ML19338E693
| ML19338E693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Kanciruk P OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338E690 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010060009 | |
| Download: ML19338E693 (15) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No.
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) i j
AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL KANCIRUK STATE OF TENNESSEE COUNTY OF ROANE J
l I, Paul Kanciruk, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, upon my oath certify that I have reviewed and am thoroughly familiar with the statements contained in my attached affidavit which addresses intervenor F. H. Potthoff III's contention regarding marine biomass production as an alternative to the proposed Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. All statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
h k'?%
F
'/
Paul Kanciruk, Ph.D.
t Subscribed and sworn to before the me this, y of
,1980.
N l
yl 1
\\
I-t % k
,1 m l
Nftary Public in and for
-4{oane County, Tennessee
'8 010 0.6 000$%9
1 Kanciruk Affidavit 1
Affidavit of Dr. Paul Kanciruk in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition Summary As indicated in my curriculum vitae which is attached hereto, my education and doctoral studies are in marine ecology. I am presently employed as a research associate at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the Environmental Impacts Program within the Environmental Sciences Division.
It is my responsibility to analyze and evaluate the potential environmental consequences resulting from deployment of conventional and unconventional energy technologies. In this capacity I have authored the aquatic sections of various envirc.. mental impact statements and programmatic assessments for the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In 'particular, I am familiar with proposed marine biomass energy systems and I authored the marine biomass section of DOE's programmatic biomass environmental impacts assessment (DOE, 1980).
I presently have a paper submitted to Science on the potential environmental impacts of marine biomass farms (Kanciruk,1980).
I conclude, in review of both Mr. Potthoff's contention and the appropriate scientific literature, that marine biomass production is not now a viable I
alternative to the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. My affidavit supports these specific conclusions:
1.
marine biomass is technically remote and speculative and is not a viable energy alternative, 2.
,the economics and energy efficiencies of marine biomass systems are uncertain, 3.
the potential environmental impacts of marine farm deployment are both numerous and serious,
Kanciruk Affidavit 2
4.
mrine biomass systems may create extensive legal issues, and 5.
the vast majority of research on marine biomass farms has focused on a cold water kelp species indigenous to California. The eventual development of a warm-water species / technology suitable for biomass cultivation in the Gulf of Mexico is speculative.
Overview of Marine Biomass Technology There are two types of proposed rnarine biomass farms - inshore and o ff shore. Inshore farms would cultivate seaweeds or other algae in enclosed, shallow water, coastal embayments or man-made ponds. Offshore (10-200 km) farms would cultivate seaweed on floating substrates (grids) suspended from buoys over deep water. Artificial upwelling of deep, nutrient-rich water would probably be used to fertilize plant growth at the surface (see attached figure).
)
Energy would be recovered by anaerobically digesting the algae to produce methane gas. Any marine biomass facility capable of producing a significant amount of energy would have to cover an enormous area. A 1000 MW(e)
(equivalent) farm could cover hundreds of square kilometers of ocean (Kanciruk, 1980). Large inshore marine biomass facilities may not be practicable because the environmental, economic and recreational value of coastal areas preclude their large-scale use for biomass systems. The vast majority of research on marine brumass has therefore been directed towards offshore biomass cultivation, primarily with the California Giant Kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera.
i 1.
Technological Feasibility of Marine Biomass Systems i
Marine biomass energy systems will not become commercially viable for at least the next ' 15-20 years. The development of commercial marine biomass facilities awaits extensive research into the basic biology of algae and the 2
development of unique marine engineering concepts such as large (20- 200 km )
floating kelp support platforms and wave-powered upwelling / fertilizing systems
Kanciruk Affidavit 3
(Wilcox, et. al,1976). There is the very real possibility that marine biomass may never be a viable energy source. General Electric, the contractor managing the major marine biomass research program, indicates that the risks associated with development of the marine biomass concept are " considerable" (Bryce,1980). The small kelp test farm (about 30 m in diameter) designed to test kelp growth under oceanic conditions off the California coast which became denuded of kelp within a few months of deployment due to wave action illustrates the problems inherent in designing marine structures. Indeed, the kelp biomass research program is substantially behind schedule based upon earlier predictions (GE,1978).
Martin R. Adams, Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, Department of Energy, recently testified before the House Committee on Merchant Marine &
Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oceanography. Adams indicated that much research will be necessary before marine biomass can be commercially exploited, and stated "I personally do not see major contributions from aquatic biomass in this century" (Adams, 1979). The Chairman of that Subcommittee, Congressman Studds, stated in his openirg remarks that basic information for the marine biomass concept is lacking and that "until these issues are resolved, the role which ocean biomass conversion may one day play in our energy future will remain highly speculative"(Studds,1979).
The Office of Technology Assessment's recent report Energy from Open Ocean Kelp Farms indicates that as far as marine biomass's potential as an energy source," Years of experimentation will be necessary before any projections can be confirmed". (OTA, 1979). Other-recent technical reports focusing on marine biomass systems contain statements such as "The technological and economic feasibility of marine energy farming remain unproven" (EPRI/GRI, 1979) and "Overall, we are still in the basic research stage of developing marine biomass resources" (EPRI, 1979). Finally, DOE, in its 1979 Biomass Energy Multiyear Program Plan, identifies biomass as a "long-term" technology not likely to be commerically~ viable on a large-scale until af ter the year 2000 (DOE,1979).
Whatever the long range future technical viability of marine biomass, the concensus is clear that it is not, now, and will not be in the near future, a commercially viable energy technology.
Kanciruk Affidavit 4
2.
Economic Feasibility of Marine Biomass Systems Even if marine biomass systems become technically feasible, it is not clear that they will be economically feasible. Much economic uncertainty is due to the lack of a finalized enginee.ing concept, but much is due to the intrinsic nature of biomass systems. Marine biomass is a low grade fuel compared to terrestrial biomass resources such as wood. Enormous amounts will have to be cultivated on huge ocean substrates in order to generate significant energy. These ocean substrates will have to be built to withstand, and must be maintained in, a hostile ocean environment. Fertilization of the seaweed will be necessary to assure maximum yield (Wilcox, et. al.1976). The kelp will have to be harvested and transported to digesters. The raw biogas from the digesters must be scrubbed to remove CO and then compressed to pipeline quality. The cultivation of the 2
biomass', construction of the facility, maintenance and processing of the kelp will take money and energy, and it is uncertain that marine biomass facilities will be economic, or even that will they have a positive energy budget (i.e., will produce more useable energy than they consume). DOE has funded two economic studies which conclude that tne economic viability of marine biomass systems may be doubtful. The most comprehensive study (Dynatech,1973) states that a marine biomass farm could concievably consume more energy than it produces. The report concludes "this concept appears to have no economic merit as an alternative energy resource" (Dynatech, 1978). The second economic study (Jones,1979) indicates that the economic and energy requirementsfor anaerobic digestion of the kelp and scrubbing / compressing the biogas are substantial and render the concept economically unfeasible.
Even if proven technically feasible, it is presently unclear that marine biomass systems will ever be economically feasible.
3.
Environmental Impacts of Marine Biomass Systems Potthoff's contention indicates that a marine biomass system would be environmentally preferable to the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The
Kanciruk Affidavit 5
environmental impacts analysis I condu;ted for DOE's Programmatic Biomass Assessment and other government-funded reviews indicate that the deployment of commercial-sized marine biomass farms could have serious environmental consequences.
Marine biomass farms would cover immense areas of ocean with dense seaweed culture.
There may be positive impacts associated with farm deployment. Increased habitat availability and productivity in open-ocean areas could lead to establishment of new commercially exploitable concentrations of fin. However, there may also be numerous negative impacts associated with these hrms. Many of the newly established species in and around the marine biomass tarm may be of little use to man or will be considered pests interfering with biomass production (as has been so common with terrestrial farms). Kelp detritus originating from these farms could drift ashore and become a biological as well as an aesthetic problem. Massive artificial upwell is proposed to supply the necessary deep, nutrient water to support adequate kelp growth (Wilcox, et.
al., 1976). A 1000 MW(e) equivalent marine biomass farm could conceivably 3
upwell 16,000 m of deep, nutrient-rich water per second, a vowme only slightly less than the average flow of the Mississippi River and equal to the cooling water f!ow of more than 200 once-through 1000 MW(e) nuclear generating facilities (Kanciruk,1980). This massive upwelling could entrain a significant amount of deep-sea organisms possibly altering the deep-water food chain and negatively affecting established offshore commercial fisheries (Hurby,1978; OTA, 1979; Kanciruk,1980). Upwelling will bring cool, deep, nutrient-rich water to the oceans's surface which may induce both local and far-field impacts. Surface water quality will be altered possibly affecting pelagic species composition. The cool water at the surface may cause the formation of local fog banks (Dynatech, 1978). If many farms are eventually deployed, reduced surface evaporation due to lowered surface temperatures (Clancy,1978; Shukla,1975) may cause far-field meteorological ef fects (i.e., reduced rainfall) (OTA,1979; Kanciruk 1980).
4 1
The structure of the marine farm, with its many kelp plants, buoys, pipes, I
lines and wave-powered upwelling system, could seriously affect the j
environment. Surface current velocity and direction may be altered, with unknown affects on water quality and sediment transport patterns (Lee, personal j
Kanciruk Affidavit 6
communication; OTA,1979).
The massive farm structure, kelp plants, and wave-powered upwelling system may adsorb or reflect a significant amount of offshore wave energy which could lead to alterations in longshore sediment transport patterns. The characteristics of adjacent beaches, offshore bars, embayments and channels could thereby be altered.
The potential environmental impacts associated with marine farm deployment are numerous and serious. Clarification of their potentiality will require a finalized concept design and additional research. However, there is no a priori evidence that a marine biomass facility will be environmentally preferable to the ACNGS, and the potential does exists for such facilities creating significant environmental impacts.
4.
Legal Considerations Associated with Marine Biomass Systems There may be significant legal issues associated with deployment of marine biomass systems. The potential creation of numerous local and far-field impacts may expose marine biomass systems to extensive pre-deployment iitigation. The large farms themselves could interfere with marine commerce, offshore oil exploration and drilling, commercial and recreational fishing, recreational boating, waste dumping, and general international use of the high seas (Nyhart, 1978; OTA,1979). The massive ugudimg necessary to support kelp growth may entrain enough deep-sea organisms to adversely affect both local and distant fisheries. If adjacent coastlines will be affected by marine farm deployment, then vigorous opposition from coastal communities may ensue. If the deployment of many marine farms raises the spector of far-field meteorological impacts, then oppositon from agricultural interest can be expected. If environmental considerations dictate far offshore placement of these facilities, then questions of jurisdiction and international law will come into play (Nyhart,1978).
These potential ~ legal issues make the deployment of marine biomass l
systems problematic even if they ever prove technically and economically feasible.
l i
4 Kanciruk Affidavit 7
5.
Appropriateness of Marine Biomass Systems for the Gulf of Mexico The vast majority of research into the biological and technical considerations for marine biomass systems has focused on the giant California kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. Our knowledge of the suitability Macrocystis and the technical considerations of its use in biomass culture is the most extensive, even though its technical, economic and environmental viability are still very much speculative. However, this species may be completely inappropriate for culture in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a cold water species which probably could not survive the warm Gulf's environmental-conditions. The species usually suggested for warm-water offshore culture in the Gulf of Mexico is Sargassum (Jackson &
North, 1973). However, little information exists on Sargassum's biological and technical apprcpriateness as a biomass resource, and the use of Sargassum as a biomass resource may be dubious for a variety of reasons. Sargassum grows unattached along the surf ace of the ocean. No holdfasts are present (as with i
Macrocystis), and maintaining Sargassum at proper density for culture may be dif ficult. Large offshore penstocks may be needed and wind or currents may pile the Sargassum along one edge of the penstock, blocking sunlight to lower layers of Sargassum and creating fertilization problems (Dynatech, 1978). Sargassum can not be maintained at the great densities of biomass that the giant California kelp (Macrocystis) can. Its organic yield per unit area is much less (1/5 that of Macrocystis, EPRI,1979). Productivity per unit area would probably be less with Sargassum, and even larger areas of ocean may have to be farmed for the same energy output. There also may be problems with deploying any large-scale biomass facility in the Gulf of Mexico due to the frequency of severe autumnal storm activity. As speculative as Macrocystis biomass culture is, the use of Sargassum (or any other warm-water substitute species) in a marine biomass system in the Gulf of Mexico is greater in its uncertainty. Should a warm-water species ever become practicable for open-ocean culture the Gulf of Mexico, commercial impact will surely not be felt until the next century.
Kanciruk Affidavit 8
6.
Conclusion.
4 Marine biomass systems capable of generating significant quantities of energy are presently remote, highly speculative concepts from technical, economic, environmental and legal perspectives. If marine biomass systems ever prove practicable, their significant contribution to our energy supply will probably not be felt until the r, ext century. My professional opinion is that. Mr.
Potthoff's contention (that the deployment of a marine biomass system is a 1
i practicable, environmentally preferable alternative to the ACNGS) is without t
scientific merit.
J 4
l
Kanciruk Affidavit 9
References Adams, Martin R.1979.
Statement of Martin R. Adams, Deputy Program Director for Solar, Geotherrnal, Electric and Storage Systems, Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Oversight Hearing on Ocean Biomass Conversion, September 26, 1979.
Braunstein, H., Kanciruk, P., Roop, R. D., Tatum, 3. S., and K. M. Oakes. 1980.
Environmental Assessment-Biomass Energy Systems. Prepared by ORNL for the U.S. Department of Energy, April 1980.
Bryce, A. 3. 1980.
Program Summary, In: Energy from Marine Biomass Program Presentation, Bio-Energy'80, Atlanta, GA, April 23,1980.
DOE,1979.
Biomass Energy Program, Multiyear Program Guide, Department of Energy, Draft report, March 6,1979.
Dynatech,1978.
Cost Analysis of Aquatic Biomass Systems. HCP/ET-4000-78/l and 78/2 Prepared for the Department of Energy, Washington,D.C. by Dynatech R/D Co., Inc. (Mass.).
EPRI,1979.
Comparative Assessment of Marine Biomass Materials, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI-AF-ll69, TPS77-735, Final Report.
EPRI/GRI,1979.
Workshop on Biomass Resources and Conversion, Electric Power Research Institute; Gas Research Institute, WS 78-79, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Hruby, T. 1978.
Primary impacts of growing aquatic plants for energy. Woods Hole Marine Policy and Ocean Management Program, WHOI 78-31 (Woods Hole, Massachusetts,1978).
Jackson, G. A. and W. 3. North. 1973.
Concerning the selection ofseaweeds suitable for mass cultivation in a number of large, open-ocean, solar energy facilities (" marine farms") in order, to provide a source of organic matter for conversion to food, synthetic fuels, and electrical energy. Final Report Final Report, Contract No. N60530-73-MV176, U.S. Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California.
1
Kanciruk Affidavit 10 Jones, Jerry L.1979.
The cost of methane from kelp grown in an open-ocean farm. Presented at ACS/CS3 Chemical Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 1979.
Kanciruk, P. 1980.
Energy from Open-Ocean Kelp Farming: Environmental Questions.
(submitted 7/80 to Science).
Lee, Don W.
1980.
Personal communication with Don W. Lee, Research Staff, Environmental Fluid Dynamics Group, Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 16,1980.
Nyhart, 3. D. 1978.
Legal Aspects of Large-Scale Aquatic Biomass Systems, In: Dynatech, 1978. Cost Analysis of Aquatic Biomass Systems. HCP/ET-4000-78/l and 78/2 Prepared for the Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
by Dynatech R/D Co., Inc. (Mass.).
OTA,1979.
Energy from Open Ocean Kelp Farms, Office of Technology Assessment, Draft Statement, June 1979.
Don W. Lee,1980.
Personal communication with Don. W. Lee, Research Staff, Environmental Fluid Dynamics Group, Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 16,1980.
R. Michael Clancy. 1978.
A numerical model of the tropical marine boundary layer for assessing the environmental impact of ocean thermal power plants. Ocean Science Division, Science Applications, Inc., Mu.ean Virginia. SAI-79-748-W A,1978.
Shukla, J.1975.
Effect of Arabian sea-surface temperature anomaly on Indian summer monsoon: A numerical experimer.t with the GFDL model.
- 3. Atmos. Sci.
32,503.
Studds, G. E. 1979.
Opening Statement of the Hon. Gerry E.
Studds, Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Oversight Hearing on Ocean Biomass Conversion, September 26,1979.
Wilcox, H. A., et al. 1976.
Ocean Food and Energy Farm Project, Subtasks 1-7.
Administration, (Washington, D.C.), ERDA/US N/1027-76.
l l
RESUME OF PAUL KANCIRUK Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge, Tennessec 37830 Date of Birth: October 10,1947, Place of Birth: New York City Marital Status: Married, no children Citizenship: USA Education:
Undergraduate: September,1964 - January,1969 City College of the City University of New York, N.Y.C.
B.S. Degree, Biology Major.
Graduate: January 1970 - May,1976.
Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Doctoral research supervised by Dr. William F. IIerrnkind,' Associate Professor. Ph.D. Degree conferred August,1976.
Dissertation:
Daily, Seasonal and Migratory Locomotor Activity Patterns, Migratory Zeitgebers and Ecology of the Spiny Lobster, Panulirus argus.
s Maior Field:
Marine Behavioral Ecology, Marinbisheries Special Fields of Interests:
Activity rhythms, spatial orientation and migratory behavior, environmental assessment.
Societies and lionors:
1.
Sigma Xi Award,1972 2.
Florida State University Graduate Teaching Assistantship, 1970-71
'3.
National Institute of IIcalth Psychobiology Traineeship Award, 1973-75 4.
Member Ecological Society of America 5.
Certified Professional Ecologist, Ecolegical Society of America Teaching Experience:
Graduate teaching assistant, FSU, 1970-71 Posit, ion: Laboratory instructor.
Courses Taught:
Introductory Biology; Marine Biology; Vertebrate Physiology; Animal Behavior; Advanced Animal Behavior.
2 Grants and Awards:
1.
Sigma Xi Student Research Grant,1972.
2.
N.S.F. Grant to study migratory populations of Panulirus argus in the Bahamas (under W. lierrnkind), 1972-74.
3.
Florida Department of Natural Resources Special grant to further field investigations into the ecology of the spiny lobster,1973.
4.
Florida Sea Grant Award to develop a computerized bibliography for the spiny lobster,1974.
Past Positions Research Associate, Ocean Sciences Center, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. I 976-77.
Present Position Research Staff, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Dut*.es include: analysis of environmental reports relating to the siting of nuclear and non-nuclear power reactors and other energy-related projects; analysis and prediction of impacts on marine and freshwater aquatic systems and fisheries; design and suggestion of mitigating measures to reduce impacts; writing aquatic portion of Environmental Impact Statements; expert witness testimony at adjudicatory procedures Appointed technical advisor DOE's Source Evaluation Board for their Stragetic Petroleum Reserve Turnkey Program,1979.
Appointed technical advisor DOE's Source Evaluation Board for their Alternative Fuels Proposal,1980.
Prepared expert witness testimony for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the aquatic impacts of the Virgil Summer N. elcar Generating Plant in South Carolina.
Prepared Aquatic Sections for the following government documents:
i Final Environmental Statement, White Mesa Uranium Project, NRC Docket No. 40-8681 (December,1978).
7 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Ore Buying Station, llankesville, Utah (August,1979).
I I
j l
3 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Plateau Resources, Inc., Ore Buying Station, Blanding, Utah (July,1979).
Draft Environmental Statement, Virgil Summer Nuclear Power Station, Operating Licence Stage, NRC Docket No. 50-359 (June,1979).
Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Department of Energy's Fuels from Biomass Program.
Environmental Guidelines for Enviromental Reports, DOE, Draft Report (1980).
Adams, S.M., Cada, G.F., and P. Kaneiruk.1979. Review, Evaluation,
-and Analysis of Section 316(a) Thermal Demonstration and Cooling System Intake Issues for the Muskingum River Steam Generating Plant (Ohio). Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.
Publications Sandberg, Donna, M., Paul Kaneiruk and Richard N. Mariscal,1971.
Inhibition of nematocyst discharge correlated with feeding in a sea anemone, Calliactis tricolor (Leseur). Nature 232 (5307):263-264.
Kaneiruk, Paul and William F. lierrnkind,1973. Preliminary investigations of the daily and seasonal locomotor activity rhythms of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Mar. Behav. Physiol. (1):351-359.
Ilerrnkind, William F., Paul Kaneiruk, Joseph IIalusky and Richard McLean, 1973. Descriptive characterization of mass autumnal migrations of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 25th Ann Session, May, (1973):79-98.
Kaneiruk, Paul,1974. Lobster data and bibliography - MARSVI and TRIAL Multi-Access retrieval computer programs. In: Research and information needs of the Florida spiny lobster fishery. Seaman, W. and Aska, D.Y., eds.
SG-74-201:50-56.
lierrnkind, William F., Joseph lialusky and Paul Kaneiruk,1976. Further observa tions on the association of lobster phyllosoma and free swimming medusa r. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(1):110-112.
f Kaneiruk, Paul and William F. IIerrnkind, eds.,1976. An Indexed Bibliography of the Spiny Lobsters, Famity Palinuridae. Florida Sea Grant Rept. 8:1-101.
Kaneiruk, Paul,1976. Daily, seasonal and migratory locomotor activity patterns, migratory zeitgebers and ceology of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Ph.D. Thesis,195 pp.
4 Kaneiruk, Paul and William F. Herrnkind,1976. Autumnal reproduction in Panullrus argus at Bimini, Bahamas. Bull. Mar. Sci. (26)4:417-432.
Menzies, R., Kerrigan, J.M., and Paul Kaneiruk,1977. Electrophoresis as a method to determine genetic affinities in lobster populations. In:
Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology (Phillips, B.F.
and J.S. Cobb, eds.). Commw. Sci. Indus. Res. Org., Div. Fish. Oceanogr.
( Aust.), Cir. 7.
Kaneiruk, Paul and William F. Herrnkind,1978. Reproductive potential as a function of female size in Panulirus argus, In: Proceedings Sea Grant Key West Lobster Conference, December,1976. Fla. Sea Grant Spec. Rept. 4, 1978.
Menzies, R., Kerrigan, J.M., and P. Kaneiruk,1978. Electrophoritic determination of genetic affinities between populations of Panulirus argus in the Florida Keys. In: Proceedings Sea Grant Key West Lobster Conference, December,1976, Fla. Sea Grant Spec. Rept. 4,:22-30.
Kaneiruk, Paul and William F. Herrnkind,1978. Mass migration of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus (Crustacea Palinuridae): Behavior and environmental correlates. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(4):601-623.
Herrnkind, W.F., and Paul Kaneiruk,1978. Mass migration of Spiny Lobster, Panulirus argus (Crustacea Palinuridae): Synopsis and Orientation.
In: Schmidt-Koening and Keeton, eds. Animal Migration, Navigation and Iloming, Springer-Verlag, (Berlin):430-439 Craig, R. B., Kaneiruk, P. and G. F. Sabbadini,1980. Components of the feeding behaviors of the American Kestrel. Bull. Ecol. Sci. Am. (Abs.) 61(2):108.
Kaneiruk, P. (In Press). Ecology of Palinuridae, Chapter 8 In: The Biology of Lobsters, vol. 2, Cobb and Phillips, eds. Academic Press Braunstein, H., Kaneiruk, P., Roop, R. D., Tatum, J. S., and K. M. Oakes.
(in Press). Biomass Energy Systems and the Environment. Pergamon Press,
.(New York).
Vaughan, D. S. and P. Kaneiruk, (Submitted). An empirical comparison of solutions to the von Bertalanfly growth equation.
G.
-m s-