points.affects the results in the same direction, namely, to lower the estimate of percent reduction. ORNL's choice at each of these five l-l decision points is scientifically more sound and defensible.

1 I

ix i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ............................ v

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Vil LIST OF TABLES ......................... xiii l

LI ST OF F I GUR ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Description of data base ............. 3 B. Variation in impingement rate among years . . . . . 4 C. Variation in impingement rate among months .... 8 D. Variation in impingement rate among power plants . 11 III. WHITE PERCH ABUNDANCE AND MORTALITY ......... 12 A. Abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B. Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 IV. ESTIMATION OF CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE AND EXPLOITATION RATE DUE TO IMPINGEMENT . . . . . . . . . 21 V. DI SCU SS IO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A. Comparison with utilities' results ........ 29 B. Is there a problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 36 VII. R EF E R EN C ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 APPENDICES A. IMPINGEMENT DATA BASE .............. 43 B. SURVIVAL OF IMPINGED WHITE PERCH . . . . . . . . . 73 C. IMPINGEMENT RATE AS AN INDEX OF POPULATION ABUNDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 D. ABILITY TO DETECT DECREASES IN POPULATION ABUNDNACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 xi

LIST OF TABLES Table P_ age 1 Sunnary of results from regression analyses to examine the time series of impingement rates for

! trends in the Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch popu l at i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 l

\

l 2 Variation in mean impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch among months and among power plants . . . . . . 9

.3 Variation in mean impingement rate of yearling and older white perch among months and among power plants . . . 10 4 Estimates of white perch juvenile abundance in the Hudson River ....................... 13 5 Catch-curve estimates of white parch mortality based on bottom trawl data from the Bowline Point vicinity, 1971 through 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 Initial population sizes and mortality estimates used in the empirical model of impingement impact to estimate the conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement for the Hudson River white perch population ........................ 23 7 Monthly estimates of the number of white perch impinged at all Hudson River power plants combined for the 1974 and 1975 year cl asses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8 Estimates of conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate-(in parentheses) due to impingement for the 1974 and 1975 year classes of the Hudson River white perch popu-lation for combinations of estimates and assumptions involving initial population size, natural mortality, and' number of years of vulnerability ........... 26 9 Estimates of number impinged, exploitation rate, and conditional . mortality rate by power plant . . . . . . . . . 30 A White perch impingement data for the Albany Steam l Electric Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 l l

A-2 White perch-impingement data for the Astoria Generating Station . . . . . ,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 A-3 White perch impingement data for'the Bowline Point Generating Station .................... 51 xiii l

1

Table P_ag A-4 White perch impingement data for the Danskamer Point Generating Station . . . . ................ 54 A-5, _. White perch impingement data for Indian Point Units 1, 6&7 2, and 3 .....-.................... 58 A-8 White perch impingement data for the 1.ovett Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A-9 White perch impingement data for the Roseton Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 A-10 " DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments as the cut-off length between young-of-the-year and yearling white p ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 B-1 Sumary of white perch impingement survival data ..... 76 B-2 Nonnal operating procedures for travelling screens operating at five Hudson River power plants . . . . . . . . 93 C-1 Beach seine data used to calculate a riverwide index of abundance (catch per 10,000 2ft ) for juvenile white perch in the Hudson River Estuary, 1972 through 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 C-2 -Impingement rates-(number /106 m3) for young-of-the-year _ white perch at five Hudson River power plants ,

for the_ years 1972 through 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 C-3 Comparison of impingement rates of young-of-the-year white perch at Indian Point Unit 2 with beach seine CPUE data for_ young-of-the-year white perch in the vicinity of_ Indian Point for eight' biweekly periods

-during 1975:. ... .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 I-C-4 Sunnary statistics for length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch.in~ impingement collections at Indian Point Unit- 2 and in beach seine. samples from the.seven standard beach seine F sites in the' vicinity of Indian Point for the eight biweekly periods starting July 13, 1975, and ending November 2, 1975 . . :. . . ...'.............

107-C-5 -Tests of-the' null hypothesis that the' length-frequency

distributions of young-of-the-year white perch impinged ~at' Indian Point Unit 2 and collected in

~

L l

-beach seine samples are theLsame.for each of seven

l. biweekly periods'in 1975 . _ _ . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . 109 xiv l' , , - _ - - _ -

.__ U

Table- Page l

! C-6 Analysis of the relationship' between daily cooling water flow and untransformed daily impingeraent counts, l with data stratified by month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 l C-7 Analysis of the relationship between daily cooling 1 water flow and log-transformed daily impingement

[ counts, with data stratified by month . . . . . . . . . . . 113 D-1 Coefficient of variation, nurtber of years, mean j (over years), and standard deviation for impingement-l rate indices of year-class strength of the young-of-the-year white perch population in the Hudson River; calculated from values presented in Appendix A . . . . . . 127

4. l XV

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pg D-1 Probability distribution of the central t statistic with v degrees of freedom. The shaded area comprises 100a% of the total area, where a is the type I error or level of. significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 D-2 Frequency distribution of the 71 values for the coefficient of variation (as a percent) given in Table D-1. The median CV value is 78% .......... 128 L

i D-3 Minimum detectable fractional reduction in year-class

( strength of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River as a function of the number of years for which impingement data are available (starting in 1978).

Curves are drawn for a = 0.05 over a range of powers (1 - 8) for n- = 5 years and for two values of the coefficient o? variation (CV): (a) CV = 100% and (b) CV = 50% ....................... 129 D-4 Number of years of impingement data (starting in 1978) required to detect a specified fractional reduction in year-class strength of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River. Curves are drawn for a = 0.05 over a range of powers (1 - 8) for n1 = 5 years and for two values of the coefficient of variation (CV):

(a) CV = 100% and (b) CV = 50% .............. 131 I

l 1

l l

xvii l

I. INTRODUCTION Oak Ridge National Laboratory (0RNL) performed a preliminary evaluation of impingement losses of white perch at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and-other Hudson River power plants in preparing the i

Final Environmental Statement for Indian Point 3 (USNRC 1975). In that evaluation we stated:

i "A 1973 field-tagging study by a consultant for the applicant indicates that the September-October population estimates to be used for planning purposes should be 23 million white perch for the entire Hudson River. This population estimate includes all age groups and not just young-of-the-year, but the young-of-the-year account for the majority of the white perch impinged. This population estimate is tentative, it may vary by an order of magnitude from year to year, and it is based on 1973 data (whereas the impingement estimates are based on 1971-1972 data); nevertheless, the staff feels that impingemcet may have a significant impact on the white perch population. For example, the projected total impingement loss at all plants with once-through cooling at the three Indian Point Units is 4.1 million white perch per year. If the assumptions are made that these are all young-of-the-year and that 80% of the total white perch population of 23 million are-young-of-the-year, then 20% to 25% of these .

young-of-the-year white perch will be impinged." (p. V-61)

In response to the above concern, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, funded research at ORNL starting in May 1978 with the following objectives: (1) to determine the significance of impingement losses on the white perch population at the Indian Point Nuclear Station (all units); (2) to collect, compile, and analyze data and information on white perch impingement losses in the Hudson River;- (3) to estimate the impingement exploitation rate by power stations and the conditional rate of mortality due to impingement for the. Hudson River white perch-population; and (4) to document in a

ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 2 final report the results of the analysis and to make a determination whether the impingement losses are having a potentially adverse impact on the population of white perch in the Hudson River.

This topical report is organized as follows: Section II deals with the white perch impingement data per se, including a description I of the data base ard analyses of variation in the impingement rate among years, months, and power plants.Section III deals with white perch population data, including estimates of population size and monthly natural mortality rates.Section IV integrates the results from Sections II and III to estimate the conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement, using the ORNL empirical impingement model.Section V is a discussion of our results in light of the utilities' results, and it concludes with consideration of whether impingement of white perch at Hudson River power plants is a problem.

Appendices B, C, and D address three special analyses that were perfonned as part of this evaluation of impingement losses of white perch.. Survival of impinged white perch is covered in Appendix B, impingement rate as an index of population abundance is evaluated in Appendix C, and a preliminary analysis of the ability to detect decreases ~in population abundance based on impingement rate data is

presented in Appendix D.

l I~

3 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 II. WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA In this section, we first present a brief description of the data base on the number of white perch impinged (collected) and on the impingement rates at each power plant. Then, we present the results of our analyses of these impingement rates, focusing on the pattern of variation among years, months, and power plants. Our analysis of the variation in impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch among years addresses the question of whether there has been a statistically significant and systematic trend in the size of year classes during the period 1972 through 1977. Our analysis of the variation in impingement rate among months focuses on how these variations depend on location of the power plant and age of the white perch. Finally, our analysis of the variation in impingement rate among power plants focuses on identifying which power plants have the highest and lowest impingement rates and how the rankings of power plants depend on the age of the white perch impinged.

A. Description of the data base We have compiled data on the number impinged and the impingement rate for white perch by month for all years for which data were obtaitsle from the utilities for each of the following power plants (moving downriver): Albany; Danskammer; Roseton; Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3; Lovett; Bowline; and Astoria. These data are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-1 through A-9. Collection rate is defined as the number of impinged white perch counted (Indian Point) or estimated (all other power plants) to be impinged at the intake per unit intake flow.

ORNL 1UREG/TM-361 4 Except for Indian Point, where collection rates were adjusted upward to correct for less than 100% collection efficiency, collection rate is assumed to be approximately equivalent to impingement rate, which is defined as the number oi' white perch killed at the intake per unit intake flow. A detailed analysis of f actors that influence impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants is given in Barnthouse (1979),

including adjustment factors. A detailed discussion of survival of impinged white perch is presented in Append' B of this report. We designated May 31 through June 1 (a one-day interval) as the dividing line between 12-month-old young-of-the-year and 13-month-old yearlings.

B. Variation in impingement rate among years Impingement-rate data are available on a monthly basis for a period of 4 to 6 years for Bowline, Lovett, Indian Point 2, Roseton, and Danskanner. We treated impingement rate, which is equivalent to a catch per unit effort (CPUE), as an approximate index of population size. For a CPUE index to serve as an accurate index of population size, there must be some assurance that actual variations in effort are measurac . We believe that data on power plant intake flow (= effort) satisfy this condition, because the uncertainty associated with estimates of intake flow is relatively small. An analysis of impingement rate as an index of population abundance is presented in Appendix C. Given this assumption, we examined the time series of impingement rates over years for trends in population size. The regression model used was Y = a + bX, where Y is the impingement rate for young-of-the-year white perch (RATE 0 in Appendix), X is year, a is

v 5 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 the Y-axis intercept, and b is the slope. A slope (b) significantly greater than 0.0 (P < 0.10) suggests an increasing trend over years in population size, while a slope significantly less than 0.0 suggests a decreasing trend in population size. A slope not significantly diffe eat f."m 0.0 indicates that, although year-class strength may have varied, there was no systematic trend in year-class strength over the period 1972 (or 1973) through 1977. The regression analysis was 1

performed for each of the above five power plants and for all five power plants combined for each month separately. The reason for performing individual regressions for each power plant and month was to examine the possibility that there might be consistent patterns of variation at a power plant for certain months which were masked by averaging over power plants or over months. The regression analysis was also performed using the mean annual impingement rate, which was calculated as the average of the twelve monthly impingement rates for each year. In all, 78 regressions were performed. Because the twelve monthly impingement rates are used to calculate the mean annual impingement rati for each year, however, this set of regressions cannot be treated rigormsly as a set of 78 statistically independent regressions.

The results of these regression analyses are presented in Table 1.

Of the 78 regressions, the slope (b) differs significantly (P 10.10) from 0.0 in only eight cases. Of thaw eight cases, the slope is significantly greater than 0.0 seven times and less than 0.0 only once

'(Lovett, in March). In our judgment the mean annual _ impingement rates for each of the five power plants and for all five plants combined are

' Table 1. . Suasary of results from regression analyses to examine the time series of impingement rates for trends in the Hudson

! River young-of-the-year white perch populationa

g 2

i r-a N r 2

b P ~N r2 b P N r 2' b- P Lovett Indian Point 2 N Month. Bowline Y,

January 5 0.06 -84.5' O.68 5 0.60 208 0.12 5 5810 0.16 .M

-February 5 0.17- -95.1 0.49. 5 0.27 95.7 0.37- 5 0.44 11539 0.22 March 5 0.21 -80.6- 0.44 4 0.88 -29.8 0.06* 5 0.12 -565 0.57

. April 5 0.11 -75.7 0.58 5 0.11- -39.5 0.59 5 0.02 349. 0.82 -

May : 5 0.53 -24.0 0.16 5 0.37 -23.1 0.27- 4 0.21 -462 0.54

-June 5 0.00 0.00 - 5 0.00 0.00 - 5 0.00 0.00 -

July 5- 0.05 -1.00 0.71 5 0.00 -0.02 0.99 4 0.63' 8.49 0.21 August 5 0.i6 13.2 0.38 5 0.25 -8.09 0.39 4 0.14 93.2 0.63 Septeter 5 0.03 0.52 0.79 5 0.02 -0.65 0.82 5 0.04 28.5 0.75 October 5' O.26 7.42 0.39 5 0.35 33.3 0.29 5 0.81 534 0.04*

Noveder 5 'O.16 65.2- 0.51 5 0.71 93.6 0.07* 5 0.59 1795 0.13 Dece d er 5 0.06 81.1 0.70 5 0.15 45.8 0.52 4 0.63 5625 0.20

- Annual 5 0.05 -16.1 0.72 4 0.67 29.9 0.18 4 0.74 2335 0.14 cn Roseton Danskansner All five plants January 4 0.83 4.65 0.09* 6 0.25 2.23 0.31 5 0.52 1149 0.17 February 4 0.24 4.05 0.51 6 0.27 2.26 0.29 5 0.42 2261 0.24 March ' 4 0.88 12.7 0.06* 6 0.54 13.0 0.10* 5 0.21 -216 0.44 April 4 0.21 55.7 0.54 6 0.48 121 0.13 5 0.01 33.5 0.90 May 4 0.37 77.1 0.39 6 0.08 36.0 0.58 5 0.21 -%.9 0.43 June 4 0.00 0.00 - 6 0.00 0.00 -

5 0.00 0.00 -

July 5' O.01 0.033 0.85 6 0.44 -2.82 0.15 5 0.00 -0.247 0.91 August 5 0.26 17.8 0.38 6 0.36 -14.8 0.21 5 0.06 13.4 0.68 September 5 0.42 - 59 .8 0.23 6 0.19 -8.83 0.39 5 0.06 -7.05 0.70 October 5 0.34 -80.8 0.30 6 0.10 25.2 0.54 5 0.84 108 0.03*

' November 5 0.04 23.7 0.76 6 0.26 109 0.30 5 0.79 419 0.04*

Dece t er 5 0.01 -1.67 0.87 6 0.03 -4.01 0.73 5 0.05 255 0.73 Annual 4 0.49 14.8 0.30 6 0.40 23.2 0.18 4 0.45 402 0.33 aThe regression model used was'Y = a + bX, where Y is impingement rate for young-of-the-year white perch and X is year. N is the number of data points (i.e., nu2er of years); r2 is the coefficient of determination (i.e., the fraction of variability in Y values accounted for by X); b is the slope of the straight line; and P is the probability of obtaining a slope this steep (either positive or negative) if the true slope is 0.0. P values s 0.10 are indicated by an asterisk (*).

7 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 likely.to be more reliable indices of population size than the individual monthly impingement rates. Monthly impingement rates are more subject to variation from year to year due to temperature or salinity differences and, consequently, to differences in the spatial l distribution of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River, j rather than due to real differences in year-class strength. None of the slopes for the six " annual" regressions differs significantly from zero. Thus, the impingement rate data from these five power plants suggest that there has been no linear change in the size of the white perch population during the period 1973 through 1977 (1972 through 1977 r

for Danskamer). .

Because of the age of sexual maturity for females and the multiple ye-class composition of the spawning population of females, and because impingement mortality increased appreciably starting in 1973 and 1974, a systematic decrease in year-class strength due to impingement mortality would only start to manifest itself with the 1977 (or 1978) and subsequent year classes. Female white perch collected in the Indian Point region in May 1973 indicated 24% sexual maturity at age 2, 96% at age 3, 92% at age 4, and 100% at age 5 and older (Texas Instruments,1975a, p. VII-22). The large-increases in power plant intake flow started during.19'73 through 1975 (Christensen et al.1976, Fig.',). Thus, the year classes spawned during these years were 1

spawned by year classes that were not themselves subjected to the )

E increased -levels'of impingement mortality. Assuming a nedian age of reproduction of four-years, only beginning in 1977 or 1978 would the compounding effect of entrainment and impingement mortality have an opportunity to manifest itself in reducing year-class strength.

i 0RNL/NUREG/TM-361 8 The variability in the impingement rate data already available can be used as a guideline to estimate how much of a reduction in population size (and for how many years) would be required to detect the reduction statistically (i.e., statistical power of the test).

This analysis is presented in Appendix D. However, assuming that a statistically significant decrease did occur, independent evidence indicating the same result would be required to demonstrate conclusively that such a decrease was related to "overfishing" by the power plants.

C. Variation in impingement rate among months Variations in mean impingement rate among months are highlighted in Table 2 for young-of-the-year white perch and in Table 3 for yearling and older white perch. The pattern among months depends quite l noticeably on location. In particular, at the downriver plants (Astoria, Bowline, Lovett, and Indian Point), impingement rates of white perch of all ages are highest during the months of December,.

January, and February, with the aonths of November, March, and April also being quite high on occasion. In contrast, at the upriver plants (Roseton, Danskammer, and Albany), impingement rates of white perch of l all ages indicate two peaks, one in April and May and a second during September through November. Impingement rates of yearling and older white perch tend to be relatively high at a number of the power plants t

in June (Table 3), which in part is an artifact due to designating May 31 to June 1 (a one-day interval) as the dividing liae between 12-month-old ' young-of-the-year and 13-month-old yearlings.

L

v

. Table 2. ' Variation in mean impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch among months and among power plantsa Nue er

,of years plant . Locationb 'of data June July August Septeder October November Decee er January February March April May Annual Astortac' . East River 1 6.9 4.6 3.1 1.8 (1) (2) (3) (9)

Bowline 37 .5 5 767.1 553.6 332.9' 577.9 248.0 (1) (3) (4) (2) (4)

Lovett 42 5 394.8 273.9 558.0 3 15.7 177.2 (2) (4) (1) (3) (5)

Indian Point 43 2-4 3415.3 2542.9 41 % .6 3219.2 1563.7 Unit-1 (2) (4) (1) (3) (2)

Indian Point 43 4-6 7942.4 12610.4 13101.3 5822.8 4565.6 Unit 2 (3) (2) (1) (4) (1)

Indian Point 43 1-3 1286.7 646.0 18 36.2 2973.2 666.5 ,

Unit 3 (3) (4) (2) (1) (3)

Roseton 65.4 4-5 246.8 286.5 149.6 233.5 97.5

+

(2) (1) (4) (3) (7)

Danskanner - 66 6 413.0 482.9 304.0 305.9 153.2 (2) (1) (4) (3) (6)-

Albanyd 140 2 20.8 7.7 7.7 26.3 6.24 -

(2) (3) (4) (1) (8) abased on analysis of RATE 0 values in Tables A-1 and A-9 in Appendix A. The too number of each pair of nunters in the table is the mean impingement rate (nunter of fish collected per million cubic meters). The bottom number of each pair (in parentheses) is the ranking for that mean impingement rate, with one (1) denoting the highest rate. The mean monthly impingement rates are averages over all years for which estimates for that month were available; tnese mean monthly rates were ranked from 1 to 12 for each power plant, but only entries for the four highest months are given in this table. The mean annual g

impingement rate for each power plant is the average of the 12 mean monthly rates; these mean annual rates were ranked from 1 to 9 over power plants.

N

f. '

bRiver mile (RM) on the Hudson River, with RM 0 at the Battery. g call ages coeined at Astoria. $

CD

~N dBased on RATE 0 values in Table A-1 in Appendix A only for the period April 1974 through March 1976, N,

b 2

r-N 2

Table 3. Variation in mean impingement rate of yearling and older site perch among months and anong power plants 8 E N

b Noter of years $ e Plant locationb of data June July August September October Novet er Deceter Janu ary February March April May Annual y e-*

Bowline 37.5 5 175.3 87.9 61.0 123.1 46.1 (1) (3) (4) (2) (6)

Lovett 4. 5 70.6 14.3 35.6 13.2 15.2 (1) (3) (2) (4) (a)

Indian Point 43 2-4 117.9 127.5 162.3 184.2 84.6 Unit 1 (4) (3) (2) (1) (4)

Indian Point 43 4-6 420.0 834.9 515.3 413.3 413.6 231.9 Unit 2 (3) (1) (2) (2) (4) (1)

Indian Point 43 1-3 65.4 45.3 117.2 78.6 34.4 Unit 3 (3) (4) (1) (2) (7)

Rosaton 65.4 4-5 55.7 50.5 C 164.5 155.4 48.0 (3) (4) (1) (2) (5) ,,

Danskamer 66 6 312.9 164.9 273.4 208.7 101.4 (1) (4) (2) (3) (2)

AlbanyC 14 0 2 164.1 21 2.0 218.2 211.1 90.9 (4) (2) (1) (3) (3) abased on analysis of RATE 1 values in Tables A-1 and A-9 in Appendix A. The top nuter of each pair of numbers in the table is the mean igingement rate (nuter of fish collected per million cubic meters). The bottom number of each pair (in parentheses) is the ranking f or that mean igingement rate, with one (1) denoting the highest rate. The mean monthly impingement rates are averages over all years for which estimates for that month were available; these mean monthly rates were ranked from 1 to 12 for each power plant, but only entries for the four highest months are given in this table. The maan annual impingement rate for each poter plant is the average of the 12 mean monthly rates; these mean annual rates were ranked from 1 to 8 over power plants.

bRiver mile (RM) on the Hudson River, with RM 0 at the Battery.

cBased on RATE 1 values in Table A-1 in Appendix A only for the period Aoril 1974 through March 1976.

0RNL/NUREG/TM-361 D. Variation -in impingement rate among power plants

' Variation among power plants in th'e mean annual impingement rate

is surprisingly great (Tables 2 and 3, last column). Although data are l

l available for only one year at Astoria, and there is no way to estimate l

l from the data reported the impingement rates for young-of-the-year and older white perch separately, it is evident that relatively few white perch are impinged at Astoria. - At the other geographical extreme, it is evident.that impingement of young-of-the-year white perch is relatively low at Albany compared to the other plants (Table 2), but Albany ranks third ne' of eight power plants with respect to the impingement of yearling and older white perch (Table 3). In f act, at

, Albany the impingement of yearling and older white perch is appreciably i

~

higher in absolute numbers than for young-of-the-year white perch.

For Bowline, Lovett, Indian Point, Roseton, and Danskammer, f 'i mpingement of young-of-the-year white perch is higher in absolute '

numbers than impingement of older white perch. The values for Inoica Point Unit 2 are appreciably higher than those for any other plant (see i Table 2). 'Although the' values for Indian Point Unit 1 are also high, impingement of fish at Unit 1 is not currently of major concern, because the unit is not generating electricity at this time. The circulating pumps are generally only operated for experimental purposes -

(e.g., testing' of fine-mesh screens). Impingement of young-of-the-year white perch is highsi' at Bowline and Lovett.than at Roseton and ,

Danskanmer (Table 2), but the rankings are reversed for impingement of i.

Lyearling and older white perch. (Table.3).

i

'n .

L i

ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 12 III. WHITE PERCH ABUNDANCE AND MORTALITY A. Abundance No estimates were made of the absolute abundance of yearling and older white perch in the Hudson, and none of the existing data are adequate for this purpose. However, two independent estimates of the abundance of young-of-the-year white perch are available. The first, l or combined gear estimate, is derived from a combination of data from the Texas Instruments' (TI) longitudinal ichthyoplankton survey, fall -

shoals survey, and riverwide beach seine survey. Descriptions of these surveys can be found in the Multiplant Report (TI 1975b) and the Final Research Report (FRR) (McFadden 1977).

The second estimate is derived from a mark / recapture program conducted by Texas Instruments. Descriptions of the methods used in data collection and analysis can be found in the Multiplant Report and the FRR. Mark / recapture estimates of white perch young-of-the-year abundance in October 1974 and in October 1975 are presented b a supplement to the FRR (McFadden and Lawler 1977). A comparison of the two sets of abundance estimates reveals substantial discrepancies for both years (Table 4). The mark / recapture estimates are f ar larger than the corresponding combined gear estir tes,14 times as high in 1974 and 6 times as high in 1975. We believe that the mark / recapture estimates

~ are the more reliable of the two sets for the reasons discussed below.

The combined gear estimates undoubtedly underestimate the true abundance of young-of-the-year white perch, because Texas Instruments made no corrections for gear efficiency (FRR, Sections 7.9.1.2, 7.9.1.3, and 7.9.1.4 ).- In effect, they assumed that all of the gears

13 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table 4. Estimates of young-of-the-year white perch abundance in the Hudson Rivera October 1974 October 19i5 4 ._

Combined gear estimateb 1.5 x 106 5.0 x le6 Mark / recapture estimatec 21 x 106 30 x 106 aRegions included in the combined gear estimates were KM 38-98 (RM 24-61) in 1974 and KM 22-122 (RM 14-76) in 1975. The region included in the mark / recapture estimates was KM 19-243 (RM 12-152) during both years.

bBased on extrapolation from beach seine and epibenthic -

sled data. Value for 1974 is mean of five weekly estimates.

Value for 1975 is mean of three biweekly estimates.

cBased on young-of-the-year white perch released in the fall and recaptured the following spring.

l l

ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 14 (beach seine, epibenthic sled, and Tucker trawl) catch 100% of the fish in their path. In reality, no gear captures 100% of the organisms in its path. Even the smallest larval fishes possess a limited ability to evade capture. Recent tests conducted by Texas Instruments (1978) indicate that the efficiency of the 100-ft (30.5-m) beach seine at catching young-of-the-year wh% perch probably ranges between 7 and 25%. The epibenthic slea and Tucker. trawl were designed primarily as ichthyoplankton gear. Since the majority of young-of-the-year white l perch are well in excess of 50 nm in length by early August, the efficie cy of these gears during the period of interest here (August-December) is probably very low. Although r.o attempts nave been made to quantify the efficiency of the epibenthic sled and Tucker trawl, Kjelson and Johnson (1978) recently reported that the 6.1-m Otter trawl, which, because of its larger size, is probably more efficient than either of the above gears at catching young-of-the-year fish, is only about.30 to 50% efficient.

An additional source of error in the combined gear estimates for young-of-the-year white perc.ii is the design of the sampling program itself. As. described in the Multiplant Report (Section III), the longitudinal river survey, fall shoals survey, and the riverwide beach seine survey are all designed for optimal sampling of striped bass. A common result of this design is the collection of large numbers of samples in regions that contain low densities of white perch, and the illection of few samples in regions containing high densities of white perch. For example, during the period August 19-22, 1974, 34 epibenthic sled tows were. conducted in the Tappan Zee region. No white t

9 15 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 -

t perch were caught. Virtually ~all of the white perch collected during this period (58 out of 64):came from five tows collected from the shoal

^

stratum of the Cornwall region.

By comparison, the mark / recapture estimates seem to be more free of major biases. Population estimates calculated from mark / recapture j data are subje,t-to several sorts of biases (Ricker 1975). Three that seem potentially important in this application, although probably only

- as minor biases, are

' differential mortality of marked and unmarked fish, nonhomogeneous distribution of marked and unmarked fish, and the 1

natural occurrence of " marked" fish.

If marked fish suffer more mortality than unmarked fish, either 1

from the stress imposed by handling and marking or because marked fish are more vulnerable to predators or' disease than are unmarked fish, then an overestimate of the true pr,pulation size can result. Texas

. Instruments. (TI) addres, sed this problem with experiments conducted in

- 1973 (described in the Multiplant Report, TI 1975b) and derived k correction factors to account for short-term (14-day) handling

] mortality' of marked white perch. The possibility that long-term survival of marked white pe ch under natural conditions may be lower

- than that of unmarked fish was not evaluated by TI.

The Peterson method of estimating population size from mark / recapture data, .the method chosen by TI, requires that marked fish mix; completely with the unmarked population prior to recapture. If this_ mixing does'not occur, a bias can be introduced-into the results.

~

ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 16 In particular, if sampling during the recapture period is concentrated in regions where marked fish are relatively abundant in comparison to their true proportion in the population, then the true population size will be underestimated. In the Multiplant Report, TI cited insufficient mixing as a reason for discarding estimates of the number of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson in the fall of 1973. In this case, fish were both marked and recaptured in the f all.

Insufficient mixing is probably not a problem with the f all 1974 and 1975 estimates, because fish were released in the f all and recaptured during the following spring. From the distributional data presented in McFadden (1977, Section 6.1) and from the seasonal patterns of impingement discussed in Section II of this report, it is evident that young-of-the-year white perch migrate downstream to Haverstraw Bay and the Tappan Zee in the late fall and overwinter there before returning upstream in the spring. These migrations would appear to provide ample opportunity for mixing.

Texas Instruments uses finclips to mark young-of-the-year white perch and striped bass. Natural loss of fins is not uncommon, and the mistaking of fish that have lost fins for marked fish can cause underestimates of population size. Texas Instruments discovered several such " fin anomalies." According to the Multiplant Report, in 1974 it was discovered that about 0.3% of unmarked young-of-the-year white perch were missing one or both pelvic fins. This finding necessitated the recalculation (by excluding fish marked with single or double pelvic finclips) of mark / recapture estimates for the 1973 year class. Mark / recapture estimates of the August-September 1975 abundance i

17 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 of young-of-the-year white perch (presented in the FRR, Exhibit UT-4) were discarded (McFadden and Lawler 1977, Exhibit UT-3) afi.or it was discovered that 7. mark type (anal finclip) used in the August-September 1975 release also occurs among unmarked fish. To this date no fin anomalies have been noted that involve any of the finclip types (six marks were used; five of these were double finclips) used in the October-November 1974 and October 1975 releases. We currently believe that the Peterson mark / recapture estimates of young-of-the-year white l perch abundance in October of 1974 and 1975 are the best available estimates of the abundance of the 1974 and 1975 year classes. These estimates are used in the direct impact assessment contained in Section IV.

B. Mortality Dew (1978) used the catch-curve method to calculate an average annual mortality rate for young-of-the-year and older white perch (Table 5). His results are derived from bottom trawl data collected in the vicinity of the Bowline Point Generating Station between 1971 and 1976. We believe, however, th?t young-cf-the-year fish should not have been used in this analysis, because their mortality is probably higher

than that of yearling and older fish. We also believe that Dew's method of analysis was not the most appropriate appl' cation of the catch-curve methodology. Dew estimated the annual fractional mortality separately for each age class, grouping together all fish of age 5 and older. He then averaged the individual estimates (value for A of 0.53 4

in Table 5). Robson and Chapman (1961) described an entirely different

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 18 Table 5. Catch-curve estimates of white perch mortality based on I bottom trawl data from the Bowline Point vicinity, ]

1971-1976 i Annual fractional Annual instantaneous mortality mortality ratea (A) (Zi  ;

Original valuesb (ages 0 through 5+) 0.5349 0.7655 s Recalculated valuesc (ages 1 through 5+) 0.4854 0.6644 aZ = - In (1-A).

bCalculated by Dew, C. B. 1978. Age, growth, and mortality of Hudson River white perch (Morone americana) and the use of these parameters in evaluating the exploitation rate represented be impingement at power plant intakes. Paper presented at the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Greenbriar, West Virg iia, February 28, 1978.

cRecalculated by excluding age 0 fish and using the method of Robson, D. S., and D. G. Chapman. 1961. Catch curves and mortality rates. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90:181-189.

1

19 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 method of calculating average annual mortality when all fish older than a certain age are grouped together. As Robson and Chapman's method has been proven to be unbiased under the assumptions vf the catch-curve method,.and since its statistical properties are known, we believe that it is preferable to Dew's method. Therefore, we reworked Dew's analysis, excluding young-of-the-year white perch and using the method of Robson and Chapman (1961), to calculate an annual mortality ote for

!~

yearling and older white perch of approximately 50% (value for A of 0.49 in Table 5). This value is undoubtedly in error to some extent, since the catch-curve method is sensitive to fluctuations in year-class strength (Robson and Chapman,1961). However, it is in good agreement with values obtained by Wallace (1971) for age I-IV white perch in the Delaware River: 54% for males and 58% for females. We believe at this time that 50% is a reasonable estimate, and this value is used in our direct impact assessment.

None of the available data appear adequate for deriving reliable estimates of total mortality in impingeable young-of-the ,ar white perch. Using the method employed by TI to estimate mortality in young-of-the-year striped bass, we attempted to calculate a mortality rate using TI's weekly combined gear esL5ates of young-of-the-year white perch abundance. The method inv11ves regressing the aatural logarithm of the population estimate againsi time (in days) from the end of July to mid-December. The slope of the regression line is an estimate of the daily instantaneous mortality rai.e. Using this mu. hod we'obtained no useful results, because there was no discernible decline in the combined gear estimates between early August and mid-December.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 20 We performed a similar analysis using data from only a single gear,. the

epibenthic sled, and a single sampling program, the f all shoals survey, in the hope of eliminating variation due to pooling different gears and

'different sampling' programs. Although the epibenthic sled samples during the f all shoals' survey seemed like the best single source of data from which to derive estimates of total mortality, this analysis was even less successful: population estimates based on epibenthic sled data alone increased between Augast and December, both in 1974 and  !

in 1975.

We, therefore,.used a range of values for young-of-the-year mortality in our direct impact assessment. As a high estimate we used the value of 80% assumed by McFadden and Lawler-(1977, Exhibit UT-3).

Given the absence of a seasonal decline.in the combined gear and epibenthic sled abundance estimates, this value may be too high.

Alternatively, we assumed that the mortality among impingeable young-of-the-year is identical to that among yearling and older fish,-

i,9.,; that the annual fractional mortality of young-of-the-year white perch is about 50%. ~Because of their smaller size, young-of-the-year should be more vulnerable to predators than are older white perch; hence, this value may be too low.

i e

21 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 IV. ESTIMATION OF CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE AND EXPLOITATION RATE DUE TO IMPINGEMENT The empirical model of impingement impact used to estimate the conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement for the Hudson River white perch population is described in Barnthouse et al. (1979). The model requires (1) estimates of the initial number of young-of-the-year in the Hudson River white perch population at the time they first become vulnerable to impingement, (2) estimates of the i

rate of either total or natural mortality during the period of l

vulnerability to impingement, and (3) monthly estimates of the number of white perch impinged by year class.

For the purpose of comparing alternative assumptions about the age of impinged fish, it is desirable to formulate the model in terms of natural rather than total mortality, even though in practice only total mortality can be directly estimated from field dat1. This is nc,t a major problem, however, because it is possible to calculate the conditional natural mortality rate, given the total mortality rate and the. impingement exploitation rate (Barnthouse et al.1979). In addition, when natural mortality is high relative to impingement ertality, total mortality and natural mortality are nearly numerically identical. For example, the natural conditional mortality rate calculated by Barnthouse et al. (1979) for impingeable young-of-the-year striped bass was 0.79, only slightly smaller than the total mortality rate of 0.8. Similarly, we believe that it is reasonable to use the same value (0.5) as an approximation of both the natural conditional mortality rate and total mortality rate in yearling and older white perch.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 22 The estimates of initial population size and natural mortality rates are given in Table 6, and the bases for these estimates are discussed in Section III. Monthly estimates of the number of white perch impinged by year class are given in Table 7. These estimates include white perch impinged at all the power plants discussed in Section II and in Appendix A, except Astoria. Although impingement data are not available for the Albany power plant except for the period April 1974 through March 1976, Albany was operating continuously during the period June 1974 through December 1977, which is the period i considered in this report in estimating conditional mortality rates and  ;

exploitation rates due to impingement for the 1974 and 1975 year classes. Consequently, the number of young-of-the-year and older white perch collected at Albany was approximated for each moith from April 1976 to Dacember 1977, as described in Table A-1 of Appendix A.

The value of a sexually immature fish to a population increases with its age, because its probability of surviving to sexual maturity increases. For this reason the impact to the population of killing a sexually immature fish increases with its age. If, as the utilities assume, the total mortality of juvenile white perch between July of year 0 and July of year 1 is 80%, then a single yearling . impinged in July is worth five juveniles impinged 12 months earlier. If mortality between year 1 and year 2 is 50%, then each 2-year-old white perch is worth two yearlings or ten young-of-the-year. Even though the number of yearling and older white perch impinged each year constitutes only about 10% of the total white perch impingement, the impact of killing these fish is quite substantial.

23 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table 6. Initial population sizes and mortality estimates used in the empirical model of Impingement impact to estimate the condi-tional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impinge-ment for the Hudson River white perch population Year class Natural Initial population sizea mortalityb 1974 1975 P0 ctober Ic LB 12 21 BE 21 30 l (x 106 )- UB 39 45 l

t PJuly'16d LB Low 13.9 24.3 High 16.8 29.4 (x 106 )

BE Low 24.3 34.7 High 29.4 41.9 UB Low 45.1 52.0 High 54.5 62.9 aBE denotes the best estimate of initial population size. LB and UB denote the lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval about the best estimate, bl ow natural mortality: rn ' O.001899 per day for the entire period of vulnerability to impingement. This instantaneous natural mortality rate corresponds to an annual (i.e., 365 days) conditional mortality rate of 0.5 due to all causes of mortality other than impingement.

High natural mortality: rn = 0.004409 per day from July 16 as young-of-the-year to May 31 of the following year just as they become -

yearlings. This instantaneous natural mortality rate corresponds to an annual (i.e., 365 days) conditional mortality rate of 0.8 due to all causes other than impingement. rn = 0.001899 per day from June 1 as yearlings until the end of the period of vulnerability.

cp0ctober 1 denotes the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch population on October 1, as estimated by Texas Instruments using mark-recapture techniques [p. 2-VII-2, as modified by errata in

. McFadden, J. T., and J. P. Lawler (eds. )] .1977. Supplement I to Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric generating

. plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

(Exhibit UT-3). Errata correcting the estimates of the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch population on October 1, originally given on p. 2-VII-2 of this reference, are contained in Utilities' Exhibits UT-3E-2 and UT-3E-5 which were submitted in Deceder 1977 during the EPA, Region II, adjudicatory hearing in the matter of National Pollutant Discharge Eli:nination System Permits for Bowline, Indian Point, and Roseton Generating Stations, dpJyly 16 denotes the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-year tite perch population on July 16. It is calculated using the equation PJuly 16 = P0ctober 1/exp(-76 nr ) ,

where values for P0ctober 1 and rn are given elsewhere in this table and 76 is the numer of days between July 16 and October 1.

!- ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 24 l

Table 7. Monthly estimates of the nuser of site perch impinged at i.

all the Hudson River power plants combined for the 1974 and 1975 year classesa Year class 1974 1975 Number of years Number of years

' of vulnerability of vulnerability Age (years) Month 2 3 2 3 0 6 0 0 7 3.486 8,898 8 14,887 97,910 9 26,239 33,980 10 112.957 93,888 11 245,492 239,150 >

12 607,434 348,596 l 1 415,724 589,206 i 2 270,751 182,891 3 139,751 130,261 4 609,090 111,820 5 91,910 40,151 1 6 37,242 18,621 27.014 13,507 7 22.126 11.063 13,835 6,918 8 14.122 7,%1 6,770 3,385 9 19,924 9.962 13,791 6,896 10 19,534 9,767 25,676 12,838 11 28.005 14,002 12,552 6,276 12 7,803 3,902 48,102 24,051 1 38,078 19.039 143,010 71,505 2 9,293 4,646 43,558 21,779 3 12.444 6.222- 49,579 24,790 4 14.103 7,052 .38,692 19.3a6 5 7,612 3,806 56,365 28,1b2 L

i 2 6 13,507 35,710 7 6,918 8,805

-8 3,385 12,662 9 6,896 8.736 10 12,838 17,362 11 6.276 19.145 12 24.051 10,890-1 71,505 2 21,779 3 24,790 4 19,346 5 28 ,182

- aMonthly values for nu2er of young-of-the-year white perch impinged [

were calculated by suming the NLMBERO values in Tables A-1, and A-3 through A-9 in Appendix A over power plants for the appropriate month and year.

~

Monthly values for numer of yearling site perch impinged were calcu- ,

lated either by suming the NtMBERI values over power plants for the appropriate month and year (2 years of vulnerability, corresponding to the assugtion that 1005 of the ytarling and older dite perch impinged .

were yearlings) or by suming the NtMBERI values over power plants and dividing by 2 (3 years of vulnerability, corresponding to the assump .

tion that 50% of the yearling and older site perch impinged are year 11ngs).

' Monthly values for nuter of 2-year-old white perch impinged .were cal-

'culated by sunning the NtMBERI values over power plants, dividing by 2 and tabulating the result for the given month, but one year later l- (3 years of vulnerability only.. corresponding to the assugtion that r ' 50% of the yearling and older White perch impinged are 2-year-olds),

1. ._ ,#, . ,_.m -

i 25 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361  :

As' indicated in Table 7, two alternative assumptions were made concerning the age of impinged yearling and older white perch. For one case, .it was assumed that all white perch impinged that are yearlings and older tre yearlings, resulting in two years of vulnerability to l impingement. For the other case, it was assumed that of the yearling and oloer white perch impinged,'50% were yearlings and 50% were l .

E 2-year-olds, resulting in three years of vulnerability to impingement.

It is our judgment, based on length-frequency data of impinged white 2

- perch at Bowline,. Indian Point, and Roseton (see Appendix A, Tables A-3, A-5, 6 & 7, and A-9), that the true age composition of yearling and older white perch impinged (which includes some white perch older than 2 years) results in an effective split between yearlings and 2-year olds that is between the two assumptions just given, that is, (a) 100% yearlings and 0% 2-year-olds and (b) 50% yearlings and 50%

2-year-olds. Because of the lack of 1978 impingement data for January 1

to May, no model estimates of impingement impact assuming three years of vulnerability are given for the 1975 year class.

With this exception, estimates of conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement are given in Table 8 for the 1974 and 1975 year classes for combinations of estimates and assumptions 4

involving initial population size (low, best estimate, and high),

natural mortality.(low and high), and number of years of vulnerability

.(2 and 3 years).

Estimates of the conditional mortality rate due to impingement are 7

~

especially relevant in assessing the effects of power plant impingement,

~ since they are equivalent to estimates of~the fractional (or percent)

~

6 , . - - . . . -- -. -

ORNt./NUREG/TM-361 26 i

Table 8. Estimates of conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate (in parentheses) due to impingement for the 1974 and 1975 year classes of the Hudson River wnite perch population for coeinations of esti-mates and assunptions involving initial population size, natural mortality, and nuder of years of vulnerabilitya Initial oopulation sizeb Low Best estimate High Natural mortality rateC - Natural morte11ty ratec Natural mortality rateC Nueer of years Year-of vulnerabilityd class low High Low High Low High j 2 1974 0.309 0.446 0.177 0.255 0.095 0.137 (0.165) . (0.200) (0.094) (0.114) (0.051) (0.061) 1975 0.166 0.245 0.116 1.172 0.077 0.115 (0.082) (0.099) (0.057) (0.069) (0.0 38 ) (0.046) 3- 1974 0.387 0.588 0.221 0.336 0.119 0.181 (0.172) (0.209) (0.099) (0.119) (0.053) (0.064) 1975 - -- -- -- -- ~

aiotal conditional impingement mortality rate calculated using Eq. (11) in Barnthouse, L. W., D. L. DeAngelis, and 5. W. Christensen. 1979. An empirical model of impingement impact. ORNL/NUREG/TN-290. Oak Ridge National 12 i

= Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, i.e., or = 1 - w (1 mi) , except with the index i running from 1 tc 11 24 (2 years of vulnerability) or 1 to 36 (3 years of vulnerability). The individual monthly mi values were calculated in sequence using Eq. (2) and then Eq. (10) in Barnthouse et al. (1979). Total conditional -

impingement mortality rates are equal to fractional (or percent) reductions in year-class strength due to impingement, assuming no compensation.

Exploitation rate calculated by dividing the total nuder of white perch impinged in a year class during the entire period of vulnerability by the size of the young-of-the-year population at the start of the period of vulnerability.

bSee' Table 6. ,

- c$ee footnote b to Table 6.

dSee Table 7.

4 Y

t 4y w - , 7' -

. = . . , - - . y.,----

27 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 reduction in the size of a year class due to impingement, assuming no compensation (see Barnthouse et al.1979). As indicated by the values in Table 8, percent-reduction values (obtained by multiplying by 100) are greater (1) the smaller the initial population size, (2) with high natural mortality rates as opposed to low, and (:1) assuming three years of vulnerability instead of two. Furthermore, assuming approximately comparable degrees of uncertainty in the choices of low and high estimates of initial populaticn size, natural mortality, and number of years of vulnerability, it appears that the estimates of percent reduction are most sensitive to (i.e., vary most widely depending on) estimates of initial population size, least sensitive to the number of years of vulnerability assumed, and intermediately sensitive to estimates of natural mortality.

The percent-reduction values range from 9.5 to 45% for the 1974 year class and from 7.7 to 24% for the 1975 year class, assuming only two years of vulnerability. Assuming three years of vulnerability, the percent-reduction values range from 12 to 59% for the 1974 year class.

As previously indicated, for the 1975 year class, percent-reduction values cannot be calculated because 1978 impingement data are not currently available.

Exploitation rates show the same pattern of variation as the l conditional mortality rates with respect to values used for initial population size, nttural mortality, and number of years of vulnerability-(Table 8). The exploitation rates range from 5.1 to 20.0% for the 1974 year class and from 3.8 to 9.9% for the 1975 year class, assuming only two years of vulnerability. Assuming three years

ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 28 of vulnerability, the exploitation rates range from 5.3 to 20.9% for the 1974 year class, and, although they cannot be calculated at this time,-they would be expected te be lower for the 1975 year class. As discussed in Barnthouse et al. (1979), because there are competing sources of mortality and each an organism can die only once, an exploitation rate is always lower than the corresponding conditional

-mortality rate. However, as stated above, it is the conditional l

mortality rate due to impingement that is equivalent to percent reduction in'the size of the year class. Because of this equivalence, the conditional mortality rate is a more meaningful measure of impact ,

than is the exploitation rate. '

. .- . . . . . . ~_ . .

29 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 V. DISCUSSION A. Comparison with' u'tilities' results Variations in impingement rate of white perch among years, months, and power plants were sumarized by the utilities in McFadden et al.

(1978, pp.14.3-1 to 14.3-8). In contrast to our approach, the

! utilities did not consider the following: (1) Albany and Astoria Steam I Electric-Generating Stations, (2) the three units at Indian Point separately, (3) 1972 data available for Danskammer, and (4) the distinction between young-of-the-year and older white perch. Although l tables of impingement rate and number of white perch impinged are presented for Indian Point, Bowline, Roseton, Lovett, and Danskamer, essentially no quantitative analyses of these data are included, so comparison of our results in Section II with theirs is not possible, in general.- The utilities' qualitative statements on monthly variations on a plant-by-plant basis are in agreement with our results. They made no _ attempt to test for trends in yearly variations or to rank power plants.

The. utilities estimated the conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement of white perch for the 1974 year class (Table 9).

" Impingement impact for the 1974 year class was estimated assuming that 90% of the July 1974-June 1975 impingement

. consisted of the 1974 year class. Exploitation of this year class was calculated to be 4.4% at Indian Point Unit 2 and 5.9% for the multiplant case (Table 2-VII-1). These exploitation rates are equivalent to conditional mortality rates of 8.5% for Indian Point and 11.2% for multiplant with an assumed total mortality rate of 80%." (McFadden and l Lawler 1977, p. 2-VII-3)-

6

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 30 Table 9. Estimates of number impinged, exploitation rate, and conditional mortality rate by power planta Number Exploitation Conditional Power plant impingedb rate (u) mortalityrate(m)

Bowline 473,043 0.0137 0.0273 Roseton 52,025 0.0015 0.0030

, Indian Point ,

Unit 2 1,520,317c o,0441 0.0849 -

Multip1 ant 2,045,385 0.0594 0.1126 aFrom Table 2-VII-1 in McFadden, J. T., and J. P. Lawler (eds.).

.1977. Supplement I to Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.(ExhibitUT-3). Errata correcting I the estimates of the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch population on October 1, originally given on p. 2-VII-2 of this reference, are contained in Utilities' Exhibits UT-3E-2 and UT-3E-5 which were submitted in December 1977 during the EPA, Region II, adjudicatory hearing in the matter of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Iermits for Bowline, Indian Point, and Roseton Generating Stations.

bTotal impingement, of which 90% are assumed to be 1974 year class.

cIncludes 948 impinged at Indian Point Unit 3.

31 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361

-In terms of the comparability of assumptions and input values used in the utilities' methodology and our methodology, the utilities' conditional mortality rate of 11.3% and exploitation rate of 5.9% in Table 9. for the multiplant case can be compared with our estimates in Table 8 (two years of vulnerability, best estimate of initial population size, and high natural mortality) of a conditional mortality rate (m) of 25.5% and an exploitation rate (u) of 11.4%. The two sets of l estimates differ by approximately a factor of two for several reasons (we did not attempt to estimate how much of the two-fold difference is due to each of the following reasons):

(1) We included the Albany, Danskammer, and Lovett Steam Electric Generating Stations, while they did not. These three plants were operating during the years 1974 through 1977 and were impinging white perch. Thus, they should be included in any evaluation of t% impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population.

(2) We included Indian Point Unit 1, which operated continuously (at least the circulating water pumps) from June 1974. through August 1975, while they did not. Because this unit was operating during part of the period of ir.terest and was impinging white perch, it also should be included in any i

evaluation of the impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population.

(3) Our values of 25.5% (m) and 11.4% (u) reflect two years of vulnerability to impingement, while their values reflect only

c .

(RNL/NUREG/1M-361 - -32 one year of vulnerability (i.e.,'they ignored impingement of yearlin; md older white perch from the 1974 year class past-June 1975). - Since yearling and older white perch, in fact, are impinged in appreciable numbers,: they must be considered as such in any credible evaluation of the impact of impingement on the. Hudson River white' perch population.

]

There is no scientifically, ' justifiable meuiede.ogical reason or biological reason for not including these yearling and older white perch in such an evaluation.

(4)- We used available data to estimate on a monthly and plant-specific basis the percent of white perch impinged from June 1974 to-June 1975 that were from the 1974 year class, whereas.they assumed 90%. As the PERCENT 0 values in Tables

. A-1 and A-3 through A-9 indicate, their assumption of 90%

young-of-the-year may be justified for Lovett and for the three Indian Point units. However, the utilities' assumption of 90%. young-of-the-year is clearly too high for Albany, Bowline, Danskanmer, and Roseton.

(5) 1.We used the. methodology presented in Barnthouse et al.

(1979), which permitted us to take into account monthly variations in impingement rates, whereas the utilities' methodology. _ implicitly.-assumes a constant vulnerability. In

reality, as_ discussed lin Section.II,~the impingement rate

' fluctuates appreciably on a mo_nthly basis, with rates being substantially_ higher from_ December- through May than from June  ;

F through November _(Tables 2Jand3). [Also'see Table 3 and L ,

L

33 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 associated text in Barnthouse et al. (1979) for a comparison using constant versus variable impingement rates to estimate the conditional mortality rate due to impingement.]

The utilities' choice at every one of the above five " decision points" affects the results in the same direction, namely, to lower the estimates of impingement impact. Yet, given that the purpose of the utilities' analysis and of our own analysis ought to be to realistically and objectively estimate the percent reduction in year-class strength of white perch in the Hudson River due to impingement at power plants, our choice at each of the five decision points is scientifically more sound and defensible for the reasons we have given.

B. Is there a problem?

This report presents two independent lines of evidence evaluating the impingement losses of white perch at the power plants on the Hudson River. The first line of evidence, the analysis of the variation in impingement rate among years (Section II.B), suggests that there is not yet an obvious problem, but that it is too soon to be sure (Appendix D).

The second line of evidence, the estimates of conditional mortality rate due to impingement (Section IV), suggests that the level of impingement impact cannot be assessed as acceptable a priori from the point of view of managing the white perch population. These two lines of evidence are briefly elaborated on in the following two paragraphs.

The impingement rates provide estimates of year-class strength on a relative scale. As such, they reflect the effect of entrainment and impingement losses during the preceding months, as well as the effect

ORit./NtREG/TM-361 34 ofI any compensatory mechanisms which might alter survival during the preceding months. Regression analyses of impingement rates of impinged young-of-the-year white perch suggest that there has been no linear change' in the size of the white perch population during the period 1972 through 1977 (Section II.8). In particular, there is little evidence of a ~ statistically significant downward trend. However, given the large variability in impingement rates used in these regressions, the time series are relatively short (i.e., 5-6 years), and thus, the statistical power of the test for a trend is not high. Based on a systematic analysis of minimum detectable differences in annual

-impingement rates and the number of years required to detect a specified reduction in this index of year-class strength, it is concluded that long times series of year-class strength would be required to detect even substantial reductions (e.g., 50%). A final point- relating to the use of impingement rate as a relative index of year-class strength is that a systematic decrease in year-class

-strength due to impingement mortality would only start to manifest-itself with the 1977 (or 1978) and subsequent year classes. This delay

~

is due to the' age _of sexual maturity for females, the multiple age-class composition of the spawning population of females, and the appreciable increase in impingement mortality starting in 1973 and 1974.

The estimates of- percent reduction in year-class strength due to impingement that are presented in Table 8 cover a broad range, as discussed in Section IV. Our analysis shows that the level of impingement impact was probably greater--than 20% for the 1974-year class and was probably greater than 15% for the 1975 year class. These

('

35 0..NL/NUREG/TM-361 estimates do not include consideration of entrainment, so the total power ' plant conditional mortality rate is obviously greater than~ the values given here for impingement only. Given.the information currently available, it is our-judgment that this level of impingement

. impact'is not acceptable a priori from.the point of view of managing the white perch population. It is important that collection of appropriate data relating to the impingement of white perch continue.

Intake flows and imp'ingement rates by age class are needed on a monthly; basis for each of the power. plants, including Albany.

l

_____n------_a---:- - - - - - - - - -

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 36 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of our evaluation of impingement losses of white perch at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and other Hudson River power plants presented in this topical report (including appendices B, C, and D), we arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations.

1. 'There has been no statistically significant reduction in the strength of year classes produced from 1973 through 1977. However, l note conclusions below for Appendix D.

2. Impingement rates vary in a consistent manner among months and among power plants for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch.

3. The Peterson mark / recapture estimates of the abundance of young-of-the-year white perch are judged to be more reliable than the combined gear estimates. .

4. Our analysis suggests that 50% is a reasonable estimate for total annual mortality for yearling and older white perch. None of the available data appear adequate for deriving reliable estimates of total mortality for impingeable young-of-the-year white perch;

5. The conditional mortality rate is a more meaningful measure of impact than is the exploitation rate, since it is equivalent to estimates of the fractional (or percent) reduction in year-class strength due to impingement, assuming no compensation.

6._ Percent-reduction values range from 9.5 to 45% for the 1974 year class and from 7.7 to 24% for the 1975 year class, assuming only two years of vulnerability. Percent-reduction values are greater

37 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 (a) the smaller the initial population size, (b) with high natural mortality rates as' opposed to low, and (c) assuming three years of vulnerability instead of two. Percent-reduction values are most sensitive to estimates of initial population size.

7. LThe estimates of conditional mortality rate due to impingement suggest that the level of impingement impact cannot be assessed as acceptable a priori from _the point of view of managing the white perch population.-

8. The estimate presented by the utilities of conditional mortality rate due to impingement for the 1974 year class differs by approximately a f actor of two from the comparable estimate presented in this report. We conclude that our choice at each of five decision points in the analysis is scientifically more sound and defensible.

9. Further research on (a) the impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population and (b) the effects of a reduction in white perch year-class strength and total abundance on the Hudson River ecosystem is recommended.

Appendix B

1. The survival of impinged white perch is enhanced by continuous rotation of travelling screens, but it is not consistently enhanced by reductions in screenwash pressure.

2.- Although the data are variable and sometimes inconsistent, we tentatively conclude that about 40% of impinged white perch can survive impingement, provided the travelling screens are operated in the' continuous mode.

ORNL/NtREG/TM-361 38.

3.. We strongly recomend that ' impingement survival studies, especially studies of survival during the winter, be continued.

Appendix C

1. There-was not a statistically significant positive correlation between impingement rates and catch per unit effort by beach seines either among years or within a year for the data sets analyzed.

2. The length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch in impingement collections at Indian Point Unit 2 differed slightly l

from those in beach seine samples from the vicinity of Indian Point in 1975.

3. It is not clear which data set (impingement or beach seine) provides the more accurate (less inaccurate) indices of year-class strength.

4. The volume of cooling water withdrawn by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 on any given day does influence the number of white perch impinged on that day, although flow apparently accounts for only a few percent of the total variance in the daily impingement counts over a year.

5. Further study of the feasibility of using impingement rate as an index of year-class strength is strongly recomended, including consideration of other species in other systems.

Appendix D

- l. Natural variability in the existing baseline time series of impingement rates and beach seine CPUE is so great that 10 I

39 ORNL/NOREG/TM-361 additional years of indices of' year-class strength are not likely to provide a very powerful data set for detecting even substantial, actual reductions in year-class strength.

2. Natural variability in the existing baseline time series is so great that an excessive number of years (greater than the expected lifetime of the power plants involved) of additional data would be required to detect an actual 50% reduction in the mean index of year-class strength, even if we are willing to accept a Type II error of 50%.

4 s

ORNL/NtREG/TM-361 40 VII. REFERENCES Barnthouse, L. W. 1979. An analysis of factors that influence

-impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants. Testimony prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.

Barnthouse, L. W., D. L. DeAngelis, and S. W. Christensen. 1979. An empirical model of impingement impact. ORNL/NUREG/TM-290. Oak Ridge National Laboratoay, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Christensen, S. W., W. Van Winkle, and J. S. Mattice. 1976. Defining i

and determining the significance of impacts: Concepts and l methods. pp. 191-219. IN R. K. Sharma, J. D. Buffington, and J.

T. McFadden (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Biological Significance of Environmental Impacts. NR-CONF-002. NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.

Dew, C. B. 1978. Age, growth, and mortality of Hudson River white perch (Morone americana) and the use of these parameters in evaluating the exploitation rate represented by impingement at power plant intakes. Paper presented at the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Greenbriar, West Virginia, February 28, 1978.

Kjelson, M. A., and G. N. Johnson. 1978. Catch efficiencies of a 6.1-meter ottor trawl for estuarine fish populations. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. 107:246-254.

McFadden, . J. T. (ed.). 1977. Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River t

estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

(ExhibitUT-4'andrevisions). A detailed description of the L

41 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 method used to calculate abundances from these data was provided through a response dated. February 27, 1978, to an EPA information request dated December 27, 1977. According to that response, Texas Instruments calculated.on a weekly basis the combined gear population estimates for the months of July through December 1974 and on a biweekly basis the estimates for the months of July through December 1975. These estimates also were provided in the response dated February 27, 1978, to the information request of 4 December 27, 1977.

McFadden, J. T., and J. P. Lawler (eds.). 1977. Supplement I to Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Exhibit UT-3). Errata correcting the estimates of the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch population on October 1, originally given on p. 2-VII-2 of this reference, are contained in Utilities' Exhibits UT-3E-2 and UT-3E-5 which were submitted in December 1977 during the EPA, Region II, adjudicatory hearing in the matter of National

~

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline, Indian Point, and Roseton Generating Stations.

McFadden, J. T.,' Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Lawler, Matusky &

Skelly Engineers. 1978. Influence of the proposed Cornwall pumped storage project and steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary with emphasis on striped bass and other fish

~

populations (revised). Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. l l

E

ORNL/NtREG/TM-361 42 Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull.

191. 382 pp.

Robson, D. S., and D. G. ;hapman. 1961. Catch curves and mortality rates. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90:181-189.

Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1975a. Hudson River ecological study in the area of Indian Point. 1974 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1975b. First annual report for the l multipl' ant impact study of the Hudson River, Vol. I, July,1975.

Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1978. Catch efficiency of 100-ft (30-m) beach seines for estimating density of young-of-the-year striped bass and white perch in the shore zone of the Hudson River estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 1975. Final environmental statement related to operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 3, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

NlREG-75/002.

Wallace, D. C. 1971. Age, growth, year-class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin), in the

-Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Chesapeake Sci. 12:205-218.

4 l

43' ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 APPENDIX A IMPINGEMENT DATA BASE The data base is presented by power plant, arranged in alphabetical order I

_ ._a .-- - - - - - - - - -

7_-

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 44 o-TABLE A-1 WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE ALBANY STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION April 1974 - March 1975: Ref. (1)

RATE (collectionrate):1 calculated from monthly data on average observed number of fish of all species collr.cted per million dallons of intake flow at all units (from Table 3, Column B, Plant Av.), and monthly data on percentage composition by species of the fish collected (from Table 4).

NUMBER (number collected): calculated from monthly data on -

estimated number of fish of all species collected at all units (from Table 2, Column D, Total) and monthly data on percentage composition by species of the fish collected (from Table 4).

PERCENT 0 (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year): calculated with the aid of graph paper and a dissecting microscope from the monthly plots in Fig. 10 of frequency versus length intervals of waite perch collected at the Albany Steam Electric Generating Station for each month April through November 1974. The

" DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments were used as the cut-off length between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch (see Table A-10 in this appendix).

April 1975 - March 1976: Ref. (2)

RATE (collection rate):1 calculated from monthly data on average observed number of fish of all species collected per million gallons of intake flow at all units (from Table IVC-16) and monthly data on percentage composition by species of the fish collected (from Table IVC-14).

NtNBER (number collected): calculated from the monthly collection rates (RATE) described immediately above and monthly values of average daily plant flow for all units in millions of gallons per day times the number of days in the particular month.

lAll collection rates were converted from number of white perch collected per million gallons to number of white perch collected per million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter.

Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement rates, i

~,

45 ORNL/NUREG/TN-361 TABLE A-1 (continued)

PERCENT 0 (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year): calculated with the aid of graph paper and a dissecting microscope from the plots in Fig. IVC-6 of relative frequency versus length intervals of white perch collected at the Albany Steam Electric Generating Station for each month May through November 1975. The

" DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments were used as the cut-off point between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch (see Table A-10 in this appendix).

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 values were approximated as follows for each month during 1974 through 1977 for which estimates were not directly available from Refs. (1) and (2). These approximations were necessary in order to have a complete data set with which to estimate exploitation rates and the conditional rates of mortality due to impingement (see Section IV).

RATE and NUMBER: approximations for each month were calculated as the average of the two monthly estimates available from the period April 1974 through March 1976. These approximations were used for January through March 1974 and April 1976 through December 1977.

PERCENT 0: for May through November, approximations were calculated as just described for RATE and NINBER. The approximation i for November was also used for the months of Dece"ber and January of all years. The April 1974 value (no estimate fo. April 1975 was available) was used as the approximation for April 1975,1976, and 1977 and for the months of February and March of all years.

, RATE 0 = PERCENT 0 RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

L NLNBERO = PERCENT 0 NINBER/100 and NiMBER1 = NUMBER - NUMBER 0.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER 0 and NUMBER 1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

T - - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . - - - _ _ . . _ _ . -

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 46

. TABLE A-1 (continued)

.---------------------------.-------PonsT-4LB4sr-------------------------------------------

YEAR 80NT5 RATE 505BER P E R 2E N TO BLTE0 R4fE1 N3 MB ER3 N O M B EB 1 1974 1 0.000 3. 5 10.70 0.0300 0.333 0.37 3.1 1974 2 0.528 15.5 19.60 0.1036 0.425 3.04 12.5 1974 3 6.868 260.5 19.60 1.3362 5.522 51.35 209.4 1974 4 77.138 3)23.3 19.60 15.1190 62.019 768.91 3154.1 1974 5 95.101 5518.0 35.50 33.7509 51.343 1958.99 3559.1 1974 6 133.934 7717.3 0.30 0.0000 133.934 0.00 7717.0 1974 7 211.072 12518.0 0.00 0.0300 211.172 0.33 12518.0 1974 8 105.932 5234.3 5.88 6.2288 99.703 370.09 5923.9 1974 9 178.051- 9868.0 2.44 4.3344 173.706 240.79 9627.2 1974 10 305.391 17325.0 1.79 5.4663 299.914 310.12 17014.9 l 1974 11 61.023 3516.0 9.43 5.7545 55.259 331.55 3184.4 1974 12 0.254 21.3 13.70 0.0283 0.236 2.25 18.8 '

1975 1 0.000 7.0 10.70 0.0000 0.330 0.75 6. 3 i 1975 2 0.793 31.3 19.60 0.1553 0.637 6.08 24.9 1975 3 0.264 10.0 19.60 0.0518 3.212 1.95 8.0 1975 4 1.057 45.3 19.60 0.2071 0.850 8.82 36.2 1975 5 285.568 11717.0 6.58 18.7904 255.777 770.98 10946.0 1975 6 110.034 5593.3 3.30 0.0000 118.084 0.00 5583.0 1975 7 212.921 8336.0 0.00 0.0303 212.921 0.33 8336.0 1975 8 29.951 1157.0 6.12 1.8269 28.024 89.78 1377.2 1975 9 299.833 14714.0 12.40 37.1793 252.554 1824.54 12889.5 1975' 10 133.436 5335.3 7.52 10.0321 123.374 453.91 5582.1 1975 11 69.213 2906.0 11.90 8.2353 50.176 345.81 2560.2 1975 12 0.254 15.3 10.70 0."283 0.236 1.71 14.3 1976 1 0.000 0,0 10.70 0.0000 0.333 0.33 0.0 1976 2 0.330 323 19.60 0.0000 0.000 0.00 0.3 1976 3 13.208 511.0 19.60 2.5889 13.523 133.15 410.8 1976 -4 39.397 1994.3 19.60 7.6630 31.434 388.86 1595.1 1976 5 190.202 8617.5 21.00 39.9325 150.253 1809.59 6807.8 1976 6 126.009 9326.5 0.30 0.0000 126.009 0.00 8026.5 1976 7 211.864 10427.0 0.00 0.3300 211.964 3.33 10427.0 1976 8 67.892 3393.5 6.00 4.0735 63.818 232.83 3647.7 1976 9 238.810 12291.0 7.42 17.7197 221.333 911.99 11379.0 1976 10 219.261 11593.5 4.66 10.2176 239.044 544.31 11136.2 1976 11 64.986 3211.0 10.70 6.9535 59.332 34J.50 2867.4 1976 12 0.264 18.5 10.70 0.0283 0.236 1.98 16.5 1977 1 0.000 3.5 1C.70 0.0000 0.330 3.37 3.1 1977 2 0.528 15.5 19.60 0.1036 0.425 3.04 12.5 1977 3 6.868 260.5 19.60 1.3562 5.522 51.35 209.4 1977 4 39.097 1994.0 19.60 7.6630 31.434 388.86 1595.1 1977 5. 190.202 8617.5 21.00 39.9325 150.253 1809.69 6807.8 1977 6 126.009 9326.5 0.30 0.0000 126.009 0.00 8026.5 1977 7 211.864 10427.0 0.00 0.0300 211.954 3.30 10427.0 1977 8 67.992 1993.5 6.00 4.0735 63.818 232.83 3647.7 1977 9 238.810 12291.0 7.42 17.7197 221.393 911.99 113's9.0 1977 10 219.261 11593.5 4.66 10.2176 209.044 544.31 11136.2 1977 11 64.986 3211.0 10.70 6.9535 53.332 343.58 2867.4 1977 12 0.264 19J5 10.70 0.0283 0.236 1.98 16.5 l

47 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-1

1. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Albany Steam Electric Generating Station Impingement Survey (April 1974 -' March 1975).

LMS Project No. 191-027, prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,' June 1975.

2. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Albany Steam Electric Generating Station, 316(a) Demonstration Submission, NPDES Permit NY.0005959. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,1976.

l

[

L P

l i

r l

{

l'

ORNL/NUREG/3-361 48 TABLE A-2 WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE ASTORIA GENERATING STATION (Ref.1)

RATE (collection rate):1 calculated from monthly data on observed number of fish and crustaceans of all species collected per million gallons of intake flow at Units 1-5 (from Table 12) and monthly data on the percent of the total number of fish and crustaceans collected that were white perch (calculated from data in Table 4).

N'JMBER (number collected): calculated from the collection rate I (RATE) described imediately above and the value for full flow through Units 1-6 in gallons per minute (from Table 1) times the number of minutes in the particular month. ,

Data with which to calculate RATE and NUMBER values were available only for the period January 1972 thraugh December 1972. No data were available from which to estimate PERCENT 0, the percent of the white perch collected at Astoria that were young-of 'he-year. The white perch impingement data for Astoria have been ased only in Section II.B on seasonal variations in collection rates among the different power plants.

lAll collection rates were converted from number of white perch collected per million gallons to number of white perch collected per million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter.

ColleWon rates were assumed to equal impingement rates.

l l

l

49 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLE A-2 (continued).

_____________________________--.. , t i n e i s r 0 e r a -- ---- - --- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - --- - -- - ---- --

7 EAR RONTH RafE 555BER. ,ER"ENr3 RATE 0 BLTE1 EU8BERO NORBER1 1972 1 1.34611 251 . . . . .

fp72 2 a.62297 1041- . . . . .

1972 3 1.60097 399 . . . . .

1972 4 3.13570 757 . . . . .

1972 5 2.39223 522 . . . .

1972 -6 0.84534 20e . . . .

1972 7 0.97443 219 . . . . .

1972 9 0.00000 0 . . . . .

1972 ~9 0.03000. 3 . . . . .

I 1972 13 .0.00000 0 . . . .

l

. 1972 11 0.03003 ~3 . . . .

. 1972 12- 6.94767 1733 . . . .

_ __r_______-_-__.-_--_._--

50 ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 REFERENCE FOR TABLE A-2

1. Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers. A Study of Impinged Organisms at the Astoria Generating Station. QL&M Project No.

115-16, pmpared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., September 1973.

I i

i

51 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLE A-3 WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE B0WLINE P0 INT GENERATING STATION January 1973 - December 1976: Ref. (1)

Values for RATE (collection rate)1 and NUMBER (number collected) were taken directly from data sheets in Ref. (1).

January 1977 - December '977: Ref. (2)

Values for RATE (collection rate)1 and NUMBER (number collected) were taken directly from data sheets in Ref. (2).

PERCENT 0 (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-the year):

January 1975 through December 1976: Calculated from monthly data on length-frequency in 1-centimeter length intervals of white perch in impingement collections [from Tables 10.2-13 and 10.2-14 in Ref. (3)J. The " DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments were used as the cut-off length between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch (see Table A-10 in this appendix).

January 1973 through December 1974 and January 1977 through December 1977: in the absence of monthly values during these two periods, estimates were calculated as the average of the 1975 and i 1976 PERCENT 0 values for each month.

RATE 0 = PERCENT 0 RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

NWBERO = PERCENT 0 NWBER/100 and NWBER1 = NUMBER - NWBERO.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER 0 and NUMBER 1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

l All. collection rates were converted from number of white perch collected per million gallons to number of white perch collected per million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter.

Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement rates.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 52 TABLE A-3 (continued)

---

* - --- P L 4 N T= 8 3 5 LI N E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.YE4R RONf5 , RATE N 019 E R . PER ENTO R4TED R4TE1 53R3ER3 NORBER1 1973 1 296.13 17021 82.6 244.51 51.527 14059 2961.7 1973 2 353.99 15194 78.8 278.94 75.045 12753 3431.0 1973 3 288.74 4476 84.8 244.95 43.999 3795 680.4 1973 4 462.56 23933 84.8 392.25 73.309 20270 3633.3 1973 5 235.90 14739 69.0 162.77 73.133 10173 4569.1 1973 6 19.55 939 0.0 0.00 19.549 0 809.0 1973

~

13.74 692 44.8 6.15 7.593 313 382.0 1973 8 45.44 2724 78.2 35.53 9.905 2130 593.8 1973 9 4.76 285 81.6 3.98 3.975 233 52.4 1973 10 5.02 326 92.6 4.65 0.371 302 24.1 1973 11 9.51 500 96.0 9 13 3.333 483 20.0 1973 12 373.31 13353 98.3 366667 6.341 17753 307.0 1974 1 1092.87 58425 82.6 902471 193.153 48259 10166.0 1974 2 1219694 47339 73.8 961.31 258.627 37042 9965.7 1974 3 968.9 8 51689 84.8 821.59 147.234 43832 7856'.7 1974 4 922.48 55937 84.8 782.26 140.217 48257 3649.9 1974 5 91.4 0 2901 69.0 63.37 23.335 2332 899.3 1974 6 19.49 1423 0.3 0.00 18.492 0 1423.0 1974 7 5.28 533 44.8 2.37 2.915 239 294.2 1974 8 3.43 372 78.2 2.69 0.749 291 81.1 1974 9 4.49 529 81.6 3.56 3.925 432 97.3 1974 10 29.32 3697 92.6 27.15 2.170 3423 273.6 1974 11 497.17 43360 96.0 477.28 19.937 41626 1734.4 1974 12 845.08 93395 98.3 830.71 14.366 88563 1531.6 1975 1 1898.59 176382 69.4 1317.62 583.959 122409 53972.9 1975 2 97.21 7354 68.3 66.11 31.109 5001 2353.3 1975 3 303.00 24651 71.8 217.56 95.447 17699 6951.6 1975 4 1353.70 113539 72.2 975.21 375.495 81953 31555.5 1975 5 173.82 9488 38.1 66.23 107.597 3615 5873.1 1975 6 15.06 1229 0.0 0.00 15.058 0 1 28.0 1975 7 19.28 1809 89.5 17.26 2.325 1619 189.9 1975 8 4.23 445 66.7 2.82 1.437 297 148.5 1975 9 1.85 190 75.0 1.39 0.452 143 47.5 1975 10 2.34 133 95.2 2.03 0.352 113 19.7 1975 11 20.34 1351 96.5 19.63 0.7119 1014 36.79 1975 12 622.38 54906 99.1 616.78 5.5315 54412 494.15 1976 1 61.55 2936 95.7 58.90 2.6467 2810 126.25 1976 2 94.94 3335 89.7 85.07 9.7682 3413 391.92 1976 3 261.00 13906 9747 255.30 5.3333 13586 319.84 1976 4 687.90 57131 97 5 670.70 17.1975 55703 1428.28 1976 5 22.98 1996 100,0 22.98 3.3333 1996 0.00 1976 6 3.25 912 fi. 3 0.00 9.2459 0 812.00 1976 7 2.91 308 0.0 0.00 2.9359 3 308.00 1976 8 113.96 13978 99.7 102.13 11.7273 9758 1120.43 1976 9 15. 3 2 1512 88.2 13451 1.9333 1334 178.42

'1976 10 1.06 49 130.0 1.06 0.0000 49 0.00 1976 11 610.50 32966 95.4 582.41 29.3929 31453 1516.44 1976 12 1711.03 149371 97.5 1668.25 42.7757 145637 3734.28 1977 1 295.29 25081 82.6 243.91 51.3833 20717 4364.09 1977 2 306.57 24351 78.8 241.58 64.9927 18952 5098.81 1977 3 147.91 12697 84.8 125.43 22.4921 10767 1929.94 1977 4 81.73 7069 84.8 69.31 12.4236 5994 1074.34 1977 5 91.35 8520 69.0 63.03 29.3135 5879 2641.20 1977 6- 24.57 1952 0.0 0.00 24.5678 0 1952.00

.1977 7 5.26 ~338 44.* 2.36 2.9319 151 186.58 1977 8 65.36 7922 78. 51.89 14.4664 6117 1705.20 1977 9 1.90 164 812 , 1.55 0.3533 134 30.18 1977 10 59.17 5122 92.0 54.80 4.3789 5669 453.03 1977 11 291.47 24755 96.0 282.59 11.7739 23765 990.24 1977 12 359.43 31356 98.3 353.32 6.1103 30528 527.95 l

53 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-3 l '. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (US NRC),

including a response to Question X.1, which is the identification number for a question in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, from George W. Knighton (US NRC) to William Cahill, Jr. (Con Ed).

2. Letter dated May 5, 1978, from Edward G. Kelleher of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Henry Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), including a response to Question A-4, which is the identification number for a question in the enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gluckstern (US EPA) to Kenneth L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

3. Ecological Analysts, Inc. Bowline Point Generating Station.

Near-field Effects of Once-througt Cooling System Operation on Hudson River Biota. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., July 1977 (Exhibit UT-7).

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 54:

TABLE A-4

-WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA-FOR THE DANSKAPMER POINT GENERATING STATION RATE'(collection rate):1

-January 1972 -- December 1976: average-of the daily collection rates for each month were copied directly from data sheets ~ in Ref. (1).

January 1977'- December 1977: average of the daily collection rates for each month were copied directly from data sheets in Ref. (2). i NUMBER -(nunber collected):

. January 1972 through December 1977: calculated from the monthly collection rates (RATE) described immediately above and monthly values of actual total plant intake flow in millions.of_ gallons for the particular month, from data sheets in Ref. (3) for 1972 through 1976 and from data sheets provided by the.V. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region j II, New York, New York for 1977.

l PERCENT 0 (percent. of the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year):

No estimates ~of PERCENT 0 were available for Danskammer.

, Consequently, all-monthly values for PERCENT 0 were approximated based on data from Roseton, which is adjacent to Danskammer. (See

! Table A-9 in this appendix.- Monthly PERCENT 0 values tabulated for

. Danskanmer are exactly the same-as those tabulated for Roseton for July 1973 through December 1977; monthly PERCENT 0 values for

!- January 1972 through June 1973 were calculated as the average of the 1975 and-1976_ Roseton values for each month.

, . RATE 0 = PERCENT 0 - RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

NtNBERO = PERCENT 0 NLMBER/100 and NtNBER1 = NUMBER - NLMBERO.

F

~

l 1A11 collection rates'were conherted from number of. white perch

!- collected per.zmillion gallons to number of white perch collected per

'million cubic meters by' multiplying by 264.17 gallons per' cubic meter.

j ,

Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement rates.

i

( .

-1, o

-a.. .u, .- ._. .. - . . - - - - - _ . - - _ . -- , , . , . . -

55 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 RATE, NtNBER, and PERCENT 0 are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NtNBER0 and NlNBER1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

1 4

i

56 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLEA-4(continued)

. . - . .. . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. . . - _ - - - - P o n s r O a s s : s s - - -- -_ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

TEAR 80NT8 RATE N3MBER PERCENT 3 BATE 0 RATE 1 NUSSEB0 NU8BERI 1972 1 22.67 749 66.0 14.959 7.706 493.7 254.3 1972 2 11.23 318 53.0 5.950 5.177 168.5 149.5 1972 3 29.85 763 59.0 17.378 12.077 453.1 314.9 1972 4 137.32 4544 44.0 60.419 75.997 1999.4 2544.6

'1972 5 744.57 29669 58.0 431.908 312.761 16627.4 12040.6 1972 6 546.04 23235 0.0 0.030 546.039 0.3 23235.0 1972 7 206.74 7595 4. 8 9.923 196.816 465.4 9230.6 1972 8 253.38 12723 64.2 162.6th 93.675 8168.2 4554.8 1972 9 172.82 7143 86.5 149.489 23.331 6178.7 964.3 1972 10 477.65 19732 88.6 423.195 54.452 Il W2.6 2249.4 1972 11 273.37 11399 95.3 232.931 40.142 9466.6 1631.4 1972 12 110.45 3775 73.8 81.512 29.939 2785.9 989.1 1973 1 9.39 291 66.0 5.998 3.090 185.5 95.5 1973 2 3.22 78 53.0 1.708 1.515 41.3 36.7 1973 3 24.22 719 59.0 14.292 9.932 424.2 294.8 1973 4 203.89 6959 44.0 89.710 114.176 3362.3 3897.0 1973 5 352.80 15344 58.3 204.627, 148.176 8899.5 6444.5 1973 6 167.48 7931 0.0 0.030 167.594 0'. 3 7931.0 1973 7 485.17 25639 4. 8 23.288 461.886 1229.2 24378.8 1973 8 88.76 4726 6a.2 56.985 31.776 3334.1 1691.9 1973 9 171.21 8631 86.5 148.10 23.113 7465.9 1165.2 1973 10 505.41 23165 88.6 448.68 57.731 17866.2 2298.8 1973 11 451.36 17855 85.3 385.01 55.353 15230.3 2624.7 1973 12 77.24 2249 73.8 57.01 20.238 1659.0 589.0 1974 1 20.34 625 66.0 13.53 5.915 412.5 212.5 1974 2 1.29 37 53.0 0.69 0.608 19.6 17.4 1974 3 5.02 153 51.0 2.96 2.358 93.3 62.7 1974 4 668.35 19511 e4.0 294.07 374.276 8584.8 10926.2 1974 5 393.96 15508 58.0 22G.29 165.452 u99u.6 6513.4 1974 6 381.57 12926 0.3 0.00 381.567 0.0 12926.0 1974 7 135.89 6273 4.8 6.52 12).355 301.1 5971.9 1974 8- 119.96 5955 64.2 77.01 42.946 3825.0 2133.0 1974 9 53.18 2302 86.5 e6.00 7.179 1991.2 310.8 1974 10 134.46 5577 88.6 119.13 15.329 5827.2 749.8 1974 11 137.74 5857 85.3 117.49 23.248 #996.3 861.0 1974 12 203.51 9525 73.8 147.97 52.532 6291.4 2233.6 1975 1 31.78 1006 59.9 19.04 12.754 602.6 403.4 1975 2 15.01 344 35.6 5.70 10.310 122.5 221.5 1975 3 15.93 224 38.5 6.13 9.797 86.2 137.8 1975 4 253.95 3935 7.0 17.78 236.170 275.4 3659.6 1975 5 139.98 3937 17.2 22.08 115.936 677.2 3259.8 1975 6 321.57 14827 3.0 0.00 321.574 0.0 14827.0 1975 7 103.45 .4621 2.8 2.90 133.552 129.4 4491.6 1975 8 181.17 8999 39.7 71.92 109.244 3532.9 5366.1 1975 9 150.26 6861 77.7 116.75 33.538 5331.3 1530.0 1975 10 592.61 25315 79.7 472.31 120.300 19937.0 5078.0 1975 11 667.".5 26385 76.2 508.50 155.854 23105.4 6279.6 1975 12 79 34 2175 66.0 52.17 26.873 1a35.5 739.5 1976 1 # 3.' 3 5 1224 72.0 31.21 12.135 881.3 342.7 1976 2 32.76 76F 70.4 23.06 9.696 539.3 226.7 1976 3 56.3 5 1sto 79.6 44.85 11.415 1146.2 293.8

-1976 4 1064.18 25739 81.0 861.99 202.195 20824.3 4884.7

'1976 5 250451 8845 98.7 287.26 3.257 8730.0 115.0 1976 6 232.81 3363 0.0 0.00 232.813 0.0 8363.0 1976 7 40.87 1387 6.9 2.82 39.347 95.7 1291.3 1976 8 26.05 972 88.8 21.13 2.917 863.1 108.9 1976 9 106.67 4719 95.3 101.66 5.314 4497.2 221.8 1976 10 553.73 19999 97.5 539.88 13.843 15390.8 497.2 1976 11 1329.25 39827 94.4 1254.81 74.438 37596.7 2230.3

'1976 12 143.01 4588 81.5 114.11 25.902 3739.2 848.8 1977 1 21.71 668 66.0 14.33 i.333 eso.9 227.1 1977 2 15.00 363 53.0 7.95 7.052 192.4 170.6 1977 3 152.08 e263 59.0 89.73 52.354 2515.2 1747.8 1977 4 1136.41 .35174 44.0 500.02 636.388 15916.6 20257.4 1977 5 1205.75 e8386 58.0 699.34 505.415 28363.9 20322.1 1977 6 227.74 5808 0.0 0.00 227.741 0.0 5808.0 1977 -7 66.07 2725 s.8 3.17 62.899 130.3 2594.2 1977' 8 125.01 5329 64.2 80.25 44.752 3421.2 1907.8 1977 9. 117.24 -4408 86.5 101.41 15.827 3812.9 595.1 1977 10 535.59 19326 88.6 474.52 61.056 15971.0 2055.0 1977. .11- 467.00 13191 85.3 398.35 69.649 11251.9 1939.1 1977 12 51.96 1493 73.8 38.35 13.614 1099.6 390.4

57 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-4

1. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from William J. Cahill, Jr. of

' Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (US NRC),

including a response to Question IX.1, which is the identification number for a question in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, from George W. Knighton (US NRC) to William Cahill, Jr. (Con Ed).

2. Letter dated April 14, 1978, from Kenneth L. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Henry

, Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),

[ including a response to Question A-5, which is the identification number for a question in the enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gluckstern (US EPA) to Kenneth L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

3. Letter dated October 31, 1977, from Kenneth L. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. to Henry Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, including in Attachment 2 a response to Question 7 (9/27/77) of Attachment C which accompanied the October 12, 1977, EPA " Motion to Specify Area of Requestors' Testimony To Be Cross-Examined During Initial

Phase of Hearing."

4

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 58 TABLES A-5, A-6, A-7 WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR INDIAN POINT UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 RATE (collection rate):1 June 1972 through December 1975: Copied directly from data sheets provided in Ref. (1).

! January 1976 through December 1977: Copied directly from data sheets provided in Ref. (2).

NUMBER (number collected): .

May 1972 through December 1976

Copied directly from appendix tables in Refs. (3) - (6). However, if a NUMBER ,

value in these Texas Instruments (TI) appendix tables was lower than the correspondir.; NUMBER value in~ Refs. (1) and (2), then the updated NUMBEk value in Refs. (1) and (2) was used. For example, such substitutions were made for Indian Point Unit 2 (Table A-6 in this appendix) for all months of 1973. In general, the NUMBER values presented in the TI appendix tables are the same as or higher than the NUMBER values presented in Refs. (1) and (2), for the reason discussed by Con Edison in their response to Question VI.2 in Ref. 1. Thus, the substituted, higher values from Refs. (1) and (2) can still be low, because they were selected by TI to include only data that represented known flow volumes and associated impingement collections.

January 1977 through December 1977: Copied directly from data sheets provided in Refs. (7) and (8).

lAll RATE values are given in the original sources in units of number of white perch collected per_million cubic meters, and thus multiplica-tion by 264.17 was not necessary.

Collection rates were not assumed to equal impingement rates. Rather, the collection rates were adjusted upward to account for the calculated efficiencies of less than 100%. For Units 1 and 2, RATE = RATE /0.15 (i.e.,15% efficiency) and for Unit 3, RATE = RATE /0.70 (i.e., 70%

efficiency). These efficiency estimates are based on data presented in Ref. (9) for Units 2 and 3; Unit I was assumed to have the same collection efficiency as Unit 2, since Units 1 and 2 have similar intake structures.

59 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 PERCENT 0 (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year):

June 1975 through December 1976: Calculated from data on magnetic tapes provided by Consolidated Edison. The two tapes used were Texas Instruments 1975 Impingement Data (Record Type D) and Texas Instruments 1976 Impingement Data (Record Type D). Monthly estimates of PERCENT 0 were calcu'ated for each unit for which there were white perch impingement data as follows:

! PERCENT 0 = Number of impinged white perch in Length Class 1 100

• Total number of impinged white perch where the bounds on Length Class 1 are 0 un to DIVISION, where DIVISION is the seasonally varying, total body length in millimeters which is used as the cut-off length between young-of-the- ear and yearling white percI (see Table A-10 of this appendix .

RATE 0 = PERCENT 0 RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

NtNBERO = PERCENT 0 NIMBER/100 and NUMBER 1 = NUMBER - NUMBER 0.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER 0 and NUMBER 1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

l l

l I

I l

l t

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 60 TABLE A-5 (continued)

....................................,oorrP1-----...----------------------------------

YEAR 805fM RATE NUSSER PER ENf3 BATE 0 RATE 1 NUMBERO NUnBEst

~

1972 5 . 1927 94.4 . . 1819 107.9 1972 6 65.80 11320 0.0 0.30 55.830 3 11320.0 1972 7 52.40 2127 45.1 23.63 28.768 959 1167.5 1972 8 232.93 13560 84.8 197.53 35.435 8955 1605.1 1972 9 380.07 12397 84.5 321.16 58.910 10213 1873.4 1972 10 2236.00 84607 94.0 2101.84 135.153 79533 5076.4  ;

1972 11 1705.50 35933 96.7 1649.32 56.285 34748 1185.8 j 1972 12 844.20 17420 96.4 813.81 3).331 16793 627.1 1973 1 62.40 7933 9 4. D 58.66 3.744 7457 476.0 1973 2 . 64540 97.3 . . 62797 1742 6 l 1973 3 . 205433 91.1 . . 14R030 18369.6 1973 4 . 163253 97.8 . . 159662 3591.6 1973 5 885.50 23533 94.4 836.01 49.594 19478 1155.5 1973 6 186.27 4527 0.0 0.00 195.257 3 4526.7 ,

1973. 7 . 2543 45.1 . . 1146 1394.5 1973 8 11.53 15367 84.8 9.78 1.753 13331 2335.7 1973 9 . 1453 84.5 . . 1234 226.3 1973 10 . 287 94.0 . . 269 17.2 1913 11 . 4273 96.7 . . 4132 141.0 1973 12 , 12187 96.4 . . 11748 438.7 1974 1 3799.37 32137 94.0 3570.18 227.P84 30180 1926.4 1974 2 1661.33 44567 97.3 1616.48 48.855 C3363 1203.3 1974 3 1683.33 43213 91.1 1530.78 149.550 39367 3846.0 1974 4 1826.13 56220 97.8 1785.95 43.175 54983 1236.8 1974 5 591.57 15693 94.4 561.37 33.301 14802 878.1 1974 6 161.20 7647 0.0 0.00 151.233 3 7646.7 1974 7 35.73 1573 45.1 16.12 19.618 710 863.8 1974 8 22.60 1140 84.8 19.16 3.435 967 173.3 1974 9 63.20 2973 84.5 50.87 9.331 2512 460.9 1974 to 631.87 33227 94.0 593.95 37.912 28413 1813.6 1974 11 895.00 15733 96.7 866.43 29.568 15214 519.2 1974 12 6241.47 143867 96.4 6016.77 225.533 138687 5179.2 1975 1 4255.13 62337 94.0 3999.83 255.308 58286 3720.4 1975 2 6964.67 102447 97.3 6776.52 199.036 99681 2766.1 1975 3 2463.07 31213 91.1 2241.12 218.946 35723 3490.0

-1975 4 4757.20 74073 97.8 4652.54 134.658 72444 1629.6 1975 5 471.73 5183 94.4 445.32 26.417 4890 290.1 1975 6 58.27 827 0.0 0.00 59.257 3 826.7 1975 7 63.87 437 66.0 42.15 21.715 268 138.3 1975 8 63.13 247 90.9 57.39 5.735 261 26.1

61 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLEA-6(continued)

..................................... PL4N7=tP2---------------------------------------------

YEAR H3NF1 347E 5018E8 P E R"8 5 73 RIL7E0 BAFE1 N3 MBEB3 50N8ER1 ,

1972 6 42.4 960 0.0 0.0 32.43 3 960 1972 9 14.3 1347 84.5 29.0 5.31 1138 209 1972 13 135.1 1687 94.0 127.0 9.11 1595 101 1973 1 3865.1 7933 94.0 3636.0 232.09 7457 476 1973 2 4578.3 63693 97.3 4458.7 123.62 61975 1720 l 1973 3 4280.1 231547 91.1 3899.2 380.93 183609 17938 1973 4 4696.1 117680 97.8 4592.8 133.31 115331 2589 1973 5 1136.1 23563 94.4 1072.4 (3.62 19409 1151 1973 6 97.9 4527 0.0 0.0 97.93 3 4527 1973 7 38.6 2543 45.1 17.4 21.19 1146 1394 1973 8 187.0 15180 84.8 158.6 28.42 12873 2307 1973 9 31.3 1453 84.5 26.4 4.85 1228 225 1973 10 5. 3 287 94.0 5.0 3.32 269 17 1973 11 273.3 4233 96.7 264.3 9.02 4061 139 1973 12 1264.1 12187 96.4 1218.6 35.51 11749 439 1974 1 12814.7 147813 94.0 12045.8 768.88 138945 8869 1974 2 12823.3 153027 97.3 12477.1 345.23 188895 4132 1974 3 9218.7 259983 91.1 8398.2 820.46 236842 23139 1974 4 8378.7 471647 97.8 8194.3 184.33 461273 10376 1974 5 4351.4 395843 94.4 4107.7 243.68 373673 22167 1974 b 420.5 49560 0.0 0.0 823.53 3 49560 1974 7 42.3 4753 45.1 19.1 23.24 2144 2610 1974 8 69.7 8160 84.8 59.1 13.53 6923 1240 1974 9 206.0 23363 84.5 174.1 31.93 19739 3621 1974 to 835.3 75780 94.0 757.0 48.32 71233 4547 1974 11 1897.3 165967 96.7 1825.1 62.28 161457 5510 1974 12 6787.3 370153 96.4 6553.0 245.34 356828 13326 1975 1 4416.0 212397 94.0 4151.0 264.96 199643 12743 i 3496.1 1975 2 165833 97.3 3431.7 94.43 161356 4478 a

1975 3 3171.2 99973 91.1 2889.0 282.24 81966 8008 1975 4 5900.1 451100 97.8 5770.3 129.8) 441176 9924 1975 5 837.0 53373 94.4 761.8 45.19 78704 4669 1975 6 90.5 12207 0.0 0.0 93.47 3 12207 1975 7 92.7 11713 56.4 52.3 40.40 6606 5107 1975 8 1030.1 89720 98.5 1018.7 15.45 88374 1346 1975 9 640.0 73693 95.0 608.0 32.00 70009 3685 1975 10 657.5 47720 95.8 629.9 27.61 45716 2006 1975 11 1729.9 179343 95.2 1645.9 82.99 170732 8608 1975 12 2847.1 294000 97.9 2787.3 . 59.79 287826 6174 1976 1. 9597.3 510253 94.0 9021.5 575.84 573626 36615 1976 2 3731.8 180087 95.6 3557.6 155.23 172163 7924 1976 3 1563.0 123327 91.1 1423.9 139.11 112077 10949 1976 4 245.0 287 97.7 239.4 5.64 283 7 1976 -6 36.9 t93 0.0 0.0 36.93 0 493 1976 9 290.3 8227 90.7 263.3 27.33 7462 765 1976 10 2332.7 256393 95.4 2225.4 107.30 244587 11793 1976 11 1432.5 20900 98.3 1408.1 24.35 20545 355 1976 12 22551.3 693523 94.1 21220.8 1330.53 649779 40741 1977 1- 36380.7 2164740 94.0 34197.8 2182.54 2334856 129884 1977 2 68453.3 1251787 97.3 66605.1 1848.24 1227718 34068 1977 3 5005.5 458400 91.1 8560.0 2 4 5. s v 417675 40805 1977 4 10549.3 237347 97.8 10317.2 232.09 232125 9222 1977 5 339.73 25353 94.4 320.71 19.025 24594 1459.0 1977 6 .299.87 37567 0.0 0.00 299.857 3 37566.7 1977 7 106.47 947 45.1 47.11 57.352 427 519.7 1977 8 463.07 43460 84.8 392.58 73.355 36858 6605.9 1977 9 145.87 22923 84.5 124.10 22.764 19367 3552.6 1977 10 2064.00 322480 94.0 1940.16 123.843 333131 19348.8 1977 11 9770.67 931973 96.7 9448.23 322.432 908954 31019.1 1977, 12 . 543540 96.4 . . 523973 19567.4

I' ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 62 TABLE A-7 (continued)

..................................... PLLBT=IP3 --------------------------------*'----------

TEAR 505F8 BATE N058ER PER2 ENTO BATE 0 SATE 1 575BER3 NORBER1 i 1974 3 38.9 3 6 91.1 35.46 3.455 5 0.5 1

! 1974 4 999.84 4371 97.8 977.85 21.997 4275 96.2 1 1*Ta 5 458.90 677 94.4 433.20 25.698 639 37.9 f 1974 6 84.73 1433 0.0 0.00 84.729 0 1430.0 1974 7 5.71 20 45.1 2.58 3.137 9 11.0 L 1974 8 0.63 3 84.8 0.53 0.096 2 0.4 1974 9 2.20 13 84.5 1.96 3.341 11 2. 0 l 1974 10 19.13 93 94.0 17.98 1.148 85 5.4

[ 1976 2 446.86 3974 99.0 442.39 4.459 3935 39.7 1976 4 333.39 4554 97.8 326.05 7.334 4454 100.2 l 1976 5 105,57 7373 94.4 99.56 5.912 6963 412.9 t 1976 6 26.51 2254 0.0 0.00 26.514 0 2254.3 1976 7 16.81 1509 13.0 2.19 14.629 195 1312.5 1976 8 45.43 4173 64.9 29.48 15.945 2706 146347 1976 9 39.27 3199 67.8 26.53 12.645 2169 1029.9 1976 10 221.57 21955 90.9 201.41 20.163 19876 1989.8 1976 11 1332,03 118493 96.6 1286.74 45.239 114464 4028.8 1976 12 819.24 55426 97.2 796.30 22.939 54846 1579.9 1977 1 1953.41 . 92889 94.0 1836.22 117.236 97315 5573.3 1977 2 5655.71 127396 97.3 5503.98 152.731 123956 3439.7 1977 3 352.47 29314 91.1 321.10 31.373 26705 2609.0 1977 4 559.00 55919 97.8 546.70 12.298 55569 1250.0 1977 5 346.41 62640 94.4 327.02 19.399 59132 3507.8 1977 6 84.86 11370 0.0 0.00 84.857 0 11370.0 1977 7 32.23 4756 45.1 14.54 17.693 2145 2610.9 1 1977 8 94.06 13153 84.8 79.76 14.297 11179 2003.8 l 1977 9 40.06 5931 84.5 33.85 5.239 5012 919.4 1977 10 119.64 4313 94.0 112.46 7.179 3769 240.6 1977 12 514.26 18124 96.4 495.74 19.513 17472 652.5 1

63 ORNL/N'JREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLES A-5, A-6, AND A-7

1. Letter dated March 3,1978, from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission (US NRC),

including a response to Question VI.3, which is the identification nunber for a question in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, from George W. Knighton (US NRC) to William Cahill, Jr. (Con Ed).

2. Letter dated May 3,1978, _from Kenneth L. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Henry Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), including a l response to Question A-3, which is the identification number for a question in the enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gluckstern (US EPA) to Kenneth L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

3. Texas Instruments, Inc. Indian Point Impingement Study Report for the Period 15 June 1972 through 31 December 1973. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., December 1974.

(Tables A-1.5 through A-1.8).

4. Texas Instruments, Inc. Indian Point Impingement Study Report for the Period 1 January 1974 through 31 December 1974. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., November 1975.

(Tables B-2 through B-4).

5. Texas Instruments, Inc. Indian Point Impingement Study Report for the Period 1 January 1975 through 31 December 1975. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., November 1976.

(Tables A-4 and A-5).

6. Texas Instruments, Inc. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point. 1976 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., December 1977. (Tables A-2 and A- 3 ) .

7. Monthly letters from Eugene R. McGrath of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. to Peter A. A. Berle of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which are sent as specified in Section 401 Certification and which include data sheets giving daily fish counts by species for each unit at Indian Point.

8. Monthly letters from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. to James P. O'Reilly of the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which are sent as specified in Appendix B of Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications and which include data sheets giving daily fish counts by species for each unit at Indian Pcint.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 64

9. Exhibit UT-105. Table 1. Sumary of Collection Efficiency Tests and Related 95% Confidence Intervals at Indian Point Units 2 and 3, 1974-1977. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Adjudicatory Hearing, Docket No. C/II-WP-77-01, introduced into evidence on June 6,1978.

ei- . ,i

L.

65 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLE A-8 WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE LOVETT GENERATING STATION January 1973 - Decemter 1976: Ref. U ,

Values f . RATE (collection rate)1 and NUMBER (number collected) were taken directly from data sheets in Ref. (1).

January 1977 - December 1977: Ref. (2)

Values for RATE (collection rate)1 and NUMBER (number collected) were taken directly from data sheets in Ref. (2).

PERCENT 0 (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year):

No estimates of PERCENTO were available for Lovett. Consequently, all monthly values for PERCENT 0 were approximated based on data from Indian Point, 'Aich is located only 1.5 miles upriver and  !

across the river from Lovett.

June 1975 - December 1976 Used the average of the observed monthly values for the units at Indian Point for the corresponding month and year (see Tables A-5 to A-7 in this appendix).

. January 1973 - May 1975 and January 1977 - December 1977 Used the monthly approximations calculated for Indian Point (same for all units at Indian Point) (see Tables A-5 to A-7

~in this appendix).

RATE 0 = PERCENT 0 RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

NtNBERO = ' PERCENT 0 NUMBER /100 and NUMBER 1 = NtNBER - NUMBER 0.

RATE,' NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 ~ are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER 0 and NUMBER 1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

1 All collection rates were converted from number of white perch collected per million gallons to number of white perch collected per million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter.

Collection rates n re assumed to equal impingement rates.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 66 TABLE A-8 (continued) 1

---

PLANT =L37ETT------------------------------------------

YEAR NONF5 BLTE 5018 ER PER ENTO stTED RATE 1 538BER3 505BER1 1973 1 70.80 3536 94.0 66.55 3.24S 3323.8 212.16 1973 2 81.63 3595 97.3 79.42 2.204 3488.2 96.80 1973 3 222.43 11055 91.1 202.63 17.736 13371.1 983.90 1973 4 195.54 3559 97.8 192.22 4.324 8380.5 188.52 1973 5 66.04 2703 98.8 62.34 3.618 2551.6 151.37 1973 6 49.40 2247 0.3 0.00 49.400 0.0 2247.00 1973 7 16.38 817 45.1 7.39 9.972 368.5 s48.53 1973 8 55.86 1817 84.8 72.81 13.050 3745.6 671.38 1973 9 13.74 600 84.5 11.61 2.127 507.3 93.00 ,

1973 10 2.64 93 94.0 2.48 0.159 87.4 5.58 1973 11 142.12 6037 96.7 137.83 4.693 5837.8 199.22 1973 12 389.65 17232 96.4 375.62 14.027 16669.5 622.51 197a 1 458.33 20058 9m.0 e30.83 27.530 18854.5 1203.48 1974 2 399.16 12695 97.3 388.38 10.777 12352.2 342.77 1974 4 522.26 18835 97.8 510.77 11.413 18420.6 414.37 1974 5 163.26 5253 94.4 154.11 9.142 5893.4 349.61 1978 6 40.68 1519 0.0 0.00 a3.632 0.3 1519.00 1974 7 8.98 194 45.1 4.05 4.931 83.0 101.02 1974 8 12.15 492 8a.8 10.30 1.847 a17.2 74.78 1974 9 13.57 395 84.5 8.93 1.638 334.6 61.38 1974 10 108.8m 2921 9a.0 102.31 5.533 2745.7 175.26 1974 11 302.74 11753 96.7 29 ?. 75 9.990 11365.2 387.85 1974 12 311.72 12071 96.e 30L.50 11.222 11636.e 434.56 1975 1 853.36 35169 94.0 799.34 $1.022 33998.9 2170.14 1975 2 121.52 4325 97.3 118.2a 3.251 #208.2 116.78 1975 3 169.80 4249 11.1 15";.78 15.07< 3870.8 378.16 1975 4 546.30 1186a 97.8 534.28 12.31# 11603.3 261.01 1975 5 25.15 786 94.4 24.69 1.465 742.0 44.02 1975 6 26.68 958 0.0 0.00 25.6L 1 0.3 958.00 I 1975 7 7.40 273 61.2 4.53 2. 8i ) 1 67.1 105.92 l 1975 8 42.80 1642 94.7 40.53 2.25l 1555.0 87.03 1975 9 24.30 642 95.3 23.09 1.215 609.9 32.10 1975 13 30.38 977 95.8 29.10 1.276 936.3 41.03 1975 11 543.49 15622 95.2 514.55 25.944 15824.1 797.86 1975 12 143.97 4a58 97.9 140.95 3.323 4364.5 93.62 1976 1 362.71 11976 94.0 340.94 21.762 11163.4 712.56 1976 2 42.27 1265 97.3 41.13 -1.141 1233.9 34. 16 1976 3 94.04 2592 91.1 85.67 8.370 2452.4 239.59 1976 a 186.50 4765 97.8 182.40 4.133 e660.2 104.83 1976 5 8.19 93 94.4 7.73 0.459 85.0 5.04 1976 6 26.68 610 0.0 0.00 25.631 0.3 610.00 1976 7 10.30 221 13.0 1.34 8.963 28.7 192.27 1976 8 17.70 554 6a.9 11.49 5.212 359.5 194.45 1976 9 22.19 514 79.2 17.57 4.616 407.1 106.91 1976 10 12.42 167 9 3. .' 11.57 3.844 155.6 11.36 1976- 11 570.08 13233 97.4 555.26 14.822 9934.8 265.20 1976 12 534.94 13166 95.6 511.51 23.538 12586.7 579.30 1977 1 1225.93 39697 94.0 1152.28 73.550 37307.7 2381.34 1977 2 751.96 13633 97.3 731.66 23.333 13264.9 360.09 1977 3 106.46 1719 91.1 96.99 9.475 1566.0 152.99 1977 a 162.62 2783 97.8 159.05 3.578 2721.8 61.23 1977 5 21.24 370 94.4 20.05 1.189 349.3 20.72 1977 6 209.355 4732 0.3 0.000 209.355 0.0" 4732.00 1977 7 19.179 576 45.1 8.650 13.529 259.78 316.22 1977 8 37.433 1438 84.8 31.743 5.690 1193.98 214.02 1977 9- e.755 121 84.5 4.018 3.737 132.24 18.76 j 1977 10 227.847 5519 94.0 214.176 13.671 $187.86 331.14 j 1977 11 490. a0 5 9767 96.7 47e.222 15.193 9tta.69 322.31 1977 12 - 42.716 569 96.4 41.179 1.538 643.95 24.05 l

L,.._...m,_ . ., .. . _ . . . .. .

^

67 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-8

1. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (US NRC),

including a response to Question X.1, which is the identification number for a question.in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, from George W. Knighton (US NRC) to William Cahill, Jr. (Con Ed).

2. Letter dated May 5,1978, from Edward G. Kelleher of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Henry Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), including a response to Question A-4, which is the identification number for a question in the enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gluckstern (US EPA) to Kenneth L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

' 0RNL/NUREG/TM-361 - 68 z.

TABLE A-9 WHITE PERCH ' IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE ROSETON GENERATING STATION l RATE (collection ra'te):1 -

July 1973 through December 1976: . average af the daily

(

-collection rates for each month were copied directly from l data sheets in Ref. (1)..

, Janaary 1917 through. December 1977: average of the daily

- collection rates for each month were copied directly from j

data sheets.in Ref. (2).

,i ; NtNBER (rn d er collected):

i July 1973 through December 1976: copied directly from Table 10.2-14 of Ref. (3).

7 January 1977 through December 1977: calculated from the monthly collection rates (RATE) described immediately above and monthly values of actual total plant intake flow in millions of gallons for the particular month (from data i

sheets provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, New York).

I PERCENT 0 (percent of ,the white perch collected that were young-of-the-year):

January 1975 through December 1976: Calculated from monthly data on length-frequency .in 1-centimeter length intervals of

' white perch in impingement collections (from Tables 10.2-15

. and 10.2-16 in' Ref. ' (3)). The " DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments were used as the cut-off length between young-of-the-year and' yearling white perch (see Table A-10 in

-this appendix).

- July 1973 through December 1974 and January 1977 through

Decenber 1977

calculated as the average of the 1975 and-l ;1976 PERCENT 0 values for each month.

L RATE 0 =. PERCENT 0 . RATE /100 and RATE 1 = RATE - RATE 0.

. NLMBERO = PERCENT 0 NUMBER /100 and NUMBER 1-= NUMBER - NUMBER 0.

1 IAl'll collection rates were converted from number of white perch

- collected per. million gallons - to number of- white perch collected per ,

'million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17L gallons per cubic meter.

Collection rates were assumed.to equal: impingement rates.

p

69 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 TABLE A-9 (continued)'

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENT 0 are defined above. RATE 0 and RATE 1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER 0 and NUMBER 1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

I

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 70 TABLEA-9(continued)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PL A NF= ROS Ef 35 TEAR MONTH R AT E N358tR PERCENT 3 RATE 0 ELTE1 N0R8E80 ups8ERI t973 7 9.272 91 4.8 0.445 8.827 3.9 77.1 1973 8 98.a30 980 64.2 63.192 35.238 629.2 350.8 1973 9 428.008 1394 86.5 370.227 57.781 946.3 147.7 1973 to 654.270 4522 88.6 579.583 74.597 4306.5 515.5 1973 11 197.837 1996 85.3 168.755 29.082 1702.6 293.4 1973 12. 27.527 48s 73.8 20.315 7.212 357.2 126.8 1974 1 1.162 5 66.0 0.767 0.395 3.3 1.7 1974 2' O.000 0 $3.0 0.000 3.333 0.3 0. 0 1974 3 0.423 5 59.0 0.249 0.173 2.9 2.1 l 1974 4 148.701 4897 44.0 65.329 93.273 2154.7 2742.3 1974 5 413.637 5272 58.0 239.910 173.728 3637.8 2634.2 1974 6 106.566 1105 0.0 0.300 136.556 0.3 1105.0 1974 7 0.687 13 4. 8 0.033 0.654 0.5 9.5 1974 8 54.023 3263 64.2 34.683 19.343 2394.8 1168.2 1974 9 23.617 1131 86.5 20.429 3.188 978.3 152.7 1974' 10 43.007 1038 88.6 38.104 3.933 919.7 118.3 1974. 11 188.829 12313' 85.3 161.071 27.758 10503.0 1810.0 1974 12 104.030 7351 73.8 76.774 27.256 5425.3 1926.0 1975 1 18.228 1337 59.9 10.918 7.309 782.9 524.1

.1975 2 14.318 1059 33.6 5.097 9.221 377.3 682.0

-'1975 3 14.926 1347 38.5 5.746 9.179 403.1 643.9 1975 4 340.092 23288 7.0 23.806 315.296 1630.2 21657.8 1975 5- 164.314 18599 17.2 28.262 136.052 2511.0 12088.0 1975 6 .19.707 1613 0.0 0.000 19.737 0.3 1613.0 1975 7 42.928 3965 2.8 1.202 41.726 108.2 3756.8 1975 8 128.a13 9571 39.7 50.980 77.433 3799.7 5771.3 1975 9 118.348 7934- 77.7 91.957 26.392 6063.7 1740.3 1975 13 442.960 335s1 79.7 353.039 89.921 26732.2- 6808.8 1975 11 615.727 43951 76.2 469.184 146.543 31128.5 9722.5 1975 12 21.107 844 66.0 13.931 7.176 557.0 287.0 1976 1 19.575 1339 72.0 14.094 5.481 725.8 282.2 1976 2 34.712 2287' 70.4 24.437 13.275 1610.3 677.0 1976 3 17.779 1129 79.6 14.152 3.627 898.7 230.3 4

' 1976 4 463.513 31493 81.0 375.255 93.357 25539.3 5983.7 1976- 5 242.719 23851 98.7 239.564 3.155 20S70.1 270.9 1976 6 75.870 6455 0.0 0.000 75.870 0.3 6455.0 1976 7' 3.408 326 6.9 0.235 3.173 22.5 303.5 1976 8 22.692 2100 88.8 20.151 2.552 1864.8 235.2 1976 9 23.927 2346 95.3 27.567 1.360 2235.7 110.3 1976 10 1a0.459 9927 97.5 136.948 3.511 9678.8 248.2 1976 11 563.316 23006 94.4 531.770 31.556 21717.7 1288.3 1976 12 63.976 3258 81.5 $2.059 11.817 2655.3 602.7 1977 1 23.036 1696 66.0 15.204 7. 8.1. ' 1119.4 576.6 1977 2 13.314 '951 53.0 7.057 6.258 451.0 400.0 1977 3 67.178 - 5183 59.0 39.635 27.543 3058.3 2125.0

. 1977 4 303.954 15496 44.0 133.740 170.214 7253.8 9232.2 1977 5 735.106 51444- 58.0 826.361 309.754 29837.5 21606.5

-1977 -6 20s552 1964 0.0 0.000 20.552 0.0 1964.0

. 1977 7 10.620 1004 4.8 0.510 13.113 48.2 955.8 1977 8 248.346 25939 64.2 159.438- 88.908 16568.7 9239.3

- 1977' 9 78.247 7248 86.5 67.684 13.553 6269.5 978.5 1977 .10' 142.493 13176 88.6 126.249 16.244 9015.9 1160.1 i

1977 11 119.48s 7834 85.3 101.920 17.564 6682.4 1151.6

.1977 12 32.942 -2296 73.8 24.311 8.631 1694.4 601.6

71 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-9

1. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (US NRC),

including a response to Question IX.1, which is the identification number for a question in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, fron, George W. Knighton (US NRC) to William Cahill, Jr. (Con Ed).

2. Letter dated April 14, 1978, from Kenneth L. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Henry Gluckstern of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),

including a response to Question A-5, which is the identification number for a question in the enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gluckstern (US EPA) to Kenneth L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

3. Ecological Analysts, Inc. Roseton Generating Station. Near-field Effects of Once-through Cooling System Operation on Hudson River Biota. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, July 1977.

= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ORNL/NUREG/1N-361 72 TABLE A-10. " DIVISION" CRITERIA SPECIFIED BY TEXAS INSTRUMENTS AS THE CUT-0FF LENGTH BETWEEN YOUNG-0F-THE-YEAR AND YEARLING WHITE PERCHA DIVISION c DIVISION C DATE b d d (mm) YEAR CLASSES DATE (mm) YEAR CLASSES 750101 95 1973-1974 760105 105 1974-1975 750101 95 760119 105 750116 95 760202 105 750116 95 760216 105 750201 95- 760301 105 750201 95 760315 105 750215 95 760405 105 750215 95 760419 105 750301 95 760419 105 )

750301 95 760503 105 750315 95 760517 105 750315 95 760607 50 1975-1976 750401 95 760607 50 I 750401 95 760621 50 750415 95 760705 50 750415 95 760719 60 750501 95 760802 60 750501 95 760816 85 750515 95 760816 85 750515 95 760830 100 750601 29 1974-1975 760830 100 750601 29 760913 100 750615 50 760913 100 750615 50 760927 100 750701 50 760927 100 750701 50 761011 100 750715 60 761011 100 750715 60 761025 100 750805 85 761025 100 750805 85 761108 100 750818 95 761108 100 750901 95 761122 100 750915 100 761206 100 751006 105 761206 100 751020 105 761220 100 751103 105 761220 100 ,

751117 105 751201 105 751215 105 a0btained from computer data tapes entitled Texas Instruments 1975 Impingement Data (Record Type E) and Texas Instruments 1976 Impingement Data (Record Type E).

b The format for DATE is year-month-day.

CThe seasonally varying, total body length which is used to discriminate between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch.

d The two year classes separated by DIVISION.

73 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 l'

APPENDIX B SURVIVAL OF IMPINGED WHITE PERCH

ORk/NUREG/TM-361 74 The survival ~of impinged white perch was studied at Bowline, Roseton,-Danskamer, and Indian Point Unit 1. Since comparatively limited survival data are available for Indian Point, tne results obtained at the other three plants are the primary subject of this appendix. 'Our analysis of these results includes: (1) descriptions of the methods used in the Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamer survival studies, (2) evaluations of the effects of screenwash procedures on white perch survival, (3) a discussion of seasonal variations in survival, (4) assessments of indirect mortality and handling mortality, and (5) estimates of the fraction of white perch that survive y impingement at Bowline, Lovett, Roseton, Danskamer, and Albany and of the' fraction that could survive at Indian Point if fish impinged at this plant were returned to the river.

Methods used in impingement survival studies Sections 10.3.2.of the Roseton Near-Field Report (Central Hudson 1977) and the Bowline Near-Field Report (0 range and Rockland 1977) contain descriptions of the methods used in impingement survival studies conducted by Ecological Analysts (EA) at Roseton and Bowline.

Ecological Analysts's 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson indicates that the methods used at Danskamer .are virtually identical to the procedures at'.Roseton and Bowline.

In most of the studies at Bowline, impinged fish are collected.in a nylon mesh bag suspended in the impingement collection _ pit. In some of the experiments at Bowline, fish are collected at the end of the screenwash discharge pipe in an effort to' assess whether the screenwash discharge system imposes

75 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 stresses in addition to those caused by the impingement experience itself. At Roseton and Danskamer, fish are collected in a basket that float > in the river at the end of the discharge pipe. After collection, the fish are sorted immediately by species and are classified as live, vead, or stunned. The live and stunned fish are then transferred to a holding facility and observed for latent mortality.' The holding period at Bowline is 96 hr; at Rosetor, and Danskamer it is 84 hr. The use of control fish was an important element in all the impingement survival studies. In the first such studies (conducted at Roseton an'd Danskamer in 1975), control fish were exposed only to the holding facilities. Subsequently, control fish have been exposed to the entire process of collection, holding, and observation.

Effects of-screenwash procedures on survival Table B-1 contains a sumary of the results obtained from white perch impingement survival studies conducted at Bowline, Roseton, Danskamer, and Indian Point Unit 1. Even a superficial inspection of Table B-1 shows that white perch survival is considerably higher when the travelling screens at Bowline are operated in Ge continuous mode than when the intermittent mode is employed. However, this pattern was not consistently observed at Roseton and Danskamer. The highest survival of white perch at both of these plants was obtained during continuous operation: ten out of twelve observations of 40% latent survival or higher. But in many of the experiments, in particular in the April-May 1977 experiments at Roseton,. survival of white perch

ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 - 76 Table B-1 Suninary of white perch impingement survival data Power plant' Operating' mode and Number of and time Collection point- screenwash pressure fish tested a % survival b Source B0WLINE January- Collection Continuous, 2483c 61 Ref. 9 December pit high pressure Table 10.3-4 1976 Continuous, 3701c 49 low pressure  ;

Intermittent, 1339c 26 high pressure Intermittent, 1281c 23 low pressure Discharge Continuous, 390c 20 Ref. 9, pipe- high pressure Table 10.3-6 Continuous, 274c 17 low pressure Intermittent, 609c 10 high pressure Intemittent, 966c 9 7 low pressure January- Collection Continuous, 958c 28 Ref. 9, February pit high pressure Table 10.3-9 1977 Continuou s, - 988c 21 low pressure Discharge Continuou s. 25 29 pipe high pressure Continuous. 28 0 low pressure -

_ _ _ _ _ . - l

7 - ,.

77 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table F-1. (continued)

Power plant .

Operating mode and Number of and time . Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % survivalb Source 80W1.INE Noved er . Collection Continuous, 837c 26 Ref. 9 Decet er pit high pressure Table 10.3-10 1974 January Collection Continuous, 678c 7 Ref. 9, 1975 pit high pressure Table 10.3-10 April 1975 Collection Continuous, 55c 35 Ref. 9, pit high pressure Table 10.3-10 November- Discharge ' Continuous, 807c 23 Ref. 9, Deced er. pipe high pressure Table 10.3-11 1974 March- Discharge Continuous, 543c 7 Ref. 9, April 1975 pipe high pressure Table 10.3-11 Marci,*v1b Discharge Intermittent, 51 Ref. 9, 5

pipe 2-he hold, Table 10.3-11 high pressure March- Discharge Intermittent, 848c 0 Ref. 9 April 1975 pipe 4-br hold, Table 10.3-11

-high pressure ROSETON 1

Fall 1975 Collection Continuous, 201 8 Ref. 2 basket high pressure Table 10.3-3 Intermittent, 667 1 2-hr hold, high pressure Intermittent, 239 0 4-hr hold, high pressure

F ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 78 Table B-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested#  % survivalb Source ROSETON Intermittent, 684 0 6-hr hold, high pressure April- Collection Continuous, 275 16 Ref. 2, June 1976 basket high pressure (yearling Table 10.3-2 and adult) l April- Collection Intermittent, 96 9 Ref. 2, June 1976 basket 2-hr hold, (yearling Table 10.3-2 high pressure and adult)

Intermittent, 66 0 4-hr hold, (yearling high pressure and adult)

November- Collection Cont auous, 285 44 Ref. 2, Decenter basket low pressure Table 10.3-4 1976 Continuou s, 707 4 high pressure Intermittent, 389 8 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 344 5

?-br hold, high pressure Intermittent, 25 16 4-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 70 0 4-br hold, high pressure

79 ORfiL/tiUREG/TM-361 TableB-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % survivalb Source ROSETON Continuou s, 10 40 low pressure (yearling)

Continuou s, 9 0 high pressure (yearling)

Intermittent, 22 14 2-hr hold, (yearling) low pressure November- Collection Intermittent, 9 11 Ref. 2 December basket 2-hr hold, (yearling) Table 10.3-4 1976 high pressure Intermittent, 7 (adult) 14 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 4 (adult) 25 2-he hold, high pressure January- Collection Continuous, 15 0 Ref. 3 March 1977 basket low pressure Table 4-14d Continuous, 49 0 high pressure Intermittent, 16 0 2-br hold, low pressure Intermittent, 39 0 2-hr hold, high pressure

p (RNL/NUREG/1M-361 80 I Table B-1. (continued) l l

Power plant Operating mode and Nunber of and time Collection point screenwssh pressure fish testeda % survivalb Source ROSETON Apr'll- Collection Continuous, 229 19 Ref. 3 May 1977 basket low pressure Table 4-17d Continuous, 378 45 bigh pressure l Intermittent, 74 20 l 2-hr hold, low pressure j Intermittent, 68 22 2-br hold. -

high pressure i I

l *pril- Collection Intermittent, 144 23 Ref. 3, j May 1977 basket 4-br hold, Table 4-17 low pressure Intermittent, 231 4 4-hr hold, high pressure Continuous, 153 6 l- low pressure (yearling)

Continuous, 171 2 1- high pressure (ycarling)

! Intermittent, 46 22 l 2-hr hold, . (yearling) l low pressure Intermittent, 74 4 2-hr hold, (yearling) high pressure Intermittent, 26 4 4-hr hold, (yearling) high pitssure l

l

81 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table B-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested a % survival b Source ROSETON Continuou s, 89 (adult) 11 low pressure Continuou s, 53(adult) 7 high pressure Intermittent, 20 (adult) 15 2-br hold, low pressure Intermittent, 56 (adult) 11 2-br hold, high pressure April- Collection Intermittent, 2 (adult) 0 Ref. 3, May 1977 basket 4-br hold, Table 4-17d low pressure Intermittent, 15 (adult) 13 4-br hold, high pressure ,

j October-l December 1977 Continuous, 33 3 Ref. 4, low pressure l Table 4-3 l Continuous, 98 7 high pressure Intermittent, 22 0 2-br hold, low pressure Intermittent, 123 9 2-hr hold, high pressure Continuous, 6 0 low pressure (yearling)

Continuous, 49 17 high pressure (yearling)

I l ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 82 i

l Table B-1. (continued) l i

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection ooint screenwash pressure fish testeda % survivalb Source DANSKAMMER Fall 1975 Collection Continuou se 268 3 Ref. 3, bask et Table 4-25 Intermittent, 236 3 2-br hold Intermittent, 924 0 4-hr hold Intermittent, 137 0 6-hr hold April- Collection Continuou s 99 21 Ref. 3, i May 1976 basket (yearling Table 4-26 and adult)

Intermittent, 71 21 2-br hold (yearling and sdult)

Intermittent. 41 0 4-hr hold (yearling and adult)

November- Collection Conti nuous 201 24 Ref. 3 December basket Table 4-27 1976 Intermittent. 258 9 2-hr hold Continuous 17 53 (yearling)

Intermittent, 17 6 2-hr hold (yearling)

Continuous 2 (adult) 100

l 83 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table B-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mcde and Nu2 er of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % survivalb Source DANSKAMMER April- Collection Continuous 122 43 Ref. 3, May 1977 bask et Table 4-34 Intermittent, 29 25 2-hr hold Intermittent, 158 6 4-br hold Continuous 248 33 (yearling)

Intermittent, 152 40 2-hr hold (yearling)

Intermittent, 62 0 4-br hold (yearling)

Continuous 347 (adult) 45 Intermittent, 223 (adult) 28

?-hr hold Intermittent, 137 (adult) 3 4-hr hold Noved er-December 1977 Collection Continous 37 63 Ref. 4, bask et Table 4-9 Intermittent, 71 18 2-br hold Continuous 13 62 (yearling)

Intermittent, 8 43 2-hr hold (yearling)

_m _ _.__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 84 Table B-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested a % survival b Source INDIAN POINT October- Continuous 221 24 Ref. 8 December 1977 Attachment 1 June- Continuous 37 16 December 1977 (yearlin and older SURVIVAL OF CONTROLS EXPOSED ONLY TO COLLECTION AND HOLDING PROCEDURE B0WLINE November- Collection 28 86 Ref. 9 December pit (yearling Table 10.3-5 /

1976 and adult) 302 32 Discharge 134 14 Ref. 9, pipe Table 10.3-7 ROSETON November- Collection 53 68 Ref. 2, December basket Table 10.3-6 1976 28 100 (yearling) 1 (adult) 100

85 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table 8-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Nuder of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested a % survival b Source ROSETON April- Collection 26 46 Ref. 3, May 1977 basket Table 4-18 4 .

' 22 59 (yearling)

+

230(adult) 89 October- Collection 79 95 Ref. 4, December 1977 basket Table 4-5 35 .

94 (yearling) 48(adult) 96

'i DANSK#WER November- Collection 11 91 Ref. 3 Deced er basket Table 4-28 1976 5(adult) 100 April- Collection 53 81 Ref. 3, May 1977 basket Table 4-35 38 79 (yearling) 159 (adult) 84

.L i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _-_ m

l ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 86

?

Table B-1. (continued)

Power plant Operating mode and Number of and time Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % survival b Source DAN SK/+NER November- Collection 67 100 Ref. 4, December 1977 basket Table 4-10 23 100 (yearling) 31 100 (adult) aYoung-of-the-year unless otherwise noted.

bPercent alive at end of observation period (96 hr at Bowline, 84 hr at Roseton and 1 Danskamer), j cData collected under the same conditions (sampling point, operating mode, and screenwash pressure) are pooled.

dE ntries in the column labeled "84 hr" must be multiplied by the corresponding entries in the column labeled " Initial" to obtain the correct latent survival percentages (Ref. 8).

95creenwash pressure for all impingement survival studies at Danskamer is 55 to 65 psi.

87 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 impinged during intermittent operation with a 2-hr wash cycle was as high as or higher than that of fish impinged during continuous operation. The lowest white perch survival at both Roseton and Danskanner was generally observed during intermittent operation with a 4-hr cycle.

The results of tests designed to measure the effect of screenwash pressure on survival also differed from plant to plant. Most of the tests at Roseton indicated that under both continuous and intermittent operatt 9 white perch survival is higher at 3515 g/cm2 (50 psi) screenwash pressure than at 7031 g/cm2 (100 psi). Ecological Analysts (EA) stated this conclusion both in the Roseton Near-Field Report (Central Hudson 1977, p.10.3-35) and in the 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson (Ecological Analysts 1977, p. 5-1). The data in Table B-1 generally support this conclusion, although no pressure effects were observed in the most recent experiments conducted in the fall of 1977 (Ecological Analysts 1978).

At Bowline no increase in survival has been noted when screenwash pressure is reduced from the normal 4218 to 1406 g/cm2 (60 to 20 psi) or less. Ecological Analysts found no significant effect of pressure

-on survival under either continuous or intermittent travelling screen operation. Ecological Analysts offered two possible explanations (Orange and Rockland 1977, pp.10.3-26 to 10.3-28):

....- The absence of,an apparent effect of screenwash

~ pressure has at.least two possible interpretations. First, the _ damage incurred by the white perch from being washed off the screens may be negligible at screenwash pressures of

_50-60 psi and below. Second, the spray from the low pressure

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 88 system may have been insufficient to remove fish from the screens. As a result, the fish may have been exposed to the high pressure nozzels located just below the low pressure system. In this case pressure exposures would have been similar in both the low and high pressure wash tests."

Although EA found no statistically significant difference, the January-December 1976 survival percentages in Table B-1 suggest that the low-pressure screenwash system may actually reduce the survival of white perch. In all cases in which it is possible to compare results obtained under conditions that were identical except for screenwash pressure (i.e., same collecting location rd screenwash schedule),

higher survival was observed among fish exposed only to the high pressure spray.

Seasonal variations in survival The data compiled in Table B-1 suggest that the survival of impinged white perch varies seasonally. In tests performed during the winter of 1977 (January-March), EA observed 100% mortality of juvenile white perch under all operating conditions. Ecological Analysts's explanation (Ecological Analysts 1977, p. 4-25) was that these fish are more susceptible to handling and holding stresses when water temperatures are near freezing. We agree that since young-of-the-year white perch are already under stress because of low temperatures, they should be more vulnerable to the additional stress of handling and observation. However, for the exact same reason, they should also be more susceptible to the stress of impingement. Survival of white perch impinged at Bowline during this same period was also low (Table B-1).

89 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Nearly 2000 impinged white perch were sampled at the Bowline collection pit during January-February 1977. All were obtained while the screens were operating in the continuous mode, i.e., the mode under which the highest survival is obtained. Only 28% af the fish collected when the high pressure spray was used, and only 21% of the fish collected when the low pressure spray was used, survived for as 'ong as 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after collection. Relatively high survival was observed among white perch l

collected at the Bowline discharge pipe (high pressure spray), but the i

sample size was low, only 25 fish. These results suggest, although they are not conclusive, that the survival of impinged white perch is lower during the winter than during other seasons.

Indirect mortality and handling mortality Do the data sumarized in Table B-1 provide reliable estimates of the survival of those white perch that are impinged, washed off the screens, and returned to the river rather than collected and observed?

It is not possible to reproduce in the laboratory the conditions faced by these fish in their natural habitat. A stunned or otherwise weakened fish is more vulnerable to predators, and these predators may congregate in the vicinity of the screenwash discharge because it provides an abundant supply of prey. Congregations of predators were, in f act, observed at fish return sites in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary (Skinner 1972, California Department of Fish and Game et al.

a 1978). . Moreover, analyses of the stomach contents of these predators indicate that-they feed heavily on released fish (Skinner 1972, California Department of Fish and Game et al.1978). A fish that

ORNL/NtREG/TM-361 90 survives these predators may develop fungal or bacterial infections because of wounds and/or lost scales caused by impingement. Such infections may not be observable in the holding facility because they take longer than 96 hrs to develop, or because they are suppressed by biocides. .According to p. 10.3-6 of Central Hudson (1977), water used at the Roseton holding facility has-occasionally been treated with potassium pennanganate to reduce the incidence of infections.

On the other hand, the collection and holding procedure imposes  ;

stresses of its own that an impinged fish does not suffer if it is returned directly to the river. It is for this reason that EA attempted to measure the mortality of control fish, exposed only to collection and holding, at all three plants. The control survival data for white perch are sunmarized in Table B-1. Ecological Analysts's results indicate that handling mortality is substantial. The survival of white perch controls at Bowline was no better than that of the comparable impinged fish. The survival of impinged white perch sampled at the collection pit in 1976 ranged from 23 to 61%. Survival of the corresponding control fish was 32%. White perch survival at the Bowline discharge pipe in 1976 ranged from 9 to 20%. The corresponding control. survival was 14%. Survival of yearling and adult white perch controls was high (86%), but there are no impinged fish with which they can be compared. White perch controls at Roseton and Danskamer fared better, although mortality was fairly high among young-of-the-year controls. In only one case (Roseton, April-May 1977, young-of-the-year, continuous high-pressure screenwash) was mortality among impinged fish lower than that of control fish.

i 91 ORNL/NURE'G/TM-361 Despite the sometimes high mortality observed among control fish,.

it appears unlikely that all of the observed mortality among impinged fish is caused by collection and handling. If all mortality were due

- to collection and handing, then no effects of screenwash procadure on survival could be observed. If, as appears to be the case, collection and' holding cause substantial mortality, then EA's procedure ensures that control fish will suffer more of this mortality than will impinged fish.- According to p.-10.3-18 of Orange and Rockland (1977), control fish are held for at least 72 hrs before use in impingement survival experiments.- If the holding system stresses fish, then controls are exposed to this stress for much longer than are impinged fish.

However, it may be the collection process itself that imposes the stress. At all three plants control fish are inserted into the collection device at the beginning of the sampling period and left

. there for the entire sampling period. If impinged fish arrive in the net more or less continuously throughout the sampling period, then each control. fish .is exposed to the stress of collection for twice as long l as the average impinged fish. In addition, control fish suffer a stress that-is not imposed at all on impinged fish: stress due to marking. Texas Instruments (TI) found that marking does induce

- mortality (Texas Instruments 1975). Texas Instrument's mark / recapture population estimates for white perch are adjusted to account for this mortality. Ecological Analysts did not attempt to measure the effect of marking on the survival of. control fish used in impingement survival studies.

(

'0RNI./NtREG/TM-361 92

-Because control fish suffer more cc,llection, handling (including marking), and holding stress than do impinged fish, we do not believe that the mortality of control fish is a reliable measure of the true sampling / observation mortality suffered by impinged fish. The control survival percentages should not be used to compute adjusted impingement survival percentages, e.g., as is done in Table 10.3-7 of Central Hudson (1977). It may be concluded that the results tabulated in Table B-1 represent overestimates of the actual fraction of impinged white perch that die as a direct result of being impinged. However, an additional fraction, one that cannot be estimated at this time, probably die indirectly because of increased vulnerability to predators, pathogens, or parasites.

Fraction of white perch that survive impingement It is possible to make rough estimates of the fraction of white perch impinged during the nonnal operation of the Bowline, Lovett, Roseton, and Danskamer plants that are returned to the river and survive. It is also possible to estimate the fraction that could survive impingement at Indian Point, if the requirement that all impinged fish be collected were relaxed. The highest survivals of (

white perch at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskaniner were obtained under continuous travelling screen rotation and, at least at Roseton, low screenwash pressure. These are not the standard operating conditions ,

at any of these plants (Table B-2). At Roseton and Danskamer, the most relevant results in Table B-1 are those obtained from experiments conducted under intermittent screenwash with the high-pressure spray.

t. .

____-_____-_______ _ l

93 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table B-2. Normal operating procedures for travelling screens operating at five Hudson River power plants Screenwash Source of

-P1 ant Mode pressure (psi) information Bowline Intermittent; 30/60b Exhibit 7, pp. 2.2-10, 4-hr holda 2.2-11; transcript pp.

5099-100 Lovett Intermittent; 100 Attachment 2 to letter 8-hr holde from K. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison to H.

Gluckstern of EPA, dated November 30, 1977; Transcript p. 5098 Roseton Intermittqnt; 100 Letter from T. Huggins 2-hr holda of Central Hudson to H. Gluckstern of EPA, date? November 29, 1977; Transcript p. 5098 Danskanmer Intermittent; 55-65 Letter from T. Huggins variable of Central Hudson to depending on H. Gluckstern of EPA, debris load dated November 29, 1977;  ;

EA 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson, Table 4-26 Albany Screens washed 84 Attachment 2 to letter automatically for from K. Marcellus of 3 min every Consolidated Edison to 15 min H. Gluckstern of EPA, dated November 30, 1977 a0perated in continuous mode when impingement exceeds 1000 fish per day.

blow pressure (2109 g/cm2 or 30 psi) wash system mounted below high pressure (4218 g/cmd or 60 psi) system. 1 psi = 70.307 g/cm2, l c0perated in continuous mode during periods of high debris loading, d

0perated in continuous mode during periods of high debris loading and icing (such conditions generally occur between October and April).

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 94 Survival percentages under these conditions ranged from 0 to 25% at Roseton and from 0 to 43% at Danskamer. During conditions of high

- debris loading or icing, the travelling screens at Roseton are rotated continuously and washed with the high pressure spray. The survival percentages obtained under this operating mode ranged from 0-51%. At Bowline both intermittent and continuous rotation have been employed during nonnal operation. Survival percentages ranging from 0 to 61%

were obtained from the collection pit experiments, with most of the observations falling between 10 and 40%. The generally lower survivals i obtained at the Bowline discharge pipe were largely a function of sampling mortality, as evidenced by the relatively poor survival of the discharge-pipe controls.

Given that'a substantial fraction of the impingement mortality observed among white perch is caused by collection and/or observation, it is conceivable that as many as 40% may survive the immediate effects of impingement if returned directly to the river. At all three plants impingement abundance collections are made at least once a week. On these days no fish are returned to the river. Moreover, it is normal procedure at Bowline to hold all fish impinged during the 24 hrs preceding an impingment sample. If, on the average, 40% of the fish

! returned to the river survive, then about 29% (40% x 5/7) of all white perch impinged at Bowline.during a week would survive. At Roseton and 1

Danskamer, about 34% (40% x 6/7) would survive. The possibility remains that survival of impinged white perch may be lower during the winter, a season of high impingement at Bowline and of low impingement at Roseton and Danskamer. It is also possible that, due to the l

P

95 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 effects of sampling mortality, the survival of this species may be higher than is indicated by the results of the experiments. However, biases introduced into the direct impact assessment (Section IV) by underestimating or overestimating the survival of impinged white perch at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamer are likely to be small in comparison to biases introduced by errors in the estimates of population size and total mortality (Section III).

It can be seen from Table B-2 that travelling screen operating conditions at Albany are similar to those at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskanmer. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the survival of impinged fish at this plant is probably similar to that observed at the three plants where extensive studies have been conducted. At Lovett, however, the screens are rotated only once every eight hours.

Since reduced survival was observed at other plants when a 4-hr screenwash cycle (as compared to continuous) is employed, it is reasonable to suppose that survival would be even lower (perhaps approaching zero) with an 8-hr cycle.

The results obtained from the preliminary experiments conducted at Indian Point Unit 1 (Table B-1) are similar to results obtained at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamer, although the survival percentages observed (24% for young-of-the-year and 16% for yearling and older white perch) are near the low end of the ranges observed at the other three plants. Thus, it is possible that if white perch impinged at Indian Point were returned to the river, the fraction surviving would be similar to the fraction surviving impingement at other plants,

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 ~ 96 provided that the travelling screens are operated in the continuous mode.--Because of the presence of-fixed screens in the intake forebays at Indian Point Unit 2, intake modifications at this unit would be required if continuous rotation of the traveling screens is to be of any value.

l

97 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 R EFERENCES

1. California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1978. Interagency Ecological Study Program for the- Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Sixth Annual Report (1976).

2. Cer tral Hudsbn. 1977. Roseton Generating Station - Near-field eft'ects of once-through cooling system operation on Hudson River biota. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Poughkeepsie, New York.

3. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1977. Impingement survival studies at the Roseton and Danskamer Point generating stations. Progress report prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.

4. Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978. Impingement survival studies at the Roseton and Danskamer Point generating stations. Proaress report prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.

5. Letter from T. Huggins of Central Hudson to H. Gluckstern of EPA, dated November 19, 1977.

6. Letter from K. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison to H. Gluckstern of EPA, dated November 30, 1977.

7. Letter from K. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison to H. Gluckstern of EPA, dated April 28, 1979.

8. Letter from K. Marcellus of Consolidated Edison to H. Gluckstern of EPA, dated April 9, 1979.

i

0RNL/NUREG/TM-361 98

9. Orange and Rockland. 1977. Bowline Point Generating Station -

Near-field effects of once-through cooling system operation on Hudson River biota. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Spring Valley, New York.

10. Skinner, J. E. 1972. Fish protective facilities. Chapter 11 in Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

Decennial Report 1961-1971. California Department of Fish and Game.

11. Texas Instruments. 1975. First annual report for the multiplant impact study of the Hudson River estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

[

99 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 APPENDIX C IMPINGEMENT RATE AS AN INDEX 0F POPULATION ABUNDANCE

k ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 100 C.1 Introduction The purpose of this appendix is to examir.e the validity of the assumption made in Section II of this report that the impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch at the Hudson River power plants is an approximate index of the size of the young-of-the-year white perch population in the Hudson River estuary. Two lines of evidence are presented: (1) comparison of young-of-the-year white perch impingement rates and catch per unit effort (CPUE) by beach seines and (2) comparison of the length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch in impingement collections and in ,

beach-seine samples. In the final section of this appendix, we examine the relationship between daily cooling water withdrawals and daily impingement counts, and we comment on impingement rate as a CPUE index.

C.2 Comparison of impingement rates and beach seine CPUE We start by assuming that the Texas Instruments beach seine survey provides one index of year-class strength of white perch in the Hudson River estuary. Next, we assume that impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch at the various Hudson River power plants considered together provides an alternative index of year-class strength. We would expect a positive correlation between the two sets

( of indices. The lack of adequate impingement data prior to 1972 and the lack of beach seine data after 1976 (at least at present) limit the analysis to the 5-year period of 1972 through 1976.

The beach seine survey is described in Texas Instruments (1979);

methods used to calculate riverwide indices of abundance are

101 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 given (p. IV-10i) and values for 1972 through 1976 are tabulated (Table IV-31) and repeated here in Table C-1. The survey is riverwide (Yonkers through Albany) and the index is calculated based on data collected from mid-July through early September. This period is the time when young-of-the-year white perch tend to concentrate in shore and shoal areas, and thus, this is the period when we would hope that the beach seine survey could provide a reasonable estimate of year-class stre,ngth. The index of abundance for 1972 cannot be viewed with the same reliability as the values for 1973 through 1976 because of the much lower level of effort and number caught and the limited region of the river sampled in 1972.

1 For each power plant we selected the four to five months when the '

impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch tended to be highest year after year. Our reasoning was that high impingement rates of young-of-the-year white perch at a given power plant are, in part, indicative of relatively high abundance of young-of-the-year white perch in the vicinity of that power plant. Young-of-the-year white perch tend to migrate downriver during their first sumer and f all, where they overwinter, and then they tend to disperse back up the river the following spriv. As a result, impingement rates during the winter at the more downriver power plants (i.e., Bowline, Lovett, and Indian i l

Point) would be expected to provide reasonable indices of the size of the overwintering young-of-the-year population. Impingement rates at the more upriver power plants (i.e., Roseton and Danskamer) would be expected to provide reasonable indices of year-class strength during the f all downriver migration and the spring upriver dispersion.

ORNL/NIREG/TM-361 -102 Table C.1.. Beach seine data used to calculate a riverwide index of abundance (catch per 10,000 ft2 ) for young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River estuary, 1972 through 1976a Sample Number Area Index of Year dates caught swept (ft2)b abundance 1972 7/16 - 9/2 131 302,451 4.3 1973 7/15 - 9/8 4308 2,145,892 20.1 1974 7/14 - 9/7 1943 2,853,116 6.8 1975 7/13 - 9/6 9343 3,599,092 26.0 1976 7/11 - 9/4 9502 3,758,944 25.3 aModified from Table IV-31 in Texas Instruments Inc. 1979. 1976 year-class report for the multiplant impact study of the Hudson River estuary. -Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

b1 'ft2 = 0.0929 m2

103 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 i Based on the above reasoning, we selected impingement rates during December through April for Bowline, Lovett, and Indian Point Unit 2 and October through November of one year and April through May of the following year for Roseton and Danskammer (see Table 2,Section II, of this report and plant-specific tables in Appendix A). We calculated the average impingement rate for these four- to five-month periods for each of the five power plants for each year 1972 through 1976; then the average impingement rate over power plants was calculated for each year and these five averages were ranked (Table C-2). In addition, the yearly average rates were ranked for each power plant, and the average rank over power plants was calculated for each year (Table C-2).

Ranking the impingement rates averaged over power plants gives weight to each power plant according to the magnitude of the impingement rates l j

at that plant. For young-of-the-year white perch the average impingement rates are dominated by the impingement rate values for  !

Indian Point Unit 2. Averaging the ranks over power plants gives equal weight to each power plant. It is not obvious which of these two computational alternatives is the more appropriate, but in this case the conclusion from the analysis is the same for both alternatives.

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r ) between the ranks s

of the impingement rates averaged over power plants and the Texas Instruments (TI) beach seine index of abundance is -0.10, which is not significantly different from zero at even the 10% level. For the average of the ranks over plants and the TI beach seine index of abundance,3 r = 0.67, which also is not different from zero at the 10% level. In other words, there is not a statistically significant

2 1N

.NB Table C.2. Impingement rates (nuter/106 m3) for young-of-the-year white perch at five Hudson River power plants for the years 1972 through 1976a w

Texas Instruments beach seine .

Bowline Lovett Indian Point Unit 2 Roseton Danskanner Avvage index of abundance _

!@ingement Impingement Impingement Impingement Igingement Impingement Average CPUEg Rank rate Rank rate Rank rate Rank rate Rank rana Year rate Rank rate Rank 4146 2 --- - 238 2 1202d ' 3 1,5 4,3 'l -

1972 290 1 135 1 767 5 426 4 8467 4 263 2 339 3 2053 4 3.6 20.1 3 1973 1974 681 4 381 3 4551 3 63 1 70 1 1149 2 2.4 6.8 2 1975 337 2 158 2 -3808 1 359 4 523 4 957 1 2.6 26.0 5 1976 470 3 530 5 27380 5 307 3 749 5 5887 5 4.2 25.3 4 8 Impingement rate for each power plant for each year was calculated as the average of the impingement rates (RATED values from tables in Appendix A) for j

Deceeer L April (Bowline, Lovett, and Indian Point Unit 2) or for October - November of one year and April - May of the following year (Roseton and Danskasser). These yearly average impingement rates were ranked for each power plant. The average igingement rate across power plants was calculated and I these five averages were ranked. ]

l bAverage of the ranks for the five power plants (four power plants for 1172).

c0btained from Table C-1.

dDoes not include Roseton.

105 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 positive correlation between these two sets of indices of year-class strength, contrary to our expectation. These results are consistent, however, with another analysis we performed comparing impingement rates at Indian Point Unit 2 with the beach seine CPUE averaged over the seven standard beach seine sites in the vicinity of Indian Point for the eight biweekly periods starting July 13, 1975, and ending November 2, 1975 (Table C-3). The Spearman correlation coefficient between these two time series was -0.29, which does not differ significantly from zero.

C.3 Comparison of length-frequency distributions In this section we canpare the length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch in impingement collections at Indian Point Unit 2 and in beach seine samples from the seven standard beach seine sites in the vicinity of Indian Point for the eight biweekly periods starting July 13, 1975, and ending November 2, 1975. The null hypothesis is that the length-frequency distributions will be the same. This hypothesis assumes that the various size classes of young-of-the-year white perch are distributed laterally and vertically in approximately the same manner at the intake structures and in the shore / shoal areas in the immediate vicinity of the intake structures and that they will be collected with approximately the same efficiency by intake screens and beach seines.

Length data for young-of-the-year white perch impinged at Indian Point Unit 2 and collected at the standard beach seine sites during 1975 were obtained from magnetic tapes provided us by Texas Instruments through Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Table C-4 summarizes

ORNL/NUREG/lN-361 106 Table C-3. -Comparison of impingement rates of young-of-the-year white perch at Indian Point Unit 2 with beach seine CPUE data for young-of-the-year white perch in the vicinity of-Indian Point for eight biweekly periods during 1975 Impingement Beachsgine Biweekly period ratea CPUE Numberc Dates (no./106 m3) Rank (no. per haul) Rank 9 7/13 - 7/ 26 10.15 2 3.36 2 10 7/27 - 8/9 5.08 1 16.36 8 11 8/10 - 8/23 236.40 8 8.50 4 12 8/24 - 9/6 52.65 4 5.79 3 13 9/7 - 9/20 134.90 6 11.29 7 14 9/21 - 10/4 49.50 3 9.29 5 15 10/5 - 10/18 72.81 5 10.07 6 16 10/19 - 11/2 137.81 / 1.21 1 aCalculated from daily impingement rate data for white perch of all ages at Indian Point Unit 2. Source: Table A-3 of Texas Instruments Inc., Indian Point Impingement Study Report for the Period 1 January 1975 through 31 December 1975, prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,

November 1976. The biweekly impingement rates for white perch of all ages were then multiplied by biweekly PERCENT 0 values obtained from Table A-5, Appendix A of this report to give the biweekly impingement rates for young-of-the-year white perch tabulated in this table.

bCalculated as.the average over the seven beasn-seine sampling stations for 1975 data for young-of-the-year white perch in Table A-3 (see footnote c for reference),

cNunber of the biweekly period as designated by Texas Instruments Inc.,

Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point,1975 Annual Report, pmpared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., December 1976.

- - - _ - - _ 1

107 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361' Table C-4.

Sunmary statistics for length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch in impingement collections at Indian Point Unit 2 and in beach

- seine samples from the seven standard beach seine sites in the vicinity of Indian Point for the eight biweekly periods starting July 13, 1975, and er ding November 2,1975a length (mm) . Test for normality Test for skewness Biweekly period n Minimum - Mean Maximum 0-Max P G1 P1 Ir.dian Point Unit 2 impingement samples 1 50 39 47 58 0.09 > C ^ 0.44 0.20

-2 49 30- 56 74 0.13 0.05 -0.94 0.01 3 25 45 56 78 0.20 0.05 0.97 0.04 4 25 40 54 79 0.14 > 0.20 1.24 0.01 5 25 48 63 85 0.13 > 0.20 0.68 0.14 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7- 25 53 - 69 85 0.13 > 0.20 -0.28 0.55 8 25 58 76 95 0.10 > 0.20 -0.06 0.90 Texas Instrtsnents beach-seine samples 1 42 21 35 47 0.09 3 0.20 -0.27 0.47 2 102 20 - 48 - 70 0.15 0.01 -0.54 0.02 3 118 31 58 78 0.15 0.01 -0.50 0.03

-4; 71 39 67 95 0.12 0.01 -0.22 0.44 5 103 48 70 90 0.13 0.01 -0.36 0.13 6 '81 52 63 90 0.15 0.01 0.22 0.41 7 84 49 74 98 0.08 1.20 -0.25 0.35

.8 17 - - 57 76 95 0.10 > 0.20 -0.03 0.%

i n

a .is .the nunber of young-of-the-year white perch included in the length-frequency distribution; D-max is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic for testing normality, P is

the Lilliefors significance level for 9-max, G1 is the coefficient of skewr.ess, and P1 is.the significance level for G1 . Source: Barr, A. J., J. H. Goodnight, J. P.

Sall, andNorth Raleigh, J. T.-Helwig.

Carolina. 1976. A user's guide to SAS 76. SAS Institute, Inc.,

ORNL/NtREG/TM-361 108 the properties of the individual length-frequency distributions in terms of number of fish, minimum, mean, and maximum lengths, test for normality, and test for skewness. Approximately half of the distributions do not differ significantly from a norma ~i distribution.

Those distributior; that do differ tend to be skewed more comonly to the left than to the right, i.e., a greater tendency for a few relatively short white perch as opposed to a few relatively long white perch. <

We tested the null hypothesis of similar length-frequency distributions for each biweekly period using the chi-square approximation to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test, which is a test of whether two independent samples have been drawn from populations with the same distribution (Siegel 1956). The mean lengths of the two sets of distributions are not significantly different (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test). However, the two sets of distributions do tend to differ (Table C-5); five of the seven pairs of distributions differ significantly (P < 0.05). The difference appears to be due to a narrower range (Table C-4) and smaller variance for impinged young-of-the-year white perch as compared to young-of-the-year white perch collected in tha beach seines.

C.4 Discussion

-Our results lead to the obvious question: Which data set (impingement or beach seine) provides the more accurate (less inaccurate?). indices of year-class strength? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not black and white. There are two obvious differences between the two sampling programs. The volume of water

ORNL/NlREG/TM-361 109 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table C-5. Tests of the null hypothesis that the length-frequency distributions of young-of-the-year white perch impinged at Indian Point Unit 2 and collected in beach seine samples are the same for each of seven biweekly periods in 1975 Biweekly b 2

period Da X Pc i

i 1 0.91 75.94 < 0.001 2 0.30 11.92 < 0.01 3 0.32 8.56 < 0.02 4 0.53 20.46 < 0.001 5 0.35 9.97 < 0.01 6 -- -- --

7 0.24 4.44 > 0.05

! 8 0.06 0.13 > 0.05 aD is the maximum difference between the two sample cumulative -length-frequency distributions.

b2 X is the chi-square approximation to the Kolmo orov-Smirnov two-sample test, calculated as 4D2 nin2/ n1 + n2),

where ni and n2 values are available from Table C-4.

cP is the significance level for the calculated chi-square value (df = 2).

.0RNL/NLREG/TM-361 - 110-sampled (i.e., effort) and the number of fish collected are much greater for the impingement data, which argues in favor of the impingement data being the more accurate. However, the five power

. plants included in the analysis in Section C.1 represent only five sampling points, whereas there are over 100 beach seine stations located between RM 12 (Georya Washington Bridge) and RM 152 (Troy Dam),

a difference which argues in'f avor of the beach-seine data being the more accurate. This side of the argument is weakened, however, by the fact that the beach-seine survey was specifically designed for young-of-the-year striped bass and not young-of-the-year white perch.

C.5 Relationship between daily cooling water withdrawals and daily impingement counts Impingement rate is an index of catch per unit effort that is conceptually equivalent to catch / effort indices based on seine or trawl data. Such indices are computed under the assumption that the catch is proportional to the effort, in this case measured as the volume of cooling water withdrawn during an impingement sampling period. As for any other sampling gear, this assumption should be tested when availability of data permits. Texas Instruments (1974, p. II-29), for example, found no clear relationship between the number of white perch impinged at Indian Point Unit 1 and either the volume of cooling water withdrawn.or the intake velocity. If the number impinged is, for all practical purposes, independent of flow, then it is possible that a simple count of fish impinged per hour of operation could be as good an index of abundance as is the impingement rate.

L 111 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 We used white perch impingement data collected at Indian Point Unit 2 in 1975 and 1976 at Unit 3 in 1976 to determine whether the number of fish impinged on a given day is in fact related to volume of cooling water withdrawn on that day. The necessary daily impingement and flow data, for each day during these two years on which these generating units were operating, were extracted from data tapes obtained from the Consolidated Edison Co.

It is known that the impingement of white perch at Indian Point varies seasonally, being highest in the winter and early spring and lowest in the sumner and f all (Section II, Tables 2 and 3 of this report). To reduce the marked effects of seasonal variation in impingement (thus increasing the probability of detecting the effects of flow), we stratified the data by months within each year and used covariance analysis, treating month as a block effect. The three data sets, i.e., the two years of data for Unit 2 and the single year for Unit 3, were analyzed separately, and parallel analyses were performed using untransfonned and log-transformed impingement cour:ts.

In two of the three untransformed data sets, the effect of flow was found to be significant at the 5% level (Table C-6). Somewhat stronger relationships were found between flow and the log-transformed impingement counts; in all three of these analyses the effect of flow was significant at the 2% level or lower (Table C-7). Although statistically significant flow effects were detected, the effect of flow is clearly less important than the effect of months (Tables C-6 and C-7).

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 112 i

Table C-6. Analysis of the relationship between daily cooling water flow and untransformed daily impingement counts, with data stratified by montha Flow-within-month Power plant and year R2 Overall model Month effect effect F P F P F P Indian Point Un et 2, 1975 0.19 6.56 0.0001 6.02 0.0001 12.42 0.0005 Indian Point Unit 2, 1976 0.28 6.88 0.0001 7.38 0.0001 2.94 0.09 Indian Point Unit 3, 1976 0.44 18.91 0.0001 20.58 0.0001 3.88 0.05 a

The covariance model used was g Y ) = u + T) + j8 (X ) - )Y+ c j ), where Yg ) is the impingement count of white perch of all ages on day i of month j, X j ) is the cooling water withdrawal (in cubic meters) on day i of month j, i is the average daily cooling waterwithdrawaloverallmonths(excluoingdaysofzerofiow), is the mean impingement count over all months, T is the mean impingement count for month j, e is the slope of 3

the straight-line regression between daily cooling water withdrawal and daily impingement count, and c gj is the random error for day i of month j (p. 309 in Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 481 pp.

l

113 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Table C-7 Analysis of the relationship between daily cooling water flow and log-transformed daily impingement counts, with data stratified by montha Flow-within-month Power plant and year R2 Overall model effect Moilth effect F P F P F P Indian Point Unit 2 -

1975 0.46 24.01 0.0001 22.48 0.0001 40.90 0.0001 Indian Point Unit 2 -

'1976 0.51 17 % 0.0001 19.53 0.0001 5.38 0.02 Indian Point Unit 3 -

1976 0.73 52.32 0.0001 64.31 0.0001~ 66.74 0.0001 a

The covariance model used was Ygj = p + 3 + 8 (Xgj - K )+ g), where Ygj is the ,,

impingement count of white perch of all ages on day i of month j, Xgj is the cooling water withdrawal (in cubic meters) on day i of month j, R is the average daily cooling water withdrawal over all mor.ths (excluding days of zero flow), p is the mean impingement count over all months, t yis the mean impingement count for month j,.8 is the slope of the straight-line regression between daily cooling water withdrawal and daily impingement count, and cjj is the random error for day i of month j (p. 309 in Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, l

New York. 481 pp.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 114 The statistical analyses described in this section indicate that the volume of cooling water withdrawn by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 on any given day does influence the number of white perch impinged on that

- day. This result supports the validity of using the impingement rate as a catch / effort index as done in Section II. However, the fact that flow apparently ~ accounts for only a few percent of the total variance in the daily impingement counts suggests that alternative indices of effort (e.g., hours of operation or kilowatt-hours of electricity produced), that might be more readily available than daily cooling j water withdrawals, might serve the same purpose equally well.

J 4

I

115 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 312 pp.

-Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 481 pp.

Texas Instruments Inc. 1974. Indian Point impingement study report for the period 15 June 1972 through 31 December 1973. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments Inc. 1979. 1976 year-class report for the multiplant impact study of the Hudson River estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

117 ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 l

l 4

APPENDIX D MINIMtm DETECTABLE REDUCTION IN YEAR-CLASS STRENGTH AND NUMBER OF YEARS REQUIRED TO DETECT A SPECIFIED REDUCTION

_ _ - - _ . . - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . - _ .- E

ORNt./NLR EG/TM-361 118 D.1 Introduction In Section II.B we concluded, based on regression analyses of impingement rate of young-of-the-year white perch on year,I that there has been no statistically significant change in year-class  !

strength during the period 1972 through 1977. Given this situation we can use impingement rates for 1972 through 1977 as baseline data to provide a measure of " natural" variability in year-class strength, and then we can address the following two questions:

(1) Based on a given number of years of additional impingement data, what is the minimum detectable fractional reduction in year-class strength of white perch in the Hudson River which we can hope to detect?

(2) Given that we want to be able to detect a specified fractional reduction in year-class strength of white perch in the Hudson River (e.g., say a 25 or 50% reduction), how many additional years of impingement data are required?

Obviously these two questions are related in that for the first question fractional reduction is the dependent variable and number of additional years of data is the independent variable, whereas for the second question the two variable!, are reversed. However, the two l

A similar regression analysis for CPUE of young-of-the-year white perch in beach seines on year (i.e., CPUE = a + b YEAR) also supports the conclusion of no statistically significant linear change in year-class strength during the period 1972 through 1976 (r2 = 0.54; b = 4.79; P = 0.16).

= _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ i

119 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 1

questions merit separate answers because they represent different points of view on monitoring the Hudson River white perch population in years to come.

D.2 Methods -

In general, to study the relationship between the power of a statistical test and the sample size, it is first necessary to specify the null 'and alternative hypotheses. Our null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the underlying means of two samples, i.e.,

H:

o Vi=U2 . (1) where p1 is the underlying mean index of year-class strength for young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River during the period 1973 through 1977, and 2p is the underlying mean index of year-class strength for the period starting 1978. The set of alternative hypotheses is that the underlying mean of the second sample (p2) I8 less than the underlying mean of the first sample (py ), i.e.,

H:

A "1 #D 2 .

(2)

In other words, HA is one-tailed and includes those cases where there is a reduction in the underlying mean index of year-class strength for the period. starting 1978 relative to that for the period 1973 through 1977.

If we essume an underlying normal distribution for each'of the two samples, as well as a common underlying variance, then the appropriate test statistic for the difference between the two means is given by i- m - s.

i -. - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _

t l ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 120 l

I l

t= X1-X2 i , (3) p[f + f2 1

where i and 5 are the sample means of the first and second t 2 samples, respectively; ni and n2 are the sample sizes (i.e., number of years, since only one index of year-class strength is obtained each year) of the first and second samples, respectively; and s,is the pooled standard deviation such that 2

2 , ("1 - 1)s2 + (n2 - 1)s p n 1+n2-2 where s2 and s2 are the sample variances of the first and second 2

samples, respectively. This test statistic is distributed as a central t-distribution with (= ny+n2 -2) degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is rejected when the calculated t (or test statistic) is greater than the tabled value for t y, (see Fig. D-1).

Thus, under the null hypothesis (Hg :41-p2 = 0):

Pr {t > vt .al=a , (5) where Pr { } indicates the probability of occurrence for the event within the braces. But, under the set of alternative hypotheses (HA El ~D2 > 0), the difference is positive such that Pr {t > t y,3} = 1 B , (6) where S is the probability of accepting the null hypothesis when it is

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

121 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 ORN L- DWG 79-16633 PROBABILITY OF t 1-a t,a v

O VALUE OF t Fig. 0-1. Probability distribution of the central t statistic with v I degrees of freedom. The shaded area comprises 100a% of the l total area, where a is the type I error or level of '

significance.

l

ORNL/NUR'IG/TM-361 122 false. The power of a statistical test (1-6) is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis.

Under the alternative hypotheses the test statistic, t, is no longer distributed as a central t-distribution. SubtractingEq.(3) from each of the two terms within the braces of Eq. (6), we obtain Pr { t - X1-X2 >t X1-X2 } = 1- 8 v.a (7) p /f +f P/h +h The difference on the left side of the inequality in Eq. (7) is I distributed under H A as a central t-distribution. Therefore, the difference on the right side of the inequality in Eq. (7) can be set equal to a central t, analogous to Eq. (5), i.e.,

1-X2 t ,1, g = t -

. (8) p 1 2 If the first sample has already been obtained, then n yand 2

estimates of X1 and s are available. Using s1 as an estimate of s , then p

1 2

, ty,y_ g = t v, a

• (9) b +

l 1 2 where the degrees of freedom are appropriately reduced to (Baker 1935) v = ni - 1 (10)

123 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 instead of v = n1 + n2 - 2 , (11)

- General discussions of the concepts of statistical power of a significance test and minimum detectable difference may be found in McCaughran (1977), Sokal and Rohlf (1969, Section 7.8), and Zar (1975).

In the present application the null and alternative hypotheses are most usefully defined in terms of a mean fractional reduction in

-year-class strength for the period starting 1978 relative to the mean year-class strength during the period 1973 through 1977. Thus, we define the mean of the second sample 2(X ) as a fraction (1-b) of the mean of the first sample (Xy ), i.e.,

X2 = (1-b) X1 , (12) where b is the fractional reduction in year-class strength for the period startirg 1978, with possible values ranging from 0.0 (i.e., no reduction and X2 = yX ) to 1.0 (i.e., the white perch population is eliminated and X2 = 0.0). Note that because of the one-tailed form of the alternative hypothesis (Eq. 2), we are not considering cases with b less than zero (i.e., an increase in year-class strength for the period starting 1978 such that X2 > Xy ).

The difference between the two sample means in Eq. (9) may now be expressed as Y1 - Y2* Y 1- (1-b)X1=bX1 , (13)

ORNL/NUREG/1M-361 124 and Eq. (9) becomes t y,1_s = tv,a - b X 1[s1/1/n1 + 1/n2 (14)

= tv.a - b[CV /1/n1 + 1/n2*

whereCV(=s/5)isthecoefficientofvariationforthesampleof t 1 indices of year-class strength for the period 1973 through 1977.

Addressing the first question posed in the introduction to this appendix requires that Eq. (14) be solved for b, the fractional reduction in year-class strength for the period starting 1978. Sincc a central t-distribution is symetrical about 0.0, t v,1- B = - t y, g ,

and we get

+

b = [ty, 3 + tv, a] (CV) .

(15)

Then, for given values of a, B, n1 and CV, one can solve Eq. (15) for a range of n 2values to explore how b, the minimum detectable f ractional reduction in the year-class strength of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River, varies as a function of the number of years (starting with 1978) for which indices of year-class strength are available. Note in Eq. (15) that as n 2becomes very large, the minimum detect 6 ale fractional reduction approaches a lower bound, B, given by

t 125 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 B = [ty, g + ty, ,] (CV) .

(16)

- Addressing the second question posed in the introduction requires that Eq. (14) be solved for n2, the number of years (starting with 3 1978) for which indices of year-class strength are available:

(cv)2 n 1 [ty,g + tv,a]

n . (17) 2=b 2 n 1- [ty,g + tv,a] (CV)2 Then, for given values of a, B, ni and CV, one can solve Eq. (17) for a range of b values to explore how the number of years of additional

-data (starting in 1978) varies as a function of the minimum fractional reduction in year-class strength that one judges should be detectable.

D.3 Results Application of Eqs. (15) and (17) requires that the coefficient of variation (CV) be specified. To make this analysis of statistical power as. relevant as possible to the two questions posed in the introduction to this appendix, coefficients of variation associated with. beach-seine indices and impingement-rate indices of year-class strength for the young-of-the-year white perch population in the Hudson River were examined.

The beach-seine indices for~the years 1972 through 1976 are tabulated in Table C-1;of' Appendix C; the coefficient of variation is l 62%.- The impingement-rate indices were examined in more detail. The coefficient of variation, number of years of data, mean, and standard

deviation for impingement rates presented in Appendix A are ~given in

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 126 Table D-1-for each of the twlve months for each of five Hudson River power plants. In addition, these statistics are tabulated by ranth for impingement rates averaged over the five plants and by plant for impingement rates averaged over the twelve months. The frequency distribution of the 71 CV values from Table D-1 is plotted in Fig. D-2. Based on this frequency distribution, we selected 50% and '

100% for use in Eqs. (15) and (17). These two values for the coefficient of variation bracket the median CV value of 78% and more than half of the frequency distribution, although both smaller and larger variations in impingement rate were not unconinon.

Application of Eqs. (15) and (17) also requires specification of valued for a and s, the type I and type II errors, respectively, and of ni , the number of years of impingement rate data available for the period prior to 1978. For the limited sensitivity a..alysis included in this appendix, we have selected only one value of a (a = 0.05), which means that e are accepting a 5% risk of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis of no reduction in year-class strength in favor of the set of one-tailed alternative hypotheses that there is a reduction. For each of the two values of the coefficient of variation, we selected a range of values of 8 to illustrate the importance of the concept of the power of-a statistical test. The value of n iis 5, corresponding to the period 1973 throusa 1977.

The answer to the first question posed in the introduction to this appendix is illustrated in Fig. D-3. For example (Fig. D-3(b)), if the coefficient of variation is assumed to be 50% and if impingement data are collected lfor the next 10 years (1978 - 1987), then there is only a

L Table D-1.' ' Coeffirbnt of.t ariation, nueer of years, mean (over years), and standard deviation for impingement-rate indices of year-class b strength of the young-of-the-year white perch population in the Hudson River; calculated from values presented in Appendix Aa

.By month

' Month . Bowline Lovett Indian Point 2 Roseton Danskammer over plant January' 108- . 55 78 32 49 72 (5/553.55/597.29) (5/557.99/307.10) (5/12610.44/9895.51) -(4/10.25/3.29) (6/16.49/8.10) (5/2788.93/1999.85)

IFebruary 118' 106 .

130 124 103 127 (5/326.60/386.49) (5/271.77/287.07) (5/18101.25/23567.42) (4/9.15/11.32) (6/7.51/7.72) (5/3791.10/4828,15) i March 86 - 17 . 67 50 86 71

.; (5/332.90/285.31) (4/134.77/22.98) (5/4234.06/2832.53) (4/14.95/7.41) (6/29.22/25.06) (5/1079.51/761.51) l '. . April 66 65 75 114 87 53 l (5/577.95/384.70) (5/315.74/206.41) (5/5822.79/4370.12) (4/149.61/171.29) (6/303.10/264.77) (5/1490.45/786.17) i May 54 101 120 68 81 83 (5/75.62/40.95) (5/53.79/54.50) (4/1565.67/1874.96) (4/233.52/157.64) (6/305.95/248.54) (5/390.10/340.80)

June (No young-of-the-year ette perch impinged during June) w

~ July 137 64 40 105 82 70 (5/5.63/7.72) (5/5.19/3.33) (4/33.97/13.64) (5/0.48/0.51) (6/8.10/6.64) (5/9.29/6.51)

August 105 77 120 83 . 52 88 (5/39.01/41.01) (5/33.37/25.59) (4/406.27/487.97) (5/65.69/54.40) (6/78.66/41.28) (5/106.56/94.17)

September 119 65 106 110 35 56 (5/4.80/5.70) (5/13.04/8.52) (5/239.19/252.49) (5/115.57/127.47) (6/110.57/38.50) (5/95.10/53.15)

October 129 115 42 83 38 23 (5/17.94/23.150 (5/71.93/82.44) (5/111.47/468.76) (5/246.80/205.72) (6/412.95/158.10) (5/371.81/86.85)

November O

101 28 94 78. 80 "

($

45 (5/274.23/276.19) (5/394.84/108.66) (5/2918.33/2741.95) (5/286.54/224.78) (6/482.87/3t17.28) (5/881.36/393.06)

Deced er 79 72 85 80 56 140 (5/767.15/606.78) (5/273.93/198.60) (5/7942.42/6776.79) (5/37.48/30.28) (6/E1.85/46.16) (5/1507.45/2113.55) m" By plant- 52 25 m

59 27 39 N over month (5/247.95/129.87) (4/172.79/43.64) (4/2942.56/2922.64) (4/88.13/23.88) (6/153.18/60.00) $

aThe top entry in each cell is the coefficient of variation. The bottom entries in each cell are (number of years /mean/ standard deviation).

• The means and standard deviations have units of number of-young-of-the-year white perch impinged per million cubic meters.

L

rb ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 128 ORNL-DWG 79-16632 25 i  ; i  ; i  ; i  ; i  ; i  ; i  ; i 20 - ,

m

>- ~

o z 15 w l D x. :.:.:

o w

gt= 1 cr io -

.. ~ ~m~'

1 Mit  :.:.:.:.:- ...,.

(y%:4 m? .!sig .;g:gg;

^ *

$ isis s 'lN!Ei y*:N.:,

• • E 5 -

+

wp:- . .' ,- * '

-M

!$ i <'

$, . x.:: ,,_

f ,

- ' .  : ggt-

'52is! ,

, s I I I I I I I o 20 40 60 80 100 120 440 16 0 CV, COEFFICIENT OF VARIATloN Fig. 0-2. Frequency distribution of the 71 values for the coefficient of variation (as a percent) given in Table D-1. The median CV value is 78%.

129 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 ORN L-OwG 79-46630 i l A

\i I i

't-B = o.50 (a) CV = too %

o.75

-\b=0.76 h l 4 -B = 0. 25 5 1 5 I h

$ o.50 --

l a

d I h _ _ _ b=0.33

0.to jo .25 - I -

6 I I

ho

$ 4.00 l I I I l (b) cV = 50%

I

' b= 0.79

$ o.75 -

Q l 4-B=0.75 b

b -,_ b=0.58 o.50 a l

?- _ _ _ b=0.38 2

0.25 e I o.25 l -

_ _ l b = o.4 6 0.40 l

o i I I I I o 20 40 60 80 too n2. NUMBER OF YEARS oF IMPINGEMENT oATA AVAILABLE Fig._D-3. Minimum detectable fractional reduction in year-class strength of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River as a function of the number of years for which impingement data are

-available (starting in 1978[. Curves are drawn for a - 0.05 over a range of powers (1 --6) for n1 = 5 years and for two values of the coefficient of variation (CV): (a) CV = 100%

and (b) CV = 50%.

ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 130 10% chance that a reduction in year-class abundance of 16% would be detected. The snallest fractional reduction that can be detected with a probability of 50% or higher given ten additional years of data is 0.58, and the smallest that can be detected with a probability of 75%

or higher is 0.79. For a coefficient of variation of 100%, the situation is f ar worse (Fig. D-3(a)). In this case there is only a 25%

chance that a fractional reduction of 0.76 would be detected from 10 more years of data, and there is essentially no level of impact short )

of extinction that could be detected with a probability of 50% or higher. '

The answer to the second question posed in the introduction is illustrated in Fig. D-4. For example, if the coefficient of variation is 50% and if it is necessary, perhaps as directed by a regulatory agency, to be able to detect a 50% reduction in the mean size of the young-of-the-year white perch population in the Hudson River, 3 years (1- 8= 0.25) or 47 years (1- B= 0.50) of additional impingement data (starting in 1978) would be required. Again, this result depends on the risk we are willing to take of concluding that there has been no reduction in year-class strength when in fact there has been.

D.4 Discussion The results presented in this appendix are rather sobering. They indicate that the " natural" variability in the existing baseline time series of impingement rates and beach seine CPUE is so great that:

(1) 10 additional years of indices of year-class strength is not likely to provide a very powerful data set for detecting even substantial, actual reductions in year-class strength; (2) an excessive number of

131 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 oRNL-DWG 79 -166 31 I ' I (c) CV= LOO %

l _

l s 1

60 -

9 I N -

6 I 6 a 61

o I UI E 40 - C I a rl N Yl 5 SI g 20 -

l 1 w

$ 0 I '

a

$- 1 I i '

(b) CV= 50 % l 8 80 -

0# 9 0 S R R d d d d d b 60 -

u -

• I E __I ____ ____

y 2= 47n YEARS Ig 40 - l e i l

I I n2= 3 YEARS 20 -

l 1

0 '

O O.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 b FRACTIONAL REDUCTION IN YEAR-CLASS STRENGTH TO BE DETECTED Fig. 0-4. Number of years of impingement data (starting in 1978) required to detect a spaified fractional reduction in year-class strength of young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River. Curves are drawn for a = 0.05 over a range of powers (1 - 8) for n1 = 5 years and for two values of the coefficient of variation (CV): (a) CV = 100% and (b) CV = 50%.

- ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 132 years (greater than the expected lifetime of the power plants involved) of additional data would be required to detect an actual 50% reduction in the mean index of year-class strength, even if we are willing to accept a Type II error of 50%. In reality the situation is even worse, because if there actually were a long-term reduction in the size of the white perch population, it would not occur as a step function but more <

likely as a gradual decline.

1

_m______-_ _ _ _ _

133 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D Baker, G. A. 1935. The probability that the mean of a second sample will differ from the mean of a first sample by less than a certain multiple of the standard deviation of the first sample. Ann.

i Math. Statist. 6:197-201.

McCaughran, D. A. 1977. The quality of inferences concerning the effects of nuclear power plants on the environment. pp. 229-242.

In W. Van Winkle (ed.), Proc. Conf. Assessing the Effects of l

Power-Plant-Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. Pergamon j Press, New York.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry, the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. pp. 776.

Zar, J. H. 1975. Statistical considerations in assessing biological effects of aquatic industrial effluents, pp.' 482-491. In R. J.

Krisek and E. F. Mosonyl (eds.), Proc. Int. Seminar and Exposition on Water Resources Instrumentation, Water Resources Instrumentation, Vol. 2, Data Acquisition and Analysis. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

135 NUREG/CR-1100 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 Distribution Category - RE INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

1. S. M. Adams 25. M. Uziel 2-6. S. I. Auerbach 26-35. W. Van Winkle 7-16. L. W. Barnthouse 36-40. D. S. Vaughan

17. G. F. Cada 41. ESD Library i

18. S. W. Christensen 42. Central Research Library

19. C. C. Coutant 43. Laboratory Records Dept.

20-22. B. L. Kirk 44. Laboratory Records, ORNL-RC

23. R. B. McLean 45. ORNL Y-12 Technical Library

24. F. R. Mynatt 46. ORNL Patent Office EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

47. P. Reed, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555

48. Office of Assistant Manager, Energy Research and Development,

• DOE-0R0 49-50. Tehnical Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 51-276. NRC distribution - RE (Environmental Research)

SPECIAL NRC DISTRIBUTION 277. R. L. Ballard, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555 278. C. W. Billups, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555 279. J. W. Blake, Power Authority of the State of New York, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, NY 10019 280 J. G. Boreman, National Power Plant Team, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2929 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 281. R. W. Brocksen, Electric Power Research Institute, P. O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303 282. P. Campbell, Beak Consultants, Inc., 317 SW Alder,  ;

Portland, OR 97204 283. E. J. Carpenter, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794 284. H. K. Chadwick, California Department of Fish and Game, 3900 N. Wilson Way, Stockton, CA 95204 285. S. Chassis, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

14 West 44th St., New York, NY 10036 286. B. Chezar, NY EP.DA, 230 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017 287. J. R. Clark, The Conservation Foundation,1717 Massachusetts Ave., Washington, DC 20036 288. J. P. Clugston, Southeast Reservoir Investigaticas, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631

ORNL/NLREG/1M-361 136 289. B. .J. Copeland, Dept. of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27611 290. William J. Coppoc, Texaco, Inc., P.O. Box 509, Beacon, NY 12508 291. 'P. C. Cota, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

-292. F. Daiber, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711 293. J. J. Pavis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 294. Stanley N. Davis, Head, Department of Hydrology and Water a Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 295. R. Deriso, Curriculum in Marine Science, University of North Carolina,12-5 Venable Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 296. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Library, R.D. 2, Goshen Turnpike, Middletown, NY 10940 297. C. Edwards, Office of Energy Systems, Federal Energy Regulatory Conmission, 825 N. Capitol St.,

Washington, DC 20426 298. A. W._Eipper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, One Gateway Center, Newton Corner, MA 02158 299. T. Englert, Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, 415 Route 303, Tappan, NY 10983 300. R. D. Estes, Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 38501 301. T. K. Fikslin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007 302.- I. Fletcher, Center for Quantitative Science, University of Washington, Seattle,- WA 98195 303.- A. A. Galli, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code R. D. 682, Washington, DC 20460 304. Robert M. Garrels, Department of Geological Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201 305. R. P. Geckler, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 306. H. Gluckstern, U.S. Environmental _ Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007 307. R. A. Goldstein, Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303 308. J. Golumbek, U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007 309. C. P. Goodyear, National Power Plant Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2929 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 310. P.'A. Hackney, Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development,. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN 37828 311. C. Hall, Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850 312. D. H. Hamilton, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Department of Energy, Germantown, MD 20767 313. C. Hickey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

137 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 314. T. Horst, Environmental Engineering Division, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., 225 Franklin St.,

Boston, MA 02107 315. T. Huggins, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, 284 South Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12602 316. J. B. Hutchison, Jr., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.,

75 West Rt. 59, Spring Valley, NY 10977 317. P. A. Isaaeson, State of New York Public Service Commission, 44 Holland Ave., Albany, NY 12208 318. R. M. Jenkins, National Reservoir Research Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fayetteville, AR 72701 319. A. L. Jensen, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 320. R. J. Klauds, Texas Instruments, Inc., Buchanan, NY 10511 321. B. Knapp, Cortland Area Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,100 Grange Place, Cortland, NY 13045 322. Lauer, Ecological Analysts, Inc., R.D. 2, Goshen Tarnpike, 1 Middletown, NY 10940 323. George H. Lauff, Director, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060 324. J. P. Lawler, Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, g One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River, NY 10965 325. W. C. Leggett, Dept. of Biology, McGill University, P. O. Box 6070, Station A, Montreal, Canada H3C - 3G1 326. Simon A. Levin, Section of Ecology and Systematics, Bldg. No. 6, Langmuir Laboratory, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850 327. H. Lunenfeld, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York City, NY 10007 328. K. L. Marcellus, Consolidated Edison, 4 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003 329. H. M. McCammon, Office of Health and Environmental Researt .

Department of Energy, Germantown, MD 20767 330. J. F. McCormick, Graduate Program in Ecology, 408 10th Street, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916 331. D. McKenzie, Ecosystems Dept., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352 332. P. Merges, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY 12201 333. G. Milburn, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Enforcement Division, 230 S.

Dearborn St.,

Chicago, IL 60604 334. D. Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Envi"onmt:atal Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI 02882 335. D. R. Auller, Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Nuclear

, Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 336. I. P. niurarka, Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303 337. J. O'Connor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University, Sterling Forest, NY 10907

ORNL/NLREG/TM-361 138 338. W. Pasciak, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 339. R. L. Patterson, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 38104 340. T. T. Polgar, Martin Marietta Laboratories, 1450 S. Rolling Rd., Baltimore, MD 21227 341. E. M. Portner, The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20810 342. E. C. Raney, Ichthyological Associates, Middletown, DE 19709 343. H. A. Regier, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada '

344. Paul G. Risser, Department of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 345. S. Saila, Department of Zoology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 346. E. O. Salo, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 347. R. Sandler, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

15 West 44th St., New York, NY 10036 348. I. R. Savidge, Texas Instruments, Inc., Buchanan, NY 10511 349. W. E. 5Gaaf, Atlantic Estuarine Fisheries Center, National 1

Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, NC 28516 1 350. R. H. Schafer, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, Long Island, NY 11790 351. R. K. Shanna, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Ave., Argonne, IL 60439 352. C. N. Shuster, Jr., Office of Energy Systems, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 N. Capitol St., Washington, DC 20426 353. M. P. Sissenwine, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA 02543 354. P. Skinner, State of New York, Department of Law, Two World Trade Center, New York, NY 10047 355. W. Smith, Department of Environmental Assessment and Planning, The Mitre Corp., Westgate Research Park, McLean, VA 22101 356. S. A. Spigarelli, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 357. R. Stevenson, Chief, Division of Fishery Research, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240 t 358. J. Strong, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007 359. G. Swartenan, Center for Quantitative Science, University of Washingten, Seattle, WA 98195 360. L. Tebo, Environmental Protection Agency, Southeast Environmental Research Laboratory, College Station Road, Athens, GA 30601 361. J. M. Thomas, Ecosystems Departmet, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, "A 99352

139 ORNL/NUREG/TM-361 362. K. W. Thornton, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, MS 39180 363. R. E. Train, President, World Wildlife Fund-U.S.,

1601 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20009 364. R. Tuttle, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,

Buchanan, NY 10511 365. M. Van Den Avyle, Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 38501 366. F. J. Vernberg, Belle Baruch Marine Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 3C 29201 357. C. Voightlander, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN 37828 368. D. N. Wallace, Power Authority of the State of New York, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, NY 10019 369. Richard H. Waring, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 370. R. L. Watters, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20546 371. D. Weber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code R.D. 682, 401 M. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 372. L. Wilson, Dept. of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916 a

• US GOVERMesENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1900444245/101 Li