ML17052A300

Security Exclusion Zone Acoustic Tag Detection Study, 9 November 2016

ML17052A300
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/11/2017
From:	Mattson M, Melgey J, Schanke S Normandeau Environmental Consultants
To:	Zoli E Normandeau Environmental Consultants, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
William Burton, NRR/DLR, 415-6332
References
Download: ML17052A300 (6)

Text

Memorandum Wednesday, January 11, 2017 TO:

Elise N. Zoli, Entergy FROM: Mark T. Mattson, Ph.D., Vice President Jessica Melgey, M.S., Senior Fisheries Scientist Scott Schanke, Boat Captain

SUBJECT:

Indian Point Security Exclusion Zone Acoustic Tag Detection Study, 9 November 2016 Objective: Determine whether the presence and location of acoustic tags deployed within the Indian Point (IP) Safety and Security Zone (SSZ) in close proximity to the IP2 and IP3 Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) bulkheads can be readily established from locations outside of the SSZ over the range of local ambient noise and tidal conditions.

Methods: On Wednesday, 9 November 2016, a twoperson Normandeau crew in a 25 foot fiberglasshulled Privateer under the direction of Captain Scott Schanke entered the IP SSZ and deployed an anchored buoy 50 to 100 feet west of each of the IP2 and IP3 Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) bulkheads (see locations IP2 and IP3 in attached Figure 1), for a total of two tagged buoys. An activated Lotek MMMR1650 digital acoustic tag of the sort customarily employed in Hudson River juvenile and adult sturgeon tagging programs was deployed at the sturgeonappropriate swimming depth of 2 to 3 feet above the bottom at both fixed buoy locations. Position of each tag was recorded with the vessels GPS (positional accuracy within 40 feet). The IP2 tag was deployed at a depth of 60 feet and had the Tag ID 11321, and the IP3 tag was deployed at a depth of 50 feet and had the Tag ID 11323.

After tag buoy deployment, the boat proceeded from the eastern shoreline toward the west Hudson River bank on a line perpendicular to the Unit 1 dock (in between IP2 and IP3), pausing at 100 yard intervals, long enough to listen with the directional hydrophone receiver (Vemco VR100) and record each acoustic tag ID number. The purpose was to establish whether the deployed acoustic tag signal strength (power) could be identified and listening duration were sufficient to determine that the location of the deployed tags could be readily established using the Vemco hydrophone. Date and time, tag number, power of the detection, the vessels GPS position (with positional accuracy of 40 feet), ambient weather, and current conditions were recorded for each observation. The vessel then moved in a westerly direction perpendicular to the Unit 1

11 January 2017 Page 2 bulkhead another 100 yards, and repeated the tag detection measurements, and continued this westerly movement until that point at which the Vemco receiver was no longer able to record the unique digital acoustic tag ID number emitted from each tag location. The vessel then returned to the vicinity of the original starting point 100 yards west of the Unit 1 dock and repeated the procedure until observations were made throughout an entire 6.25hour tidal cycle.

Results: The presence of Lotek MMMR1650 acoustic tags deployed near both the IP2 and IP3 bulkhead locations was established at all distances and tidal stages from east to near the west bank of the Hudson River at Indian Point. Signal strength of the detected tags ranged from 40 dB to 64 dB a signal strength that was sufficient to confirm and record each Tag ID with the Vemco VR100 directional hydrophone.

The following characterizations of signal strength were made based on relative detection values and used to map the detection zones in Figure 1:

• Strong = 55dB and greater

• Normal = 45 to 54dB

• Weak = less than 44 dB

• No Signal = receiver detects tag, but ID and dB cant be read by Vemco software.

Using these data, a map (Figure 1) was created that shows the locations of the deployed tags at IP2 and IP3, the SSZ boundaries, and the results of the assessment, detection attempts, and mean detection distance contours (Figure 1). The GPS location of each detection attempt is plotted on Figure 1 and colorcoded according to the criteria specified above as Strong, Normal, Weak, or No Signal. Distance from each detection location to the tag detected (IP2 or IP3; in feet) was calculated, and a mean distance determined for each tag and signal strength (Table 1). A circle of radius equal to these mean distances was drawn around each tag for each detection strength, representing mean detection area. In Figure 1 these areas are merged for the two tags, and in Figures 2 and 3 detection locations and areas are presented for IP2 and IP3 tags separately.

Discussion: The Vemco VR100 directional hydrophone receiver is one of three receivers commercially available and used for acoustic tagging research (Melnychuk 2012:

Pincock and Johnson 2012), and therefore represents industry standard digital acoustic tag research equipment. Using the Vemco VR100 hydrophone, the location of two stationary tags located near the IP2 and IP3 CWIS at the eastern perimeter of the 1,000 foot wide IP SSZ was pinpointed from an extensive range of distances outside the SSZ, including observation points almost reaching the western river bank as far away as 4,000 feet. Little change in signal strength was observed at comparable observation points during the entire 6.25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> tidal cycle, indicating that noise from waves, tidal currents, and IP operations had little or no effect on the results. Based on these observations, there is no reasonable scientific basis for asserting that acoustictagged sturgeon within the SSZ could not be located from the Hudson River adjacent to, but outside the SSZ, employing industry standard equipment.

11 January 2017 Page 3 Literature Cited:

Melnychuk, M.C. 2012. Detection efficiency in telemetry studies: definitions and evaluation methods. Pages 339357 in: Adams, N.S., J.W. Beeman, and J.H. Eiler

[eds.] 2012. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. Am. Fish.

Soc., Bethesda, MD.

Pincock, D.G. and S.V. Johnston. 2012. Acoustic telemetry overview. Pages 305338 in:

Adams, N.S., J.W. Beeman, and J.H. Eiler [eds.]. 2012. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.

Table 1. Average detection distance for IP2 and IP3 tags by signal strength.

Average IP2 SS detection N distance (ft)

No Signal 3172 24 Normal 1653 34 Strong 1404 10 Weak 3028 14 Average IP3 SS detection N distance (ft)

No Signal 3543 6 Normal 2155 40 Strong 1640 18 Weak 2887 18

11 January 2017 Page 4 Figure 1. Detection locations for tags IP2 and IP3 placed on buoys at Indian Point, with mean detection distance contours.

11 January 2017 Page 5 Figure 2. Detection locations for tag IP2 placed on a buoy at Indian Point, with detection distance contours based on the mean distance between the tag and each detection location.

11 January 2017 Page 6 Figure 3. Detection locations for tag IP3 placed on a buoy at Indian Point, with detection distance contours based on the mean distance between the tag and each detection location.