# I I

OAK 

### RIDGE NATIONAL LAB., TN 

# I I"" lg8* 

# I I 4



# I

US. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE 

# I NationalTechnical lnformationService

c 

## rG 

## Q

## TheDepartment

### ofCommerce 

# Hfkp4* Online

# InternationalTrade 900 .$@ 

# Ict;”’9 

# CenterBookstore

ManagedbytheNationalTechnicalWormationService



### The Department

. 

### Coverce International Trade er 

### brings“together-a worldclas 

### of

### publicationsfromgovernme profit organizations.

### This collectionis



### now available through a 

### new online bookstore.

US. DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE TechnologyAdministration NationalTechnicalInformationSetvice Springfield,VA222161 (703) 605-6000 An 

### essentialonline

### tool providing 

### one-stopaccess to 

### the very best internationaltrade information availableanywhere.

SEARCH & ORDER ONLINE FROM THIS GROWING COLLECTION: 

### Searchthe completeITC Bookstore

### by keyword or 

### narrow your search to a specificcollection.

A WIDE RANGE OF SUBJECTS: 

### Internationaltraderelatedsubjectsinthe 

### Bookstoreincludeagricultureandfood, behavior and society, business and economics,comunication,computers, energy, environmental pollution and control, health care, military sciences, andtransportation.
BROWSEBYREGION: 

### Review titles that focus on issues as they relate to


### sevenworldregions.Narrowyourfocus bycombiningthisfeaturewithkeyword searching.
BROWSE BY INDUSTRYSECTORS: 

### Select from more than 20 

### industry sectors andtheir sub-sectors.Combine thisfeaturewithakeywordsearchfora 

### morepreciselistof

### titles.

_- EASY ACCESS TO OTHER TRADE RELATED I”: Use

### thesite to

### easilylocateothertraderelatedsites,
to

### fmdinternationaltradebestseliers,and
to

### searchforindustrystandards.-- 

### NUREG/CR

# -2220 Volume 11 ORNt/NUREG/TM-385/V2 Distribution Category-RE

-. Contract 

### No. W-7405-eng-26

THE IMPACT 

### OF ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT 

### ON FISH POPULATIONS 

### IN THE HUDSON

### RIVER ESTUARY

VOLUME 11

' Impingement Impact Ana.lyses,Evaluations ofAqternative Screening



### -Devices,and Critiques of Utility Testimony Relating tu DensityDependent Growth, the Age-Composition of the Striped Bass



### .. Spawning 

### Stock, and the 

### LMS Real-Time 

### Life Cycle Model

1. W, Barnthouse, W. Van Idjnkle, 3. 

### Golumbek,l 

### G. 

### F. Cada,
C. P. Goodyear,2 S. ki. Christensen, J. 8. Cannon,3 

### and 0, bl. Lee3

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION Publication No. 1791
lEnergy and Thermal 

### Wastes Section; Water Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 11, 

### New York 10278.

ZNationa?Fisheries Center

# -- Leetown, 

### U.S. Fish and Wildlife



### Service, Route 3, P.O. Box 41, Kearneysville, West Virginia 25430. 3Energy 

### Divisian, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Manuscript 

### Completed

# - September 1981 

### Date Published 

# - April 1982

Prepared 

### for Office of Nuclear 

### Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, 

### D.C 20555 -,)der Interagency Agreement 

### No. DOE 40-550-75



### MRC FIM 80165

TASK: Methods toAssess Impacts on Hudson River Striped Bass

OAK 

### RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the. DEPARTMENT 

### OF ENERGY
REPRODUCED BY US.DEPARTNlENTOFCOMMERCE NATIONALTECHNICAL 1NFORMATIOIdSERVICE SPRINGFIELD, YA22161-- 335 US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORTNUMCER IAsngneabyDDCI 

### NUREG/CR-2220, YO^. 

### I1 BlBLlOGRAPHfCDATASHEET 

### ORNL/NUREG/TM-385/V2

ANDSUBTITLE [Add VafurneNo.. sfwprwrtarel 2. Leaveblsnk) 

# P ULATIONS IN THE HUDSON 

### RIYER ESTUARY 3. RECIPIENTSACCESSION NO.

'THOR4sJ 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED d. 

### Barnthouse, W. 

### Van Winkle, 

### J. Golurnbek, G.F. 

### Cada, MONTH YEAR 

### Goodyear, S.W. 

### Christensen, J.B. 

### Cannon, 

### D.M. Lee March 1982

RMlNG ORGANIZATIONNAME AND MAlllNGADDRESSIlnclude Zro Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED 

### Oak Ridge 

### National Laboratory MONTH 

### May YEAR 

### 1982 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 6 Leave blanki

8. (Leave blankI I 'WSORlNGORGANIZATNON NAME AND MAILINGADDRESS ilnclude ZJPCoaeef 10 PR0JECT:TASKIWORK UNITNO. U.S. 

### Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

# 1 Washington, DC 20555 

### FIN No. 

### BO165

PEAI00COVERED Nnclustve dares1 

# I

OF 

# I

PPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 1Leave ddnII

RACT (200 words or teul 

# i

urpose ofthis 

### three-volume report is 

### to publish the 

### individual pieces of testi

### involving ORNL 

### staff ina 

### three-year adjudicatory hearing on the 

### effects of ric 

### power generation on the 

### Hudson River. 

### Volume I1contains four exhibits reing 

### to impingement impacts 

### and three 

### critiques of certain aspects of 

### the utilities' The first exhibit is 

### a quantitative evaluation of four 

### sources of 

### bias (colIonefficiency, reimpingejnent, impingement on inoperative screens, and impinget 

### survival) affecting estimates of the

### number of fish 

### killed atHudson River power S. 

### The following two contain, respectively, a 

### detailed assessment of the impact pingement on the Hudson River white 

### perch population and estimates of 

### conditional mortality rates for seven Hudson River fish 

### populations. The fourth exit 

### is an evaluation of the 

### engineering feasibility qnd 

### potential biological effectss of 

### several: types of 

### modified intake 

### struttures proposed as 

### alternatives 

### t o 

# 1

ng towers for 

### reducing Impingement impacts. This volume'also consists of critical luations of the utilities' 

### empirical evidence for the 

### existence of density-dependent

rowth in

### young-of-the-year striped bass 

### and white perch, the estimate of

### age-comion of 

### striped bass spawning stock in

### the Hudson River, and 

### their use of

### the Lawler, isky, and Ske'lly (ttjS) 

### Real-Time Life 

### Cycle Model to 

### estimate the impact of entrain

### and impingement 

### on the 

### Hudson River striped bass 

### population.

ORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 1?a DESCRIPTORS


# c

TIFJEAS;OPEN-ENDED TERMS

ASlLlTY STATEMENT repom 21 NO. OF PAGES
Unlimited 20 SECURITYCLAsS(This oaw, 22 PRICE UnclassifIed S

# I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

# I The authors thank 

### S. M. Adarns, 

### J. Boreman, T. Fikslin, 

### S. G. Hildebrand, 

### J. M. Loar, and 

### D. 

### S. Vaughan for their critical reviews of this work. We also thank the Environmental Sciences Division Word Processing Center for the editing and make-up needed to combine seven pieces 

### of testimony into one technical report. 

# 1 1 

# I I 

# I 8 1 

# I 1 

# 8

i' 

# I 

# I I iii

### FOREWORD

On December 19, 1980, 

### with the signing of an out-of-court settlement agreement, a three-year adjudicatory hearing 

### on the effects of electric power geileration 

### on the Hudson River was ended. The purpose of 

### this hearing had been to

### determinewhether six cooling towers, required by the various Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

### permits, should be built at three power plants 

### on the Hudson River in New York .in

### order tomitigate the impacts of entrainment and 

### impingement on estuarine fish populations. 

### In addition to terminating the �PA 

### hearings, the settlementresolved regulatory disputes between the utility companies and several other federal agencies, including the U.S. 

### Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Staff of the Environmental SciencesDivision at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

### were 

### asked to

### participate in the 

### EPA hearings because of 

### previous 

### work on entrainment and impingement performed for 

### AEC, NRC, ERDA, and DOE in 

### connectionwith the licensing of 

### Indian Point Units 

### 2 and 3, 

### the largest generating units 

### on the Hudson River. ORNL Staff prepared and submitted, in 

### May '8979, 

### numerous individual pieces 

### of written direct testimony for EPA as part of these hearings. Some of 

### these pieces of testimonywere coauthored with individuals from the National Power P1ant.Teamof the U. S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service and. from EPA. The purpose 

### of this three-volumereport is to publish these

. 

### - individual pi.ecesof 

### tes,timonyinv.olv-ing WNL 

### -st&ff in- 

### a manner-that 

### will assure a broader distribution to the scientific community, government agencies, and other interested parties.

Volume I 

### is concerned with the estimation of the direct (or annual) entrainment impact of the power plants on populations of striped bt3ss, white perch, Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewife), American shad, Atlantic tomcod, and bay 

### anchovy in the Hudson River. Entrainment impact results from 

### the killing of 

### fish eggs, larvae, and 

### young juvreniles that are contained 

### in the cooling water cycled through
a power plant. An "Empirical TransportModel" is

### presented as the
means of 

### obtaining a 

### conditional entrainmentmortality rate (which represents the fraction of ayear classwhich would be killed due to entrainment in the absence of 

### density-dependentmortality). Most 

### of Volume I .is 

### concerned with the estimation of several parameters required Iby 

### themodel: physical input parameters (e.g., power-plant withdrawal flow rates); the longitudinal distribution of 

### ichthyoplanktonin 

### time and 

### space; the duration of susceptibilityof 

### the vulnerable organisms;-the "W-factors," which express the ratios of 

### densities of organisms 

### in power plant intakes to densities 

### in the river; and the entrainmentmortality factors,which express the



### - probability that an organism will be killed if it is entrained. Once these values are obtained, the model is used to estimate entrainment impact for both historical conditions and projected conditions.



## Precedingpage

.-

## Mank v

### Volume 

### I1 contains four exhibits relating to impingement impacts and three critiques of certain aspects of the utilities' case. The first exhibit is a quantitative evaluation of 

### four sources of bias (co: lection efficiency, reimpingement, impingement on inoperative screens, and impingement survival) affecting estimates of the number of 

### fish killed at Hudson River power plants. The two following exhibits contain, respectively, a 

### detailed assessment of the impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population and estimates of conditional impingement mortality rates for seven Hudson River fish populations. The fourth exhibit is an evaluation of the engineering feasibilityand potential biological effectiveness of several types of 

### modified intake structuresproposed as 

### alternatives to cooling towers for reducing impingement impacts. 

### The remainder of 

### Volume II 

### consists of 

### critical evaluations of the utilities' empirical evidence for the existence of density-dependentgrowth 

### in young-of-the-yearstriped bass and white perch, of 

### their estimate of 

### the age-composition of the striped bass spawning stock 

### in the ffudson River, and of their use of 

### the Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS) Real-Time Life Cycle Model to estimate the impact 

### of entrainment and impingement on the Hudson River striped bass population.

Volume I11 

### addresses the validity of 

### the utilities'use of 

### the Ricker stock-recruitmentmodel to extrapolate the combined

. 

### entrainment-impingement losses of young fish to

### reductions 

### in the equilibriumpopulation size of adult fish. 

### In our testimony, a methodologywas developed and 

### applied to address a single fundamental question: 

### if the Ricker model really did apply to the Hudson River striped bass population, could the utilities' estimates, based on curve-fitting, of the parameter alpha (which'controlsthe impact) 

### be considered reliable? The present Volume 111 

### includes, 

### in addition, an analysis of 

### the efficacy of an alternativemeans of 

### estimating alpha, termed the technique 

### of prior estimation of beta (used by 

### the utilities in a report prepared for regulatoryhearings on the Cornwall Pumped Storage Project). Our 

### validaticnmethodology should also be useful 

### in evaluating inferences drawn 

### in the literature from fits of 

### stock-recruitmentmodels to data obtained from

### other fish stocks.

_­

viABSTRACT

BARNTHOUSE, L. 

### W., W. VAN WINKLE, 

### J. GOLUMBEK, 

### G. F. CADA, 

### C. P. GOODYEAR, 

### S. W. CHRISTENSEN, 3. 

### B. CANNON, and D. W. LEE. 1982. Impingement impact analyses, evaluations 

### of alternative screening devices, and critiques of Utility testimony relating to density-dependent growth, the age-composition of the striped bass spawning stock, and the LMS Real-Time Life Cycle Model. Volume 11. 

### IN The Impact of Entrainment and Impingement on Fish Populations in the Hudson River Estuary. ORNL/NUREG/TM-385/VZ\and NUREG/CR-2220. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

This volume includes a series 

### of four exhibits relating to impacts of impingement on fish populations, together with a collection of critical evaluations of testimony prepared for the uitlities by their consultants. The first exhibit is a quantitative evaluation of four
sources of bias (collection efficiency, reimpingement, impingement on inoperative screens, and impingement survival) affecting estimates of the number of fish killed at Hudson River power plants. The two following (exhibitscontain, respectively, a detailed assessment of the impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population 

### and estimates (ofconditional ,impingementmortality rates for seven Hudson River fish populations. The fourth exhibit is an evaluation of the engineering feasibility and potential biological effectiveness of several types of modified intake structures proposed as alternatives to cooling towers for reducing impingement impacts. The remainder of Volume 

### I1 consists of critical evaluations of the utilities' empirical evidence for the existence of density-dependent growth 

### in young-of-the-year striped bass and white perch, of their estimate of the age-composition of the striped bass spawning stock in the Hudson River, and of their use of the Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS) Real-Time Life Cycle Model to estimate the impact of entrainment and impingement 

### on the Hudson River striped bass popu?ation.

vii

# I I 8 SUMMARY

The first four chapters 

### in this volume relate to impacts of impingement on Hudson River fish populations. In Chapter 

### I, the utilities' estimates of the numbers of fish impinged at the Bowline, Lovett, Iridian Point, Roseton, and Danskammer generating stations are evaluated. Themethods used to compute the number of 

### fish killed by impingementat each of these plants are described, and four sources of bias that can affect impingement estimates (collection efficiency, reimpingement, impingement on inoperative travelling screens, and impingement survival) are discussed. Wherever possible, themagnitude of each b.ias is estimated. Finally, plant and species-specific adjustment factors that can be used to scale the impingement estimates up or down tolaccount for these biases are presented.
Chapter I1presents two independent 

### lines 

### of evidence evaluating impingement losses of white perch at the power plants on the Hudson River. The first line of

### evidence involves analyzing the variation 

### in collectionrates among years over the period 1972-1977. These rates provide estimates of

### year-class strength on a relative scale. The second line of evidence involves estimating the conditional mortality rate (or equivalently, the percent reduction in

### year-class strength in 

### the absence of compensation) due to impingement for 

### the 1974 and 1975 

### white perch year classes. Chapiter 

### I11 presents estimates of 

### conditional impingement mortality rates for the 1974

### year classes of white perch, striped bass, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and Atlantic tomcod, and for the 1975year classes of white perch, striped bass, American shad, and theAtlantic tomcod. Exploitation rates for the total impingeable bay anchovy population (adults + 

### juveniles) residing above river mile 12
are presented for each month fromMay through October 1974 

### and 1975. Rather than single "conservative" estimates of impact, realistic ranges of probable impacts for each species and year class are developed. The highest impingement impact estimates obtained are forwhite perch, the lowest foir American shad. In addition to estimates of actual historical impacts, estimates of 

### the impacts that would have occurred had closed-cycle cooling systemsbeen installed at one or more of 

### the three platits (Bowline, Indian Point, and Roseton) at issue in the hearings, are presented. It

### was found that greatly reduced impacts on white perch, Atlantic tomcod, and 

### striped bass would have occurred had 

### closed-cyclecooling systems been operating either at all three plants
or only at

### Bowline and Indian Point. Closed-cyclecooling at Indian Point 

### alone would have 

### substantially reduced the 

### impact of impingement
on 

### white perch and 

### Atlantic tomcod, and would have moderately reduced the impact on 

### striped bass. Chapter IV

### presents evaluations of 

### the degree 

### to which impingement and entrainmentmortality at the intake screenwells of 

### Indian Point Units 2 and 3, 

### Bowline, and 

### Roseton, can be potentially reduced by 

## Precedingpage

## blank ix

### backfitting themwith alternative screening devices. Both physical and behavioral screening barriers are considered. The physical screening barriers considered are (1) 

### conventional vertical traveling screens (VTS) with modifications, (2) center-flow traveling screens, (3) f

### lush-mounted horizontal traveling screens (HTS), 

### (4)

### cylindrical wedge-wire screens, and (5)

### radial 

### well intakes. The behavorial screening barriers $onsidered are angled HTS 

### and louver and angled
screen diversion systems. It is concluded that there are alternative devices available that could potentially reduce impingement and, to a 

### lesser extent, extrainmentmortality at power 

### plant cooling-water intakes. The extent of reduction achievable 

### in practice however, is site specific and can best be determined from 

### in situ studies during plant operation.
Chapter W presents a critical evaluation 

### of empirical "evidence" for the existence of 

### density-dependentgrowth in the Hudson River striped bass and white perch populations. Consultantsfor the utilities have, on several occasions, reported finding inverse correlationsbetween growth and abundance in juvenile striped bass and white perch, and have cited these results as evidence that density-dependent growth, a compensatorymechanism capable of 

### partially offsetting the impact of power plant entrainment and impingement, may be operating in the ffudson River striped bass 

### and white perch populations. An evaluation of the data and methods of 

### analysis used by 

### the utilities' consultants shows that it is not possible to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of density-dependentgrowth from existing data. It is further argued that, even if the existence of density-dependentgrowth could be proved, knowledge of 

### its existence would be useless to the decision-maker because its compensatory effects cannot be quantified.
Chapter VI

### presents a critical analysis

### of the utilities' estimate of the age-composition of 

### the striped bass spawning stock in the Hudson River. Estimates of the contributionof each age-class to each year's production are used 

### by the utilities to develop lag times that determine thepairing of indices of stock and recruitment 

### in their Ricker stock-recruitmentcurve-fitting exercise (Volume 111). 

### The estimates of 

### long-termpower plant impact obtained from the curve-fitting exercise are highly sensitiveto the choice of 

### lag time. It 

### is concluded that the utilities greatly underestimated the contribution of age seven and older striped bass 

### to the spawning stock, therebyunderestimating the proper lag time for the stock-recruitment analysis


# . Chapter VI1 

### presents an evaluation of the utilities' use of the LMS 

### Real-Time Life Cycle Model to estimate reductions in-year-class abundance of 

### striped bass caused by entrainment and 

### impingement. It 

### is concluded that the Real-Time Life Cycle Model is not 

### a reliable tool formaking sound fisheriesmanagement decisions.

X

### TABLE OF 

### CONTENTS
Chapter Page

FOREWORD..


# .......................... V



### ABSTRACT.. 

# .......................... vii



### SUMMARY


# ............................ ix 

# 1

I An Analysis of Factors That.Inf1uenceImpingement Estimates at Hudson River Power Plants (L. W. 

### Barnthouse)



# ................... 1-1 

# I 11 Evaluation of Impingement Losses of

### White Perch at Hudson River Power Plants 

### (W. Van 

### Winkle and 

### L. W. 

### Barnthouse)


# .................... 11-1 

# 1 III 

### Impingement Impact Estimates for 

### Seven Hudson River Fish Species (L. #. 

### Barnthouse and 

### W. Van Winkle)



# ..................... 111-1 

# I IV 

### Alternative Screening Devices at Indian Point Units 

### 2 and 3, 

### Bowline Point, and Rosgton Generating Stations 

### (G. 

### F. Cada, J. 

### B. Cannon, and D. W. 

### Lee)


# ...................... IV-1 

# I

V Density-DependentGrowth: A 

### Critique of 

### the



# i Utilities' "Empirical Evidence" (L. 

### W. Barnthouse)



# .. e 

### V-1

VI A 

### Critical Review of 

### the Utilities' Age Composition Analysis of the 

### Hudson River Striped Bass 

### Population (3. 

### Golumbek and 

### S. W. 

### Christensen)



# ........... VI-; 

# a

WII A 

### Critical Evaluation of 

### the Lawler, Matusky and Skelly 

### Two-Dimensional, Real-Time, Life-Cycle Model of 

### the Hudson River Striped Bass Population (J. 

### Golumbek,W. 

### Van Winkle, and C. P. 

### Goodyear)


# .... VII-1 

# I I



# I I xi 

# ICHAPTER I

AN ANALYSIS 

### OF FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE IMPINGEMENT ESTIMATES AT HUDSON RIVER POWER PLANTS

TESTIMONY OF

LAWRENCE W. BARNTHOUSE, 

### Pb.D. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

Environmental Sciences Division Publicaton No. 1931

PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 11

MAY 1979



## .--SUMMARY

Inthis testimony I evaluate the utilities' estimates of the numbers of ish impinged ai: the Bowline, Lovett, Indian Point, Roseton, and Danskamner enerating statlons. I describe the methods used to compute the number of ish killed by impingement at each of these plants and discuss four sources 

# t

f bias that can affect impingement estimates: collection efficiency,

impingement, impingement on inoperative travelling screens, 

### and impingement urvival. Wherever possible I estimate the magnitude of each bias. Finally, I present plant and species-specific adjustment factors that can be used to

cale the impingement estimates up 

### or down to account for these biases.



# I

b



# I PrecedingpageHank I-iii

..TABLE 

### OF CONTENTS 

# 1 Section Page

SUMMARY..

,. 

# ............................. I-iii 

# I

1. Introduction


# ........................... 1

1.1 How Impingement Estimates are Calculated


# .......... 1 

### 1.2 Biases that Influence ImpingementEstimates


# ......... 2



### 1.2.1 Collection Efficiency


# ................ 2 1.2.2 Reimpingement


# .................... 3 

### 1.2.3 Impingement on Inoperative Screens

# .......... 4 

### 1.2.4 Impingement Survival


# ................. 4 

# I

2. 

### Evaluation of 

### Utility Estimates 

### of the 

### Number of

### Fish Impinged


# .................. 5

2.i 

### Co'llectionEfficiency



# .................... 5



### 2.11.1 Indian Point Unit 2


# ................. 5 

# I 2.1.2 

### Indian Point Unit 3


# ................. 6 

### 2.1.3 Bowline.



# ....................... 6 2.jt.4 

### Roseton 

# ....................... 8 

# I
2.2 

### Reimpingement


# ........................ 8

2.2.1 

### Indian Point Units 2 

### and 3


# .............. 8 2.i!.2 

### Bowline


# ....................... 8 2.2.3 

### Roseton and Danskamer


# ................ 11 

# 1 2.3 

### Impingementon InoperativeTravelling Screens

# ........ 11

2.3.1 

### Indian Point Units 2 

### and 3


# .............. 12 2.3.2 

### Bowline


# ...................

# -.

# ... 12 2.3.3 

### Roseton



# ....................... 15

2.4 

### ImpingementSurvival


# .................... 15



### 2.4.1 Experimental Methods


# ................. 16 2.4.2 

### Results 

### of the Impingement Survival Studies


# ..... 18

2.4.2.1 

### Atlantic Tomcod


# ................ 18 2.4.2.2 

### Clupeids



# ................... 23



### - 2.4.2.3 

### White Perch and Striped Bass


# ......... 23

2.5 

### Comparison Between Impingement Survival and Collection Efficiency



# .. . 

# . .. 

# - 43

31. 

### Conclusions



# ............................ 45 

# I 4. 

### References


# ............................ 48

. - I-v 

# Precedingpage

## blank

### LIST OF TABLES

!able Page
Estimation of collection efficiency 

# 1 1 at the Bowline Point Generating Station


# . .

# . .

# .. 

# ..

# .. . 1-9 Inoperative screen adjustment factors, calculated 

# 1* for 1 

### to-5inoperative 

### screens out 

### of a total of 6


# ..

# . .. e 

# . 14

3 Normal operating 

### procedures for travel1ing
screens 

### at five Hudson 

### Rrver power plants



# . 

# ... . ... .. . 17



### 4 Sumnary ofAtlantic tomcod impingement survival data



# .... .. 19 

# 1 5 Sumnary of clupeid impingement survival data



# .

# . ..

# ..

# ... . 24 Sumnary of white perch impingement survival data



# .

# .. .

# . ... 26 Sumnary of striped bass impingement survival data


# . .

# .. ..

# . . 35

8 Comparisoin of observed 

### percent survival of white perch and striped

### bass under identical experimental conditions, Bowline Point Generating Station (from Tables 6 and 7j


# .

# .. .

# . 38

.

~

# I 9 Adjustment factors derived for impingement estimates at Hudson 

### River power plants



# ..

# ..

# -
..

# . .. 

# ... .

# .. . . .

# . 46

.- . .. - 

# Precedingpage

# blank I-vii1. 

### INTRODUCTION

In order to

### facilitateunderstanding of 

### my assessment of this 

### aspect of 

### he utilities' 

### case, I 

### begin with 

### a brief outline of 

### the data, methods, and 

# Fiases involved in 

### computing 

### the number of 

### fish impinged and 

### killed by a

pwer plant. I 

### describe each component of the 

### computational procedure and 

# k

identify those components in

### which 

### there is a substantive disagreement

etween my position and 

### that taken by the utilities and their consultants. hese disagreements are discussed in 

### detail in 

### Section 2.

At

### first glance it 

### seems that there should be 

### no substantive isagreements iis 

### to 

### the number of fish 

### that are impinged at Hudson River power plants. All 

### one has to do 

### is collect and 

### count the fish that are washed off the travelling screens. However, the problem is 

### not quite that 

# 1s imp1

### e

# . Only 

### at Indian Point 

### are attempts made 

### to collect and count all fish 

### that are washed off the screensI At 

### all other 

### plants the screenwash is sampled once or 

### twice a 

### week (usuallyfor 24 

### hours), and 

### the resulting counts are scaled up 

### to arrive 

### atweekly and/or monthly estimates of 

### the numbers of 

### D fish impinged. Moreover, the 

### raw counts of fish 

### impinged 

### at any plant are

subject 

### to several sorts of

### biases that can lead 

### to overestimates 

### or

nderestimates of the true number of fish 

### killed by impingement. First, 

### not all impinged fish 

### are actually collected. A 

### certain percentage, highly variable from plant to 

### plant, are washed off 

### the screens back 

### out into the 

# Iriver,

or are c

### taten by 

### scavengers. Since these fish 

### are not collected, they
are 

### not included in 

### the impingement counts. Second, at plants 

### where impinged fish 

### are sampled only periodically, the same fish 

### may be impinged more than once, inflating the impingement 

### counts. Third, 

### at some plants fishmay 

### be impinged 

### on inoperative travelling screens and thus 

### not collected 

### or counted. Finally, for 

### some species 

### at some plants, a substantial 

### fraction of 

### impinged fish 

### may survive impingement if 

### they are promptly returned 

### to the river. All of 

### these potential biases must be considered in

### order t:, 

### assess the
re1i

### abi1ity of 

### impingement estimates and in 

### order 

### to determine whether (

### and 'by how 

### much) these estimates must be adjusted.
Since I 

### believe that the impingement totals used in 

### calculating conditional impingement mortality rates should reflect impingement at

### all plants, 

### not just at those that are the subject of 

### these proceedings, I

### evaluate the 

### impingement estimates for 

### Lovett, Danskamer, and 

### Albany along with 

### those for Bowline, Indian Point, 

### and Roseton.



### 11.

### P HOW 

### IMPINGEMENT ESTIMATES ARE CALCULATED

At 

### Indian Point 

### Units 1, 2, 

### and 3, all (or 

### nearly all) screenwashes are monitored and attempts are made 

### to collect, identify, and count all imenged Bfish. At all other plants the 

### screenwashes are monitored for 24 

### hours once or 

### twice a week. These sample collections are scaled up to monthly 

### totals in

### the following way (Exhibit UT-6, p. 10.2-6): 

# E I

r-1 

# I 11-2



### Impingement samples were 

### used 

### to estimate 

### the total 

### number of 

### selected species impinged monthly and annually at Roseton. Each month 

### was divided into four 

### time intervals: day 

### 1 

### to 7, 

### day 8 

### to 14, 

### day 15 

### to 21, 

### day 22 

### to last day of the 

### month. For each 

### time interval the total number 

### of fish collected was divided 

### by 

### the total flow in

### million gallons 

### for all 

### samples within 

### that interval, toproduce an impingement rate. The impingement rate 

### (number of fish 

### per million gallons) for 

### the four 

### time intervals was averaged toproduce a mean monthly impingement rate. 

### When 

### there was 

### no sample taken within 

### one 

### of the four time intervals, the remaining 

### intervals 

### were averaged 

### to obtain 

### the monthly 

### rate. The 

### mean monthly impingement 

### rate was 

### then multiplied by 

### the total monthly plant flow in 

### million gallons 

### to produce an estimated total number of fish impinged 

### per month. The 

### monthly totals 

### were sumed to obtain 

### an annual total.

An 

### equivalent paragraph can be 

### found 

### on p. 

### 10.2-6 ofExhibit 

### UT-7. Sirnila methods have been 

### used 

### at Lovett (Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly 1976a), Oanskamner 

### (Lawler, Matusky, and 

### Skelly 

### 1974), and 

### Albany (Lawler, Matusky and Skelly 1975). This 

### method of scaling up 

### impingement samples 

### is critically dependent 

### on 

### the assumption 

### that the 

### number of 

### fish impinged during 

### any period is directlyproportional to the 

### total intake flow during that period. 

### The utilities' 

### consultants and I 

### agree that in

### reality this 

### not always the 

### case (Transcript pp. 4333-37). 

### Texas Instruments 

### (1974), f 

### example, did 

### not find 

### a strong correlation between impingement 

### counts and volumetric flow rates 

### at Indian Point Units 1 and 2. 

### Although 

### the failure of this 

### assumption necessarily reduces the precision of the 

### resulting impingement 

### estimates, I 

### do not believe that it 

### introduces a 

### bias toward either underestimating 

### or overestimating 

### the number of fish 

### impinged per month.

1.2 

### BIASES THAT INFLUENCE 

### IMPINGEMENT ESTIMATES Although the 

### questionable assumption 

### that impingement is proportional 

### to pawer plant intake flow 

### probably does 

### not introduce biases into 

### the monthly and 

### annual impingement 

### estimates, 

### four phenomena that do 

### introduce such biases 

### have been identified. The 

### utilities have assumed (Exhibit UT-: 

### Sections 2-VI 

### and 2-VII) 

### that, with the 

### exception of 

### Indian Point Units 2 

### and 3, 

### these biases offset one another and 

### no adjustments of 

### the impingemer estimates are necessary. I 

### believe that 

### for some species at some plants tt 

### biases clearly do 

### not offset 

### one another, and 

### therefore, some adjustments
are necessary.

c 1.2.1 

### Collection Efficiency

Not all impinged fish are actually collected and counted during screenwash monitoring, for 

### reasons that are not completely understood. SOP fish 

### are probably washed back into the

### river by 

### tidal action. Some may sli 

### through gaps between screens or may 

### not be removed from the screens by 

### the1-3



### screenwash spray. Others areprobably scavenged from the 

### screens by gulls, 

### crabs, and eels. Utility consultants have conducted studies at Indian 

### Point, Bowline, and Roseton in 

### order to estimate the 

### fraction 

### of impinged fish 

### that
are actually collected and counted, In Exhibit 

### UT-7 (Table 10.2-4) the utilities 

### estimate collection efficiency at Bowline tobe about 90%. 

### Recent data collected by LMS 

### have convinced 

### me that in

### reality collection efficiency at i3owline 

### is considerably lower, less than 80%. No 

### collection efficiency studies at Roseton 

### were reported in Exhibit UT-6, but studies 

### performed after 

### tnis exhibit was filed 

### indicate that collection efficiency at this

### plant averages 'no higher 

### than 75%

### and 

### is lower for 

### the small fish (< 13 

### cm in length) that 

### dominate impingement collections.

For 

### purposes of impact assessment the utilities 

### have assumed (Exhibit UIT-3, 

### Sections 2-VI 

### and 2-VII) that collection efficiency at Indian 

### Point Unit 3 is80%. 

### Although this 

### figure 

### is consistent with 

### preliminary collection efficiency 

### studies performed by Texas Instruments (1977a), 

### more recent studies 

### (Section 2) 

### indicate a somewhat lower value (approximately 70%). Collection efficiency at Indian Point Unit 2 is 

### extremely low, The 

### utilities have 

### used a value of 15%intheir 

### impact assessments (Exhibit 

### UT-3, Sections 2-VI and 2-VII); more recent studies 

### confirm 

### the accuracy of this 

### value.

i.2.2 

### mmpinqement

On 

### days when impinged fish 

### are not sampled, impinged fish 

### are returned to the 

### river. If the point of return is relatively close to the intake structure, some of these fishmay be 

### drawn back into the 

### intake and reimpingedl. On 

### days when impinged fish 

### are sampled, the fish 

### collected Will 

### include all fisk 

### impinged for 

### the first 

### time on that day (subject 

### to adjustments for collection efficiency), and also some fish 

### that have been impinged one 

### or more times previously. Ideally, the 

### impingement count over 24 

### hours should 

### include only (but 

### all) those fish 

### impinged for 

### the first 

### time. Such a count is an estimate of 

### the total number 

### impinged one or more times 

### [if they 

### had not been collected,
a fraction of them 

### would have been 

### subsequently reimpinged). Including reimpinged fish in

### effect double-counts reimpinged fish and 

### inflates estimates of 

### the total number 

### of fish that 

### are impinged.
Studies conducted at Bowline by Ecological Analysts (Exhibit 

### UT-7, Sections 10.3.2.2 

### and 10.3.3.2) 

### indicate that with the 

### sampling methods now 

### employed at Bowline, approximately 10%

### of 

### the fish collected have been previously impinged. On 

### the basis of 

### studies at Roseion and Danskamer (Exhibit UT-6), I 

### believe that reimpingement is negligible at all other



### - p1

### ants.1-4

1.2.3 

### Impingement 

### on Inoperative Screens

At 

### i3wline and 

### Roseton the 

### two generating 

### units share a conanon 

### intake bay 

### containing hll 

### circulator pumps 

### and travelling screens. Thus, 

### when 

### a screen 

### is inoperative and cannot be 

### rotated and washed, it 

### continues to impinge fish. 

### By my 

### calculations (based 

### on results 

### reported in 

### Section 10.2.3.1.4 

### of Exhibit UT-71, 

### a screen that is 

### inoperative

### for 1

### to 5 days 

### impinges about 

### 11% as many fish as does 

### a normally operating screen during the 

### same period. According 

### to Exhibit UT-7 (p. 

### 10.2-12), 

### such breakdowns occurred “on many occasions 

### from 1974 through 1976” 

### at Bowline.

1.2.4 

### fmpingement Survival


### Results reported in Exhibits UT-6 

### and UT-7 

### indicate that 

### not all impinged fish 

### are killed 

### as a 

### direct result 

### of the impingement experience. Although the 

### magnitude of 

### indirect impingement mortality (e.g., 

### increased susceptibility 

### to disease 

### or vulnerability topredators due 

### to the stress c impingement) 

### has 

### not been estimated, it 

### appears 

### that under certain operatir conditions the 

### survival of 

### several species 

### (most notably Atlantic tomcod)
can be substantial. Assuming that all 

### impinged fish are killed will, in ti

### absence of 

### offsetting biases, tend 

### to inflate estimates of 

### impingement impact.1-5

2. EVALUATION 

### OF 

### UTILITY ESTIMATES 

### OF 

### THE NUMBER 

### OF FISH IMPINGED



### I believe that the utilities have underestimated the monthly and annual numbers ofwhite perch, striped bass, and clupeids killedby impingement at Hudson River power plants. My two specific points of disagreement are: (1) The utilities do not include fish impinged at Danskamner, Lovett, or A! bany.
(2) Utility estimates of collection efficiency at Indian Point Unit 3, Bowline, and Roseton are too high.

Fish killedat Lovett, Danskamner, or Albany are just as dead as those killed at Indian Point, Bowline, or Roseton. The impact of impingement at the three plants at issue inthese proceedings isan incremental impact added to the preexisting impacts caused by impingement at Lovett, Danskamner, and Albany. Neither the significance to Hudson River fish populations of the additional 

### losses caused by impingement at Indian Point, Bowline, and Roseton, nor the reduction in impact that would result from the installation ofmitigating
measures (e.g., closed-cycle cooling), can be understood unless the impacts of all six plants are considered.

With reference to the second point of disagreement, whether the impingement estimates calculated by the utilitiesmust be scaled up to account for lower estimates of collection efficiency depends upon the magnitude of any offsetting biases. Of the three sources of bias (in addition to collection efficiency) described inSection 1.2, impingement survival is undoubtedly the most important. My analysis of the utilities' impingement survival studies indicates that the survival of impinged white perch and striped bass at Bowline, Roseton, Danskamner, and Albany is probably high enough to offset the bias due to collection efficiency. Atlantic tomcod survival during the fall, winter, and early spring at these plants appears 

### to be high enough so that impingement estimates for this species, for these seasons, should be scaled down. Survival of clupeids at all plants, and survival of all species at Indian Point (where no fish are returned tothe river) and Lovett appears to be negligible.

The remainder of th% section consists ofmy assessments of the magnitude of each of the four biases discussed in Section 1.2 and how they vary amng plants and fish 

### species.

2.1 COLLECTION EFFICIENCY

2-1.1 Indian Point Unit 2

The results of all collection efficiency tests carried out to date at Indian Point Unit 2 are sumnarized in Exhibit UT-105, Tests were first performed at this unit in1974 

### and 1975. The results of these tests

### 1-6

indicated that with 

### the air curtain operating, only about 15%of 

### the impin 

### fish 

### were being collected and 

### counted 

### (Texas Instruments 1975, 1976). It appeared from preliminary 

### tests in 

### 1974 and 1975 

### that collection efficienc. increased to about 50L 

### when 

### the air curtain was turned off 

### (Texas Instruments 1976). In 

### 1977, after 

### air curtain operation was permanently d

### isconti

### nued, 

### new tests 

### were conducted, Surprisingly, 

### the 1977 

### resu1

### ts we' 

### no different from those obtained earlier with 

### the air 

### curtain operating. t 1500 

### test fish released in 

### May and 

### June of 1977, 

### only 224 

### (14.9%)were recovered (Exhibit 

### EPA-94). 

### No explanation 

### has been offered 

### as towhy the 1977 

### results differ 

### so greatly from 

### those obtained in 

### the e'arlier tests wi

### the air curtain off.
The 1977 

### experiments involved 

### more release dates (9

### vs 3) and 

### more fir (1500

### vs 1000) than did 

### those performed in 

### 1974-75. Until the cause of tht 

### discrepancy is discovered, I believe 

### that the results 

### of 

### the more extensivt 1977 

### experiments should form 

### the basis 

### for an 

### estimate of collection efficiency at Indian 

### Point Unit 2. 

### These results support 

### the value (15%) used by 

### the utilities in Exhibit 

### UT-3,

2.1.2 

### Indian Point Unit 3


### The estimate of

### collection efficiency at Indian Point Unit 3 

### used in the 

### utilities' calculations of 

### conditional impingement mortality rates

. (Exhibit 

### UT-3, Sections 

### 2-VI and 

### 2-VII; Exhibit UT-6, 

### Section 10.4; Exhibit UT-7, 

### Section 10.4) is based on the results of

### tests conducted in 

### 1976 (Exhibit UT-105, Table 1, 

### part 

### e). Seven separate experimental releas of marked fish were conducted during June, July, and 

### August of 1976. The 

### percent recovery 

### of the released fish ranged from 75%

### to 86%, with 

### a mean 

### c 79.9%. 

### More extensive tests were conducted during 

### 1977 (Exhibit UT-105, Table 1, 

### part 

### e). These 

### new tests involved 32 

### separate experimental releas carried out 

### on 11 days 

### between March and September. The percent recoveries observed during the 1977 

### tests were more variable and, 

### on the average, substantially lower than those observed in 

### 1976. Overall, 68.9% (1323 

### out of 1919) of 

### the fish released in 

### 1977 were recovered. Pooling all 

### the data from both 

### years yields 

### a percent recovery of 71.2% 

### (1758 

### out of 

### 2469). I 

### believe 

### that a 

### collection efficiency of 70%

### is an appropriate adjustment factor 

### for the impingement estimates at Indian Point Unit 3.

2.1.3 

### Bowline

Results of 

### experiments designed 

### tomeasure collection efficiency 

### at iJowline are presented in

### Table 10.2-4 of Exhibit UT-7. 

### The data reported i 

### this table were derived from eight 

### experimental releases-conducted during 

### the period January 31-March 21, 

### 1977. The percent recaptures from 

### these releases were all very high, 

### ranging from 81%to 98%, with 

### a mean of 89%.

' 

### However, this

### prefiled testimony reflects incomplete data. 

### More complete data covering the period October 1976-lUlayy 1978 

### indicates that collection

.

# I t 1-7 

# I efficiency at Bowline is probably less 

### than 80%. Exhibit 

### EPA-36 contains the

### results obtained from 30 

### releases conducted by LMS 

### between October 27, 

### 1976 and 

### June 29, 

### 1977. Exhibits UT-113, 

### UT-114, and UT-115 

### contain the 

### results Gf 88 

### experiments spanning the

### period October 26, 

### 1976-Ray 29, 1378. 

### These 

### results include all of the 

### results contained in Exhibits 

### UT-7 and 

### EPA-96. 

# B I LMS did 

### not 

### use the 

### 1976-78 data 

### to calculate an overall estimate of collection efficiency at Bowline, Instead, Exhibit UT-115 contains two separate estimates of collection efficiency 

### for each month, 

### calculated in 

### two different ways. The 

### first 

### estimate for each 

### month was obtained by 

### computing the percent recoveries for each experimental release during 

### that month, and then averaging these percent recoveries. Reslrl

### ts obtained 

### from releases involving 

### fewer than 50 fish, 

### as we11 as 

### results obtained from 

### the purportedly aberrant release of 

### May 2, 

### 1977, 

### were deleted from 

### these estimates. The 

### second estimate for each month was 

### obtained by pooling the data collected during 

### that month. That 

### is, the percent recovery was computed by dividing 

### the total 

### number of fist?

### recovered from all 

### experimental releases during 

### that month 

### by the total number 

### of fish

### released. 

# I S 

# 1 

# I I 

### prefer the 

### second method of computation. I 

### have no quarrel with 

### the exclusion of data 

### on the grounds of insufficient 

### sample size. However, I 

### am not convinced that it 

### is legitimate to exclude data simply 

### because the sampling conditions were unusual. The 

### particular experimental release at 

### issue here is that conducted on 

### May 2, 

### 1977. In Exhibit 

### EPA-96 (p. 1)

### LMS stated: 

# t & The 

### malfunction of the screenwash pumps combined with 

### heavy debris 

### provided 

### for a non-quantitative estimateof 

### recovery efficiency. 

# 1 On 

### transcript pp. 

### 4426-27 

### Mr. 

### Dew 

### of LMS elaborated. 

### He explairled 

### that 

### the travellicg screen onto which the fish 

### had been 

### released on May 2 

### could not be 

### completely cleaned because of unusually low screenwash 

### prssure combined with high debris 

### load. Many fish apparently became entangled in

### debris that could not be washed 

### off the screen. Consequently, only 2 of 100

### released fish 

### were recovered. 

# I I It seems likely that "unt!sual" conditions, 

### such as 

### those described by Mr. 

### Dew, must occur occasionally on days when impingement 

### collections are made. In 

### fact, May 2, 

### 1977

### was an impingement 

### collecticn date, according to Mr. 

### Dew (transcript p. 

### 4426)TAlthough the collection efficiency data for 

### May 2 

### were deleted by 

### LMS, the 

### impingement collection itself 

### was considered valid and was used to estimate impingement 

### rates for the 

### 8owline plant (testimony of 

### Mr. 

### Dew, transcript p. 4426). I 

### believe that collection efficiency studies should be conducted under the 

### same range of conditions that prevai7 during 

### ordinary impingement co

### llections. Co

### 11ection-efficiency data generated under 

### abnormal conditions should not be 

### discarded unless impingement 

### collections made under the 

### same conditions are also discarded. I 

### have calculated a 

### collectionefficiency for Bowline by summing 

### ti?e releases and recaptures for all of the 

### experiments, including that of May 2, 

### 1977. 

# ff



# i 

# 8 T 

# I1-8

This 

### computational method allows data from all the experiments 

### tobe used! not 

### just from those in

### which 50 

### or more fish 

### were released. With this 

### met the results obtained from each experiment are, in

### effect, weighted by the 

### number of fish 

### released. The 

### results of my computations are. presented in 

### Table 

### 1, The calculated collection efficiency is 

### 75,7%. If 

### the May 2, 15 

### results are excluded, this 

### va?ue increases only slightly, 

### to 76.8%. I 

### conclude 

### on the

### basis of the LMS 

### studies that 

### collection efficiency 

### at Bowline 

### is between 

### 75%and 

### 80%, or more than 

### IO% lower than 

### is reported ir Exhibit UT-7.



### 2.1.4 Roseton Although 

### no collection efficiency studies are reported in Exhibit 

### UTsuch studies were conducted at Roseton in 

### 1978. Results covering the peri January-March are contained inExhibit EPA-97. Of 606 

### marked fish release


### on 12 separate release dates, 458 

### were recaptured, yielding a recovery percentage of 

### 75.6%. Interestingly, Exhibit EPA-97 

### contains a breakdown 

### c the release/recovery data by size-class. Table 2 of Exhibit EPA-97 

### shows that collection efficiency is 

### strongly affected 

### by the sizeof impinged fi It is

### particularly noteworthy that the collection efficiency 

### for fish 

### less than 13 

### cm. in length 

### was only 

### 53.5% The 

### vast majority of 

### impinged white 

### perch, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and bay anchovy are less than 13

### cm long. Thus, 

### collection efficier for 

### the 

### species of 

### interest in

### these proceedings may 

### be ws11 

### below 75%. 1. fish 

### larger than 25 

### cm length 

### are removed from the computations (very 

### few impinged 

### fish belonging 

### to the species 

### of interest are that 

### large), the percent recovery of 

### the remaining fish 

### is 71.6%. I 

### conclude on 

### the basis the data in Exhibit EPA-97 

### that collection efficiency 

### at Roseton, for fist of 

### species and 

### size

### that are of principal 

### interest 

### to these proceedings, i 

### probably 

### no higher 

### than 70%, 

### and may be 

### considerably lower.

2.2 REIMPINGEMENT

2.2.1 Indian Point 

### Units 2 

### and 3 

### Reimpingement is 

### not 

### a source 

### ofbias at Indian Point because impinge fish 

### are 

### not returned to the 

### river,

2.2.2 

### Bowline

. 

### Section 10.3.3.2 of Exhibit UT-7 

### contains results of some rather eleg experiments conducted by 

### Ecological Analysts (EA) in 

### or3er to estimate the reimpingement rate at Bowline. Of 

### particular interest are 

### the results 

### of the "long-term survey" (Section 10.3.3.2.2), 

### as these results can be used 

### calculate the fraction of fish 

### collected on a typical impingement sampling day that have been previously impinged. The experiment involved:

### 1-9

Table 1. Estimation of collection efficiency at 

### the Bowline Point Generating St at ion

Dates Number re-l easeda Number recaptureda X Recaptured

All release dates 

### 6582 

### 4981 75.7 Excluding May 2, 

### 1977 6482 

### 4979 76.8

aTota1 number of releases and recaptures from 88 experiments conducted

between October 1976 and May 

### 1978 (from Exhibit UT-114).1-10

(a) marking all white perch impinged during a 24-hour release period,
(5) releasing 

### these marked fish, and
(c) monitoring screenwashes on subsequent days and calculating 

### the fraction of marked fish in each day's collection of white perch.

EA released 

### marked fish

### on five consecutive days, using a different color 

### mark for each release period. 

### Tne results of 

### EA'S April 1976 experiment are tabulated inTable 10.3-22 of Exhibit UT-7.
Table 10.3-22 indicates that 

### the probability of an impinged and 

### releas1 fish being reimpinged 

### is at a maximum during the 

### first 24 

### hours after relea and declines steadily with 

### time to 1% 

### or less by 

### four days 

### after initial

. impingement. EA 

### used the data in Table 10.3-22 to derive 

### an equation expressing the probability of reimpingement as a 

### function of time since initiit impingement:



### where t = 

### time in days 

### since initial impingement. Normally, impingement sampling is conducted over one 24-hour period each 

### week at Bowline. In order to reduce 

### the effectsof reimpingement 

### on the impingement counts, fish impinged during the 24 hours prior 

### to the beginning of 

### the sanpling period are not 

### returned to Bowline Pond. Thus, fish collected during 

### an impingement sample can include reimpinged fish thal


### were first impinged between 1end 6 days prior 

### to sampling. EA 

### used the decay rate (-0.83) 

### from Eq. (I)and ar! 

### estimate 

### of the fraction of each day' catch composed of fish also impinged during 

### the previous 24 

### hours (from Table 10.3-22) to calculate

### the contribution of reimpinged fish

### to 

### a typica; impingement sample (8.1%). I obtained a different and slightlyhigher 

### [lC.6%) estimate by integrating Eq. (1) from t=l

### to t=6.

In Table 10.3-23 of Exhibit UT-7, EA 

### presents data obtained 

### from 

### a simijar experiment conducted in January, 1977. Although no calculations based 

### on these data are included in Exhibit UT-7, 

### less reimpingement was observed during this experiment than during the April, 1976 experiment. 

### have used the data in Table 10.3-23 

### of Exhibit UT-7 to develop an equation for the January experiment similar 

### to Eq. (1):

Pr(t) = 7.2e-0.62i

-
Integrating Eq. (2) from t=l

### to t=6yields a value of 6.0% as the contribution of reimpinged fssh to a typical impingement sample. I

### 1-11

In 

### my opinion, EA'S 

### experiments generally support 

### the conclusion, stated
on p. 

### 10.2-10 of Exhibit 

### UT-?, that 

### approximately 10%

### of the fish 

### collected during 

### a typical impingement 

### sample at Bowline have been previously impinged. However, the results of 

### the January, 1977 

### experiment indicate that reimpingement may be a few percent lower during 

### the winter. This observation is

### important because, as is 

### shown in

### Tables 10.2-12 

### and 10.2-17 of 

### Exhibit UT-7, 

### impingement rates for white 

### perch and striped bass are high at Bowline during the

### winter.

2.2.3 

# - Roseton and 

### Danskammer

The 

### impingement sampling procedures employed at Roseton and 

### Danskamner
are similar 

### to that at Bowline: the travelling screens 

### are washed prior 

### to the beginning 

### of each 24-hour 

### collection period. The fish collected during 

### this prewash are retained rather than 

### returned to the river. In an experiment designed to measure the reimpingement rate of

### white perch at Roseton (Exhibit UT-6, 

### Section 

### 10.3.3.2.1), it was 

### found that virtually all reimpingemertt occurred within 

### a few 

### hours after release. The 

### total reimpingement rate of 

### the white perch released inthis

### experiment 

### was fairly high. 

### I have 

### calculated, using data presented in Table 10.3-9 

### of Exhibit UT-6, 

### that of 

### 914 live and dead white perch released, 163 (17.8%) 

### were reimpinged. However, only 3 

### were reimpinged more 

### than five hours after release and only one was reimpinged more than 10 hours 

### after release. The impingement sampling procedure employed at Roseton reduces the potential for 

### reimpingement to 

### a very low level (Exhibit UT-6, 

### Section 10.2.3.1.2). 

### It is interesting that nearly all the reimpinged fishwere released alive. 

### Whereas 23.3%(158 

### out of 679) of 

### the live fish 

### were reimpinged, 

### only 2.1% (5

### out of 235) 

### of the dead releases were recovered. Experiments conducted at Danskamner, sumnarized in 

### Section 10.2.3.1.2 of Exhibit 

### UT-6, indicate that reimpingement 

### at this plant is 

### as low 

### as that observed at Roseton. Unlike Bowline, where fish 

### are returned to

### Bowline Pond, fish 

### impinged at Roseton, Danskamner, and at all other Hudson 

### River power plants (except Indian Point, 

### where 

### none are returned), are 

### returned directly 

### to the river. Fish 

### (especially dead fish) 

### returned to the 

### river
can be swept away from 

### the vicinity of 

### the plant by 

### tidal flushing. Tidal flushing is 

### undoubtedly much weaker in 

### Bowline Pond, and may 

### not occur 

### at all when the plant 

### is operating and impinging fish. I 

### believe that this 

### accounts for 

### the difference observed between reimpingement at Bowline and 

### reimpingement at 

### Roseton and 

### Danskamer. Reimpingement at 

### other plants is 

### likely to 

### be more similar 

### to 

### Roseton and Danskamner (i.e., virtually no reimpingement) than to 

### Bowline.



## - 2.3 

### IMPINGEMENT ON INOPERATIVE 

### TRAVELLING SCREENS

At some plants, 

### notably at Bowline, fish

### can be impinged on inoperative travelling screens. Since these fish 

### cannot be collected and counted, impingement counts for 

### days on 

### which one or more travelling screens are inoperative will be 

### underestimates of 

### the true number of 

### fish impinged.

### 1-12

2.3.1 

### Indian Point 

### Units 2 

### and 3


### Since each travelling screen at Indian Point is 

### located in

### a separate forebay, the circulator pump 

### located in 

### a forebay containing an inoperative
screen 

### must be shut off 

### to prevent the clogging and 

### eventual collapse 

### of thk


### screen. 

### For this 

### reason, impingement 

### on inoperative screens is 

### not a 

### sourcf of 

### bias at 

### the Indian Point 

### Plant.

2.3.2 

### Bowline

Both 

### generating 

### units at Bowline draw water 

### from a common intake bay containing 

### six travelling screens. Section 10.2.3.1.4 of 

### Exhibit UT-7 

### describes some experiments that were conducted 

### atBowline in

### order 

### to estimate the magnitude of the bias associated with 

### impingement 

### on inoperatit
screens. The procedure is 

### described 

### on p. 

### 10.2-14 of 

### Exhibit UT-7:


### From 29 

### November 1976 

### to 19

### January 1977, 

### the cleaning procedure of travelling screens at the Bowline Point 

### intakewas controlled to simulate the condition of 

### a non-operating screen. One of 

### the 

### three screens at Unit 2 

### remained stationaryfor 1, 2, 3, and 

### 5 day periods while the 

### other two screens were cleaned every four hours. After remaining stationary for the designated number of 

### days, the test screen was cleaned and the total number collected was compared with 

### the total collected 

### from all screens at Unit 2 during 

### the test interval (Table 10.2-5).


### The 

### results of the

### experiment are sumnarized in 

### Table 10.2-5 of Exhibit UT-7. 

### When one of 

### the 

### three screens at Bowline Unit 2 

### was inoperative, between 5 

### and 7%of 

### the total 

### number of 

### fish impinged at Unit 2 

### were 

### not recovered. The number of 

### days of down-time did 

### not appear 

### to influence the 

### fraction of 

### the Unit 2 

### total impingement that

### was impinged on the inoperati\
screen. The inoperative screen accounted for about the same fraction of the 

### total impingement collection (7%)

### after five days of down-time 

### as after onlj
one day.
The bias estimated 

### from Table 10.2-5 (5 

### to 7%) is strictly applicable only if 

### one third of

### the six travelling screens at Bowline 

### are inoperative. If 

### only one of

### the 

### six 

### is inoperative, the bias

### will be smaller than 

### that calculated in Exhibit UT-7; if 

### more than two are inoperative, the bias will 

### be larger. I 

### have 

### used the data in

### Table 10.2-5 

### to estimate the 

### magnitude of the 

### bias for 

### any number of

### inoperative screens, up 

### to 5 - 

### The numbers in 

### the column headed "NUMBER COLLECTED ON NORMAL SCREENS" 

### are the total number of fish 

### collected from 

### two operating screens. Oividing the values inthis 

### column by two 

### yields an estimate of the

### number impinged by a 

### single operatir
screen. It is 

### possible to derive 

### estimates of 

### a "relative collection rate constant" (k) by 

### calculating the ratio of 

### the number of fish 

### impinged on 

### an inoperative screen 

### to the 

### number impinged on a normally operating screen. For example, 

### on December 8-9, 6784 fish

### were collected from 

### the two operatir
screens and 220 

### were collected from the 

### inoperative screen. On that 

### date1-13



### the inoperative screen impinged 5.5% [lo0 x (220/3392)3 

### asmany fish 

### as did 

### each operating 

### screen. Therefore, 

### our estimate of k 

### for December 8-9 

### is 0.065.



### I computed an overall estimate of k by sumning all of the normal 

### screen collections and 

### test screen collections in

### Table 10.2-5 of Exhibit 

### UT-7. Since results obtained from 

### the 2-, 3-, 

### and 5-day studies were similar to

. 

### those obtained from tne 1-day 

### studies, I 

### saw no reason to 

### calculate k 

### separately for each data 

### set. My 

### overall estimate of k, 

### calculated by 

### the
same procedure used in

### the above 

### example, is 0.117.


### If 

### one or 

### more screens are inoperative, the number of 

### fish impinged 

### on these screens 

### is equal 

### to the 

### number impinged per operating screen mcrltipled by k 

### times 

### the number of 

### inoperative screens:

where

Io = 

### total number of 

### fish collected from 

### operating screens,
Ii = 

### total number of 

### fish impinged on inoperative screens,



### no = 

### number of 

### operating screens,
ni = 

### number of 

### inoperative screens,

k = 

### relative collection rate constant.

The 

### total number offish impinged 

### on all screens can be calculated from the fo11owing 

### equation :



### where

IT = 

### estimated total impingement on all 

### screens. 

## - The term in 

### parenthese (1+ kni/no) 

### is an 

### adjustment factor similar to the 

### factors calculated for collection efficiency. Table 2 

### contains my 

### inoperative screen adjustment factors, Calculated for 1-5 

### inoperative
screens.1-14



### Table'2. 

### Inoperative screen adjustment factors, calculated for 1

### to 5 

### inoperative screens out 

### of a 

### total of 5.



## -

- Number of 

### inoperative screens

1 2 3 4 

### 5



### Adjustment factor 1.023 (= 1+ kni/noP 1.059 1.117 

### 1.234 1.585



### ani = 

### number of 

### inoperative screens

no = 

### number 

### of operating screens



### k= relative impingement rate constant (calculated from Table 10.2-5 of Exhibit UT-7) = 0.117.

F

### -- 

# S 

# I 1-15 

# 1 It

### can be 

### seen 

### from Table 2 that 

### unless more than 

### two screens are inoperative, the bias in 

### impingement estimates will be 6%

### or less for each day of 

### down-time. Unless multiple screens are inoperative for extended period of time 

### (i-e., weeks 

### or months), biases due 

### to the 

### impingement 

### of fish on 

### inoperative screens will 

### be negligible in 

### comparison 

### tothe effects of 

### reimpingement 

### or collection efficiency at Bowline. Moreover, it 

### seems likely that during 

### an extended outage, an inoperative screen would 

### eventually clog completely with 

### debris and cease impinging 

### fish altogether. I 

### tentatively-conclude that 

### impingement 

### on inoperative screens is 'a re1atively unimportant source of 

### bias in

### the Bowline impingement estimates. 

# I 

# #

It 

### is possible that I 

### have underestimated the 

### magnitude of this 

### bias, 

### for the following reason. Substantial 

### numbers of 

### fishmay be 

### scavenged from


### an inoperative screen by 

### crabs and eels, especially if 

### the screen 

### is not 

### cleaned for several days; This scavenging would result inthe 

### collection efficiency {of

### an inoperative screen being lower than that of 

### an operating
screen (frelquent washing reduces the opportunity for 

### scavenging). This 

### difference in 

### collection efficiencies would, in

### turn, bias the results of the 

### experiments described inthis 

### section by causing 

### the contribution of 

### the inoperative screen 

### tothe.total impingement count 

### tobe 

### Underestimated.

2.3.3 

### Roseton

Like

### Blowline, the

### two units 

### at Roseton share a common intake bay, and 

### thus it 

### is possible for fish 

### to be 

### impinged 

### on inoperative screens. The longest screen outage at Roseton during 1974

### was 48 

### hours (Huggins 1977). 

### Outages longer than 

### two weeks in 

### duration occurred three times in 1975 

### and 

### four 

### times in 

### 1976. Three screens (out of eight) 

### were out of 

### service between October 13 and November il, 1976. All 

### of the other 

### extended outages involved single 

### screlens. With 

### the possible exception of 

### the October-November 1976 

### outage, I 

### believe that 

### impingement on 

### inoperative screens has had a negligible effect on the accuracy of 

### Central 

### Hudson's estimates of impingement 

### at Roseton.

2.4 

### I

### MPINGEMENT 

### SURVIVAL

In their impact assessments the uti1

### ities have assumed that 

### all impinged fish 

### are killed. If this is in

### fact the 

### case, then the impingement estimates presented by 

### the utilities for Bowline and Roseton (and also 

### those for 

### Lovett, Danskamner, and Albany} 

### must be scaled up 

### to account for 

### biases due 

### to collection efficiency. However, if survival 

### is substantial, then no adjustment of 

### these estimates may be necessary. If survival 

### is very high, 

### the impingement estimates may have 

### to be 

### scaled down. 

### - Impingement survival studies have been 

### conducted atBowline, Roseton, 

### Danskamner, and Indian Point Unit 3. As 

### fish impinged at Indian Point 

### were not 

### returned to 

### the river during any of 

### the years for which 

### impingement data aye 

### available, the studies there 

### are not relevant to 

### estimating the impact1-16



### of impingement during 

### those years and are 

### not discussed here. Studies conducted at the other three plants have indicated that under some operatin conditions survival of 

### some species may be fairlyhigh. Experiments 

### at all three plants 

### have shown that impingement survival is highest 

### when travellin
screens are rotated and washed continuously. However, under current operating procedures travelling screens 

### at all plants are operated intermittently rather than continuously {operation at Albany 

### is almost continuous). In fact, it 

### is apparently not possible 

### to operate the travelling screens continuously for e-xtendedperiods of 

### time. On 

### transcrip pp. 

### 4465-68 

### Mr. Hutchison describes the serious problems 

### encountyed at Bowline because of

### extended operation in the continuous mode. 

### Because 

### the travelling screens 

### at Bowline were not designed for continuous 

### rotation breakdowns have been frequent. Each of 

### the 

### six screens has been rebuilt twice. Current practice, according 

### to Mr. 

### Hutchison (transcript pp. 

### 5099-100), 

### is 

### to rotate the screens continuously only when impingement exceeds 1000 fish 

### per day. Table 3 

### sumnarizes the current screenwash procedures at Bowline, Lovett, Roseton, Danskamner, and 

### Albany.

In 

### the following sections I 

### discuss the design of 

### the impingement swvival experiments conducted 

### at Bowline, Roseton, and 

### Danskamer and the results obtained 

### for Atlantic tomcod, clupeids, white perch, and 

### striped bass.

2.4.1 

### Experimental Nethods
Sections 10.3.2 ofExhibits UT-6 

### and UT-7 

### contain descriptions of the methods used in 

### impingement survival studies conducted by 

### Ecological Analysts (EA) 

### at Roseton and 

### at Bowline. Although 

### no description of 

### the methods used at Danskamner 

### is included in Exhibit UT-6, EA'S 1977 

### Progress Report to 

### Central Hudson (Ecological Analysts 1977) 

### indicates that they are virtually identical 

### to the procedures at 

### Roseton.

In 

### most of 

### the studies at Bowline impinged fish 

### are collected in 

### a nylc 

### mesh bag suspended in

### the impingement 

### collection pit. In 

### some of 

### the experiments at Bowline, fish have been collected at the end of

### the screenwa: discharge pipe in 

### an effort 

### to assess whether the screenwash discharge 

### systc imposes 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, 

### dead, 

### or stunned. The live and stunned fish 

### are then transferred to 

### a holding facility and 

### observed for latent rnortdlity. The holding 

### period at Bowline 

### is 96 hours; 

### at Roseton and Damkamner it is 84 hours. 

### The use of 

### control fish 

### has been an important element in all the 

### impingement survival studies. In 

### the first 

### such studies (conducted at 

### Roseton and 

### Danskamner in 

### 19751, control 

### fish were exposed only to 

### the holding 

### facilities. Subsequently, control fish 

### have been exposed to the entire process of 

### collection, holding, 

### and observation.

### 1-17

Table 3. 

### Normal operating procedures for travelling screens operating at fiveHudson 

### River power plants

P1ant

Bowline

Lovett

Roseton

Danskamner

A1b

### any Screenwash Source of 

### Mode 

### pressure (psi) inf

### ormati

### on

Intermittent ; &hour 

### holda

Intermittent; 8-hour holdc

Intermittent; 2-hour ho

### 1dd



### 1ntermi.ttent; variab1e depending on debris 

### load

Screens washed automati

### cally 

### for 3 

### minutes every 15minutes 30/60b Exhibit 7, pp. 

### 2.2-10, 2.2-11; 

### transcript pp. 5099-100


### 100 Attachment 2 

### to letter 

### from K. 

### Marcellus of Consolidated Edison to H. 

### Gluckstern of EPA, 

### dated November 30, 

### 1977; Transcript p. 5098

100 

### Letter from T. Huggins of 

### Central Hudson to H. 

### Gluckstern of EPA, 

### dated November 29, 

### 1977; Transcript p. 

### 5098
55-65 Letter 

### from T. Huggins 

### of Central iiudson to H. 

### Gluckstern of EPA, 

### dated November 29, 1977; EA 1977 

### Progress Report to 

### Central Hudson, fable4-26

a4 

### Attachment 2 

### to letter from I(. 

### Marcellus of 

### consolidated Edison to H. 

### Eluckstern of �PA, 

### dated November 30, 1977



### aOperated in

### continuous mode when impingement exceeds 1000 fish

### per day.

bLow 

### pressure (30 psi) 

### wash system mounted below high 

### pressure (60 psi)



### sys

### tem.

F 

### %perated in 

### continuous mode during 

### periods of high debris 

### loading. doperated in

### continuous mode during 

### periods of 

### high debris loading and

icing (such conditions generally occur between October and April).

# -- 1-18



### 2.4.2 Results,of the Impingement Survival Studies

The results of the impingement survival experiments conducted at

. 

### Bowline by 

### LMS in 1974 

### and 1975 and by 

### EA 

### in 1976 

### and 1977 are described ir 

### Section 10.3.3.1 of 

### Exhibit 

### UT-7. Section 10.3.3.1 of Exhibit UT-6 contaii results of similar experiments conducted by EA at Roseton 

### in 1975-76. Additional results from EA's 

### 1977 studies at Roseton, as well as results obtained by EA 

### at Danskammer during 1975-77,are described in EA's 

### 1977 ProgressReport to Central Hudson (Ecological Analysts 1977). Many of 

### the! results are inconclusiveand/or inconsistent. However, two general conclusions emerge:


### (1

### 1 Survival is 

### highly variable among.species. Survival of 

### adult Atlantic tomcod is

### uniformly high during the fall and winter, anc that of clupeids (primarilyAlosa SPP.) is

### uniformly low during all seasons. Survival of white perch and striped bass is 

### intermediate. (2) 

### Survivzl of

### white perch and striped bass is related to screenwasfprocedures. Highest survival is observed when screens are rotate and washed continuously. Lowest survival occurs when operation i 

### intermittent.

2.4.2.1 

### Atlantic tomcod

Results of 

### the Atlantic tomcod survival studies at 

### Bowline, Roseton, and Danskammer are summarized in Table 4. With the exception of 45 

### juvenil tomcod collected at Bowline in 1974by LMS 

### (discussed below), all tomcod survival studies have involved adult 

### fish impinged during the fall, winter,
or early spring. Survival of 

### these fish has been high 

### under virtually all operating conditions at all three plants. Low survival was reported 

### in sever31 experiments at

### Roseton and Danskammer involving a four-hour screenwash cycle. Few fish (at most 6) 

### were tested in 

### these experiments, and 

### thus, the reliabilityof the results is low. High survival was observe at Bowline under the same 

### conditions. Survival percentages of adult tomcod appear to be consistentlyhigher at Bowline than at Roseton. This result may be partially due to differences 

### in screenwash pressure (Table 3). 

### At Bowline the highest pressure used 

### in any of 

### the experiments is 60 

### psi. 

### In contrast,high pressure at Roseton means 10G psi, the normai operating pressure at that 

### plant. Low pressures used at Bowline range from 10 

### to 30 

### psi, while at Roseton the lowest pressure used is 50

### psi.

Survival of impinged juvenileAtlantic tomcod may be less than that of 

### adults. These cold-adapted fish 

### (Exhibit EPA-198) are impinged primarily during the sumner (transcript p. 

### 10,8031, when they may already be 

### stressed because of 

### high water temperatures (Texas Instruments 1977b, p. 

### V-75). The additional stress of 

### impingement may be sufficient to cause substantial mortality. Themeager evidence available to date supports this hypothesis. Of the 45 

### impinged juveniles collected by LMS 

### in June, 1974, only 43% 

### survived for 96 

### hours in the holding facility. Unfortunately,no control fish were collected, and 

### therefore, it is

### not possible to say with 

### certaint,

# f 

# 1 1-19

Table 4. Sumary of Atlantic tomcod impingement survival data

Period Collection point

BOWL1NE

November

## - Co1 1ection December 1976 pit

December 1976 Discharge pipe

June 1974 Co1 1ection pit

ROSETON
January-March Collection 1976 basket Operating mode and screenwash pressure

Continuous, high pressure Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Continuous

### ,hIgh pressure Continuous, low pressure
Intermittent, high pressure
Intermittent, low pressure

Unknown

Continuous high pressure
Intermittents 2-hr hold, high pressure Mumber of fish tested X Survivala Source

3 100 Exhibit 7 Table 10.3-4

46b 100

6b 100

3b 100

1 100 Exhibit 7 Table 10.3-6

1 100

2 100

3 100

45 43 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-14

92b 85 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-1

43 771-20

Table 4. (continued)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala Source

ROSETON

_. Fall 1975 Co1 1ection basket

November- Co11ection December

. basket 1976

January- Co1 1ection March 1977 basket Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure

Continuous high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, low pressure
Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure 4 0 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-3

13 8

2 0

19 84 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-5

67 97

13 69

20 90

2 100

1 0

108 83 EA 1977c Table 4-13

120 63March 

# 1 Table 4. (continued)

Period Collection point

January- Co11ection 

# a
ROSETON 1977 basket 

# 4 D MSKAMMER
Fall 1975 Co11ect ion basket 

# & November- Co11ect on December basket 1976 

# E
January- Collect on March 1977 basket 1-21

Operating mode and Number of screenwash pressure fish tested X Survivala Source

intermittent, 2-hr hold, low pressure
Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure

intermittent,d 4-hr hold

Continuous

lntermittent, 2-hr hold

Continuous

Intermittent, 2-hr hold 73 66 EA 1977C Table 4-13

111 70

J

6 0 EA 1977 Table 4-25

36 75 EA 1977 Table 4-27

29 72

242 83 EA 1977 Table 4-31

716 87



## - SURVIVALOF CONTROLS EXPOSED ONLY TO COLLECTION AND HOLDING PROCEDURE 

# I

BOWLINE
November

## - Co11ection 3 100 Exhib t UT-7 pit
-' Table 10.3-5 

# c

Ir 

# c 0 

# sI, 1-22

Table 4. (continued)

Operating mode and Number o f Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala Source

-~ ROSETON
November- Co11ection 20 1 100. Exhibit UT-6 December basket Table 10.3-6 1976JanuaryMarch 1977 208 98 EA 1977 page 4-25

=Percent alive at end ofobservation period (96 hours at Bowline, EM hours at Roseton and

Danskamner)


## . BData collected under the same conditions (sampling point, operating mode, and screenwash

pressure) are pooled. CEcological Analysts 1977 Progress Report toCentral Hudson.
dscreenwash pressure for all impingement survival studies at Danskamner is 55-65 psi.1-23



### whether it 

### was the stress of 

### impingement 

### or the stress of

### collection and

. . - 

### observation that 

### was responsible for 

### the mortality. 

# E 2.4.2.2 

### Clupeids
There have been relatively few studies relating 

### to the 

### survival of impinged 

### clupeids (alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and 

### gizzard shad). What data do 

### exist show 

### that these fish are extremely sensitive

### t o 

# 3.
stress. 

### As can be seen from 

### Table 5, virtually 

### none of

### the impinged clupeids collected and 

### held for 

### observation 

### at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamner have survived to

### the end of 

### the holding 

### period. 

### I do 

### riot believe that 

### more than 

# 4 negligible survival of 

### these fish 

### occurs at any plant under current modes of 

### travelling screen operation. 

# f 2.4.2.3 

# - White Perch and 

### Striped Bass
Results of latent survival 

### studies involving 

### white perch (Table 6) and 

### striped bass 

### (Table 7) 

### have shown that 

### these species are intermediate between 

# '

the 

### mre hardy Atlantic tomcod and 

### the highly 

### sensitive clupeids with 

### respect 

### to their resistance 

### tothe stress of 

### impingement. Because of 

### the high variability of 

### these results, it 

### is 

### not possible to 

### estimate the

### fractior?.al 

# 1survival of impinged 

### white perch and 

### striped bass with 

### the same accuracy and 

### precision possible for 

### estimates of 

### collection efficiency or 

### impingement. It 

### is, however, possible 

### tomake qualitative assessments of 

### seasonal 

### variations in survival and of 

### the effects of 

### screenwash procedures 

### on survival. My 

### assessments of 

### these effects will apply to both 

### species, even though 

# f inmany 

### cases the only 

### available data 

### relate 

### to white perch. A 

### priori, one would 

### expect the responses 

### to stress of

### these two 

### closely relaTed species to be similar. 

### Experiments conducted at 

### Bowline between 1974 and 1976, 

### the only 

### series of 

### experiments that 

### involved substantial 

### numbers of 

### striped bass, support this intuitive

### judgment. 1 

### have used the data in

### Tables 6 and 7 

### to compare the percent survivals of 

### impinged white perch and 

### striped 

### bass collected at Bowline under 

### the same conditions (Table 8). 

### The correlation between the 

### two sets of

### numbers 

### (r = 0.64) is 

### statistically significant 

### zt the 1% 

### level. Moreover, neither species exhibited consistently higher survival over all 

### experimental conditions; observed white perch survival 

### was higher than that of 

### striped bass in 

### five of

### the fifteen comparisons, and 

### was tower in 

### seven. 

# e Even a superficial inspection of 

### Table 8 

### shows that for both 

### white perch and 

### striped bass, survival 

### is considerably higher when the 

### travelling screens 

### at Bowline 

### are operated in 

### the continuous mode than when the intermitent mode is employed. However, 

### Table 6 shows that thispattern has not been c:onsistently 

### observed for 

### white perch impinged at 

### Roseton and 

### Danskamer. The highest survival of 

### white perch at both 

### of these plants has 

### been obtained cluring 

### continuous operation: eight out ofnine 

### observations of 40%latent 

# a f 

# e

I1-24

Table 5. Sumnary of clupeid impingement 'survival data

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala -Source

BOWL1NE

November- Co11e ction December pit 1976

November- Discharge December pipe 1976

November Col1ect ion 1974 pit
Diseharge Pipe
ROSETON

Fall 1975 Co11ection basket Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Unknown

Unknown

Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure 89b 10 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-4

51 0

28 0

22 0

1 0 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-6

9

1

2b

60 --. 0 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-14
93 0

24C 0 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-3
5995c -01-2s 

# 8. Tab’le5. (contirwed)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala Source

ROSETON
Fall 1975 .I : Collection Intermittent,

.381c 0 Exhibit UT-6 hasket 4-hr hold. Table 10.3-3 high pressure 

# I, Intermittent, 4645= 0 6-hr hold, high pressure 

# &>

DANSKAMMER

Co11ection Continuousd 107C 1 EA 1977e blasket Table 4-25
Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d 16°C 0

Intermittent, 4-hr hold 314C 0

Intermittent, 6-hr hcld , 2436c 0

SURVIVAL OF CONTROL FISH EXPOSED ONLY TO COLLECTION AND HOLDING PROCEDURE 

# sBOWLINE

- November Co1 1ection

. 40 0 Exhibit UT-7 pit Table 10.3-5

1976 aPercent alive at end of observation period (96hours at Bowline, 84 hours at Roseton and

Danskamner). 

# tbData collected under the same conditions (sampling point, operating mode, and screenwash pressure) are pooled.

CData for all clupeid species are pooled.

I 

# cif

dscrcenwash pressure for all impingement survival studies at Danskamner is 55-65psi. eEcologica1 Analysts 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson. 

# I1-26

Table 6. Sunary of white perch impingement survival data

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % Survivalb Source

BOILINE January- Co11ection December pit 1976

Discharge pipe

January

## - Co11ection February pit 1977

Discharge Pipe Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure Continuous, high pressure
Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, low pressure
Continuous, hfgh pressure Continuous, low pressure 2483C 61 Exh ibit UT-7 Table 10.3-4

3701C 49

1339C 26

1281C 23

39OC 20 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-6

274c 17

609.C 10

.

366C 9

958C 28 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-9

988C 21

25 29

28 0



### -@Table 6. (continued)

Period Collection point

BOWL1N E 

# t
November

# - Co11ection December pit 

# E”’4

January Co11ection pit

April 1975 Co1 1ection pit

November- Discharge Pipe 

# Pi’ -.March- Discharge Pipe 1975 Discharge
*March 1975 Pipe 

### Ir

,March- D.ischarge ril 1975 p,i pe

ROSETON

Fall 1975 CoI 1ection basket 

### 1-27

Operating mode and screenwash pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous. high pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d, high pressure

Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d

### , high pressure Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, high pressure Number of fish testeda % Survival Source

837C 26 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-10

678C 7 Exhib t UT-7 Tab1e 10.3-10

55c 35 Exhib t UT-7 Table 10.3-10

807c 23 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-11

543c 7 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-11

51 5 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-11

Exh1 itb UT-7 Table 10.3-11

201 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-3

667

2391-28

Table 6. (continued)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % Survivalb Source

ROSETON

April- Co11ection June 1976 basket

April- Co11ection June 1976 basket

November- Co1 1ection December basket 1976 Intermittent, 6-hr hold, high pressure 684 0

Continuous, high pressure 275 (yearling and adult) 16 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-2

Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure 96 (year1ing and adult) 9 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-2

Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure (year1ing and adult)

66 0

Continuous, low pressure 285 44 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-4

Continuous, high pressure 707 4

Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d, low pressure 389 8

Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure 344 5

Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, low pressure 25 16

Intermittent, 4-

hr ho1d, high pressure 70 01-29 

# 8 Table 6. (continued)



### - Operating mode and eriod Collection point screenwash pressure

Continuous, low pressure Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2

## -hr ho1d,

, low pressure 

# ' November

# - Co11ection intermittent, 

# h
December basket 2-hr hold, 1976 high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, lowpressure 

# 1. Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure 

# E) anuary- Co11ection Conti nuous, March 1977 basket low pressure Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2

## -hr ho1d, low pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure

I 

# I Number of fish tested" % Survivalb Source

- 10 40

- - (year

9 0 (Year

22 14 (yearling)

9 11 Exhibit UT-6 (yearling) Table 10.3-4

7 (adult) 14

4 (adult) 25

15 0 EA 1977d Table 4-14

49 0

16 0

39 01-30

Table 5. (continued)

Period Collection point

ROSETON Apri1

## - Collection May 1977 basket

April- Collection May 1977 basket 1977 Operating mode and screenwash pressure

Continuous, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure

Intermittent, 4-

hr ho1d, low pressure Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure Continuous, low pressure Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure Number of fish testeda % Survivalb Source

229 20 EA 1977 Table 4-17

378 51

74 20

68 23

144 25 EA 1977 Table 4-17

231 10

153 6 (year1ing)

171 2 (year1ing)

46 22 {yearling)

74 4 (yearling)

26 4 (yearling)1-31

Table 6. (continued)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda % Survival Source

ROSETON

AprilMay 1977

DANSKAMMER

Fall 1975 Continuous,

. 89 (adult) low pressure
Continuous, 53 (adult) high pressure Intermittent, 20 (adult) 2-hr hold, low pressure Intermittent, 56 (adult) 2-hr hold, high pressure

Co11ection Intermittent, 2 (adult) basket 4-hr ho1d, low pressure Intermittent, 15 (adult) 4-hr ho1d, high pressure

Collection Continuous? 268 basket Intermittent, 2-hr hold 236

Intermittent, 4-hr hold 924

Intermittent, 6-hr hold 137 11

0

15

0 EA 1977 Table 4-17

18

3 EA 1977. Table 4-25

3

0

0Table 6, (continued)

Period Collection point

DANSKAMMER kpril- Co1 1ection May 1976 basket

November- Co11ection December basket 1976

DANSKAMMER April- Co11ection May 1977 basket 1-32

Operating mode and screenwash pressure

"Continuous

Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d

Intermittent, 4-hr hold

Continuous

Intermittent, 2-hr hold
Continuous

Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d
Continuous

Continuous

Intermittent, 2-hr hold
Intermittent, 4-hr hold
Continuous Number of b fish testeda % Survival Source

99 (yearling and adult)

71 (year1ing and adult)

41 (year1ing and adult)

201

258

17 (yearling)

17 (year1ing)

2 (adult)

122

29

158

248 (year1ing) 21 EA 1977 Table 4-26

21

0

24 EA 1977 Table 4-27

9

53

6

100

43 EA 1977 Table 4-34

25

6

331-33

Table 6. (continued)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish testeda X Survival Source

DANSKMER
Intermittent, 2-hr hold 162 (yearling) 40

Intermittent, 4-hr hold 62 (yearling) 0

Continuous 347 (adult) 45 Intermittent, 2-hr hold 223 (adult) 28

Intermittent, 4-hr hold 137 (adult) 3

SIJRYIVALOF CONTROLS EXPOSED ONLY TO COLLECTION AND HOLDING PROCEDURE

BOWLINE

November

## - Co11ecti on 28 86 Exhibit UT-7 December pit (year1ing Table 10.3-5 1976 and adult)

302 32 Discharge 134 14 Exhibit UT-7 pipe Table 10.3-7
ROSETON

November

## - Co11ection 53 68 Exhibit UT-6 December basket Table 10.3-6 1976

28 100 (yearling)

1 (adult) 100Table 6. (continued)

Period Collection point

ROSETON Apri1

## - Co1 1ection May 1977 basket

DANSKAPWER

November- Co1 1ection December basket 1976

April- Collection May 1977 basket

­ 1-34

Operating mode and Number of screenwash pressure fish testeda % Survival Source

26 46 EA 1977 Table 4-18

22 59 (yearling)

230 (adult) 89

11 91 EA 1977 Table 4-28

5 (adult) 100

53 81 EA 1977 Table 4-35

38 79 (year1ing)

159 (adult) 84

aYoung-of-the-year unless otherwise noted.

bPercent alive at end ofobservation period (96hours at Bowline, 84 hours at Roseton and

Danskanmer).

CData collected under the same conditions (sampling point, operating mode, and screenwash

pressure) are pooled. dEcological Analysts 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson.

eScreenwash pressure for all impingement survival studies at Danskamner is 55-65 psi.1-35

Table 7. Sumnary of stripedbass impingement survival data

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala Source 

# 8

BOWL1NE January- Col1ection December pit 1976

November- Discharge December Pipe 

# sg7,

November- Co11ection k;;mber p'it

Collection pit

Co11ecti on pit Continuous

### , high pressure

Continuous, low.pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure

.Continuous, low pressure Intermittent, high pressure Intermittent, low pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure 181b 62 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-4

282b 49

105b 32

164b 14

25b 40 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-6

7b 14

65b 24

107b 6

123b 11 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-12

577b 9 Exhibit UT- 7 Table 10.3-12

158b 71 Exhib it UT-7 Table 10.3-123-36

Table 7. (continued)

Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survivala Source

BOWL1NE

November

## - Discharge December pipe 1974 Apri1

## - Discharge May 1975 Pipe

March 1975 Discharge Pipe

March- Discharge April 1975 Pipe

ROSETON

Fall 1975 Co1 1ection basket

Fall 1975 Co1 1ection basket Continuous, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure

Intermittent, 2-hr hold, high pressure

Intermittent, 4-hr hold, high pressure

Continuous, high pressure Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d, high pressure Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, high pressure Intermittent, 6-hr hold, high pressure

Continuousc

Intermittent, 2-hr hold
Intermittent, 4-hr hold 86b 19 Exhibit UT- 7 Table 10.3-13

192b 61 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-13

50 5 Exhibit UT-7 Table 10.3-13

98b 0 Exhibit UT-7 Tab1e 10.3-13

4 25 Exhibit UT-6 Table 10.3-3

11 0

5 0

6 0

3 0 EA 19774 Table 4-25

12 17

26 01-37

Table 7. (continued)


# I Operating mode and Number of Period Collection point screenwash pressure fish tested % Survival" Source

DANSKAMMER 

# I

.. lntermittent, 2 I - 0

.. . 6-hr hold 

# I SURVIVAL OF CONTROLS EXPOSED ONLY TO THE COLLECTION AND HOLDING PROCEDURE

BOWLINE

November- Co1 1ection 35b 20 Exhibit UT-7 

# [ Decernber pit Table 10.3-5 1976

aPercent alive at end of observation period (96hours at Bowline, 94 hours at Roseton and 

# 1 Danskamner). 

# B bData collected under the same conditions (sampling point, operating, mode, and screenwash pressure) are poo1ed.

CScreenwash pressure for all impingement survival studies at Danskamner is55-65 psi.
dEcoIogica1 Anislysts 1977 Progress Report to Central Hudson.

- .1-38

Table 8. Comparison ofobserved percent survival of white perch and striped bass under identical experimental conditions, Bowline Point Generating Station (from Tables 6 and 71

Period Co11ection point Operating mode and screenwash pressure % Survival of white perch % Survival of striped bass

JanuaryDecember 1976 Collection pit Continuous, high pressure 61 62

Continuous, low pressure 49 49

Intermittent, 26 32 high pressure Intermittent, low pressure 23 14

Discharge pipe Continuous, high pressure 20 40

Continuous, low pressure 17 14

Intermittent, 10 24 high pressure Intermittent, low pressure 9 6

NovetnberDecember 1974 Collection pit Continuous, high pressure 26 11

January 1975 Collection pit Continuous, high pressure 7 9

April 1975 Collection pit Continuous, high pressure 35 71Table 8. (continued)

Co1 1ection Period point 

# I

November

# - Discharge pipe Continuous, high pressure 

# I Oe~:er 1974
March- Discharge pipe Cont i nuou5, high pressure 

# I
May 1975 March 1975 Discharge pipe Intermittent, 2-hr ho1d, high pressure 

# I

Discharge pipe Intermittent, 4-hr ho1d, high pressure 1-39

Operating mode and screenwash pressure % Survival of % Survival of white perch striped bass

23 19

61

5

0 0



# I Student's t (13 df) = 3.02

P < 0.01 

# I I 

# I I I I 

# I I 

# 1 .I-- 1-40



### survival or high2r. But in

### many of the experiments, in

### particular in

### the April-1vlay 1977 

### experiments at Roseton, survival of white perch impinged during 

### intermittent operation viith 

### a two-hour wash cycle has 

### Seen as high 

### a 

### w higher than 

### that of fish 

### impinged during 

### continuous operation. The 

### lowe white perch survival at both Roseton and Danskamer has been observed durin intermittent operation with 

### a four-hour cycle.
The 

### results of tests designed 

### to measure the 

### effect of screenwash 

### pressure on survival have also differed 

### from plant to plant. 

### As was noted in 

### ow discussion of Atlantic tomcod survival, "low'' pressure at 

### Roseton i30 psi) 

### is nearly 

### as high 

### as "high" 

### pressure at 

### Bowfin? (50 

### to 60 psi). 

### Most of 

### the t2sts 

### at Roseton have indicated that 

### under'both continuous and intermittent operation white perch survival ishigher 

### at 50 psi 

### screenwash pressure than 

### at 100 psi. EA 

### has stated this 

### conclusion both inExhibit UT-6 (p. 10.3-35) 

### and in the 1977 Progress Report to Central 

### Hudson (Ecological Analysts 1977, p. 5-1). 

### 8ased on the 

### data in 

### Table 6, I 

### agree with this 

### conclusion.

At 

### Bowline, 

### no increase in 

### survival has been noted when screenwash pressure is

### reduced from the normal 60 psi 

### to 20 psi 

### or less. EA 

### found no 

### significant gffxt of

### pressure on survival 

### under either continuous or intwnittent travelling screen operation. 

### EA offered two possible explanations (Exhibit 

### UT-7, pp. 10.3-26-28):



# ... The 

### absence of.

### an apparent effect of 

### screenwash pressure has at least two possible interpretations. First, the 

### damage incurred by th2

### 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 system 

### may have been 

### insufficient to 

### remove fish 

### from the 

### screens. As 

### a result, the fish

### may 

### have been exposed to the high 

### pressure nozzles located just above the low 

### pressure system. In this


### case pressure exposures would have been similar in

### both the 

### low and high 

### pressure wash tests.

A1shx~gb EA 

### found no 

### statistically significant difference, the Jan2ary-December 1976 survival 

### percentages inTable 8 

### suggest that the 

### 1w-pressure screenmsh system may actually reduce the 

### survival of white 

### aerch and striped bass. In eight 

### cases in

### which it 

### is possible to compare r-esul

### ts obtained under conditions that :vere identical except for 

### screenwash pressclre (i 

### .e., same collecting location, screenwash schedule, and species), h:gna- 

### survival vias 

### observid in 

### every case among fish 

### exposed only to the hign 

### 9ress.m spray. If 

### screenwash pressure has no 

### effect 

### on survival, ther the pcobability of this 

### result is the same as the 

### probability of 

### tossing a coin eight times 

### and observing eigh "heads." Such a result would be 

### expected by 

### chance only 0.4% 

### f=0.5

## Ej) of 

### the time.

Xeitnsr LA 

### nor Lt4S 

### nas evw reported designing or 

### conducting experiment in

### order to determine ðer the 

### survival of 

### impinged white perch and striped b3;s 

### v,arizs seasonally. Nonetheless, the 

### data in

### Tables 6 and 7 sqgest 

### that such 

### variation does 

### exist. In 

### tests performed during the

### winte

### 1-41

of 1977 

### (January-March), EA 

### observed 100%

### mortality of 

### jilvenile white perch under all operating conditions- EA'S 

### explanation (Ecological Analysts 1377, p. 

### 4-25) was that these fish 

### aremore susceptibleto handling and holding 

### stresses wlhen water temperatures are near freezing. I 

### agree that since young Nhite perch already are 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 i3owline during 

### this same period was also low (Table 6). 

### 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 corltinuous mode, i.e., the 

### mode under 

### which the highest 

### survival is obtained. Only 23% 

### of the fish collected when the high 

### pressure spray 

### was used, and 

### mly 21%

### of the fish

### Collected when 

### the 

### low pressure spray was 

### used, survived for as 

### long as 96 

### hours after collection. Relatively 3igh 

### survival was observed among white perch collected at the 

### Bowline discharge pipe (high 

### pressure spray), but 

### the sample size 

### here was low, 

### only 25 fish. 

### Few impinged striped bass have been collected and observed during 

### the winter. Table 10.3-4 Df Exhibit UT-7 lists 35 

### striped bass as having been 

### collectsd in

### Jancrary and February of 1976. 

### O~ly 4 of 

### these (11%) survived 

### for 96 hours. Of 158 

### striped bass collected by LMS in

### January 1975, 71%

### survived for a similar period. The 

### results for striped bass are contradictory and no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from 

### them. The 

### results for white perch suggest, although they are not conclusive, that survival 

### is lower during the winter 

### than during 

### other seasons.
It

### is now 

### time to address the thorny question of the 

### reliability of the 

### data sumnarized in

### Tables 6-8 

### as estimates of 

### the survival of those white perch and striped 

### bass that are impinged, 

### washed off 

### the screens, and returned tothe river .rather than collected and observed. It 

### is not 

### possiJle toreproduce inthe 

### 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 inthe vicinity 

### of the screenwash discharge because it 

### provides 

### an abundant supply of prey. 

### Congregations of 

### predators 

### 'nave, in

### fact, been observed at fish 

### return sites inthe 

### Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary (Skinner 1972, 

### Californi

### a Department of Fish 

### and Game et al. 1978). Noreover, analyses of the 

### stoiaach 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 

### survives these 

### predators may develop fungal or bactsria1 infections bzcause of wounds and/or lost scales caused by impingement. 

### Such infections may 

### not be observable inthe 

### holding facility because they 

### take longer than 96 

### hours 

### to develop, or 

### because they are suppressed by 

### biocides (according to p. 10.3-6 of Exhibit UT-6, 

### water used at the 

### Roseion holding facility has 

### occassionally been treated with 

### potassium permanganate in

### order toreduce the incideiice of inf

### ections)



## . On the 

### other hand, the 

### collection and holding procedure imposes 

### stresss of its 

### own that the 

### impinged fish does not suffer if it is 

### returned directly to the 

### river. Itis for this 

### reason that EA 

### has attempted tomeasure 

### the

### 1-42

mortality of

### control fish, 

### exposed only to collection and holding, at all 

### three plants. The cofitrol survival data for striped bass and 

### white perch
are 

### sumarized, respectively, 

### inTables 6 

### and 7.

EA's 

### results indicate that for both 

### of these species handling mortality is 

### substantial. The survival of 

### vhite perch and striped 

### bass controls at Bowline 

### has been no 

### better than that of 

### the comparable impinged fish. 

### Survival of impinged striped 

### bass sampled at 

### the collection pit 

### in 1976 

### ranged from �4 to 62%- 

### Survival of the 

### corresponding control fish 

### was 32%. 

### Survival of yearling and adult Aite 

### perch controls was high (86%), but 

### ther


### are no impinged fish with which 

### they can be 

### compared. White 

### perch survival at 

### the Bowline 

### discharge pipe in 

### 1976 ranged 

### from 9 

### to 20%. The 

### corresponding control survival was 14%. White 

### perch controls at Roseton and Danskamer 

### have fared better, although mortality has been fairlyhigh 

### among young-of-the-year 

### controls. In only 

### one case 

### (Roseton, April-May 1977, young-of-tr?e-year, 

### continuous high-pressure screenwash) has mortality

### among impinged fish 

### been higher 

### than that of control fish.

Is it 

### possible that all of

### the observed mortality among impinged fish is

### caused by collection and handling? I do 

### not believe 

### so. If all mortalit
were due 

### to collection and handling, then no effects of 

### screenwash procedure
on 

### survival could be 

### observed. If, as appears to bethe 

### case, collection and holding 

### cause substantial mortality, then EA's 

### prccedure 

### ensures that control fish will 

### suffer more of this

### mortality than will 

### impinged fish. 

### According top. 

### 10.3-18 of 

### Exhibit UT-?, 

### control fish 

### are held 

### for at least 72 

### hours before 

### use in impingement 

### survival experiments. If the holding system 

### stresses fish, thetl 

### controls are exposed 

### to this 

### stress for 

### much

- 

### longer 

### than 

### are impinged fish. 

### Itmay, however, be 

### the collection process

. 

### itself that 

### imposes the 

### stress. Dr. 

### Jinks stated (transcript p. 4599) 

### that the 

### length of 

### time spent inthe 

### collection basket influences the survival of 

### ccntrof fish. At 

### all three plants control fish 

### are 

### inserted into 

### the coliection device at the 

### beginning of the sampling period and left 

### there for 

### the entire sampling period (transcript pp. 

### 4598-99). 

### If impinged fish 

### arriv inthe 

### net more or less continuously throughout the sampling period, then

. . 

### each control fish is exposed 

### tothe stress of 

### collection for twice 

### as long as 

### the average impinged fish. 

### In addition, control fish 

### suffer a 

### stress that 

### is not imposed 

### at all on impinged fish: 

### stress due 

### tomarking. TI 

### has found 

### (trdnscript, pp. 4597-98) 

### that marking does induce mortality. 

### TI'S mark/recapture population estimates are adjusted to account for this 

### mortality. EA 

### has 

### net attempted 

### to measure 

### the effect of 

### marking 

### on the 

### survival of 

### control fish used in 

### impingement 

### survival 

### studies.

Because control fish suffer 

### more collection, handling (including rriarking), and holding stress than do impinged fish, I do 

### not believe that the 

### mortality 

### of the 

### control fish is 

### a reliablemeasure sf 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 inTable 

### 10.3-7 of Exhibit UT-6). 

### It may be 

### concluded that theresults 

### tabulated in

### Tables 6-8 

### represent overestimates of the 

### actual fraction of impinged white 

### perch and striped bass 61-43



### 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 vulnerabi1

### ity to predators or pathogens.

2.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN 

### IMPIMGEMENI SURVIVAL AND 

### COLLECTION EFFICIENCY

Is the percent survival of Atlantic tomcod, clupeids, white 

### perch, or striped 

### bass impinged 

### and returned to the river under 

### normal operating conditions high 

### enough to offset the effects of collection efficiency? I believe that for Atlantic tomcod impinged at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamner, the answer to this 

### question is 

### "yes." For clupeids 

### the answer 

### is definitely 

### "no," and for 

### white perch and striped 

### bass it 

### is "probably yes. 'I

### Survival of adult Atlantic tomcod impinged during 

### the fall and 

### winter is 

### clearly high 

### enough to offset the effects of 

### collection efficiency. Except for the anomalously low survival observed at Roseton and Danskamner in 1975, the 

### survival of these fish 

### has been 

### very high. In 

### experiments in 

### which 10 

### or more fish 

### have been collected, at least 70%

### have survived to the end of 

### the observation period. Fall and winter impingement estimates for this 

### species 

### must be 

### scaled down to account for this high survival. 

### Based
on the 

### scant evidence available to date, the 

### survival of juveni-le

### Atlantic tomcod impinged at Bowline, Roseton, and 

### Danskamner during 

### the sumner months appears tobe high 

### enough to offset collection efficiency, but 

### not so high 

### that downward adjustments arejudged to be required.


### The survival of impinged 

### clupeids at 

### the three plants discussed inthis 

### section appears to be 

### virtually zero, and 

### thus, collection efficiency is not at 

### all offset.

For wlhite perch and striped bass my 

### conclusions aremore uncertain. The highest 

### survivals of these species at all 

### three plants have been 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 3). At 

### Roseton and Danskamner, the most relevant results in

### Tables 6-8 

### are those obtained from experiments conducted under intermitteint screenwash with 

### the high-pressure 

### spray. Survival percentages under 

### these conditions have ranged 

### from 0 

### to 25%

### at Roseton and from 0 

### to 40%

### at Danskamner. 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 have ranged from 0-51%. At 

### Bowline, both intermittent 

### and continuous rotation have been employed during 

### normal operation. Survival percentages ranging from 0 

### to 71%

### have been obtained from the collection pit 

### experiments, with most of the

### observations fallins between 10 and 40%. The qenerally 

### lower survivals obtained at 

### the Bowlrne discharge p pe are 

### 1argGly a 

### function of 

### sampling mortality, as evidenced by the relative y poor 

### surviva of

### the discharge 

### pipe controls.

## r-44



### Given that a substantial fraction of the

### mortality observed among whi 

### perch and striped bass is caused by 

### collection and/or observation, it

### is conceivable that as many 

### as 40%may 

### survive the imnediate 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 Bowline to hold all fish 

### impinged during the 24 

### hours preceding an impingement sample. If, on 

### the average, 40%

### of the fish

### returned tothe river.survive, then about 29%(40%x 

### 5/7) of 

### all white perch and striped bass impinged at Bowline during a 

### week would survive. At

### Roseton and Danskamner, about 34%(40%x 6/71 would 

### survive. These survival percentag
are enough 

### tooffset the effects of 

### collection efficiency (70 

### to 

### 75%)

### so that 

### no adjustments of the white 

### perch and striped bass impingement totals need be made.

The possibility 

### remains that survival of impinged striped 

### bass and wh 

### perch may be lower during 

### the winter, a season 

### of high 

### impingement at Bowl 

### and Indian Point 

### and of low 

### impingement at Roseton and Danskamer. It

### is also possible that, due 

### to the effects of 

### sampling mortality, 

### the survival of 

### these species may be 

### higher than is indicated by 

### the results of the 

### experiments. However, bi

### ases i

### ntroduced i

### nto the direct impact assessment by underestimating 

### or overestimating 

### the survival 

### of impinged 

### white perch and striped 

### bass at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamner are likely 

### to be 

### smal in

### comparison to biases introduced by 

### errors inthe estimates of populatio size and total mortality.

Itcan be 

### seen from Table 3 

### that travelling screen operating conditio atAlbany are similar to those at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamer. Therefore, it 

### seems reasonable 

### to assume that the survival of impinged fis 

### at this 

### plant is probably similar to that 

### observed 

### at the three plants whe studies have been conducted. At

### Lovett, however, the screens are rotated only 

### once every eight 

### hours. Since reduced survival has been observed 

### at other plants 

### when a four-hour screenwash cycle is employed, it 

### is reasonab to suppose that survival would be 

### even lower with 

### an eight-hour cycle. In the absence of 

### data relating 

### to the mortality 

### of impinged fish at Lovett,
assume zero 

### survival of all 

### species at this plant, and thus, collection efficiency 

### is 

### not at a11 

### offset.1-45

3, 

### CONCLUSIONS

I 

### conclude, on the

### basis of an analysis of the four potential biases discussed in 

### Section 2, 

### that the 

### impingement estimates for some species at some plants require adjustment. Table 9 

### summarizes my estimatesby plant and 

### species of the 

### magnitude of biases associated with 

### collection efficiency, 

### reimpingement, impingement on inoperative screens, and impingement survival. Any adjustment factors that I 

### believe 

### are necessary are also presented in 

### Table 9. 

### Since the various biases, in

### particular those due 

### to impingement survival, cannot be measured precisely, I have 

### chosen to adjust 

### the impingement 

### totals only in 

### cases where there 

### is a clear imbalance between those biases that cause underestimates (collection efficiency and impingement
on inoperative screens) and those that 

### cause overestimates (reimpingement and impingement survival). I 

### have applied 

### adjustment fdctors only if 

### a change of 20%

### or more in 

### the impingement estimates would 

### result. Adjusting these estimates 

### by smaller amounts is, in

### my opinion, attributing 

### greater accuracy and precision to the 

### bias measurements than they actually possess.
No 

### estimates of collection efficiency are available for Danskamner, and
no estimates of any of the 

### biases are available for Lovett or Albany. In 

### these cases I 

### have estimated the magnitude of 

### the biases 

### from the data obtained at other plants, primarily Roseton and Indian Point Unit 3. 

### Like Roseton and Indian Point (and unlike Bowline), 

### Danskamner, Lovett, and Albany withdraw cooling water directly from 

### the river. As it 

### seems 

### most probable that the slightly higher 

### collection efficiency and reimpingement observed at Bowline are related to the unique 

### intake configuration of that

### plant, we have assumed that 

### the estimates of collection efficiency atRoseton and Indian Point Unit 3 

### (both about 70%) 

### and of reimpingement at 

### Roseton (essentiallyzero) are applicable to these other three plants. The low 

### collection efficiency at 

### Indian Point Unit 2 is 

### undoubtedly caused by the 

### presence of fixed 

### screens in

### front of the 

### travelling 

### screens, a configuration that 

### exists at no other plant on the Hudson River 

### (except for Indian Point Unit 1, 

### which is 

### not presently operating). Travelling screen operating procedures at Albany appear to be simi

### lar to those at Bowline, Roseton, and Danskamner; therefore, I assume that the
same estimates of impingement 

### survival are applicable. At

### Lovett the screens are rotated only once every eight 

### hours. On the 

### basis of the observed inverse 

### relationship between 

### impingement survival and travelling 

### screen holding time, I assume that no fish 

### survive impingement at Lovett. Since fish impinged at Indian Point are not 

### returned to the river, 

### no survival 

### is possib1e.
I 

### believe that 

### upward adjustment is required for clupeid impingement estimates at all plants and for impingement estimates for all 

### specierat Lovett and Indian Point. My 

### adjustment factor for Indian 

### Point Unit 3 is slightly 

### higher than that used by the

### utilitiesbecause my 

### estimate of collection efficiency is lower. My 

### adjustment factor for Indian Point Unit 2 is 

### identical to that of theutilities. I 

### believe that estimates of

## --

--

--



## --

-- 1-46

Table 9. Adjustment factors derived for impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants

Impinqement survival Adjustment factora,b

Co11ection May- September- May- September

## - Plant efficiency Reimpingement August Apri1 August Apri1

ATLANTIC TOMCOD

. Bonline 0.75 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.6 Lovett 0.70 0 0 0 1.4 1.4 IP unit 2 0.15 0 0 0 6.7 6.7 IP unit 3 0.70 0 0 0 1.4 1.4 Aoseton 0.70 0 0.4 0.7

. 0.6 Danskamner 0.70 0 0.4 0.7 00 0.6 Albany

(1974- 75) 0.70 0 0.4 0.7 0.7 Albany

(I975- 76) 0.70 0 0.4 0.7 0.5

CLUPE1DS
Bwline 0.75 0.1 0 Lovett 0.70 0 0 1.4 IP unit 2 0.15

. 0 0 6.7 IP unit 3 0.70 0 0 1.4 Roseton 0.70 0 0 1.4 Danskamner 0.70 0 0 1.4

. Albany 0.70 0 0 1.4

WHITE PERCH AND STRIPED BASS
Bowline 0.75 0.1 0.4 Lovett 0.70 0 0 1.4 IP unit 2 0.15 0 0 6.7 IP unit 3 0.70 0 0 1.4 Roseton 0.70 0 0.4 Danskamner 0.70 0 0.4 Albany 0.70 0 0.4

aAdjustment factor = (I/coIlection efficiency) x (I

# - reimpingement) x (1 

### - impin ement

survival x the fraction ofdays on which impinged fish are returned to the riverq. For Bowline this fraction is equal to 5/7, since impinged fish are collected and held for 24 hours prior to each weekly impingement collection (ExhibitUT-7). For Roseton and Danskemner, it is equal to 6/7, since there isno 24 hour prewash prior to each week's sampling (Exhibit UT-6). For Albany, this fraction is equal to 5/7 for the period April 1974-March 1975, sirice impingement collections were made tw.ice per week. For the period April 1975-March 1976, it is equal to 13/14, since impingement collectinns were made only once every boweeks (Lawler et al. 1976b). bAdjustment factors are actually applied to the impingement estimates only if a change of

20% or more would result, that is only adjustment factors less than or equal to 0.80 or greater than or equal to 1.20 are applied.1-47 

# 1 fa71 and winter impingement of Atlantic tomcod atBowline, Roseton, Danskamner, and Albany 

### require downward adjustment because of high 

### survival. Survival of younger tomcod impinged during 

### the warmer months is 

### apparently 

### 'lower, and therefore, I 

### apply no adjustment to impingement 

### estimates

### forthemonths of 

### May-August. 

# 81-48

4. 

### REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Game, Cafifornia Department of Water Resources, U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1978. Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Estuary. Sixth Annual Report (1976). 

### Ecological Analysts, Inc. 197.7. Impingement survival studies at the Roseton and Danskammer Point generating stations. Progress report prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.

Exhibit EPA-96. 

### Response by 

### Orange and 

### Rockland entitled "Attachment 

### F, Impingement, Bowline Question I. 

### Screen collection efficiency studies. Bowline Point Generating Station, October 1976-June 1977."
Exhibit EPA-97. Response by 

### Central Hudson entitled "Set A-15 impingement collection efficiency results for the Roseton facility for the period January-March 1978."
Exhibit EPA-198. Boreman, J. 

### 1979. Life-historiesof 

### seven fish species that inhabit 

### the Hudson River estuary. Testimony before the U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

### 11.

Exhibit UT-3. 

### 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. Edited by 

### J. T. 

### McFadden and 

### J. P. Lawler. Submitted to

### Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc, July 1977.

Exhibit UT-6. 

### Roseton Generating Station. Near-field effects of once-throughcooling system operation on Hudson River biota. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation. July 1977.

Exhibit UT-7. Bowline Point Generating Station. Near-field effects of once-through cooling system operation on 

### Hudson River biota. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. July 

### 1977.
Exhibit UT-105. 'Summaryof 

### collection efficiency tests and related 95percent confidence intervals at Indian 

### Point Units 2 

### and 3.


### Exhibit UT-113. Impingement collection efficiency, Bowline Point Generating Station, 1936 through 1978.

Exhibit 

### UT-114. Recovery rate of tagged fish by unit and

- 

### travelling scree, Bowline Point Generating Station, 1976-1978.
Exhibit UT-115. 

### Summary of collection efficiency studies, Bowline Point Generating Station, 1976-3978. Huggins, T. 

### 1977 (pers. comm.). Letter to H. Gluckstern of EPA, 

### dated November 29, 1977.

### 1-49

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS). 1974. 1973 

### tludson River aquatic ecology studies 

### at Roseton and Danskammer Point. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and 

### Electric Corporation.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly 

### (LMS). 1975. 

### Albany steam electric generating station impingement survey (April 1974-March 1975). Prepared for Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS). 1976a. 

### 1975 Hudson River aquatic ecology studies 

## - Bowline Point and Lovett Generating Stations. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS). 1976b. Albany Steam Electric Generating Station, 316(a) Demonstration Submission,NPDES Permit 

### NY 0005959. Prepared for Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation.
Marcellus, K. 1977 

### (pers. corn.), Letter to 

### H. Gluckstern of 

### EPA, dated November 30, 

### 1977.
Skinner, 

### J. E. 

### 1972. Fish protective facilities. Chapter 11 in 

### Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Estuary. Decennial Report 1961-1971. 

### CaliforniaDepartment of Fish 

### and Game.

Texas 

### Instruments. 1974. Indian Point impingement study report for the period 15 June 1972 

### through 31 December 1973. Prepared for Consolidated Edison,Companyof New 

### York, Inc.

Texas Instruments. 1975. Indian Point impingement study report for the periold 1 

### January 1974 through 31 December 1974. 

### Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments. 1976. 

### Indian 

### Point impingement study report for the period 1 

### January 1975 through 31 December 1975. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments. 1977a. 

### Hudson River ecological study in the area of Indian Point. 1976

### Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Texas Instruments. 1977b. 

### 1974

### year-classreport for the multiplant impact study of 

### the Hudson River estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 

### York, Inc.

cCHAPTER I1

EVALUATION 

### OF IMPINGEMENT LOSSES OF WHITE PERCH AT HUDSON RIVEft POWER PLANTS

TESTIMONY OF 

# 'I W. VAN WINKLE, Ph.D. HEAD, AQUATIC ECOLOGY SECTION 

# 1 and 

# I L. 

### W. BARNTHOUSE, Pil.D. 

# 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 

# I

Environmental 

### Sciences Division Publicaton

### No. 1932 

# I 

# I

8 

# I 

# I I
I' PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I1 ISUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This 

### testimony pres 

### ts two independent lines f 

### evidence evaluating impingement losses-of white perch at the power plants on 

### the Hudson 

### River. The first l'lne 

### of 

### evidence involves analyzing the 

### variation in 

### collection rate among years over the 

### period 1972

# - 1977, The second line 

### of evidence involves estimating the conditional mortality rate (or equivalently, the percent reduction in

### year-class strength inthe 

### absence of compensation) due to impingement for the 1974 

### and 1975year classes.

The 

### collection 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 of any compensatory mechanisms which might 

### alter survival during the 

### preceding months. Regression analyses on collection rates of impinged young-of-the-year white 

### perch among years suggest that 

### there has been no systematic change in

### the sizeof the white 

### perch population during 

### the period 1972 

## - 1977. 

### In particular, there is little 

### evidence of 

### a statisticallly significant downward trend. However, given the 

### large variability in 

### collection rates used in

### these regressions, the time 

### series
are relatively short 

### (i.e., 5 

### to 6

### years), and thus, the statistical power of

### the test for a 

### trend is not high. In 

### addition, because of 

### the age of sexual maturityfor females and 

### the multiple 

### age-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 tomanifest itself with 

### the 197'7 

### (or 1978) 

### and 

### subsequent year classes.

Our estimates of percent reduction in

### year-class strength due 

### to iinpi

### ngeinent indicate that the 1

### eve1 of impingement impact was probably greater than 20%

### for the 1974

### year class and was probably greater than 15% 

### for the 19751

### year class. These 

### estimates do not include consideration of entrainment, 

### so that the total power plant conditional mortality rate is obviously greater than the 

### values 

### presented inthis 

### testimony for impingement only. Given 

### the information presently available, it 

### is our judgment 

### that this 

### level of 

### impingement impact is 

### not acceptable from the point of 

### view of 

### the white perch population.

In 

### terms of the comparability of assumptions and values for input 

### parameters used inthe utilities' 

### methodology and inORNL's 

### methodology, the 

### utilities' estimate of percent reduction due 

### to impingement for

### the 1974 

### year class of 11.3%is 

### best compared to ORNL's 

### estimate of 25,5%, Five
reasons for this

### more than 

### factor-of-two difference are discussed. The utilities' 

### choice at every one of 

### these five 

### "decision points" affects the 

### results inthe 

### same direction, namely, to lower 

### the estimate of 

### percent reduction. ORNL's 

### choice at 

### each of these 

### five decision points is 

### scientifically more sound and 

### defensible.

I 

## Preceding

## page

## blank1 11-iii

- .._ ._CONTENTS 

# 1 Page 

# PUMMARY AND 

## Corw-usIoMs



# ...................... 11-iii

1


# . Introduction 

# ....................... f

2



## . White Perch ImpingementData



## .... 

# ...... ......... 2

A


# . Description of 

### data base


# ............... B



# . \lariation 

### in collection rate among years 

# ....... C


# . Variation in collection rate among months


# ...... D



# . Variation in collection rate among power 

### plants


# ... 

# 8 3



# . White Perch Abundance and Mortality



# ............ 9

A


# . Abundance


# ...................... 9 B


# . Mortality 

# ...................... 12 

# a 4



## . Estimation of 

### Conditional Mortality Rate and Exploitation Rate Due to Impingement

# ........... 15



### 5


# . Discussion



# ......................... 21

A

# . Comparisonwith utilities' results


# .......... 21 B


# . I[s there a 

### problem?


# ................. 23 

# I 6

# . References



# ........................ 25 

### Impingement Data Base


# .................. 2 7 

# liippendix

.

.



## Preceding

## page

## bfank 11-v

.....-- 

### LIST OF TABLES 

# Mbl

e



# 17

8

0 

### Page

Summary of 

### results from regression analyses 

### to examine the time series of collection rates for trends 

### in the Hudson River young-of-the-yearwhite perch population



# ........11-4


### Variation 

### in mean collection,rate of

### young-of-the-year

,_ 

### white perch among months and 

### among power plants



# ....... 6



### Variation 

### in mean collection rate of yearling and older white perch among months 

### and among power plants


# ....... 7



### Estimates of white perch juvenile-abundancein 

### the Hudson River


# .......................... 10



### Catch-curveestimates of 

### white perch mortality based on bottom trawl data from the Bowfine Point vicinity, 1971-1976


# .......................... 13


### 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


# . . 16 

### Month1.yestimates of 

### the number of white perch impinged at 

### all the Hudson River power plants combined for the 1974 

### and 1975year classes



# .................. 17


### 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 population for combinations of 

### estimates and assumptions involving initial population size, 

### natural mortality, and number of years of

### vulnerability



# ............. 19



### Relevant parts of 

### Table 2-WfH-1 

### in Exhibit UT-3


# ....... 22


### White perch impingement data for the Albany Steam Electric Generating Station



# ................. 29
White perch impingement data for the Astoria Generating Station (Ref. 

### 1)



# ....................... 33



### - White perch impingement data 

### for the Bowline Point Generating Station



# ...................... 36



## Precedingpage

# blank II-vii

.Table Page

A-4 klhite perch impingement dhta for the Danskammer Point Generating Station



# .

# . . . .

# .. 

# ..

# ...

# . ....

# . ..

# . 39
A-5, White perch impingement data for Indian Point Units 

### 1, 6817 2,and3


# ........................... 43

A- 8 White perch impingement data for the Lovett Generating Station



# .. ,

# -. 

# .. ,

# . ..

# .. 

# .. ...

# .... .

# . ..

# . 50

A-9 White perch impingement data for the Roseton Generating Station


# . .... *.

# ...

# ...

# :.

..

# ... . 

# ..

# .... 53

A-10 "DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments as the cut-off length between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch



## .

# '

.

# . .

# ...

# . . 

# . .

# . .... . .... .

# .. 57

11-viii

## -- 1. 

### INTRODUCTION

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 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 

### Final Environmental Statement for Indian Point 3 

### (USNRC 1975). 

### In that evaluation we stated

A 

### 1973 field-tagging study by 

### a consultant for the applicant 

### indicates that the September-Octoberpopulation 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-theyear account for the majority of thewhite perch impinged. This populaition estimate 

### is tentative, it may vary by 

### an order of magnitude fromyear to year, and 

### it 

### is based on 

### 1973 data (whereas the impingement estimates are based on 1971-1972

### data); nevertheless, the staff feels that 

### impingement 

### 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-yearand that 80% 

### of the total white perch 

### population of 23 

### million are young-of-the-year, then 20% 

### to 25% of' 

### theseyoung-of-the-yearwhite perch will 

### be impinged. (p. V-61)



### In response 

### to the above concern, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, W. 

### S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, funded research at ORNL starting in May 1978

### with the following objectives: To determine the significanceof 

### impingement losses on the 

### white perch population at 

### the Indian Point Nuclear Station (all units). To 

### collect, compile, and analyze data and information 

### on white perch impingement losses 

### in the Hudson River. 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. To 

### document in a 

### final report the results-ofthe analysis 

### and to 

### make! a determination whether the impingement losses are having a 

### potentially adverse impact on populations of white perch in the Hudson River.


### This report is organized 

### as follows: Section 2

### deals with the white perch impingement data per se, including a description of the data base and the analyses of variations in 

### the collection rates among years, months, and 

### power 

### plants. Section I11 

### deals with white perch population data, including estimates of population size and monthlyxnatural mortality rates. Section IV 

### integratesthe results from Sections 2 and 3 

### to estimate the conditional mortality rate and 

### exploitation rate due to 

### impingement, using 

### the GRNL 

### empirical impingement model. Section 5 

### is a discussion of our results in light of 

### the utilities' results and concludeswith considerationof 

### whether impingement of 

### white perch at Hudson River power plants 

### is a 

### problem.

11-1

### 11-2

2. WHITE 

### PERCH 

### IMPINGEMENT DATA



### In this section, we first present a brief description of 

### the data base
on number of 

### white perch impinged (collected) and on the collection rates at each power plant. Then, we present the results of our analyses of 

### these coliection rates, focusing on the pattern of variation among years,months, and power plants. Our analysis 

### of the variation in 

### collection rate of young-of-the-yearwhite perch among years addresses the question of whether there has been a statisticallysignificant and systematic trend 

### in the size of

### year classes during the period 

### 1972

# - 1977. 

### Our analysis of the variation 

### in collection rate among months focuses on how these variations depend on location of the power plant and age of thewhite perch. Finally,
our analysis of the variation in collection rate among power plants focuses
on identifying which power plants have the highest and lowest collection rates and how the rankings of power plants depend 

### on the age of the white perch impinged.

A. Descriptionof the Data Base

Data on number collected and collection rate have been compiled for white perch by 

### month for all years forwhich data were obtainable 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 the Appendix, 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. Except for Indian Point, where collection rateswere adjusted upward to correct for less than 100% 

### collection efficiency, collection rate 

### is assumed to 

### be approximately equivalent to impingementrate,which is defined as the number of 

### white perch killed at the intake per unit intake flow. A 

### detailed analysis of factors that influence impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants is given in Exhibit EPA-205, 

### including adjustment factors. We designated May 31 

# - 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 Collection Rate Among Years
Collection-ratedata are available on amonthly basis for a period of 4-6 

### years for Bowline, Lovett, Indian Point 2, 

### Roseton, and Danskamer. We have treated collection rate,which is equivalent to a 

### catch per unit effort 

### (CPUE), as an approximate index of 

### population size. 

### In order for a CPUE 

### index to serve as an accurate index of 

### popu’lationsize, theremust be some assurance that actual variations in effort are measured. We believe that data on power plant intake flow (= 

### effort) satisfies this condition, since the uncertainty associated with estimates of 

### intake flow is relatively small. Given this assumption,we have examined the time series of collection rates over years for trends in 

### population size. The regression

### 11-3

model used 

### was Y = 

### a + bX, 

### where Y 

### is the collection rate for 

### young-of-theyear (yoy) white perch (RATE0 inAppendix), X 

### is year, a 

### is the Y-axis intercept, and is the 

### slope. A 

### slope (b) 

### significantiy greater than 0.0 (P < 0.10) suggests 

### an increasing trend over years in

### population size, while


### a 

### s'iope significantly less than 0.0 

### suggests a decreasing trend in

### population size. A slope 

### not significantly different 

### from 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)

# - 1977. The 

### regression analysis was 

### 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 possibilitythat 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 collection rate, which was calculated 

### as the average of 

### the twelve monthly collection rates for each year. In 

### all, 78 

### regressions 

### were performed. Because the 

### twelve monthly collection rates are used to calculate 

### the mean annual collection rate for each year, however, this 

### set of 

### regressions cannot be 

### treated rigorously 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 < 0.10) 

### from 0.0 in

### only 8 

### cases. Of 

### these 8 

### czses, 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 collection rates for each of the 

### five power 

### plants and for all five 

### plants combined are likely 

### tobe 

### more reliable indices of population sizethan the monthly collection rates, which are more 

### subject to variation from year toyear due to temperature or salinitydifferences, and consequently, 

### to differences inthe 

### spatial distribution of yoy white perch in

### the Hudson 

### River, rather than due to real differences in

### year-class strength. None of the 

### slopes for the six 

### "annual" regressions differs significantlyfrom zero. Thus, 

### the collection rate data from 

### these five power plants 

### suggest that 

### there has been 

### no systematic change in

### the 

### size of the white 

### perch population during the 

### period 1973

# - 1977 (1972 

## - 1977 

### for Danskamner).
Becausle of the 

### age of sexual maturity for females and the multiple 

### age-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 starttomanifest itself with the 

### 1977 (or 1978) 

### and subsequent year classes. Female white 

### perch collected inthe 

### Indian Point region in May 1973 inldicated 24%

### sexual maturity at age 2, 96%

### at age 3, 

### 92%at age 

### 4, and 10% 

### at age 5 

### and older (Texas Instruments, 1975a, p. HI-22). The 

### !arge increases in

### power plant 

### intake flow occurred during 

### 1973-1975 (Christensen et 

### al. 1976, Fig. 6). Thus, 

### the year classes spawned &ring 

### these years 

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

### increased levels of 

### impingement mortality. Assuming 

### a median age of 

### reproduction of 4 

### years, only starting in 

### 1977 or 1978would the 

### compounding

### ---



## --

-- 11-4

Table 1. Summary of results from regression analyses to examine the time series of collection rates for trends inthe Hudson River young-of-the-year white perch populationa

.b P Month N r2 b P N r

# ' b, p N r2

. _:, __-----
_I_-- Bowline Lovett Indian Point 2
January 5 0.06 -84.5 0.68 5 0.60 208. 0.12 5 0.53 5810. 0.16 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 Apri1 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 0.26 13.2 0.38 5 0.25 -8.09 0.39 4 0.14 93.2 0.63 September 5 0.03 0.52 0.79 5 0.02 -0.65 0.82 5 0.04 28.5 0.75 October 5 0.26 7.42 0.39 5 0.35 33.3 0.29 5 0.81 534. 0.04* November

~ 5 0.16 65.2 0.51 5 0.71 93.6. 0.07* 5 0.59 1795. 0.13 December 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

Roseton Danskammer 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 t3.0 0.10 5 0.21 -216. 0.44 Apri1 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 -96.9 0.43 June 4 0.00 0.00 

## - 6 0.00 0.00 

## - 5 0.00 0.00 

# - July 5 0.01 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" December 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 collection rate for yoy whi r

## $e perch and X is year. M is the number of data points (i.e., number of years). isthe coefficient of determination (i:e., the fraction of variability in Y values accounted for by XI. b isthe slope of the straight line. .P is*he probability of obtaining a slope this steep (either positive ornegative) if .the true slope is 0.0. P values I0.10 are.indicated by an asteriak (*).

# I It 11-5



# i effect of entrainment and impingement 

### mortalityhave an opportunity to manifest itself in

### reducing year-class 

### strength. 

# I The 

### variability inthe 

### collection rate data already available can be used as a guideline 

### toestimate how much of a 

### reduction in

### population size (and for how many years) would be 

### required in

### order todetect it 

### statistically (i.e. 

### , statistical power of the 

### test). However, assuming that
a statisticallysignificant decrease did 

### occur, independent evidence indicating the same result would be 

### required todemonstrate conclusively that such cl 

### decrease was related to "overfishing" by the power plants (Christensen et a1

, 1976). 

# 1

C. 

### Variation in

### Collection Rate Among Months

Variat:ions in

### mean collection rate among months are high!ighted in 

### Table 2 

### foryoung-of-the-year white 

### perch and in

### Tab e 3 

### for yearling and older white 

### perch, The 

### pattern among months depends quite 

### noticeability on location. In particular, at the downriver plants (Astoria, Bowline, Lovett, and Indian Point), collection rates of white perch of all ages are highest during the

### months of December, January, and February, with 

### the months of November, March, and April 

### also being quite high 

### an occasion. In contrast, at the upriiver 

### plants (Roseton, Danskmer, and Albany) collection rates of white perch of all ages indicate two peaks, one in April 

### and Fay and a second in 

### September, October, and November. Collection rates of 

### yearling and older white perch also tend 

### to be 

### relatively high 

### at a number of the 

### power plants inJune 

### (Table 3), which in

### part 

### is an 

### artifsct due to designating May 31 

## - June 1 

### (a one-day interval) as the dividing line 

### between 12-month old young-of-the-year and 13-month old yearlings.



### D.



# . Variation in

### Collection Rate Among Power Plants

Variation among power plants in the 

### mean annual collection rate 

### is surprisingly 

### great (Tables 2 

### and 3, 

### last column). Although data are available 

### for only one year atAstoria, and there is no way to estimate from 

### the data reported the collection rates foryoy and older white 

### perch separately, it is 

### evident that relatively 

### few white 

### perch are impinged 

### at Astoria. At 

### the other geographical extreme, it 

### isevident that impingement 

### of yoy white 

### perch is relatively low at Albany compared tothe 

### other plants (Table Z), but 

### Albany ranks third 

### out of eight power plants with 

### respect to the 

### impingement of yearling and older white 

### perch (Table 3). In

### fact, 

### at Albany the 

### impingement of

### yearling and older white perch 

### is appreciably higher in 

### absolute numbers 

### than foryoy white 

### perch.

For Bowline, Lovett, Indian Point, Roseton, and Danskamer, impingement of yoy white 

### perch is

### higher in 

### absolute numbers 

### than impingement of older white 

### perch. The 

### values for Indian Point Unit 2 

### are appreciably higher than those for any other plant (see Table 2). Although the 

### values for Indian Point Unit 1

### are also high, impingement 

### of fish

### at Unit 1 

### is not presentlyU

0,

‘0

z

S

W

01

n)

r

E

m

E

c, -m

W

Y w

.N

h

mLnW

h

01

0 

## -- W

rn

W

wl r

W

a 12-6

m- 0

# -­ -m m­ .e -Y N

C- 01­ mu hu
UY

?-

NU m

W­

.N cr­ fa
v) c m
7 n

L ‘9,

o m Ln 

# :

n

E 0 iii Ql- .- c­ 

### .­ c a- her m h

YI +r E 

### e

0 5 0 E

2= U L a

U 

# -

r 3
L a# 7

W U
Y-

I’ O
I UI 3
0 h
IC 0
W U m L
c

# 0 m­ 

## .-

-I 0
c c) c 9, ON
CY N

F­

‘0­ cum U­ h

h 

## .­ hm

v

m­

.N 0- N

U c Ln W I V U Lo N

c c 0 V L E w W c E CL Ln 

### .- c wl m m a 

# - 0 m e 0 U 

# -

41 -,- L 5 >
L 0 N c) 

# - n) E ra 

### t

W L 0 7 -L V2 -0 E m * s

Io YI 3 

# - D m + U m 8 4 U0

GI

0

L

u

-0

0)
m

0

sa w E

0

E

0

4
w

0 m- o-



# --

U

n - I1-7

m

u) # c 

# - (0 n
L 0 3 Q

c 0 m Tl 

### s

-0 L e n m

ln W r V c, w c n 0 E L W 0
fu I
> .r-JUc - u 0- in 0 s z u 0 L Q w n t n m- inc. +I 

# - V r 0 3

L L w W -0 n

7 0 B

+, n E w m v)

0, w C

.r ln

c L DI sa a w 4 h *U .N y. 0 

# - a U- N­ a w o w 3

- N

I w ?Z w­ .m ?Z .e E S 0- Ln- cu- -a­ 

# - 0 3 h LD - w n c U V w

7 

# - VI m I W N V U

c m W E n E 

# - E 0 U
.c c c, N Ln W 0 

# - 0 m .;r W W F u U 2 m

-r L
5 L

I-r m S 

# g

u L O W 

## - n m U Y 2 w w c w VI m wul n E m CLm t- cg 2 0 c 

## I

IU n 

### .-

u m11-8

of major concern, since the unit 

### is not presently generating electricity. The circulating pumps are generally only operated for experimental purpose (e.g., testing of fine-mesh screens). Impingement ofyoy white perch is higher at Bowline and Lovett than at Roseton and Danskamner (Table Z), 

### but the rankings are reversed for impingement ofyearling and older white perc (Table 

### 3).

c11-9

3. 

### WHITE PERCH ABUNDANCE AND MORTALITY

A. 

### Abundance



### No 

### estimates have been 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 white perch juveniles are available. The first, or combined gear estimate, is

### derived from a combination of 

### data from the Texas Instruments (TI) 

### longitudinal1 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) (Exhibit 

### UT-4 and revisions arid errata). A 

### detailed description of the method used to calculate abundances from these data was provided through
a response dated February 

### 27, 1978to an EPA information request dated December 

### 27, 1977. According to that response, Texas Instruments 

### has 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 

### themonths of 

### July through December 1975. These data also were provided 

### in the response dated February 27, 1978 

### to the information request of 

### December 27, 1977.

The second estimate is

### derived from amark/recapture program conducted by 

### Texas Instruments. Descriptions of 

### themethods used in 

### data collection and 

### analysis can be found 

### 'in the Multiplant Report and 

### the 

### FRR. Mark/recaptwre estimates of white perch juvenile abundance in 

### October 1974 and in October 1975 

### are presented in 

### a supplement to the 

### FRR (Exhibit UT-3 and 

### revisions and errata). A 

### comparison of the two sets of estimates reveals substantial discrepanciesfor both years (Table 4). The mark/recaptwre estimates are far larger than the correspondingcombined gear estimates, 14 

### times as 

### high 

### in 1974 

### and 6 

### times 

### as high 

### in 1975. We believe that the mark/recapture estimates are themore reliable of the two sets for
reasons discussed below.

The combined gear estimates undoubtedly underestimate the true abundance of 

### white perch, since TI made no corrections for gear efficiency (Exhibit UT-4, 

### Sections 7.9.1.2, 

### 7.9.1.3, and 7.9.1.4). In effect, they assumed that 

### all of 

### the gears (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-foot beach seine at catching juvenilewhite perch probably ranges between 7 and 25%. The epibenthic sled and Tucker trawl were designed primarily as ichthyogbankton gear. Since themajority of juvenilewhite perch are well in 

### excess of 50


### mm in 

### length by early August, the efficiency of these gears during the period of interest here (August-December) is probably very low. Although no attempts have been made to quantify the efficiency of 

### the epibenthic sled and Tucker trawl, Kjelson and Johnson (1978)

### have recently reported that the 6.1-m 

### Otter trawl, which, because of its larger size, is probably more11-10



### Table 4. 

### Estimates 

### of white 

### perch juvenile 

### abundance in

### the Hudson Rivera

Octob

### er

### , 1974 October, 1975

Combined 

### gear 

### estirnateb 1.5 x 

### 106 5.0 x 106 

### Mark/recap

### ture 

### estirnatec 21 x 

### 106 

### 30 x 

### 106

aRegions included in

### the combined gear estimates 

### were

RM 24-61 (KM 

### 38-98) in 

### 1974 and 

### RM 14-76 

### (KM 22-122) in 

### 1975. The 

### region included in 

### the markhecapture estimates was RM 

### 12-152 (KM 

### 19-243) 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 of3 

### biweekly estimates.

CBased on fish 

### released in the 

### fall and 

### recaptured the

fo

### 1lowing spring.

### 11-11

efficient thaa either of the above gears at catching juvenile fish, is only about 30-50% efficient.

An additional source oferror in the combined gear estimates forwhite perch isthe design of the sampling program itself. As described in the Multiplant Report (Section 3), the longitudinal river survey, fall shoals survey9 and the riverwide beach seine survey are all designed for optima? sampling of striped bass. A common result of this design has been the collection of large numbers of samples in regions that contain low densities 

### of white perch, and the collection 

### of few samples in regions containing high densities of white perch. For example, during the period August 19-22, 1974, 34 epibenthic sled towswere conducted 

### in the Tappan Zee region. No white perch were caught. Virtually all of the white perch collected during this period (58out of 64)came from five tows collected from the shoal stratum of the Cornwall region.

By comparison, themark/recapture estimates seem tobe more free of major biases- Population estimates calculated from mark/recapture data are subject 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 natural
occurrence of "marked" fish.

Ifmarked fish suffer more mortality than unmarked fish, either from the stress imposed by handling and marking or becausemarked fish are more vulnerable to predators or disease than are unmarked fish, then an overestimate of ?he true population size can result. TI addressed this problem with experiments conducted in 1973 (described 

### in the Multiplant Report) iInd derived correction factors to account for short-term (54days) handiing mortality of marked white perch. The possibility that long-term survival of marked white perch under natural conditionsmay be lower than that ofunmarked fish has not been evaluated by 

### TI.

The Petersonmethod of ,estimating

### pow1ation size from mark/recapture data, themethod chosen by TI, requires that marked fish mix completelywith the unmarked population prior to recapture. 

### If this mixing does not occur, a bias clanbe introduced into the results. 

### In particular, if sampling during the recapture period is concentrated in regions where marked fish are relatively abundant 

### in comparison totheir true proportion fn the population, then the true population size 

### will be underestimated. In theN.lw;tip'lant Report, 

### TI cited insufficient mixing as a reason for discarding estimates of the number of juvenilewhite perch in the Hudson in the fall of 1973. In this case fishwere both marked and recaptured in the fall. Insufficient mixing is probably not a problem with the fall 1974 and 1975 estiaates, because fish were released in the fall and recaptured during the following spring. From the distributional data presented in Exhibit UT-4 (Section 6.1 ) and from the seasonal patterns of impingement discussed in Section 11 of this report, it is evident that white perch juvenilesmigrate downstream to Haverstraw Bay and the Tappan Zee in the late fall and 

# i 111-12

overwinter there before returning upstream in the spring. These migration! would appear to provide ample opportunity for mixing.

TI uses finclips tomark juvenilewhite perch 

### and striped bass. Natur' 

### loss of fins is not uncommon, and the mistaking 

### of fish that have lost fin: formarked fish can cause underestimates of population size. TI has discovered several such 

### "fin anomalies." According to theMultiplant Repor in 1974 it was discovered that about 0.3% of unmarked juvenilewhite 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 theAugust-September, 1975 abundance of white perch juveniles (Exhibits UT-3, UT-4) were discarded after it was discover� that a 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 (sixmarks were used; five of these were double finclips) used in the October-November, 1974 and October, 1975 releases. We presently believe that the Peterson mark/recapture estimates of white perch juvenile abundance 

### in October of 7974 and 1975 arc the best available estimates of the abundance of the 1974 and 1975 year-classes. It is these estimates that are used 

### in the direct impact assessment contained in Section 

### IV.

B. Mortality

Dew (1978) has used the catch-curve method to calculate an average annual mortality rate for age zero and older white perch (Table 5)*. His results are derived from bottom trawl data collected 

### in the vicinity of thc Bowline Point Generating Station between 1977 and 1976. We believe, howeve that age zero fish shoufd not have been used in this analysis, since their mortality is probably higher than that of yearling and older fish. We also believe that Dew's method of analysis was not themost appropriate application of the catch-curvemethodology. 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 

### in Table 5). Robson and Chapman (1961)have described 

### an entirely different method of calculating average annual mortality when 

### all fish older than a certain age are grouped together. As Robson and Chapman' method has been proven to be unbiased (whereasDew's method has not) under the assumptions of the catch-curvemethod, and since its statistical properties are known (which isnot the case with Dew's method), we believe that it is superior to Dew's method. Therefore, we have redone Dew's analysis, excluding the age zero fish and using themethod of Robson and Chapman (1961), to calculate an annual mortality rate fw-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

# a T 11-13

Y.

Table 

### 5. Catch-curve 

### estimates of white perch 

### mortality based 

### on bottom trawl data 

### from the Bowline 

### Point vicinity, 1971-1976

Original 

### valuesa 

### (ages 0 

### through 5+)


### Recalculated valuesb (ages 

### 1through 5+)



### acalculatled by Oew, 1978.


### bRecalculated by excluding



### Robson and Chapman, 1961. Annual 

### fractional mortali

### ty (A)



### 0.5349

0.4854 Annual instantaneous mortality 

### rate 

### (Z)

0.7655

0.6644

age 0 

### fish and using 

### the method of11-14

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 reasonat estimate, 

### and this is the value used in our direct impact assessment.

None 

### of the available data appears adequate for deriving reliable estimates 

### of total mortality 

### in impingeabJeyoung-of-the year white perch, Using the method employed by 

### TI to estimatemortality in juvenile striped bass, we attempted to calculate a mortality rate using TI'Sweekly combinr gear estimates of white perch abundance. Themethod involves regressing t natural logarithm of the population estimate against time (in days) from t end ofJuly tomid-December. The slope of the regression line is an estimate of the daily instantaneous mortality rate. Using thismethod we obtained no useful results, because therewas no discernible decline in tt combined gear estimates-between early August and mid-December. We perforn
a similar analysis using data from only a single gear, the epibenthic slec and a single sampling program, the fall shoals survey, inthe hope of eliminating variation due to pooling different gears and different samplir programs. Although the epibenthic sled samples during the fall 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 betweer August and December, both in 1974 and 

### in 1975.

We have, therefore, used a range of values for young-of-the-year mortality in our direct impact assessment. As a high estimate we have USE the value of 80% assumed in Exhibit UT-3. Given the absence of 

### a seasonadecline in the combined gear and epibenthic sled abundance estimates, this value may be too high. Alternatively, we have assumed that the mortality among impingeable young-of-the-year is identical to that among yearling ar older fish, i.e., that the annual fractional mortality of young-of-the-ye: white perch is about 50%. Since, because 

### of their smaller size, young-of-the-year should be more vulnerable to predators than are older white perch, this value may be too low,

### 11-15

4. 

### ESTIMATION 

### OF CONDITIONALMORTALITY RATE AND 

### EXPLOITATIONRATE 

### DUE TO 

### IMPINGEMENT

The empirical model of impingement impact used to estimate the conditionalmortality rate and exploitationrate due to impingement for the Hudson River white perch population is described in Barnthouse et al. (1979). 

### Themodel 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 rate of 

### either total or natural mortality during the period of 

### vulnerabi

### 1ity 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 themodel in terms 

### of natural rather than total mortality, even though in practice only total mortality
can be directly estimated from field data. 

### This is not a major problem, however, since it is possible to calculate the conditional natural mortality rate, given the total mortality rate and the impingement exploitation rate (Barnthousle et al. 1979). 

### In addition,when natural mortality is high 

### relative to 

### impingement mortality, total mortality and natural mortality are nearly num~ericallyidentical. 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 approximationof both the natural conditional mortality rate and total mortality rate in yearling and older white perch.

The estimates of initial 

### population size and natural mortality rates
are given 

### 'in Table 6, 

### and the bases for these estimates are discussed 

### in the preceding section of this report (Section 3). 

### Monthly estimates of the number of 

### white perch impinged by year class are given 

### in Table 7. These estimates 'includewhite perch impinged at all the power plants discussed 

### in Section 2 and in the Appendix, except Astoria, Although impingement data ape not available for the Albany 

### power plant except for 

### the period April 1974

## - March 1976, Albany was operating continuouslyduring the period June 1974through December 

### 1977, which is the period considered in 

### this report 

### in estimating conditional mortality rates and exploitation rates due to 

### impingement for the 1974 and 1975year classes. Consequently, the number of 

### young-of-the-yearand older white perch collected at Albany was approximated for each month from

### April 1976

## - December 1977, as described 

### in Table

### A-1 of the 

### Appendnx.

Tho 

### value of a 

### sexually immature fish to 

### a population increases with its age, because 

### its probability of surviving to sexual maturity inclreases. For 

### this reason the impact to the population of killing a sexually immature fish increaseswith its age. 

### If, as 

### the utilities assume, the total mortality of 

### juvenilewhite perch between July of year 0

### and July of 

### year 1 

### is 80%, 

### then 

### a singleyearling impinged in July is worth five juvenils11-16

Table 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

Year class Natural Initial population sizea morta1ityb 1974 1975

POctober IC 

### LB 12 21 BE (x 

### 106) UB 21 30 39 45

PJuIy l6d LB
(x 106) 

### BE 

### Low High



### Low 13.9 24.3 16.8 29.4

24.3 34.7 High 29.4 41.9



### UB Low 45.1 52.0 High 54.5 62.9

aBE denotes'thebest estimate of initial population size. LB and 

### UB

denote the lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval about the best estimate.

bLow natural mortality: rn = 0.001899 per day for the entire period

ofvulnerability to impinqement. This instantaneous natural mortality ." rate correspond; to an annual li.e., 365 days) conditional mortality " rate due to all causes of mortality other than impingement of 0.5.
High natural mortality: rn = 0.004409 per day from July 16 as youngof-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 due to all causes other than impingemeet of 0.8. rn = 0.001899 per day from June 1 as yearlings until the end of the period of vulnerability.

CPOctober 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 (Exhibit UT-3, p. 2-VII-2, as modified by errata).
dPjuly 16 denotes the size of the Hudson River young-of-tk-year

white perch population on July 16. It is calculated using the equation

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

139; 751 130; 26i 609,090 111,820

91,910 90,151 11-17

Table 7. Monthly estimates of the number of white perch impinged at 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 vulnerabilfty

. .. (years)

- Month 2 3 2 3

0 '6 0 0 7 3,486 8,898 8 14,887 97,910 9 '. 26.239 83,980 10 112;957 93.888 11 245.492 239,150 12 607;434 348,596

1 415,724 589,206 2 3 4 270.751 139; 751 609,090 182.891 130; 26i 111,820 5 91,910 90,151

1 6 37,242 18,621 27,014 13,507 7 22,126 11,063 13,835 6,918 8 14,122 7,061 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 3 9,293 12,444 4,646 6,222 43,558 49,579 21,779 24,790 4 14,103 7,052 38.692 19.346 5 7,612 3,806 56,365 28.182

2 6 13,507 35,710 7 6,918 8, BO5 8 3,385 12,662 9 6,896 8.736 10 12.838 17,362 11 6,276 19,145 12

1 24.051 71,505 10,890

2 21.779 3 24,790 4 19,346 5 28,182 Age



# Q t 1. aMonthly vafues for number of yoy white perch impinged Were calculated by sumning the NUMBER0 values inTables A-1, and A-3 through A-9 in Appendix A over pwer plants for the appropriate month and year. 

# 3 nonthly values for number of yearling white perch impinged were calculated either by sumning the NUMBER1 values over pwer plants for the appropriate month and year (2 years of vulnerability, corresponding to the assumption that 100%of theyearling and older white perch impinged 

# I - were yearlings) or by suming the NUMBER1 values over power plants and dividing by 2 (3years of vulnerability, corresponding to the assumption that 50%of the yearling and older white perch impinged are yearlings). 

# t Monthly values for number of 2-year-old white perch impinged were calculated by sumning the NUMBER1 values over power plants, dividing by 2. and tabulating the result for the given month, but one year later (3-years of vulnerability only, corresponding to the assumption that 5oX of theyearling and older white perch impinged are 2-year olds). 

# 3 t11-18

impinged 

### 12 months earlier. Ifmortality between year 

### 1 and year 2 is 50%, then each 2-year-old white perch is worth two yearlings or tenyoung-of-theyear. Even though the number of yearlin9 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,

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 wnite perch impinged that are yearlings and older
are yearlings, resulting in two years of vulnerability to impingement. For the other case, it was assumed that of the yearling and older white perch impinged, 50% were yearlings and 

### 50% were 2-year olds, resulting in three years 

### of vulnerability to impingement. It is

### our judgment, based on lengthfrequency data of impinged white perch at Bowline, Indian Point, and Rosetor (seeAppendix, 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, between 

### 100% yearlings

# - 0% 2-year olds and 

### 50% yearlings

# - 50% 2-year 

### olds. Because of the lack of 1978 impingement data 

### for January

# - May, nomodel estimates of impingement impact assuming three years 

### of vulnerability are given for the 

### 1975 year class.

Edith 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 involving initial population size (low, best estimate, and high), natural mortality (low and high), and number ofyears of vulnerability (2 and 3 years).

Estimates 

### of the conditional mortality rate due 

### to impingement are especiaily relevant in assessing the effects of power plant impingement, sixethey are equivalent to estimates of the fractional 

### (or perceilt) reductim in the size of a year class due to impingement, assuining no compensation (seeBarnthouse et a1 1973). 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 

### (3) assuming three years of vuinerabi?ity 

### instead of two. Furthermore, assuming approximately comparable degrees of uncertainty in the choices of 

### low and high estimates 

### of initial population size, natural mortality, and number of years of vulnerability, it appears that the estimates 

### of percent reduction are most sensitive to (ioeop vary most wideiy depending on) estimates of initial population size, ieast sensitive to the number of years of vulnerability assumed, and intermediate1 sensitive to estimates of natural mortality.

The percent reduction values range from 9.5 

# - 45% for the 1974year class and from 

### 7.7 

# - 24% for the 

### 1975 year class, assumiKg only two years of vulnerability. Assuming threeyears 

### of vulnerability, the percent reductior values range from 1249% 

### for the 1974 year class. For the 1975 year class, percent reduction values cannot be calculated because 1978 impingement data axnot presently available.9

c

0 t

1

W 

# I 11-19 

# I

h h PI d tn W d d .c m a 1-( d aJ W I m d 0 4 9 4 9 I I W uv

.r m C'o L 0 0 0 0 0 0 mL

v u Y 0 (c w 0 n NO v-4 UC,

L .C. 0 VI3



# - VI> m

n -4­
v) d m m uo o* 10 % 4 In I 9 0 9 4



# - I 0 0 0 0 0

v Y w

c 1 >
4­ v) cu a m 0 In r- m .-I -Q cu 4 m 4 I S VI L L 0 d 0 0 tu m

v m w h

N
v
w cu

I

_ _ h U h .-I UI c, m In CI) m U 9 9 N 0 I W d I 0 0 d cn E

v v c 0

.C L VI Q­ 3 en V a, .- c

h e, c m a3 != W 

## 2 8 m Q 2 cu 9 tn 1 3 L

0 0 d 0 

# - V

v v Y m V X W vU U wo
%= .C Qal L

=-l
h h c_ 0 ln r- 

### z? cu -r P 8 LD W % h c 0 m 4 .-I



# - 0 A 8 fu +J

-1 1 +J -r d 0 d 0 d 0 L 3

u Y 8 U z1 w V X
VI aJ LVI v) mm h 0)- cn z-v d n E

-r

FN m

.. PU w 0, 0) xe aJ w c' ww vr v, vr 1 U T11-20

Exploitation rates show the same pattern of variation as the conditional mrtality rates with respect to values used for initial population size, natural mortality, and number of years 

### of vulnerability {Table 8). The exploitation rates range from 5.1 

# - 20.0% for the 1974year class and 

### from 3.8 

## - 9.9% for 

### the 

### 1975 year class, assuming only two years of vulnerability. Assuming three years of vulnerability, the exploitation rates range from 

### 5.3 

# - 20.9% 

### for the 1974year class, and, although they cannot be calculated at this time, they would be expected to be lower for 

### the 1975 year class. As discussad in Barnthouse 

### et al. (1979), because there are competing sources ofmortality and each an organism can die only once, an exploitation rate is always lower than the corresponding conditio: mortality rate. However, as stated above, it is the conditional mortality rate due to impingement that isequivalent topercent reduction in the sin ofthe year class. Because of this equivalence, the conditional mortality rate is a more meaningful measure of impact than is the exploitation rate.

### 11-21

5. 

### DISCUSSION



### A. Comparison With Utilities' Results



### The utilities have estimated the Conditional mortality rate and exploitation rate due to impingement of white perch for the 1974

### year class (Table9). 

### Impingement impact for the 1974

### year classwas estimated assuming that 90%

### of the July 1974-June 1975 impingement consisted of the 1974year 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 exploitationrates 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%. (Exhibit UT-3, p. 

### 2-VII-3)

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-canbe compared with our estimates in Table 8 

### (twoyears 

### of vulnerability, best estimate of 

### initial population 

### size, and high natural mortality) of 

### a conditional mortality rate 

### of 25.5% and 

### an exploitation rate of 11.4%. 

### The two sets of 

### estimates differ by 

### approximately a factor of 2 for several reasons (wehave not 

### attempted 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

## - 1977 

### and were impinging 

### white perch. Thus, they should be included in any evaluation of 

### the impact of 

### impingement on the Hudson River white perch population.
(2) 

### We included Indian Point Unit 

### 1, which operated continuously (at least the circulatingwater pumps) from June 1974 through August 1975, while they did not. Since this unit was operating during part of the period 

### of interest and was impinging white perch, it also should be included 

### in any evaluation of the impact of impingement on the Hudson River.whiteperch population.


### (3) Our values reflect two years of vulnerability to impingement, while their values reflect only one year of 

### vulnerability (i.e., they ignored impingement of 

### yearling and older white perch from the 1974

### year 

### class past June 1975). Sinceyearling and alder 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, justifiablemethodological reason or biological reason for not including these yearling and 

### older white perch in 

### such an evaluation.11-22

Table 9. 

### Relevant parts of 

### Table 2-VII-1 in Exhibit UT-3



### Power p1ant Number impi ngeda Exploitation rate (u) Conditional mortality 

### (m)

~-

~ 

### Bowline 473,043 0.0137 0.0273



### Roseton !2,025 0.0015 0.0030


### Indian 

### Point Unit 2 1,520,317h 0.0441 0.0849



### Mu1tipl

### ant 2,045,385 0.0594 0.1126



### aTotal impingement, of which 90% 

### are assumed to 

### be 1974 year



### class.

bIncludes 948 impinged 

### at Indian Point Unit 3.11-23

(4) We used available data toestimate on a monthly and plant-specific basis the percent of white perch impinged from June 1974 

## - June 1975 that were from the 1974 year class, whereas they assumed 90%. As the PERCENT0 values inTables 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 isclearly too high for Albany, Bowline, Oanskammer, and Roseton.

(5) We used the methodology presented inBarnthouse et al. (1979), which permitted us to take into account monthly variations in collection rates, whereas the utilities' methodology implicitly
assumes a constant vulnerability. In reality, as discussed in Section 11, the collection ratefluctuates appreciably on a monthly basis, with rates being substantially higher from December

# - May than from June 

## - November (Tables 2 and 3). (Also see Table 3 and associated text inBarnthouse etal. (1979) for'a comparison using constant versus variable collection rates to estimate the conditional mortality ratedue to impingement.)

The utilities' choices at every 

## -of the above five "decision points" one affect the results inthe 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 inthe strength of the 1974 year class of white perch inthe Hudson River due to impingement at power plants, 

### our choices at each of the fivedecision points isscientifically more sound and defens ble for the reasoris we have given.

B. Is there a problem?

This testimony presents two independent lines of evidence evaluating the impingement losses of white perch at the power plants on the Hudson River. The first lineof evidence, the analysis of the variation in collection rate among years (Section 2.B), suggests that there isnot yet an obvious problem, but that it is too soon to be sure. The second lineof evidence, the estimates of conditional mortality rate due to impingement (Section 4), suggests th'at the level of impingement impact cannot be assessed as acceptable from the point of view of the white perch population. These two lines of evidence are briefly elaborated on inthe following two paragraphs.

The collection rates provide estimates of year-class strength on a relative scale. As such, they reflect the effect of entrainment azd impingement losses during the preceding months, as well as the effect of any compensatory mechanisms which might alter survival during the preceding months. Regression analyses on collection rates of impinged young-of-theyear white perch suggest that there has been no systematic change inthe size of the white perch population during the period 1972

# - 1977 (Section 2.B). Inparticular, there is littleevidence of a statistically

### 11-24

significant downward trend. However, given the large variability 

### in collection rates used 

### in these regressions, the time series are relatively short 

### (i.e., 5-5

### years), and thus, the statistica? power of 

### the test for a trend is not high. 

### In addition, because of 

### the age of sexual maturity for 

### females and the multiple age-class composition

### of the spawningpopulation 0. 

### females, and because impingement mortality increased appreciably starting i 

### 1973 and 1974, 

### a systematicdecrease fn year-class strength due 

### to impingementmortalitywould only start tomanifest itself with 

### the 1977 (or 1978) and subsequent year classes.


### The estimates of percent reduction 

### inyear-class strength due 

### to impingement that are presented in Table 8 

### cover a broad range, as discussed in Section 4. 

### Our analysis shows that the level 

### of impingement impact was probably greater than 20% 

### for the 1974year class and was probably greater than 15%

### for the 1975

### year class. These estimates do not include consideration of entrainment, so 

### that the total power plant conditional mortality rate is obviously greater than the values given here for 

### impingementonly. Given the information presently available, 

### it is our judgment that this level of 

### impingement impact is not acceptable from the point of view of 

### the white perch population.

# 1 1 1 

# 1 

# E II b Y 5 11-25



### VI. REFERENCES

Barnthouse,

### L. W., 

### D. L. DeAngelis, 

### and S. W. 

### Christensen. 

### 1979. An empirical model of impingement impact. ORNL/NUREG/TM-290. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Christensen,

### S. W., 

### W. Van Winkle, and J. S. 

### Mattice. 1976. 

### Defining and determining the significance

### of impacts: concepts and methods. pp. 

### 191-219. 

### IN R. K: Sharma, J. 

### D. Buffington, and 3. 5. 

### McFadden (eds.:), Proceedings of 

### the workshop on the biological significance of environmental impacts. NR-COMF-002.

Dew, 

### C. 6. 

### 1978. Age, growth, and mortality of 

### Hudson River white perch perch (Moroneamericana) 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.

Exhibit �PA-205. Barnthouse,L. k’. 

### 1979. 

### An analysis of factors that influence impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants. Testimony prepared for the U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11.

Exhibit 

### UT-3. 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 poulations. Edited by 

### J. T. 

### McFadclen and J. 

### P. Lawler. Submitted to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. July 1977. 

### Errata correcting the estimates of the size of the Hudson River young-of-the-yearwhite perch population on 

### October 1, 

### originally given on p. 

### 2-VII-2of this reference, are contained in Utilities‘ Exhibits UT-3E-2 and UT-3E-5.

Exhibit UT-4. 

### Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and 

### other other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary,with emphasis

,’ 

### on striped bass and other fish populations. Edited by 

### J. T. 

### McFadden. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1977- 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.
Ricker, W. 

### E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fish. Res. Board. Can., 

### Bull. 191. 382 p. 

### Robson, D. S., 

### and D. G. 

### Chapman. 1961. 

### Catch curves and mortality rates. Trans. Am. 

### Fish. 

### SOC. 90:181-189.11-26



### Texas Instruments, Inc* 1975a. Hudson River ecological study in the area Indian Point. 1974 

### Annual 

### Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 

### New 

### York, Inc.


### Texas Instruments, Inc. 1975b. 

### First annual report 

### for the multiplant impact study of 

### the 

### Hudson River, Yol. I, 

### July, 

### 1975. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 

### New York, 

### Inc.



# . 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.

USNRC (U. S. 

### Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1975. 

### Final environmental statement related to operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plar Unit No. 3, 

### Consolidated Edison Company of

### New York, Inc. NUREG-75/0( 

### Wallace, 0. C. 1971. 

### Age, growth, year class 

### strength, and survival rates of the white perch, 

### Morone americana (Gmelin) in the 

### Delaware 

### River ir 

### the vicinity of

### Artificial Island. Chesapeake Science 12:205-218.11-27



### APPENDIX

IMPINGEMENT DATA BASE

The data base is presented by power plant,
arranged in alphabetical orderI1-29

TABLE 

### A-1

WHITE PERCH 

### IMPINGEMENT DATA FOR THE ALBANY 

### STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING 

### STATION

April 1974

## - March 

### 1975: Ref. (1)

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 3, Column 6, Plant Av.), and 

### monthly data on 

### percentage composition by 

### species of the 

### fish collected (from Table 

### 4),

NUMBER 

### (number collected): calculated fron 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 fisk 

### collected (from Table 4).

PERCENTO 

### (percent of 

### the white 

### perch collected 

### that 

### were young-ofthe-year): calculated with 

### the aid ofgraph paper 

### and 

### a dissecting microscope from 

### the monthly plots in Fig. 10 

### of frequency versus length intervals of 

### white 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 1ength 

### between young-of-the-year and yearling white perch 

### (see Table A-10 in

### this appendix).

April 1975

## - i4arch 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).

NUMBER 

### (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.



# Precedingpage

## Mank

.-.11-30



### TABLE A- 1 

### (continued)

P

### ERCENTO (percent of 

### thewhite perch collected that 

### were young-ofthe-year): calculated with 

### the 

### aid of graph paper and a dissectingmicroscope from the plots 

### in Fig. IVC-6 

### of relative frequency versus length intervals of white perch collected at the Albany Steam Electric Generating Station fc each month May through November 1975. The “DIVISION44 criteria specified by 

### Texas Instruments were used 

### as the cut-off point between young-of-the-year and yearlingwhite perch (seeTable A-10 in this appendix).

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENTO values were approximated as follows for eac month during 1974 through 

### 1977for which estimateswere not directly available fromRefs. 

### (1) and 

### (2). These approximations were necessary 

### in order to have a completedata set with which to estimate exploitation rates and 

### the conditional rates of mortality due 

### to impingement (see Section 4).



### RATE and 

### NUMBER: approximations for each month were calculated as the 

### average of the twomonthly estimates available from 

### the period April 1974 through March 1976. These approximationswere used for 

### January-March 1974 and April 

### 1976 

## - December 1977.



### PERCENTO: for May 

### through November approximations were calculated as 

### just described for RATE 

### and NUMBER. The approximation for November was als used for 

### the months of 

### December and Januaryof 

### all years. The April 1974 value (no estimate forApril 1975 was 

### available) was used as the approximation forApril 1975, 

### 1976, and 1977 and for the months of February and March of 

### all years.

RATEO = 

### PERCENTO RATE/100 and RATEl = 

### RATE 

## - RATEO.

NUMBERO = 

### PERCENTO NUMBER/100 and NUMBER1 = 

### NUMBER 

# - NUMBERO.

RATE, 

### NUMBER, and PERCENTO are defined above. RATEO and RATEl are the collection rates for young-of-the-yearand for yearling and older white 

### perch, respectively. NUMBERO and 

### NUMBER1 are number collected for young-of-the-yearand foryearling and olderwhite perch, respectively.

1All 

### collection rates were converted from number of 

### white perch

collected per million gallons to

### number of 

### white perch allected per million cubic meters by 

### multiplying by 

### 264.17 gallons per 

### cubic meter. Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement mortslity rates.

# E E 11-31

TABLE A-1 

### (continued)

IEAR llONTR R1l’E JOYBE3 PER28RTO RLTEO RArEl 13neem 801 BEE1

?974 t 0.000 3.5 10.70 0.0000 0.133 0.31 3. t 197G 2 0.528 15.5 19.63 0.1036 0.425 3.08 12.5 197G 3 6.668 260.5 19.60 1.3162 3.522 51.35 209. U 1979 4 77.738 3323.3 19.60 15.1190 62.019 768.91 315U.l 9970 S 95.10 t 5518.0 35.50 33.7509 51.3U3 1958.93 3559.1 1970 5 133.930 1717.3 0.30 0.0000 133.934 0.00 7717.3 9970 ? 211.072 12516.0 0.00 0.3300 211.172 0.33 12518.0 0570 e 105.932 5234.3 5.88 6.2288 99.703 370.09 5923.9 1970 9 178.051 9868.0 2.00 a.3si3 173.706 2UO. 13 9627.2 1374 10 305.391 ?7325.3 1.79 5.4663 299.91P 310.12 1701P.9 197U 19 61.023 3516.0 9.u3 5.7355 55.253 331.56 3ma. it 1974 72 0.25U 21.3 10.70 @.07E3 0.236 2.25 18.0 t975 B 0.000 7.0 10.70 0.30~0 0.133 0.75 6.3 1975 2 0.193 31.3 19.60 0.1553 0.537 6-00 211.9 1975 3 0.26U 10.0 19-60 O.Cj18 3.212 1.96 8.0 1975 c 1.057 05. 3 19.63 0.237 1 0.050 8.82 36.7 1975 5 285.568 11711.0 6-58 ia.7900 L55.777 770.98 109Q6.0 1975 6 ?18.034 5393.3 0.30 0.0000 118.084 0.00 5583*0 1975 7 212.921 6336.0 0.00 0.0300 212.321 0.33 8336.4 1975 8 29.951 1157.3 6.12 1.8769 28.02U 89.78 1377.2 1975 9 299.833 lb71U.O 12.UO 37.! 103 ?.52.55@ 1820.5Q 32889.5 1975 10 133.036 5335.3 7.52 19.0;21 ‘23.37‘1 153.91 55E2.1 1975 l? 69.213 29C6.0 11-90 8.2363 50.375 395.01 2560.2 1975 12 0.250 15.3 10.70 0.Oib3 0.236 1.71 lU.3 1976 I 0.000 O.@ 10.7G 0.3300 3.333 0.33 0.0

1975 3 13,208 511.0 19-60 2,5889 13.523 133.15 aio. B f956 4 39.397 133U.J 19.60 7-6630 31.43a 388-86 1595.1 1976 5 190.202 6617.5 21.00 39.9%25 130.253 1609.63 6857.8 1976 6 126.009 3126. 5 0.30 0.0000 126.009 0.00 6026.5 1976 1 211. 660 10~27.0 0.00 0.9030 211.36U 1.33 10027.0 5976 6 67.392 3393.5 6.00 U.0735 63.816 232.63 3647.7 1976 9 236.810 12291.0 7.U2 17.73 97 221.333 911.93 11379.0 1976 10 219.261 11593.5 4.66 10.2176 239.040 544: 31 11136-2 1576 2 0.330 3: 3 19.60 0.0300 0.000 0.00 0.3

1976

- 1976 12 0.266 16.5 10.70 0.0283 0.236 1.98 16.5 1977 1 0.000 3.5 10.70 0.0UBU 0,333 0.37 3.1 1971 2 0.528 15.5 19.60 0.1036 0.425 3.OW 92.5 I957 3 6.868 260.5 19.60 1.30G2 5.522 51.35 209. U 1975 1917 1973 4 5



# - 6 39,097 190.202 126.009 1330.3 6617.5 9326.5 19.60 21.00

0.30 7.663C 39.3%23

0.0000 3 1.U34 150.259 :26.009 386.86 1809.68 0.00 ‘3595.1 6807.0 8026.5 1971 211. 66s lOU27.0 0.00 0.OOOP 211.35a 3.33 10Q27.0 1977 8 67.992 3333.5 6.00 4.0735 63.01Q 232-83 36U7.7 1977 9 238. a10 12291.3 7.42 17.7197 221.393 911.99 11379.0 1977 10 219.261 115S3.5 6.66 10.2176 209.349 SOU.31 11136.2 1957 19 6U. 986 3291.0 50.70 6.9535 53.332 303.sa 2867. U T977 12 0.264 19;5 10.70 0.0263 0.236 1.96 16.5 12 60.986 3211.0 10.10 6.9535 jS.132; 343.58 2867.9



# t 

# 1.11-32

REFERENCES FOR TABLE 

### A-1

1. Lawler, Matusky 81 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, 1976.11-33

TABLE A-2



### WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA 

### FOR THE ASTORIA GENERATING STATION (Ref. 1)

RATE (collection rate):l 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).

NUMBER (number collected): calculated from the collection rate (RATE)described immediately above and the value for full flow through Units 1-6 

### in gallons per minute (from Table 1j times the number ofminutes in the particular month.

Data with whsch to calculate RATE and NUMBER values were available only forthe period January 1972

# - December 1972. No data were available from which to estimate PERCENTO, the,percentof thewhite perch collected at Astoria that were young-of-the-year. The white perch impingement data for Astoria have been used only 

### in Section 2.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 cubicmeters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter. Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement mortality rates.11-34

TABLE A-2 

### (continued)

1912 s 1.03 611 251 $972 2 0.62297 1ou1 1972 3 t.60067 339 2972 I 3.13570 7s7 1912 5 2.09223 522 1972 6 0.BUS34 20u 1972 7 0.97490 213 is72 3 0.00000 0 1992 9 0.03060 3 1972 10 0.00000 0 1972 It 0.00003 9 1972 12 6.90 767 173311-35



### REFERENCE FOR TABLE A-2 

# I 1. Quirk, Lawler and Matusky 

### Engineers. A Study of 

### Impinged Organisms 

### at the 

### Astoria Generating Station. QL&M 

### Project 

### No. 125-16, prepared 

### for 

### Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 

### Inc., September 

### 1973.11-36

TABLE A-3

WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMEHT DATA FOR THE BOWLINE POINT GENERATING STATION

January 1973

# - December 1976: 

### Ref. (1)



### -
Values for RATE (collection rate)l and NUMBER 

### (number collected) were taken directly 

### from data sheets inRef. (1).

-%. January 1977

# - December 1977: Ref. (2)
Values 

### for RATE (collectionrate)l and NUMBER (number collected)were 

### taken directly from 

### data sheets in Ref. (2).

PERCENTO (percent of 

### the white perch collected that were young-of-the year): January 1975

# - December 1976: Calculated from monthly data on length-frequency in 1-centimeter length intervals ofwhite perch in impingement collections 

### [frurn Tables 10.2-13 and 10.2-14 inRef. (3)). Tne "DIVISION" criteria specified by Texas Instruments were 

### used as the cut-off length between youn -of-the-year and yearling white perch (see Table A-10 inthis appendix 

# 4

. January 1973

# - December 1974 and January 1977

# - December 1977: inthe absence of monthly values during these 

### two periods, estimates were calculated as the average of the 1975 and 1976 PERCENTO values for eact 

### month.

RATE0 = PERCENTO
0 RATE/100 and RATE1 = RATE 

## - RATEO.

NUMBERO = PERCENTO NUMBER/100 and NUMBER1 = NUMSER 

## - NUMSERO.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENTO are defined 

### above. RATEO and RATE1 are 

### the collection rates for young-of-the-year and for yeaTling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBERO and NUMBER1 are number collected 

### for young-of-the-year and foryezling and older white perch, respectively.

lAI1 collection rates were converted from number of white perch collected

per million gallons to number of white perch collected Fer million cubic meters by multiplying by 264.17 gallons per cubic meter. Collection rates were assumed to equal impingement mortality rates.PUB

1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 197, 1973 RONrA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a eArE

296.13 353.99 288.7U 462.56 235.90

19.55 13.7U 6s.a~

0.76 s.92 9.51 373.31 1092.87 1213t34

968.98 922.08

91.a0 19-99

5.20 3-33 0,u9 29.32 b97.17 845.00 1899.59

92.21 303.00 1350.10

173.82

15.06 

### ' 19.28

0.23 1-85 2.3A 20.34 622.38

61-55 97.94 261.00 607.9C

22.98

9.25 2.91 113.96

15.32 1.06 610.50 171% .33 295.29 306.57 lU7.9 1

81.73 91.35 24.57

5.26 66.36

1.90 59.17 298.47 359.03 Pe3:ESTO

82.6 78.8 LUJBEB

17021 15194 U016 23333 lU739

939 692 272'4

285 326 500 13363 58025 91003 91689 55937

2901 1423

533 312 529 3697 a3360 33395 176382

7359 2U651 113539

9088 1229 1809

9B5 190 133 1351 5U906

2336 333s 33906 57731

1996

912 308 RATE3

2'40.5 1 278.9P 2411. 95 392.25 162-77 BATE1

51.527 75.045 13.839 wa~BEB~

lUO59 12753

3795 20270 10173 0 313 2130

233 302 u83 17753 48259 37042 63832 90257

2332 0 239 291 (I32 3423 D 1625 80563 122u03

5001 17693 e1953 wonBEE1

2961.7 3S31.0

680.a 3633.3 0569. i

809.0 382.0 593.8

52.0 26.1 20.0 307.0 10166.0

9965.7 7856.7 8609.9

899.3 1423.0

290-2

81.1 91.3 273.6 173U.Q 1531.6 53972.9

2353.3 6951.6 31555.5

5873- 1 1228-0

189.9 108.5

07.5 19.7 36.79 8U.8 94-8 69.0

0.0 UQ.8 78.2 81.6 92.6 96.0 90.3 82.6 78.8 8U.6 04.8 69.0

0.0 40.0 78.2 81.6 92.6 96.0

. 38.3

69.0 68.0 71.0 72.2 38.1

0.0 89.5 66.7 75.0 95.2 96.5 99.1 35.7 89.7 97.7 91;5 100.0

0.3 70.309 73.133 19.549 7.593 9.905 3.915 0.371 3,333 6.3US l?>.153 258.627 137.230 180. 217

13.333 le.992

2,315 0.799 3.925 2.17@ 13.932 tu. 366 563.959

31.109 35.117 375.495 107.597

15.058

2.325 1.937 0.h52

. 0.352

0.1119 5.5915 2.6467 S.7682 5.0335 i7.1975

0.3333 9.21159 2.3059 1t 7273

1.9333 0.0000 23.3329 42.7757 51.3833 64.9927 22.0921 12.0236 29. 3135 2U. 5678

2-3313 10.U664 0.3533 4.3709 11.7733

6.1103 0.ao 6-15 35.53

3.98 9.65 9.13 36s; 67 902; 71 961.31 621.59 782.26

63.Of

0.00 2.37 2.69 3,b6 27.15 U77.28 830-71 t317.62

66. I1 217.56 975.21

66- 23

0.00 17.26

2.82 1-39 2-03 19.63 616.78

59-90 85.07 255.00 9 10 11 12

1 a 3 4 5 6 7 8 P 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 s 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i37a 1979 '1971 197b 1979 I974 197e 197U 1970 1574, 1970 7974 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1375 1975 1975 1915 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1975 3976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1376 7377 7977 1977 1577 1377 1977 1977 7977 1977 1977 1977 1977 3615 0 1619 297 IS3 113 1014 5UU12

2810 3413 13586 55703

1996 0 3 9758 133U

49 31115, 145637

20717 18952 10767

5994 5879 0 151 6117

131, 5669 23765 30528 ow.15 126-25 391.92 319.ea 1428.28 0.00 812.00 308.00 1120.113

ima2

0..00 1516. Uti 373U.28 U360.09 5098.81 1929. 90 1076.34 26Ql.20 1952.OO

186.58 1705.20 30.18



### -453.03

990.20 .521.95 670,ro

22.98

0.00 0-00 102.13

13:51

1.06 582. C1 1668.25 203.91 2s1.58 12s.h3

69.31 63.03

0.00 2.36 51.89

1.55 54-80 0.0 1337~ 99.7 88.2 130.0

95.0 97.5 82.6 78.8 1512

83 32966 143371

25081 28351 12697

1063 8520 1952

338 1922

161 5122 2U756 31356 eo.8 84.8 69-0

0.0 QU.8 10.2 81.6 92.6 96.0 38-3 282-59 353- 3211-38



### REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-3



### I. Letter dated March 3, 1978, 

### from William 

### J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidatec Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of 

### the U. 

### S, Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (US NRC), 

### including a response to Question X.l, 

### which is

### the identification number for a question in Enclosure 2 of

### a letter dated July 26, 

### 1977, 

### from George tl, 

### Knighton (US 

### NRC) to

- - 

### Milliam 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 tc 

### 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 

### �PA) to Kenneth 

### L. Marcellus (Con Ed).

3. 

### Ecological Analysts, Inc. Bowline Point Generating Station. Near-fie' Effects of Once-through CoDling System Operation on 

### Hudson River Biota. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., July 1977 (Exhibit UT-7).11-39

TABLE A-4

WHIT� PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA 

### FOR THE DANSKANMER POINT GENERATING STATION

RATE (collection rate :1

- January 1372

# - December 1976: averaqe 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 dirctly from data sheets in Ref. (2).

NUMBER 

### (number co11

### ected): January 1972 

## - December 1977: calculated from 

### the mnthly collection 

### rates (RATE) described imediatcly above and monthly values ofactual total plant intake flow inmillions ofgallons for the particular month, from data sheets in Ref. (3) for 1972

## ­ 1976 and from data sheets provided by 

### the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11, 

### New York, 

### New York for 1977.

PERCENTO (percent of the white perch collected that were young-of-theyear):
No estimates of PERCENTOwere available for Danskamner. Consequently, all monthly values for PERCENTO 

### were approximated based on data from Rosetan, which 

### is adjacent to Danskamner. (See Table A-9 in this appendix. Monthly PERCENTO values tabulated for Danskamer are exactly the 

### same as those tabulated for Roseton for July 1973

## - December 1377; monthly PERCENTO values for January 1972

# - June 1973were calculated as the average of the 1975 and 1976 Koseton values for each month.)

RATEO = PERCENTO RATE/100 and RATE1 = RATE 

## - RATEO.

NUMBERO = PERCENTO
9 iJUMBERj100 and NUMBER1 = NUMBER 

## - NUMBERO.

- 1All collection rates were converted from number ofwhite 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 eqclal impingement mortality rates.11-40

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCEIUTO 

### are dzfined above. RATE0 and RATE1 are the collection rates for young-of-the-year and 

### for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBER0 and NUMBER1 are 

### number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.

# I I I 

# 1 

# I I I I 1 

# I 

# I I I 

# 1 

# I 'I I I 

# I TEAR

1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1971 1970 197U 1974 1970 1974 1970 1974 1979 1974 1970 NOWTRI

1 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 RRTE

22-67 11.23 29.45 137.32 74U.57 5U6. OU 205.74 253.3u 172.82 477.65 273.37 110. a5

9.39 3.22 21.22 203. 89 352. 80 167. 06 485.17

88.76 171.21 505.11 U51. 36

77.24 20.3u

1.29 5.02 669.35 393.96 381.57 135. 89 119.36

53.18 133.46 137.7U 203.51

31.78 15.01 15.93 253.95 139.98 321.57 103. 5 181.11 150.26 592.51 667. US

79.34 u3.35 32.76 56.35 1069.18

250.5 1 232.91

ai?. 87 25.05 106.67 553.73 1329.25

lU3.01

21.77 15.00 152.08 1135.41 1205.75 227.79

66.07 125.31 117.20 535.58 067.00

51.96 lUl8ER

703 318 763 h5UU 23669 23235

3596 12723

71U3 19732 11339

3775

291

78 719 6959 15330

7931 25639 726 8631 21155 17855 2203

625

31 153 13511 15508 12326

6273 '3959 2302 5577 5857 3525 1006

3uu 22u 3335 3937 10827

U621 3993 6861 25315 26385

2175 122u 755 '1uuo 25733

88h5 3363 1387 972 U719 13989 39827

'1589

668 363 U263 3517U U8386

5309 2725 5323 QUO8 13326 13191

1u93 PERCENT0 RATE0 RkTE1 IlUlBERl

66.0 14.959 7.736 259.3 53.0 5.950 5.277 1u9.5 59.3 17.378 12.077 31U- 9 UU.0 60.119 75.397 25Uk6 58.3 431.908 312.761 12OUO. 6

0.0 0.000 516.039 * 23235.0 4.8 9.923 196.816 9230.6 64.2 162.6UU 91.535 r55u. 8 96.5 1U9.989 23.331 961.3 88.6 Q23.191 51.052 22'49. 4 35.3 232.931 40.142 1631.4 73.8 81,512 23.939 989.1 66.0 5.998 3.090 95.5 53.0 1.708 1.515 36.1 59.0 lU.292 9.932 29U.8 UU.0 89.710 111.176 3897.0 58.3 201.623 148.176 64UU.S

0.0 0.300 157.U91 7931.0 4.8 23.288 461.886 29378.8 6U.2 56.985 31.715 1691.9 86.5 109.10 23.113 1165.2 98.6 448.68 57.731 22.98. 8 85.3 385.01 55,351 262U. 7 73.8 57.01 20.238 589.0 66.0 13.33 5.915 212.5 53.3 0.69 0.608 17.4 59.0 2.95 2.353 62.7 uu.0 294.07 374.276 10926.2 58.0 228.29 165.152 6513.U

3.3 0.00 381.567 12926.0 4.8 6.52 123. 355 5371.9 64.2 77.01 U2.946 2133.0 86.5 U6.00 7.179 310.8 98.6 119.13 15.329 749.8 85.3 117.119 2). 2Y8 861.0 73.8 147.97 52.532 2233.6 59.9 19.00 12.72U 1103. U 35.6 5.70 10.310 221.5 38.5 6.13 3.737 137.8

7.0 17.78 236.170 3659.6 17.2 2U.08 115.935 3259.8

3.0 0.00 321.57P 11827.0 2.8 2.90 113.552 UU91.6 39.7 71.92 109.2UU 5366.1 77.7 116.75 33.539 1530.0 79.7 472.3 1 120- 300 5078.0 76.2 508.5 0 153.851 6279.6 66.0 52.17 26.873 739.5 72.0 31.21 12.139 3U2.7 70.4 23.06 9.696 226.7 79.6 04. 95 11. $35 293.8 91.0 861.99 202.195 U88U.7 98.7 207-26 3. 257 115.0

0.3 0.00 232.813 8363.0 6.9 2.92 33.337 1291.3 68.8 23.13 2.917 108.9 95.3 101-65 5.010 221- 8 97.5 539.88 13.603 497.2 9u.a 125U.81 7>.138 2230.3 81.5 11u.11 25.902 8U8.8 66.0 lU.33 7.333 227.1 53.3 7.95 7.052 170.6 59.0 89.73 52. 35U 17U7.8 44.3 500.02 636- 388 20257.U 58.0 699.3U 505.315 20322.1

3.0 0.00 227.741 5808.0 U.8 3.17 52.939 2594.2 64.2 80.25 UU. 752 1907.8 86.5 101.31 15.827 595.1 98.6 479-52 61.056 2055.0 85.3 398.35 53.513 1939.1 73.8 38.35 13.61U 390.4 NU0BE80

493.7 168.5 453.1 1399.4 16627.0 3.) 465.U 9168. 2 6178.7 17U52.6

9966.6 2785.9

185.5

Ul. 3 42u.2 3362.3 8899I5 3-3 1229.2 333c. 1 7U65.9 17866.2 15230.3

1659.0 U 12.5

19.6 90.3 8584I8 8Y9U. 5 0.0 301.1 3825.0 1991.2 5827.2 0996.3 6291-4

602.5 122.5 86.2 275.U 677.2 0.0 129. U 3532.9 5331.3 19937.0 23105.4

1435.5 981.3 539.3 1146.2 20826.3

9730.3 0.0 95.7 863.1 uu97.2 i939o.a 37596.7

3739.2

auo. 3 192.4 2515.2 15916.6 28363.9 0.0 133.9 3421.2 3812-9 15971.0 11251-3

1099.6 1970 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1576 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1971 1977 1977 1977 1977 1971 1977 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1211-42

REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-4



### 1. Letter 

### dated March 

### 3, 1978, from William J. 

### Cahill, Jr. of

### Consolida Edison Company of Newyork, 

### Znc. (Con Ed) 

### toRobert P. 

### Geckler of th U. S. 

### Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (US NRC), 

### including 

### a response t 

### Question IX.l, which 

### is the identification 

### number for a question in Enclosure 2 of a 

### letter dated July 

### 26, 1977, 

### from George W. Knighton (US dRG) to 

### William 

### Cahill, Jr..,(Con Ed).

.-, 2. 

### Letter dated April 14, 

### 1978, fro@Kenneth L. 

### Marcellus of 

### Consolidat 

### Edison Company of New 

### York, Inc. {Con 

### Ed) to Henry Gluckstern of the U. 

### S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### (USEPA), including a response 

### Question A-5, 

### which isthe 

### identification number for a 

### question int 

### enclosure of

### a letter dated March 

### 23, 1978, 

### from Henry Gluckstern {US 

### �PA) to Kenneth L. 

### Marcellus 

### (Con Ed).

3. 

### Letter dated October 31, 1977, 

### from Kenneth 

### 1. Marcellus of 

### Consolidated Edison Company of New 

### York, Inc. 

### to 

### Henry Gluckstern of 

### the U. 

### S. Environmental Protection Agency, including in

### Attachment 2 

### response to 

### Question 7 (9/27/77) of Attachment 

### C which 

### accompanied 

### t October 12, 

### 1977 EPA 

### “Motion 

### to Specify Area of 

### Requestors’ Testimon To 

### Be Cross-Examined During 

### Initial Phase of Hearing.”I1-43

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

## - December 1975: Copied directly 

### from data-sheets provided in Ref. (I). January 1976 

## - December 1977: Copied directly from data sheets provided inRef. (2).

NUMBER (number 

### co11

### ected): Maly 1972 

## - December 1976: Copied directlyfrom appendix taibles inRefs. (3)

# - (6). 

### However, if 

### a NUMBER 

### value in 

### these Texas Instruments (TI) appendix tables was lower 

### than 

### thle corresponding NUMBER value in

### Refs. (1) and (2), then the updated NUMBER value in 

### Refs. (1)

### and (2) was 

### used. 

### For example, 

### such substitutions were made 

### for Indian 

### Point Unit 2 (TableA-6 inthis appendix) for all months of 1973. In general, the NUMBER values prssented 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 Caln Edison in their response to QuestionVI.2 inRef. 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

# - December 1977: Copied directly

### from data sheets proveded inRefs. (7) and (8).

PERCENTO 

### (percent of 

### the white perch collected that 

### were young-of-theyear) :
June 1975

# - 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 ) arid Texas Instruments 1976 Impingement Data (Record Type 0). Mainthly estimates ofPERCENTO 

### were calculated for 

### each unit fctr which there were white perch impingement data as follows:



### - Number of impinged white perch inLenqth Class 1

# . E Total number of impinged white perch 

### ,I1-44

where the bounds 

### on Length Class 1

### are 0 

### m 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-year and yearling white perch (see Table A-10 

### of tl appendix).

RATEO =’PERCENT0 RATE/100 and RATEl = RATE

# - RATEO.

NUMBERO = PERCENTO NUMSER/100 and NUMBER1 = NUFIBER 

# - NUMBERO.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENTO are defined above. RATEO and RATEl are 

### the collection rates 

### for young-of-the-year and 

### for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBERO and NUMBER1 are 

### number collected 

### for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white 

### perch, respectively.

IAll RATE values are given inthe 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 mortality 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/O.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 1

### was assumed 

### to have the
same collection efficiency 

### as Unit 2, since Units 1 and 2 have similar intake structures.11-45

TABLE A- 5 (continued)

PELR nONTH BnrE NU!IBER PEBCESFO RATE0 BATE1 NUlBER0 IIURBER1

1972 S 1927 94.4 1819 iai.9 1972 6 65.80 11320 0-0 0:00 55. 310 3 11320.0 1912 7 52.70 2127 45. 1 23.6 3 213.768 959 1167.5 1972 B 232.93 10560 81.e 197.53 35.836 e955 1605.1 1972 9 380.37 12337 89.5 321.16 58.910

."'16213 1873.0 1972 10 2236.00 e4607 9u.o 2ioi.e~ 131.153 79533 5076. 4 1972 11 1705.50 35333 36.7 1649.32 56.285 347U0 1185.0 1972 12 8U0.20 11U20 96.4 ei3.ei 33.331 16793 627.1 1973 1 62.40 7333 94.0 58.66 3.740 7957 U76.0 1973 2 6U540 97.3 62197 1192.6 1973 3 20su33 91.1 188030 18369.6 1973 163253 97.8 159662 3S91.6 1913 5 ess:so 21533 94.4 836.o1 09.594 i947e 1155.5 1973 6 186.27 US27 0.0 0.00 1%. 257 3 4526.7 1973 7 2543 45. 1 llS6 1399.5 1973 5 11-53 15367 ea.e 9.79 1.153 -13331 2335.7 1973 9 1963 84.5 1239 226.3 1973 10 287 9U.O 269 17.2 1973 11 4273 96.7 4132 141.0 1973 12 i2ie7 96.4 11793 438.7 1974 1 3798.37 32137 34.3 3570.1B 227.684 301BO 1926.9 1979 2 1661.33 @US67 97.3 1616.88 41.856 03363 1203.3 1914 3 1680.33 33213 91.1 1530. 7e 149.550 39367 3er6.0 191a 1974 u 5 1826.13 591.57 S6220 15593 97.6 94.4 1785.96 561.37 43.175 33.301 suge3 14e02 1236.e 87e.i 191u 1974 6 7 161.20 35.73 76U7 1513 0.0 45.1 0.00 16.12 161.2)3 i9.6ie 3 110 7646.1 863.8 1910 e 22.60 1140 84.0 19.16 3.u35 967 173.3 1974 9 6'5.20 2973 94.5 so. e7 9.331 2512 560.9 1979 10 631. e7 30227 9u.o 593.95 31.912 28113 1813.6 1979 11 e95.00 15733 36.7 866.43 29.568 ;5214 519.2 19111 12 62U1. 47 iu3e67 96.4 6016-71 22%.593 i3e687 5179.2 1975 1 9255.13 62037 99.3 3999.e3 255.308 58286 3720.0 1975 2 6960.67 t02U~f 97.3 6776.52 193.316 99681 2766.1 1975 3 2463.07 33213 91.1 2241.12 218.946 35723 3490.0 1975 9 0757.20 lU073 97.8 U652.59 13r.653 72uuu 1629.6 1975 5 471.73 5193 94. 4 US5.32 26.917 4890 290-1 191s 6 5B. 27 827 0.0 0.00 59.257 3 826,.7 1975 7 -63.97 437 66.0 92.15 21.115 z6e 130.3 1975 8 63.13 287 90.9 57-39 3. 735 261 26.111-46

TABLE A-6 (continued)

YEAR UONrtt arrE 10~818 PERZERT3 R4TEO RAlEl NIlaBER3 WOKBER'

1972 1972 6 9 42. 0 34.3 960 1347 0.0 84.5 0.0 29.0 $2. 43 5. 31 3 1138 96( 20s 1972 10 135. 1 1687 9b. 0 127.0 3.11 1595 10' 1973 1 3869.1 7933 94.0 3636

., 0 232.09 7457 U75 1973 2 U578.3 63593 97.3 U4 jS.7. 123.62 61970 1721 1973 3 4280.1 2)1547 91. 1 3899.2 380.93 183609 1793E 1973 1 U696.1 117680 97.8 U592.8 133. 31 115031 2585 1973 5 1136.1 23563 94.4 1072.4 63.62 19409 li51 1973 6 97.9 4527 0.0 0.0 37.33 3 a521 1973 7 38.6 2513 4s. 1 17.4 21.19 1146 1391 1973 8 187.0 15180 8U.8 158.5 29-12 12873 230; 1973 9 31.3 lS53 84.5 26.9 4. a5 1228 225 1973 10 5.3 287 9U.O 5.3 3. 32 259 li 1973 1% 273.3 9233 96.7 264.3 9.02 4061 134 1973 12 1260.1 12187 96.U 1218.6 35.51 117U9 431 1974 1 12811.7 197813 94.0 12095.8 768.88 138945 8865 1970 2 12823- 3 153027 97.3 12U77.1 305.23 108835 013; 1974 3 9218.7 259980 91.1 8398.2 820.46 236842 23135 1970 (I 8378.7 U71607 97.8 8190.3 19u. 33 U61270 1037t 1974 5 4351.4 395843 94.4 U107.7 243.68 373673 22163 197u 6 u2o. 5 09560 0.0 0.0 a23.53 3 u9561 1974 7 92.3 0753 us. 1 19.1 23. 2U 2194 261i 1970 8 69.7 8160 84.8 59.1 11-53 6923 12uc 1970 9 206.0 23363 84.5 174.1 31.93 19739 3621 1970 10 805.3 75780 9u.o 757.0 18-32 71233 05u; 1974 11 1897.3 165967 96.7 1825.1 62.28 161157 5511 1970 12 6787.3 370153 96.0 65U3.0 204. 34 356828 1332f 1975 1 4416.0 212397 94.0 Ul51.0 264.96 199643 1274: 1975 1975 2 3 3U96.1 3171.2 165833 33973 97.3 91.1 3001.7 2889.0 9u. 33 282.24 161356 81966 407[ 800E 1975 6 5900.1 U51100 97. 8 5770.3 129.91 441176 9921 1975 5 837.0 33373 94. 4 761.8 US. 19 787011 4665 1975 6 90. s 12207 0.0 0.0 93. u7 I 1220- 1975 7 92.7 11713 56.4 52.3 40.90 6606 510; 1975 8 1030. 1 89720 98.5 ioia.7 is.as 8837'4 1391 1975 9 600.0 73693 95.0 608.0 32.00 70009 3685 1975 10 657.5 07720 95.8 629.9 27.61 45716 2001 1975 11 1729.9 173343 95.2 1695-9 82.99 170732 860t 1975 12 2807. 1 290000 97.9 2787.3 59.73 287826 6171 1976 1 9597.3 610213 94.0 9021.5 575.84 573626 36612 1976 2 3731.8 180087 95.6 3557.6 158. 23 172163 7921 1976 3 1563.0 123327 91.1 1423.9 139.11 112077 109UI 1976 0 245.0 287 97.7 239.U 5. 64 293 1976 6 36.9 493 0.0 0.0 36.93 0 49: 1976 9 290.3 8227 90.7 263.3 27.33 7U62 761 1976 10 2332. 7 256333 95. 4 2225.4 107.30 244587 11791 1976 11 lU32.5 20900 98.3 lU09.~ 20.35 20545 35! 1976 12 22551.3 530523 94.1 21220.8 1330.53 649779 4074' 1977 1 36380.7 2160710 9u.o 30197.8 2132. 9U 213U856 129881 1977 2 681t53.3 1251797 97.3 66605.1 18U8.21 1227718 3r106L 1977 3 5005.5 ~S~UFJO 91.1 1560.0 ins. $9 U17675 uo80: 1977 U 10519.3 2373U7 97.8 10317.2 232.09 232125 522; 1977 5 339- 73 25353 94. 4 320.7 1 19.025 2U59U 1U59.( 1977 6 299.87 37567 0.0 0.33 293.957 3 37566.. 1977 1977 7 8 101.47 U63.07 947 43U60 45. 1 W.8 47-11 392.59 57. 352 71.335 U27 36854 519.- 6605.' 1977 9 lU6.87 22323 34.5 12u. 10 22.764 19367 3552.t 1977 10 206U. 00 322080 94.O 19U9.16 123333 333131 193U8.1 1977 11 9173-67 333973 36.7 9U40.2 3 322.432 9oe95~ 31019.' 1977 12 543500 96.0 323373 19567.111-47

TABLE A-7 (continued)

TEIR uowrH SATE NOJBBR PERZE#TO RITE0 BkTEl YOnBEU~ UlfIElEUl

1970 3 38.93 6 91.1 35.36 3.055 5 0.5 1979 9 993.84 1371 97.8 977.95 21.997 4275 96.2 197~ 5 058.90 677 94.0 u33.20 25.638 633 37.9 1970 6 89-73 1433 0.3 0.30 89.729 0 1030.0 1970 # 7 5.71 20 U5.l 2.58 3.137 3 11.0 19711 8 3.53 3 98.8 0.53 0.096 2 0-4 197u 9 2.20 13 80-5 1.96 1.331 11 2-0 1970 10 13.13 93 94.0 17.98 1.108 85 5.9 1976 2 006.86 3970 99.0 u02.39 X.Uj9 3935 39.7 1976 4 333.39 0550 97.8 326.0 5 7.330 445u 100.2 1976 1976 5 6 105.57 25.51 7373 225% 98.0 3.0 99.5 6 0.00 5.312 26.514 6963 0 U12-9 2250.3 1976 7 16.81 1509 13.0 2.19 19.523 196 1312.5 1976 8 05.r3 ai73 64.9 29.08 15.905 2706 1463~7 1976 9 39.27 3199 67.8 26.53 12.605 2169 1029.9 1976 10 221

### - 57 21355 90.9 201.41 20.163 19876 1989.8 1976 11 1332.03 118093 96.6 1286.7U as.239 llUU6U 0028.6 1976 12 819.24 56426 97.2 796.30 22.939 54946 1579.9 1977 1 1953. 03 92889 98.0 I836.22 111.236 97315 5573.3 1977 2 56% 71 121396 97.3 5503.98 152.731 123956 3939.7 1977 3 352. 07 29318 91.1 321.10 31.310 26705 2609.0 1977 4 559-00 35913 97.8 506.70 12.298 55569 1250.0 1977 5 3U6. 01 62640 90.0 327.02 13.339 59132 3507.8 1977 6 87.86 11373 0.3 0.00 84.857 0 11370.0 $977 7 32.23 0756 05.1 14.50 17.633 2105 2610.9 i977 8 9P.36 13193 84.8 19.76 14.297 11179 2003-8 1977 9 00-06 5931 8U.5 33.195 5.213 5012 919.0 1977 10 119.64 031) 94.0 112. 96 7.179 3769 290.6 1977 12 510.26 1812u 96.u U95.78 19.513 17072 652.5

### I1-48

REFERENCES 

### FOR 

### TABLES A-5, A-6, AND A-7



### 1. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from WilliamJ. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to Robert P. Geckler of the 

### U, S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (US NRC), including a response to QuestionVI.3, which isthe identification number for a question in Enclosure 2 of a letter dated July 26, 1977, from George We Knighton (US NRC) toWilliam 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 ProtectionAgency (US EPA), including a response toQuestionA-3, which isthe identification number for a question inthe enclosure of a letter dated March 23, 1978, from Henry Gfuckstern (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 1January 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).

0, Texas Instruments, Inc. Hudson 8iver Ecological Study inthe 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 inSection 401 Certification and which include data sheets giving daily fish counts by species for each unit at Indian Point.

8. Monthly lettersfrom William 

### J. Cahill, Jr. of consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. to James P. O'Reilly of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, which are sent as specified in Appendix B of Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Technical Specification5 and which include data sheets giving daily fish counts by species for each unit at Indian Point, c

### 11-49



### Exhibit UT-105. Table 

### 1. Sumnary of Collection Efficiency Tests and Related 95% 

### Confidence Intervals at Indian Point Units 2 

### and 3, 

### 1974-1977. 

### U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11, 

### Adjudicatory Hearing, 

### Docket No. 

### C/II-WP-77-01, introduced into evidence on 

### June 6, 

### 1978;11-50

TABLE P.-8

WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA 

### FOR THE LOVETT GENERATING STATION

January 1973

# - December 1976: Ref. (1)
Values for RATE (collection

### rate)l and NUMBER 

### (number collected)


### were taken directlyfrom data 

### sheets in Ref. 

### (1). January 1977

# - December 1977: Ref. (2)
Values for RATE (collection rate)l and NUMBER 

### (number collected)


### were taken directlyfrom data sheets in Ref. (2).
PERCENTO (percent of 

### the white perch collected that 

### were young-of-theyear):



### No estimates of PERCENTO 

### were available for Lovett. Consequently, al' monthly values for PERCENTO 

### were approximated based 

### on data from Indi, Point, which 

### is located only 

### 1% miles upriver and across the river 

### frt 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-! to A-7 in this appendix). January 1973

# - May 1975 and January 1977

## - December 1977


### Used 

### the monthly approximations calculated 

### for Indian Point (samr for all 

### units at Indian Point) 

### (see Tables A-5 to A-7 in this appendix)


# .

RATEO = PERCENTO RATE/100 and RATEl = RATE 

# - RATEO.

NUMBER0 = PERCENTO NUMBER/100 and NUMBER1 = NUMBER 

## - NUMBERO.

RATE, NUMBER, and PERCENTO are defined above. RATEO and RATEl are the collection rates foryoung-of-the-year and 

### for yearling and older white perch, respectively. NUMBERO and NUMBER1 are number collected for young-of-the-year and for yearling and older white perch, respectively.



### 1Al1 collection rates 

### were converted from number ofwhite 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 mortality rates.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11-51

TABLE A-8 {

### continued)

YElR nowra B&TE NOgBER PERZEHTO BLTEO RATE1 W31BER3 aG6BEB1

1973 70, 60 3536 94.0 66.55 Y.2U9 3323.6 212.16 1973 81.53 3595 97.3 79, U2 2.234 3468.2 SS. 90 1973 222.a3 11055 91 -1 202.6 3 13.735 13371.1 563.50 1973 195.511 3559 97.8 192.22 4.324 6380.5 168.52 1973 66.0U 2703 9u.u 62.3U 3.535 2551.6 151.37 1973 u3.uo 2231 5.3 0.09 u9.400 0-0 22U7.03 1973 16.38 817 05.1 7.39 3.932 368.5 UU8. 53 1973 6 65.36 3411 6U. 8 72.61 13.050 3745.6 673.36 1973 9 13.71 600 68.5 11.51 2.123 507.3 93.00 1973 10 2-64 93 3U.O 2. 48 3.159 87.a 5.56 1973 11 182.12 6037 96.7 137. X3 1. 633 5637.8 199.22 1973 12 399.55 17232 36.4 375.62 14.321 16669.5 622.51 197'4 1 use. 33 20058 90.0 U30.33 27.533 1935U.5 1203. &8 :974 2 399.16 12695 97.3 388-36 10.777 12352.2 342.75 597U U 522.26 18635 97.6 510-77 11. U39 16U23.6 uia. 37 1974 5 163.26 5293 9u.u 15U- 11 9.142 5893.4 3U9.6; '1970 6 U0.68 1519 0.0 0.30 U3.632 0.3 1519.00 1974 7 5.98 1SU us. 1 4.05 U.931 83.O 101.02 197U 6 12.15 a92 6U.6 10.33 1.371 u 17- 2 711.78 197U 9 13.57 396 9u. 5 8.93 1.636 334.6 61.38 1911 10 108.80 2921 9u.o 102.31 5.533 21U5.7 175. 25 197U 11 302.74 11753 96.7 292.75 9.990 11365.2 367.85 1970 12 311.72 12071 96.0 300.50 11.222 11536.0 U34.56 1975 1 853.36 35153 9u-3 799.39 51.022 33998.9 2170.14 1975 2 121.52 a325 97.3 118.2U 3.231 U238.2 116-78 1975 3 163.80 a213 31.1 153.78 15.02U 3870. 6 376.16 1975 U SU6.3@ 1186U 97.8 53u. 28 12.319 11633.3 261.01 1915 5 25.15 786 34.4 2U. 69 1. U65 742.0 uu.02 1975 6 26.68 958 0.0 0.00 25.53 1 0.3 956.00 1975 7 7.70 273 6 1-2 u. 53 2.670 167.1 105.92 1975 6 U2.80 16U2 9u.7 U0.53 2. 259 1555.0 87.03 1975 9 2V.30 612 35.3 23.09 1.215 609.9 32.10 1975 13 30.38 977 95.6 29.10 1.276 936.3 U1.03 197s 11 543.39 15522 95.2 514.55 25.90U 15824.1 797.66 1975 12 143.97 a058 97.9 1UO. 95 3.323 U36U.U 93.62 1976 1 362.71 11976 34.0 3UO. 94 21.762 11163.4 712.56 1916 1976 2 3 u2.21 93

## -ou 1265 2532 97.3 91.1 u 1. 13 85.67 1.131 8.370 1239.9 2452.4 3U. 16 239.59 1976 U 166.50 a765 97.8 182.UO 1.133 U660.2 1OU. 63 ' 1976 5 3.19 93 3u. 4 7.73 0.459 85.0 5.01 1916 6 26.68 610 0.0 0.03 25.531 0.3 6 10.00 1976 7 15.30 221 13.3 1-34 8.963 28.7 192.27 1976 8 17.70 55u 6U.9 11.39 5.212 359.5 194. us 1916 9 22.19 51u

- 79.2 17.57 9.616 1107.1 105.91 1976 10 12. u2 167 93.2 11.57 3.31u 155.5 11.35 1976 11 570-08 13233 97.4 555.26 10.822 9930.E 265.20 1976 12 53u. 90 13166 95.6 511.11 23.538 12586.7 579. 30 1977 1225.33 33633 9u.o 1152.28 73.553 37307.7 2391.34 1977 751.96 13633 97.3 731.56 23.333 1326U. 3 .368.09 1977 105.U6 1719 91.1 96.99 9. u75 1566.0 152.99 1977 162.62 2783 97.8 159.05 3 - 578 2721.5 61- 23 1977 21.24 370 34.9 20.05 1.169 349.3 20.72 1977 209.355 4732 3.3 0.000 209.355 0-00 4732-00 1977 19.179 576 a5.1 8.550 13.523 259.78 316. 22 1917 s 37,333 1338 su. 8 31.7U3 5.690 1193.95 2lU.02 1977 9 u. 755 121 8U.5 lr.313 3.737 132.2u 18.76 1977 1977 10 11 227.8U7 U90. U05 Si19 9767 3U.3 96.7 219.176
U 70

### -222 13.67 1 15.133 5187.66 931111.69 331.14 -322.31 1917 12 U2.716 569 96. B 41- 179 1.539 643.95 2U. 0511-52

REFEREKES 

### FOR TABLE A-8

1. 

### Letter dated March 3, 

### 1978, from

### William 3. 

### Cahill, 3r. 

### of Consolidate Edison Company of New 

### York, Inc. (Con Ed) to

### Robert 

### P. Geckler of 

### the U. 

### S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 

### (US NRC), including a response to 

### Question X.l, 

### 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. 

### (&on Ed).

2. 

### Letter dated May 5, 1978 

### from Edward G. 

### Kelleher of 

### Consolidated Ediso 

### Company of Hew 

### York, Inc. (Con Ed) 

### to Henry Gluckstern of 

### the 

### U. S. 

### Environmental ProtectionAgency 

### (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. 

### Marc2llus 

### (Con Ed).

# 1 

# I 11-53 

# 1 TABLE A-9

WHITE PERCH IMPINGEMENT DATA 

### FOR ME

.ROSETON GENERATING STATION 

# 1

RATE (collection rate)

### :1 

# 1 July 1973

## - 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 ofthe daily collection 

# i

rates for each month 

### were copied directly from data sheets in 

### Ref. (2). 

# I NUMBER (number collected): 

# I July-1973

## - December 1976: copied directly from Table 10.2-14 of Ref. (3). January 1977

## - December 1977: calculated from the monthly collection rates (RATE) described imediately above and monthly 

# 1 values of actual total plant intake flow in millions of gallons foir 

### the particular month (from data 

### sheetsprovided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11, New York, New York). 

# 1

PERCENTO (percent of the white perch co1lected that were young-of-theyear) : 

# I January 1975

# - 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 Re,f. (3)j. The "DIVISION11criteria 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). 

# I 'I July 1973

# - Decenber 1974 and January 1977

# - December 1977: calculated as the average of the -1975 and 1976 PERCENTO values for each month. 

# I I RATE0 = PERCENTO RATE/100 and RATE1 = RATE



### - RATEO.

NUMBERO = PERCENTO NtlMBER/100 and NUMBER1 = NUMBER 

## - NUMBERO.

- 

# I 1 :lA11 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 mortality 

### rates. 

# I 811-54



### TABLE A-9 (

### continued)

RATE, NUMBER, 

### and PERCENT0 

### are 

### defined above. RATE0 

### and RATE1 

### are the 

### collection rates for

### young-of-the-year and for

### yearling and older 

### white perch, respectively. NUMBER0 and NUMBER1 

### are number collected for young-of 

### -the-year and for 

### yearling and 

### older white perch, respectively.

..11-55

TABLE A-9 (continued) 

# I 

# I 1 

# I I 1 

# I 1 I 

# 1 

# I 

# I II TEAR UORTU RATE 83CLBER NWBBER1

1973 7 9.272 31 77.1 1973 8 98.030 980 350.8 1973 9 U28.008 1390 147.7 1973 1913 $0 11 654. 270 197.837 4522 1396 515- 5 293.4 1973 12 27.521 rea 126-8 197Q 1911 1 2 1.162 0.000 5 0 1.7 0.0 1974 3 0.923 5 2.1 1970 P 108.701 re97 2762.3 1914 5 413.537 5272 2634.2 1970 6 106.566 1105 1105.0 1974 1 0.687 13 9.5 1970 8 54.023 3263 1168.2 1974 9 23.617 1131 152.7 191u 10 113.007 1038 118.3 1979 111 188.829 12313 1810.0 191U 'I2 lOU.030 7351 1926.0 1975 1 18.228 1337 52U-1 1975 2 1U. 316 1059 682.0 1915 3 14.926 1307 643.9 1975 P 340.092 23288 21657.8 1975 5 764.314 ?US33 12088.0 1975 6 19.707 1613 1613.0 1915 7 42.928 3355 3156.8 1975 8 128. U13 957 1 5771.3 1975 9 118.348 7934 1790.3 1915 XI 142.960 33501 6808- 8 1975 11 615.727 10351 9722.5 1975 12 21.107 8UU 287.0 1916 1 19.575 1333 282.2 1916 2 39-712 2287 677- 0 1916 3 17.719 1129 230;3 1976 U 463.513 311193 5983.7 1916 5 202.719 23331 270.9 1976 6 75.070 6455 6455.0 1916 7 3.108 325 303.5 1976 8 22.69 2 2100 235.2 1976 9 28.927 23U6 110.3 '1976 10 1u0. 459 3921 288.2 1976 11 563.316 23006 1288.3 1976 12 63.976 3258 692.7 1977 1 23.036 1696 576.6 1977 2 13.31U 951 400.0 1917 3 67.178 5183 2125.0 1977 4 303.95U 15U96 9232-2 1977 5 735.106 51uua 21606. S 1977 6 20.552 135U 1964.0 1977 7 10.620 1000 955.8 1977 8 2U8.326 25338 9239.3 1977 9 78.2U7 72U8 978.5 1977 10 lU2.493 13176 1160.1 1577 11 119.U8U 7834 1151.6 1977 12 32.342 2296 631.6 PERCENT0

u. 8 6U.Z 86.5 88.6

. 95.3 73-8 66.0 53.0 59.3 uu.0 59.3

0.0 4.8 6U.2 86.5 86.6 95.3 73.8 59.9 35.6 38.5

1.0 17. 2

0.0 2. 8 39.7 71.7 79.7 76.2 66.0 72.0 10.4 79.6 81.0 98.7

0.0 6.9 88.8 75.3 97.5 RZlFEO

0.4U5 63.192 370.227 579.593 168.755 U4PE1

8.827 35.238 57.781 70.537 29.082

7.212 0,395 3.333 0.173 33.273 173.728 136.556

0.654 13.313 NUBBERO

3.9 529.2 946.3 0306.5 1702.6 357.2 3.3 0.3 2.9 21W.7 3637.8 0.3 0.5 239b. 6

978.3 319.7 10503.0

5025.3

782.9 20.315

0.767 0.000 0.249 65.129 239.910

0,300 0.033 39.583 20.429 38.103 161.071

76.770 10.918 5.097 5.786 23.806 28.262

0.033 1.202 50.980 91.957 353.039 469.184

13.931 1u.094 20.237 14.152 3.188 1.933 27.758 27.256

7.309 3.221 9.179 315,296 136.052

13.737 41.726 17.033 26.392 93.921 tU6.5U3

7.116 5.481 13.275

3.627 33.157

3.155 75.610

3.173 2.5'12 1.360 3.511 31.516 11.817

7.332 6.258 27. Sa3 170.214 303.71U

20.552 13.113 88

## -908 13.553 16.244 17.552

8.631 377.3 U03.1 1630.2 2511.0 0.3 108.2 3799.7 6063.7 26732.2 31128.5

557.0 725.8 1613.3

698.7 25509.3 20570.1 0.3 22.5 1864. 8 2235.7 9678.8 21717.7

2655.3 1119.U

451.O 3056.3 7253.8 29837-5 0.0

. ua.2 16568.7

6269.5 9015.9 5582.U 169U.4 375.1a5 239.564 0.330 0.235 20.151 27.567 136.948 531.770

52.059 15.209

7.057 39.635 133.740 526-351 0.000 0.510 159.438

67.59U 126.249 101.320

2U. 311 911.0 81.5 66.0 53.0 59.0 04.0 58.0

0.3 U.8 64.2 86.5 98.6 85.3 13.8

-I1-56

REFERENCES FOR TABLE A-9

1. Letter dated March 3, 1978, from William 

### J. Cahill, Jr. of Consolidat Edison Company of

### New York, Inc., (Con Ed) 

### to Robert P. Geckier of th 

### U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 

### Comnission (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 Consolidate Edison Company of 

### New York, Inc. 

### (Con Ed) 

### to Henry Gluckstern of 

### the 

### U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), including a response Question 

### A-5, which 

### is 

### the ideptification number for a question inth enclosure of a letter dated March 

### 23, 1978, from Henry 

### 'Gluckstern (US EPA) 

### toKenneth L. ivlarcellus (Con Ed).

3. Ecological Analysts, Inc. Roseton Generating Station. Near-field Effects of Once-through Cooling System Operation 

### on Hudson 

### River Biot Prepared 

### for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, .July 1977.11-57'



### TABLE A-10. "DIVISION" CRITERIA SPECIFIED BY TEXAS INSTRUFIENTS AS THE CUT-OFF LENGTH SETWEEN YOUNG-OF-THE-YEAR

### AND YEARLING LIHITE PERCH1



### DATE' (m) (m)

750101 750101 95 95 1973-1974
,. 760105 760119 105 105 1974

## -1975

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 750301 95 !35 760419 760503 105 105 750315 !35 760577 105 750315 95 760607 50 1975-1976 750401 750401 750415 135 95 95 760607 700621 760705 50 50 50 750415 95 760719 60 750501 95 760802 60 750501 95 760816 85 750515 95 760816 85 750515



### - 95 760830 100 750601 29 1974-1 975 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 a5 761025 100 750805 85 761108 100 750818 95 761108 100 750901 750915 95 100 761122 761206 100 100 751006 105 761206 100 751020 751103 105 105 I 761220 761220 100 100 751117 751201 751215 105 105 105 

# i DIV

### I[SION3 YEAR CLASSES4 

# DATE^ DI

### VISION3 YEAR CLASSES4

- 'Obtained from computer data tapes entitled Texas Instruments 1975 Impingement Data (RecordType E) and Texas Instruments 1976 Impingement Data (RecordType E). *The format for DATE is year-month-day. 3The seasonally-varying,total body length which is used to discriminate between

young-of-the-yearand yearling white perch. 4The two year classes separated by DIVISIOI4.