ML20217P203
| ML20217P203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1997 |
| From: | Feigenbaum T NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP. (NAESCO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217P183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805060153 | |
| Download: ML20217P203 (668) | |
Text
l 1
- Seabrook Station Annual Environinental Operating Report
{
January 1,1997 to Decernber 31,1997 j i
I i
Environmental Monitorine Program The following reports related to the Seabrook Station Environmental Monitoring Program and Water Quality Monitoring Program were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to NPDES Permit No. N110020338.
- 1. North Atlantic letter NYE-97010, " Temporary Suspension of Seabrook Station Gill Net Monitoring Program," dated March 20,1997 (Enclosure ). This letter was submitted to the EPA and documented '
the EPA's request to temporarily suspend the Gill Net Monitoring Program due to the taking of a harbor porpoise on Februaq l8,1997. !
- 2. North Atlantic letter NYE-97008,"1996 Annual Hydrological Report," dated April 14,1997 (Enclosure 2). This report was submitted to the EPA and demonstrated compliance with the NPDES pennit.
l
- 3. North Atlantic letter NYE-97020, "1996 Seabrook Station Chlorine Minimization Report," dated June 5,1997 (Enclosure 3). This report was submitted to the EPA and described the 1996 Chlorination Monitoring Program at Seabrook Station and demonstrates NPDES Pennit compliance. ;
- 4. North Atlantic letter NYE-97024, "1997 Environmental Studies Program Semi-Annual Report," dated July 30,1997 (Enclosure 4). This letter was submitted to the EPA and summarized the Seabrook Station Biological, Hydrological and Chlorination Monitoring Program results.
- 5. North Atlantic letter NYE-97027, " Final Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program Proposal," I dated September 25,1997 (Enclosure 5). This letter was submitted to the EPA and requested approval to implement the new Program in 1998.
- 6. North Atlantic letter NYE-97035, " Revised Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program," dated November 20,1997 Oiclosure 6). This letter was submitted to the EPA and provided a revision to the proposed Program as approved by the Technical Advisory Committee.
- 7. North Atlantic letter NYE-97036, " Kelp Evaluation and Study Plan," dated November 21, 1997 (Enclosure 7). This letter was submitted to the EPA and presents an evaluation of recent declines in a kelp species and a one-year study to identify possible causes.
- 8. North Atlantic letter NYE-97039, "On-Site Environmental Monitoring Program Procedures," dated December 12,1997 (Enclosure 8). This letter was submitted to the EPA and provided the three on-site Seabrook Station Environmental Monitoring Program Procedures.
- 9. North Atlantic letter NYE-98002,"1996 Environmental Monitoring Report," dated February 12,1998 (Enclosure 9). This report was submitted to the EPA and provided a comparison of 1996 Environmental l Monitoring Program data to previous years.
9805060153 980429 DR ADOCK 05 4j3 I
1 i l l
l l
Non-Routine Reports
- 1. North Atlantic letter LIC-97101," Seal Entrapment - June 1997," dated June 24,1997. This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided notincation of the entrapment of a seal i in the cooling water system. l l 2. North Atlantic letter LIC-97144," Seal Entrapment - July 20,1997," dated July 24,1997. This report j was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided notiGcation of the entrapment of a l seal in the cooling water system. l l '
- 3. North Atlantic letter LIC-97159," Seal Entrapment - July 27,1997," dated August 6,1997. This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided noti 0 cation of the entrapment of a seal in the cooling water system.
- 4. North Atlantic letter LIC-97270, " Seal Entrapments - October 8 and 9,1997," dated October 16,1997.
, This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided notiDeation of the
! entrapment of two seals in the cooling water system.
- 5. North Atlantic letter LIC-97294, " Seal Entrapments - October 18 and 20,1997," dated November 3, .
l 1997. This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided notiHeation of l l the entrapment of two seals in the cooling water system.
1 l
- 6. North Atlantic letter LIC-97320, " Seal Entrapment - November 18,1997," dated November 21,1997.
This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided noti 6 cation of the entrapment of a seal in the cooling water system.
- 7. North Atlantic letter LIC-97344, " Seal Entrapment - Decernber 5,1997," dated December 8,1997. This report was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and provided notification of the entrapment of a seal in the cooling water system.
l I
I
ENCLOSURE I TO NYN.98058 i
l l
l
.. )
% ,,,,,i NOrtl1 North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 Atlantic Seah,eet.siiO3874 (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System March 20, M9trn FA 5 NPDES Permit No. NH0020333 NVE-97010 Mr. Carl DeLoi I New Hampshire State Program Unit Environmental Protection Agency '
John F. Kennedy Building Boston, MA 02203 Temporary Suspension of I Seabrook Station Gill Net Monitoring Program This letter documents the fact that North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) temporarily suspended the Seabrook Station Gill Net Monitoring Program on March 19,1997, as i directed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)', This action was necessitated by the fact that a dead harbor porpoise was discovered on February 18,1997 in the farfield gill net (Station Gl) which was deployed as part of Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies Program. The harbor porpoise was ,
approximately three feet long and appeared to be in good condition. North Atlantic was informed of this )
occurrence by the firm conducting the program on March 11,1997, and notified the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on that same day .
The Gill Net Monitoring Program shall be considered temporarily suspended pending final approval of the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Studies Program Proposals,' previously submitted, in which North Atlantic requested that the Gill Net Program be terminated.
If you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, at (603) 773-7765.
Very truly yours, NORTH A TIC ENERGJ ERVICE CORP.
/w u d C. Feigef6auE NE/
Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Of i Discussion Regarding the Temporary Suspension of the Seabrook Station Gill Net Monitoring Program, Telephone Conversation Between F. Gay (EPA), J. Hart (North Atlantic), and R. Sher (North Atlantic)on March 18,1997 2
Notification of a Harbor Porpoise Taken by a Seabrook Station Monitoring Program Gill Net, Telephone Conversation Between R. Sher (North Atlantic) and D. Morris (NMFS)
' North Atlantic Letter NYE-96021, dated August 29,1996,"Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Studies Program Proposals," B. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA)
)
i Environmental Protection Agency q NYE-97010/Page 2 !
l cc (with Enclosure)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY J Dr. Edward Schmidt COMMITTEf; NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Div. Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman 4 6 Hazen Drive 134 Palisade Avenue I Concord,NH 03302 Leonia,NJ 07605 )
I Mr. Jeffrey Andrews Dr. W. Huntting Howell I l
NH Dept. Of Environmental Services 12 James Farm Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Lee,NH 03824 l 6 Hazen Drive !'
Concord,NH 03302 Dr. Saul Saila l
317 Switch Road Mr. Robert Estabrook Hope Valley,RI 02832
, NH Dept. Of Environmental Services l Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. Bernard J. McAlice t 6 Hazen Drive Darling Marine Center
! Concord,NH 03302 University of Maine Clarks Cove Road Mr. John Nelson Walpole, ME 04573 NH Fish and Game Department 37 Concord Road Dr. Robert Wilce Durham,NH 03824 Department of Biology 221 Morrill Science Center Mr. Bruce Smith University of Massachusetts NH Fish and Game Department Amherst, MA 01003 37 Concord Road Durham,NH 03824 NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES Mr. Frederick Gay Ms. Marcia Bowen l
New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator Normandeau Associates,Inc.
j New Hampshire State Program Unit 82 Main Street EnvironmentalProtection Agency Yarmouth, ME 04096 l John F. Kennedy Building
-~
l Boston,MA 02203 Mr. John Shipman
! Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Mr. Jack Paar 25 Nashua Road Environmental Protection Agency Bedford,NH 03110 l -
60 Westview Street Lexington,MA 02173 i
l Mr. Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive ;
Gloucester, MA 01930 l
l 1
1 i
I f
i ENCLOSURE 2 TO NYN-98058 l
\
l j
i l
l l
l l
1 I
l I
1 I
'\
North Nonh Adande Enug Suske Corporadon P.O. Box 300 I i
Atlantic seah,oet,Nu 03874 (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System April 10,1997 NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 NVE-97008 Mr. Carl DeLoi New Hampshire State Program Unit United States Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Building Boston, MA 02203 -
Seabrook Station 1996 Annual Hydrological Report North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) provides the enclosed report summarizing ocean tniperature data for the period of January 1,1996 to December 31,1996. This report is submitted pursuant to Part I.A.ll.e of Seabrook Station's NPDES permit. This report demonstrates compliance with the NPDES permit limits on the thermal component of the discharge from Seabrook Station as delineated in Part I.A.I.j.
Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, at (603) 773-7765.
Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERG RVICE CORP.
i O ./8d' C. FeigffIbaum /
Executive Vice Presi nt and ChiefNuclear Officer .
l
cc (with Enclosure)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES l
Ms. Marcia Bowen Dr. Edward Schmidt ,
Normandeau Associates,Inc.
NH Dept. Of Environmental Services 82 Main Street Water Supply & Pollution Control Div.
Yarmouth, ME 04096 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 l
l Mr. Jeffrey Andrews NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division 6 Hazen Drive ,
l Concord,NH 03302 Mr. Robert Estabrook l NH Dept. Of Environmental Services l Water Supply & Pollution Control Division 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Mr. John Nelson NH Fish and Game Department 225 Main Street Durham,NH 03824 Mr. Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department 225 Main Street Durham,NH 03824 Mr. Frederick Gay NPDES Permit Coordinator New Hampshire State Program Unit Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Building Boston,MA 02203 Mr. Jack Paar Environmental Protection Agency 60 Westview Street
- Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester,MA 01930 s
4 e
A-l
)
ENCLOSURE TO NYE-97008 l
1 4
1 I
3 a
l 1
1 i
il j
(
r .
SEABROOK STATION 1996 ANNUAL HYDROLOGICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose This report provides 1996 Seabrook Station ocean temperature data that demonstrates NPDES Permit compliance in the receiving waters from the thermal component of Seabrook Station's Cooling Water System as specified in Part I.A.1.j of Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit.
1.2 Background
Seabrook Station is a single-unit,1,150 megawatt nuclear generating facility located in the New Hampshire coastal town of Seabrook. The heat dissipation system for the station is a once-through, submerged ocean intake and diffuser discharge design Cooling water is taken from and returned to the waters of the Atlantic Ocean via 19-foot diameter intake and discharge tunnels that extend about 7,000 )
I and 5,500 feet offshore, respectively.
Seabrook Station's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit reissued ;
in 1993 [1] sets thermal discharge limits during station operation. Specifically, the thermal component I of the discharge can not increase the surface temperature in the near-field jet-mixing region by more than l 5* F. The jet-mixing region is the receiving waters within 300 feet of the submerged diffuser in the direction of discharge. In addition, the 5* F limit applies only to temperature rises caused by the addition of heat to the receiving waters. This s. .perature difference, or delta-t (AT), is the key to demonstrate perm.it compliance.
1.3 Comoliance Demonstration The analysis of a two-year baseline study of the thermal field around the discharge area prior to Seabrook Station operation showed NPDES Permit compliance could effectively be demonstrated by using the monthly mean of three thermal monitoring stations [2]. The monitoring stations included areas inside and outside thejet-mixing region as well as a reference point. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) concurred that compliance is demonstrated if the delta-temperature value between the reference point and those points inside and outside the jet-mixing region is 5* F or less for the monthly mean [3,4].
After several years of Seabrook Station operation, an analysis of monitoring data [5] showed that NPDES Permit compliance could be demonstrated by using only the surface temperatures inside the jet-mixing region and the reference point. Both the EPA and NHDES agreed with the operational data analysis [6,7] and the monitoring program was modified effective July 1993 to include only surface temperature monitoring at Buoys DS and T7 shown on Figure 1.1. The renewed NPDES permit issued in September 1993 [1] reflects this program compliance change.
Table 1.1 provides Seabrook Station Temperature Monitoring Station information.
l 1
J
e i 4 2.0 RESULTS 2.1 Station and Instrument Ooeration Seabrook Station operated throughout 1996 except for a two-day shutdown in late January and a i
three-week power reduction in February. The average monthly percent reactor power level is listed in Table 2.1.
North Atlantic changed its thermal monitoring contractor from Ocean Surveys, Inc. to Normandeau Associates in January 1996. The Onset ocean temperature sensors deployed by Normandeau Associates I at the two monitoring stations provided 100 per cent temperature data recovery for the year (Table 2.2).
l.
2.2 Delta-Temnerature Values Table 2.2 summarizes the monthly mean of ocean temperature values between Reference Station T7 and Monitoring Station DS. Daily temperature data is provided in the appendix. Positive delta-t values mean the monitoring station was warmer than the reference station; negative delta-t values mean l the monitoring station was colder than the reference station. Figure 2.1 illustrates the monthly delta-t )
values. As shown, the monthly mean delta-t values for 1996 are less than 5* F. Consequently, NPDES l l
Permit compliance is demonstrated.
The largest delta-t values in 1996 occurred during cold-weather months when isothermal ocean l
!, conditions exist. The maximum monthly delta-t was 3.03' F and occurred during January. Negative delta-t values occurred during June, July and August. This is a result of thermally stratified ocean conditions when the large volume of relatively cold bottom water entrained by the discharge plume significantly reduces the discharge plume's temperature so that at Monitoring Station DS this mixed vol6me's temperature can actually be less than the temperature at the relatively warm Reference Station T7.
Figure 2.1 also shows the average delta-t value between Station DS-T7 calculated from the years s
- j. 1990 through 1995. As shown, the 1996 delta-t values are consistent with the previous six-year average I
l and vary depending on both station power level and the season.
I l
l
- 1 l
3.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the results presented in this report, the following conclusions can be made:
- l. The 1996 monthly mean delta-t values are less than 5" F. NPDES Permit compliance is, ,
I therefore, demonstrated.
j i
- 2. The maximum 1996 monthly average delta-t value occurred in January during l l
isothermal ocean conditions. Negative delta-t values occurred during June, July and August. This is consistent with previous data reported [8-14).
l 1
l l
l l
t N*
4.0 REFERENCES
- 1. NPDES Permit No. NH0020338, dated September 30,1994.
- 2. "Seabrook Station Thermal Criteria Evaluation," YAEC-1529, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, March 1986.
- 3. Letter, Public Service Company of New Hampshire SB 20524 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 7,1986.
- 4. Letter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, dated May 22,1986.
t
- 5. Letter, New Hampshire Yankee NYE-92009 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 12,1992.
- 6. Letter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, dated June 4,1993.
- 7. Letter, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, dated June 23,1993.
- 8. Letter, New Hampshire Yankee NYE-91011 to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated April 26,1991.
- 9. Letter, New Hampshire Yankee NYE-92003 to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated January 21,1992.
- 10. Letter, New Hampshire Yankee NYE-92009 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 12,1992.
I 1. Letter, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation NYE-93006 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 19,1993.
- 12. Letter, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation NYE-94005 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 31,1994.
- 13. Letter, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation NYE-95007 to U.S. Envimnmental Protection Agency, dated March 17,1995.
- 14. Letter, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation NYE-96011 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated May 30,1996.
3
E M N' ,' i
- 'j^
l l
{g;.:.;T
_ 3 y,g . W: h ..
l
-d ::c.'..q_:
n.u . - , - ..
- glt. .
' ~
RYE LEDGE Q:b4 r.; jp 4iQ-yy ' /* .
~w ~ , . .- .
+n. o 2+\h, LITTLE \. \ \
c - '..
~
BOARS i
..' HEAD .
@.e- .;.. :. ) ' ... . ,
l , , _ ,.. ;
W.i ,.
'i . t e.
0
.f I NAUTICAL MILE
[
'.,i.,*
l
. I. ,i .
0 1 2 KILOMETERS ' -.
- 1
- i .
SCALE ..h . !
ij CONTOUR DEPTH IN METERS
/,/ l 1 4
{ ,.
0 ." ) ,'
li i : :-
fl ; s... ) ._
l
/
~
.S ) 37 j 9
{
$ l l .
18 N GREAT BOARS HEAD ; i ;
l li .'
9 O. Staton T,.7...
)
HAMPTON i .
l l '
l ! '
a 37 -
1 i
%. BEACH l. f '
_)
- t. ..
l SROWNS RIVER -
ewal ...' .
, g... : .
....... l
.. . ovm e . .V . c .: -
Q sUNKo I." Dstame .
I SF.ABROOK .. . mcK \ ..... '
- I c'""m..ps. A:.;'.. Ke
) Stauon :oS '
STATION ,.i : i.~ . . .
.i
... .-. i,9.
HAMPTON i L.
' .).
l l .
BEACH : (.. ' ' . , ' . 1 '
') l8 l HARBOR SEABROOK .I.j' ,
l BEACH .. .!
, 8
.. .~ 1 % .. a f i '.
\
i ' '
ii %, .' \
l ~~ ', i j l
's Q I
s - ;
- l. -
. . .'~*
- l
. ~g
( !B a
% / \" \ l 18 .: !
's.,,' )* ,! ,. / ,.
l l .i i :
. ,e
.1 ! ;
SALISBURY BEACH \ .
l Figure 1.1 Seabrook Station Temperature Monitoring Station Locations 4
J
~
TABLE 1.1 Seabrook Temperature Monitorine Station Information Water Depth Sensor Depth Station (Ft, MLW) Designation Location (Ft, MLW)
T7 55 Reference 42' 55' 15"N -2, Surface Following Point 70 46' 46"W DS 54 Jet-Mixing 42* 53' 41"N -2, Surface Following Region 70* 47' 12"W 5
e' TABLE 2.1 l 1996 Station Power Level i Station Month Power Level (%)
JAN 87.5 FEB 72.8 MAR 100 l APR 100 l
MAY 100 l JUN 100 l
r JUL l 100 i
l AUG 100
~
l i
- SEP 100 OCT 99.5 l
)
. J I
i i TABLE 2.2 1996 Monthlv Ocean Temnerature (*F) Summary and Data Availability l j l
Temperature Month Station DS - Station T7 AT Data Available l (%)
! JAN 3935 36.32 3.03 100 )
FEB 37.78 35.72 2.06 100 l
MAR 39.57 36.84 2.73 100 l APR 42.91 40.99 1.92 100 I l
r
!.'AY 49.23 48.67 0.56 100 l
JUN 56.12 56.70 -0.59 100 l l
JUL 55.92 56.63 -0.69 100 l
! AUG 60.99 62.67 -1.68 100 SEP 62.85 61.19 1.66 100 OCT 55.83 53.54 2.29 100
. NOV 50.98 48.03 2.95 100 DEC 46.22 43.71 2.51 100 7
c
- . e
- D
. v e
- o N
r .
t u ~
r a .
_ e p
., t c
. : O m .
e .
T- .
p t
a ~
- : e l
S e
D .
r .
e T-
- t a
- g a lt a, ' u e A W D g e .
n g .
i l
a r
o e v T- g lu o a : J A lt C 5 e ,
8 n 9- D ,-
o 0 6 .
i t
a it 9
9 1
9 9
1 .
- u J
n t m - ~
S i L
= .'
k e +
o r u
.~ y o
r t t : a a
b r .' M S
a e
e p
m T
e ...- '
r p
1 e .
A 2 c e f a ,~
r r u u ,-
g S ,. r a
+
i F : M F .
'5 .
b
_ : e
_ F
_ i n
oI a J
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2-m? y. moo L
7 4
,. # 1 APPENDIX Summary of 1996 Monthlv Ocean Temperature Data l
l 1
I j
l I
.' . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . - - -
January Monthly Sumiary Table for Seabrook Continuous Temperature Monitoring Date T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS-T7 DS T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 01JAN96 38.6433 0.12423 24 43.7482 0.36661 24 5.10486 0.39099 02JAN96 38.3770 0.16577 24 41.9892 2.03547 24 3.61222 2.03067 03JAN96 38.1251 0.24940 24 38.0744 0.25432 24 -0.05062 0.17171 04JAN96 36.7891 0.31944 24 40.7660 1.08167 24 3.97691 1.14861 05JAN96 36.7548 0.19909 24 40.1411 0.49183 24 3.38628 0.56439 06JAN96 36.8583 0.46859 24 40.7028 0.83122 24 3.84448 0.80884 07JAN96 36.9647 0.48347 24 40.8877 1.14680 24 3.92302 1.21150 08JAN96 33.8757 0.91138 24 35.7134 1.72969 24 1.83771 2.40812 09JAN96 32.9007 0.47358 24 37.7612 0.80736 24 4.86052 0.73382 4 10JAN96 33.9538 0.80205 24 38.0238 0.63576 24 4.07000 0.80872 11JAN96 34.7707 0.43779 24 38.1081 0.85620 24 3.33736 0.98922 g 12JAN95 34.4133 0.48409 24 37.8608 1.59909 24 3.44750 1.76211 l
13JAN96 35.1533 0.28130 24 37.4505 1.82687 24 2.29726 1.74914 1 14JAN96 35.0018 0.40340 24 38.3425 0.45296 24 3.34073 0.78574 ,
15JAN96 35.7555 0.34745 24 39.4250 0.79222 24 3.66958 0.50395 16JAN96 35.5602 0.42865 24 39.5547 0.46755 24 3.99451 0.43741 l 17JAN96 35.0159 0.31273 24 38.7045 1.01850 24 3.68865 0.95776 18JAN96 35.2214 0.18186 24 39.2989 0.38914 24 4.07753 0.31500 )
19JAN96 35.9335 0.61692 24 38.7204 1.29699 24 2.78691 1.86187 20JAN96 36.4105 0.23732 24 40.3244 1.32070 24 3.91396 1.37081 l 0
21JAN96 36.0511 0.25369 24 40.0332 1.74137 24 3.98208 1.59082 22JAN96 35.3520 0.17952 24 38.6318 1.57185 24 3.27976 1.59763 23JAN96 36.0896 0.66850 24 39.1655 1.32300 24 3.07588 0.79939 f24JAN96 37.3009 0.69096 24 40.1646 0.81076 24 2.86372 1.23613 25JAN96 39.0108 0.36365 24 42.3258 1.25331 24 3.31500 1.01353 26JAN96 37.6554 0.98122 24 42.7410 0.37222 24 5.08559 1.06570 27JAN96 37.9973 0.99691 24 39.3149 1.30109 24 1.31764 1.99978 28JAN96 39.0050 0.17876 24 38.9963 0.38158 24 -0.00872 0.40879 ,
29JAN96 37.1019 0.93983 24 37.5072 1.13360 24 0.40528 0.81273 !
30JAN96 36.9436 0.72370 24 37.4044 0.83609 24 0.46080 0.49761 31JAN96 36.8611 0.52030 24 37.9842 1.77415 24 1.12316 1.53674 l I
MEAN 36.3177 1.55699 31_ 39.3505 1.76704 31 3.03289 1.43391 j P
l j
r I.' - . . _ . .
i February Monthly Sumary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data 1
T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD W Mean STD N Mean STD
, 01FEB96 36.0958 0.68227 96 36.3616 1.07126 95 0.27796 0.63826 l 02FEB% 36.8301 0.69238 % 37.2657 1.48040 95 0.42607 1.01879 l 03FEB% 36.0524 0.72197 96 36.3739 ~ 0.88101 96 'O.32142 0.43590 l 04FEB96 33.7850. 0.25777 % 33.9061 0.41292 96 0.12108 0.34858
- 05FEBM 33.2726 0.45956 96 33.3738 0.72047 96 0.10122 0.47279 l '06FEB96 33.7329 . 0.37575 96 35.1856 0.60145 96 1.45267 0.60109
- l. 07FEBM 33.3404 0.70889 96 35.1169 0.62989 96 1.77653 0.47581 4 l 08FEB96 34.7522 0.73552 96 36.8028 0.87676 95 2.05677 1.01550 I i
09FEBM .36.2325 0.53410 96 38.0070 0.91500 94 1.76872 0.75180 10FEB96 36.7052 0.28257 96 40.4990 0.60787 96 3.79372 0.63665 l 11FEB96 36.4897 0.21280 96 38.7751 0.95318 % 2.28542 0.92921 12FEB96 36.6312 0.23566 96 40.6769 0.46133 % 4.04573 0.48637 13FEB96 35.7415 0.67648 96 38.7868 1.29675 96 3.04524 0.86239 14FEB96 35.3367 0.26778 96 38.2393 0.97915 96 2.90253 0.97206 15FEB96 35.6832 0.23757 96 35.9973 1.27698 94 0.31606 1.30549 16FEB96 35.2915 0.16743 96 37.0786 2.24237 91 1.78974 2.24868 I l 17FEB96 35.3482 0.18476 96 37.3799 2.31538 95 2.02874 2.26098
- l. 18FEB96 35.3831 0.20595 96 '38.5046 0.61532 96 3.12149 0.58258 l 19FEB96 35.3814 0.22439 96 38.7689 0.47206 96 3.38753 0.50125 20FEB96 35.5906 0.51639 96 38.5569 1.25139 96 2.96632 1.18809 21FEB96 35.8321 0.14323 96 39.0635 1.11160 90 3.23722 1.12942 22FEB96 36.5833 0.52211 96 37.4789. 1.11463 95 0.90660 1.02297 23FEB96 36.8093 0.44144 96 38.0076 1.42990 93 1.20835 1.41471
! 24FEB96 36.7621 0.37714 96 38.9250 1.40293 96 2.16292 1.50180 l 25FEB96 36.2403 0.24153 96 39.5473 0.76161 94 3.31128 0.67847 26FEB96 36.4844 0.30200 96 38.5800 2.10592 76 2.10649 2.18935 27FEB96 36.4023 0.42245 96 37.5892 1.84543 90 1.19359 1.71538 l 28FEB96 36.7762 0.18896 96 40.5506 0.72297 94 3.77422 0.80198 29FEB96 36.4436 0.11033 96 40.2919 0,9815 96 3.84830 0.63743 MEAN 35.7245 1.05436 29 37.7724 1.87395 29 2.05979 1.25942 l
t .
l l March Monthly stanary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 17 Ds DS DS DS T7 DS T7 )
DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 1
01 MAR 96 35.6714 0.54803 96 39.5621 0.73647 96 3.89076 0.95919 )'
02 MAR 96 35.8930 0.53929 96 38.4239 1.35560 95 2.53112 1.37637 03 MAR 96 35.8386 0.32989 96 37.6655 1.48911 95 1.82158 1.32562 04 MAR 96 36.1807 0.31109 96 38.1573 1.09070 96 1.97653 1.06316
)
05 MAR 96 36.0307 0.31293 96 39.1292 1.07640 96 3.09851 1.17575 06 MAR 96 35.7559 0.27236 96 38.1348 2.40188 93 2.37484 2.27962 j 07 MAR 96 35.4538 0.13742 96 36.2744 1.79156 96 0.82059 1.82307 )
08 MAR 96 34.9889 0.24475 96 37.0104 2.57650 96 2.02153 2.75855 l 09 MAR 96 35.0273 0.47257 96 37.7842 0.73988 96 2.75688 0.92911 I 10 MAR 96 35.2311 0.30203 96 37.7633 0.51159 96 2.53212 0.42062 11 MAR 96 35.7100 0.55824 96 38.0442 0.78522 96 2.33417 0.69143 j
12 MAR 96 36.0839 0.42127 96 39.7826 0.67212 96 3.69872 0.61232 j 13 MAR 96 36.4300 0.57198 96 37.8336 2.18112 88 1.43254 1.76257 14 MAR 96 37.1077 0.47999 96 40.3845 1.58649 91 3.24597 1.40176 15 MAR 96 37.2660 0.47494 96 40.0333 0.37529 96 2.76733 0.63682 16HAR96 36.7916 0.27475 96 39.3567 1.83240 94 2.56582 1.79967 17 MAR 96 36.6982 0.30718 96 39.5775 0.58309 96 2.87937 0.68629 18 MAR 96 37.7778 0.79746 97 39.6126 0.45710 97 1.83474 0.75510 3 19HAR96 37.5231 0.44021 96 39.3982 1.68875 92 1.87449 1.48361 !
20 MAR 96 37.6585 0.44202 96 39.5738 2.28186 96 1.91521 1.97094 21 MAR 96 38.1623 0.50261 96 40.6223 1.03407 96 2.46000 1.07476 22 MAR 96 37.8626 0.38037 96 40.6905 1.27353 92 2.84739 1.50932 23 MAR 96 37.2801 0.13696 96 41.2875 0.67443 96 4.00740 0.68966 f 24 MAR 96 37.3953 0.30577 96 41.6249 0.97355 93 4.23717 1.04043 25 MAR 96 37 8666 0.49784 96 41.2375 1.49766 93 3.35391 1.82742 26 MAR 96 38.3110 0.44425 92 40.5145 0.52605 92 2.20355 0.87864 27 MAR 96 37.5293 0.12617 96 41.4959 0.56116 96 3.96660 0.58537 28 MAR 96 37.6408 0.41512 96 40.8864 0.94958 96 3.24562 0.98297 29HAR96 37.9000 0.42466 96 41.4667 0.58827 96 3.56677 0.39130 30 MAR 96 38.0347 0.42416 96 42.0944 0.53075 96 4.05972 0.61464 31 MAR 96 38.9302 0.84764 96 41.0974 0.61528 92 2.17500 1.27081 NEAN 36.8397 1.08951 31 39.5652 1.53137 31 2.72568 0.85146 l
l l
l l
l
l
('* ..-
Aprit Monthly Stmunary Table for Seabrook Continuous Temperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean ST0 N Mean STD N Mean STD 01APR96 39.9162 0.45553 % 42.0641 1.01879 96 2.14788 0.88375 02APR96 39.4843 0.23841 % 40.9695 1.97237 96 1.48517 1.93313 l 03APR96 38.9613 0.22955 96 42.8851 0.73474 96 3.92385 0.82601
! 04APR96 38.6861 0.15196 % 41.7516 0.39974 96 3.06552 0.37695 l 05APR96 39.3433 0.27521 % 42.3470 0.87144 96 3.00365 0 85368 06APR96 39.2967 0.09084 96 42.9438 1.62128 93 3 64785 1.60605 07APR96 39.2306 0.13054 96 39.6229 1.16771 92 0.39627 1.19311 08APR96 39.1236 0.12738 96 41.5298 2.11110 96 2.40622 2.12756 09APR96 39.5915 0.58329 96 43.2584 0.84427 % 3.66691 0.95649 10APRM 39.1761 0.28339 % 40.7467 1.84110 96 1.57059 1.99739
! 11APR96 39.1508 0.25346 96 43.4321 0.71330 96 4.28128 0.66218 i 12APR% 39.6609 0.35498 96 43.5357 0.57141 % 3.87476 0.38997 13APR96 40.1735 0.61674 96 43.7519 0.29004 96 3.57844 0.74136 14A*R96 40.1868 0.29919 96 42.2514 2.13020 96 2.06458~ 1.89442
( 15APR96 40.7633 0.98359 96 43.0504 1.75703 92 2.22435 1.23515 1 9 .363 8 . 0 . 48 6 . O l 18APR96 40.1743 1.02828 % 43.0627 0.95201 96 2.88847 1.19020 19APR96 42.0720 1.04489 96 42.3385 1.02816 % 0.26649 0.43362 20APR96 44.1311 1.31266 96 44.0707 1.13257 96 -0.06042 0.57898 f 21APR96 42.4379 1.23396 % 44.4192 0.78809 96 1.98128 1.41710 22APR96 46.3431 1.24238 - 96 46.1992 - 1.98378 96 -0.14385 1.43588 ;
l
, 23APR96 47.8672 0.71340 92 46.6995 1.54181 87 1.17554 1.61616 I 24APR96 42.0731 2.74982 96 44.1356 1.27280 96 2.06247 1.69810 25APR96 41.3280 1.22754 96 43.5807 0.55175 96 2.25271 1.20617 26APR96 41.6944 0.67873 96 42.2321 0.77687 96 0.53774 0.91822 l 27APR96 41.4640 0.51178 96 43.1164 0.55163 96 1.65240 0.6a417 28APR96 40.7346 0.53161 96 43.1839 0.39810 96 2.44934 0.48162 29APR96 42.5311 0.94508 96 43.5006 0.67175 96 0.96948 0.67651 30APR96 43.5258 0.26323 96 43.6187 0.24798 96 0.09292 0.21803 MEAN 40.9945 2.18740 30 42.9130 1.45906 30 1.91630 1.40776 l ..
lJ l
l .
(
t :
~- --
l May Monthly St.mnary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data i
I- DS DS DS DS-T7 DS T7 T7 17 T7 l STD M Mean STD N Mean DATE Mean STD 44.1816 0.82375 95 0.48474 0.41574 01MAY96 43.6950 0.84270 96 96 44.8052 0.59722 96 0.42771 0.73508 02MAY96 44.3775 0.69401
% 45.4931 0.59487 95 0.62611 0.58190 03MAY96 44.8558 0.70424
% 45.5221 0.32377 96 0.39500 0.36516 04MAY96 45.1271 0.23425
[
96 46.4042 1.01571 96 0.59500 0.80371
! 05MAY96 45.8092 0.83389
% 46.1483 0.96999 95 1.28137 1.28179 06MAY96 44.8646 0.58398
% 48.2225 0.96171 93 1.94054 1.19519 07MAY96 46.2510 1.34620 0.98613 97 46.9838 1.37256 % 0.13104 1.14058 08MAY96 46.8558
% 47.7373 1.64801 92 0.77337 1.38061 09MAYM 46.9516 0.65399 96 46.2505 0.86293 95 0.63442 0.81239 10MAY96 46.8877 0.33322
% 47.0947 0.81941 92 0.85293 0.67630 11MAY % 46.2421 0.83261 45.2292 0.62343 96 46.1314 1.35489 % 0.90219 1.59742 12MAY96 96 47.2716 0.45513 % 1.95781 0.86569 13MAY96 45.3138 0.60338 96 47.4654 1.12651 96 1.38500 1.54462 I 14MAY96 46.0804 0.78718 96 47.7915 0.56504 96 0.52146 0.76905 l 15MAY96 47.2700 0.83077 96 47.3761 0.90773 96 0.50375 0.74547 16MAY96 47.8799 0.45227 f 17MAY96 47.4210 0.86482 96 47.5290 1.20606 94 0.09649 0.70320 l
1BMAY96 48.5339 1.69909 96 48.6947 1.17990 95 0.15221 1.25275 )
f 96 50.1440 1.14905 95 0.03811 0.87624 l 19MAY96 50.1100 0.63493 j l 95 0.27851 0.60097 50.3163 0.74477 95 50.6125 0.94757 l 20MAY96 51.0802 1.01179 97 0.80289 0.68827 21MAY96 50.2773 1.02879 97
! 0.25152 0.99644 96 52.2362' 1.66513 92 l 22MAY96 52.5299 0.98461 52.9686 0.66336 96 0.42167 0.93174 52.5470 0.74126 96 f [ 23MAY96 1.24241 96 0.09563 0.72519 24MAY96 54.1563 1.50046 96 54.2519 j 94 0.48266 0.83692 52.6196 0.56709 96 53.1057 0.97404 25MAY96 l 53.8048 1.13439 95 1.27916 1.03093 26MAY96 52.5249 0.29127 96 l 96 53.8337 0.88271 .
1.03396 0.69318 l 27MAY96 52.7998 0.50603 53.6850 0.40677 % 0.30750 0.92269 28MAY96 53.3775 0.73050 96 51.9805 1.35748 95 0.76853 1.09325 29MAY96 52.7372 0.47003 97 0.32206 94 0.38883 0.63101 30MAY96 52.5401 0.53228 96 52.9219 54.4754 0.74809 91 1.78505 1.02869 31MmV96 52.6984 0.87582 96 49.2324 3.25233 31 0.55738 0.68069 ,
MEAN 48.6735 3.33117 31 l
1
June Monthly Swenary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 T7 DS OS DS DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 01JUN% 54.5704 1.47765 96 55.6726 1.06358 87 0.99540 1.72086 02JUN96 54.8255 0.84009 96 '55.1620 0.74551 96 0.33646 0.90341 03JUN96 54.2165 1.09298 95 53.2069 1.43382 95 0.96989 1.20534 04JUN% 54.5967 0.59801 % 55.2924 0.76579 95 0.68789 0.92366 05Jw 96 54.9875 0.00915 96 53.4852 1.74033 95 -1.50253- 1.45701 06JUN96 55.0380 1.40288- 96 53.3048 1.75727 91 1.67593 2.01149 07JUN96 53.9651 1.24590 % 51.5335 1.34116 89 2.47191 1.11582 08JUN96 53.9587 2.77788 % 51.3315 2.66951 88 2.60886 1.71698 09JUN96 54.0997 1.26956- % 55.4161 0.47486 96 1.31646 1.20552 10JUN96 53.2998 0.81440 96 ' 54.9306 0.89006 93 1.60968 0.80114 11JUNM 55.5259 1.56529 96 55.4453 0.77371 95 -0.07768 1.57078 12JW96 55.3911 1.09930 96 55.1198 1.00057 95 0.25242 1.12559 13JUN96 55.3187. 1.43187 95 53.5222 0.86088 91 1.84156 1.38571 14JUN96 55.2500 0.86601 96 52.8075 1.32099 79 2.52076 1.30808 15JUN M 55.7587 0.63668 96 54.9427 1.88030 86 0.80093 2.19940 16JUN96 56.4273 1.00451 94 55.4111 1.22084' 88 -1.01244 1.38003 17JUN96 57.1399 1.95503 93 54.2597 1.91559 89 2.96791 1.70340 1BJUN96 58.3886 1.52939- 97 58.0811 1.08979 97 0.30742 1.17552 19JUN96 59.5455 0.74797 96 58.7949 0.92574 96 0.75063 1.02659 20JUN96 59.8044- 0.53825 96 58.3506 0.86151 93 -1.45882 1.01504 21JUN96 59.2236 0.84514 96 58.0814 0.65560 90 1.11367 0.91923 22JUN96 57.4775 0.53576 96 58.6035 0.64143 96 1.12604 0.66188 23JUN96 58.6630 0.88244 96 58.4838 1.44090 96 0.17927 0.78837 f24JUN96 59.4728 0.74649 96 60.2693 0.99692 96 0.79646 1.11365 25JUN96 59.1878 1.09994 96 59.2282 0.77143 96 0.04042 0.71466 26JUN% 57.7941 0.90532 96 58.3585 0.84984 95 0.55232 0.83546 27JUN96 56.7655 0.81555 97 57.7473 1.02037 97 0.98186 1.30207 28JUN96 59.9038 1.50731 96 59.1704 1.23153 96 -0.73333 0.83919 29JUN96 61.3218 0.88203 96 60.1567 0.92225 96 1.16510 0.93316 30JUN96 59.0503 1.68822 96 57.3239 1.86334 94 -1.75096 1.14631 MEAN 56.6989 2.27086 30 56.1165 2.55102 30 -0.59063 1.27093 h
i.
l t
July Monthly Samary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tepperature Monitoring Data f T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS-T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 8 i- 01JUL96 54.2048 1.06156 96 53.3477 1.70205 93 -0.87151 1.96984
! 02JUL96 55.4500 2.44887 96 53.3728 1.52424 88 1.89432 2.39735 03JUL96 57.4300 0.87087 96 57.6886 0.61070 94 0.28043 0.95556 04JUL96 57.3609 1.09777 % 56.5746 1.22307 93 -0.77656 1.28408 l 05JUL96 55.3560 1.17526 96 55.7573 1.26086 93 0.37075 0.93048 l 06JUL96 57.4600 0.55549 96 57.0208 0.73014 95 -0.43905 0.83012 j 07JUL96 59.5143 1.31760 95 58.7484 1.31800 96 -0.77916 1.37174 08JUL% 59.2832 2.19315 93 57.4293 1.48023 96 -1.84559 1.57863 I 09JUL96 58.0443 1.12326 96 56.6489 1.43802 95 -1.41011 1.23065 10JUL96 55.8487 1.24179 96 54.5564 0.81639 95 -1.29568 1.32816
[ 11JUL96 55.8071 0.87998 96 55.2839 1.22937 96 0.52323 1.17958 l l 12JUL96 56.5072 1.46460 94 54.6831 1.25880 96 1.80596 1.29126 13JUL96 56.7803 0.43259 96 56.3447 2.46909 96 0.43562 2.21920 ,
l 14JUL96 58.4283 1.37683 95 58.3383 1.13344 96 0.10758 0.75594 l
! 15JUL96 58.9591 0.46160 96 59.2383 0.55994 95 0.28453 0.77724 16JUL96 58.5443 0.84491 97 56.2608 1.21387 97 2.28351 1.10186 17JUL96 59.6973 0.77568 96 56.0726 0.94712 95 3.62411 1.10039 18JUL96 61.7066 2.23366 96 58.7870 3.37308 87 -2.61126 3.20628
^19JUL96 59.4009 3.17162 96 57.8837 2.38536 93 1.44484 1.93986 ]
20JUL96 49.4882 1.11529 96 51.1541 0.74194 96 1.66583 0.82106 I
( 21JUL96 49.1394 1.02628 96 50.2434 0.77128 96 1.10406 0.88965 22JUL96 51.4439 1.46885 96 52.4300 1.34950 96 0.98615 1.43058 23JUL96 53.2827 0.94430 97 51.8478 1.13027 95 1.44063 1.50619 24JUL96 55.5078 2.28278 94 55.2656 2.11459 94 -0.25620 2.26332 25JUL96 57.3222 0.70776 93 55.9401 1.22762 96 -1.37108 1.29927 l 26JUL96 55.1141 1.19309 94 54.0102 0.42890 96 1.09138 1.08600 l 27JUL96 55.4065 1.34399 96 54.8260 1.42777 95 -0.57621 1.69881 28JUL96 55.6571 1.38493 96 55.0181 0.99058 96 0.63896 0.95445 29JUL96 57.5086 1.91281 96 57.7624 2.14240 96 0.25375 0.83715 30JUL96 59.5356 0.60606 97 60.0952 1.09208 97 0.55959 0.99809 31JUL96 60.2815 0.53034 96 60.8830 1.16444 96 0.60156 0.97715 l
MEAN 56.6281 2.93750 31 - 55.9198 2.56257 31 0.69084 1.16870 1
August Monthly Susnary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 T7 DS .DS 09 DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 01AUG% 61.2903 0.54320 96 61.6263 1.24558 92 0.31533 1.15794 02AUG% 62.8602 0.58272 96 64.0786 1.83331 96 1.21844 1.46332 03AUG96 63.5480 0.24824 96 64.4390 0.75737 96 0.89094 0.77546 04AUG96 64.7771 0.73113 96 64.2457 0.62000 96 -0.53135 0.78633 05AUGM 66.4254 1.75642 93 64.2604 1.39463 96 -2.19742 1.46778 06AUG96 68.5986 1.32804 96 64.4989 1.32455 96 -4.09979 1.31072-07AUG M 69.3747 0.E7993 96 65.0509 1.67488 95 4.32453 2.16778
.08AUG96 65.5799 1.57864 96 62.%04 1.02143 96 -2.61948 1.51394 09AUGM 60.6975 0.77076 96 58.9820 1.18523 96 -1.71552 1.24335 10AUG96 61.4116 1.70891 94 59.0885 1.70592 94 -2.31717 1.59547 11AUG96 63.0642 1.15277 96 61.0917 2.30987 95 1.95611 1.64284 ,
12AUG96 62.9772 1.02201 96 60.6332 1.47881 94 -2.30904 1.31088 13AUG96 61.2100 0.86507 96 57.4161 0.69484 97 -3.7768S 1.06866 .
14AUG96 61.8572 1.24310 96 59.2727 1.49165 95 2.58263 1.30883 l 15AUG96 63.4424 1.15193 96 62.7552 1.35365 96 0.68417 0.73450 16AUG96 63.6343 0.75044 96 62.7074 0.95432 95 -0.91958 1.23226 17AUG96 62.2423 1.15790 96 60.1283 1.29365 96 -2.11396 1.36498 18AUG96 63.0628 1.03740 96 60.2265 1.96839 95 2.83211 1.57247 19AUG96 62.8795 1.24068 96 61.4277 1.78425 95 -1.46674 1.83743 20AUG96 62.3865 0.81925 96 59.8918 1.07091 95 2.49547 0.93376
- 21AUG96 59.4496 0.97151 97 57.6729 1.48000 96 1.78552 1.19742
' 22AUG96 61.5241 1.79980 96 57.7109 1.25146 95 -3.83789 1.84442 23AUG96 61.9102 0.96200 96 58.2488 1.74768 95 -3.64811 2.12100 24AUG96 59.6063 1.58653 95 57.5069 0.71801 94 2.10516 1.69558 25AUG96 58.3517 1.12773 96 57.0030 0.83870 96 1.34865 0.7981) 26AUG96 57.7571 1.25929 96 56.6316 1.16498 96 1.12552 1.33586 27AUG96 60.3366 0.97368 96 58.9401 1.78786 96 -1.39646 1.13409 28AUG96 61.7877 0.51896 96 62.3827 1.21578 96 0.59500 1.29497 29AUG96 62.8416 1.07509 96 63.4713 0.62581 96 0.62969 1.36383 30AUG96 64.0934 0.88213 96 64.1043 1.31268 96 0.01083 0.71725 71AUG96 63.7001 0.55287 96- 62.0810 1.01363 92 -1.59174 0.94231 4
MEAN 62.6670 2.54361 31 60.9851 2.63063 31 1.68131 1.49213
l- -
m L T . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . - . . . _ . . . - -
Septenber Monthly Samary Table for Seabrook Continuous Temperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 T7 DS CS DS DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 01SEP% 63.1001 0.76612 96 60.8865 1.39205 95 2.23389 1.53089 02SEP96 61.1114 0.57608 96 62.3041 1.26972 94 1.18809 1.22873 03SEP96 62.1080 1.24491 96 63.9166 0.52885 96 1.80854 0.92818 04SEP96 63.9143 0.63582 96 64.7924 0.55203 96 0.87812 0.45498 057,EP96 65.4579 1.03568 96 65.2914 0.35484 % 0.16656 1.16095 06SEP96 66.3050 1.17876 96 65.8389 0.67872 96 0.46615 1.24186 075EP96 64.9292 0.69445 96 66.6506 1.04348 96 1.92146 1.61912 08SEP96 63.9826 0.16630 % 67.1624 0.30848 96 3.17979 0.30263 09SEP96 64.3542 0.53995 96 66.9550 0.43014 96 2.60083 0.86899 10SEP96 65.4090 0.99610 96 66.4827 0.43403 96 1.07375 0.87503 11SEP96 65.0308 0.43863 96 65.9456 0.45507 96 0.91479 0.67455 12SEP96 64.2786 0.33397 96 65.3344 1.11798 96 1.05573 1.0557!
13SEP96 63.0884 0.78557 96 63.6531 1.52465 96 0.56469 1.05687 14SEP% 61.7892 0.15939 96 64.6485 0.70155 95 2.85884 0.69.'2 15SEPM 62.6018 0.83443 % 64.4964 0.51619 96 1.89458 0.83950 16SEPM 62.1823 0.28624 96 65.0115 0.75387 96 2.82917 0.91137 17SEP96 61.0685 0.65016 96 64.3519 1.59933 96 3.28333 1.13133 18SEP96 58.7284 0.21394 96 59.7004 1.49074 96 0.97198 1.62347 19sEP96 58.9146 0.57109 96 61.t196 0.34832 96 2.50406 0.70085 20SEP96 59.1803 0.43273 96 60.9866 0.34951 96 1.80625 0.53029 j 21SEP96 59.1294 0.37350 96 60.4972 0.37983 96 1.36781 0.48420 i 22SEP96 58.9324 0.51132 96 60.2190 0.87152 96 1.28656 0.94844 23SEP96 57.9688 0.12325 96 59.8256 1.71879 96 1.85687 1.70917 24SEP96 58.0073 0.26984 96 60.8914 0.49889 96 2.88406 0.55232 25SEP96 57.9376 0.27919 97 60.6475 0.54321 97 2.70990 0.55232 26SEP96 57.5932 0.41770 96 60.6755 0.46160 96 3.08229 0.57281 27SEP96 57.4700 0.14648 96 60.2038 0.49894 96 2.73375 0.47972
. 28SEP96 57.2545 0.25450 9 59.1208 0.39678 96 1.86635 0.46538 29SEP96 57.3892 0.36143 96 59.0015 0.48997 96 1.61229 0.58675 30$EP96 56.5219 0.53450 96 58.2879 0.40329 96 1.76604 0.61592
~
MEAN 61.1913 3.05885 30 62.8466 2.78465 30 1.65444 1.20915 s
4 l
October Monthly Sumary Table for Seabrook Continuous Tenperature Monitoring Data l
l T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS T7 DS T7 DATE Mean STD N' Mean STD N Mean STD 010CT96 57.1032 0.63889 96 58.5744 0.52274 96 1.47115 0.44917 020CT96 56.8856 0.40501 96 58.4685 0.44544 96 1.58292 0.52339 030CTM 54.9513 1.16979 96 57.1432 0.44093 96 2.19198 1.16675 j
040CT96 54.1271 0.29714 96 57.3450 0.25775 96 3.21792 0.37039 l 96 2.79885 0.61715
! 050CT96 54.4829 0.45648 96 57.2818 0.37605 060CT96 54.8471 0.55280 96 57.3121 0.49694 96 2.46500 0.46006 070CT96. 54.8992 0.53249 96 57.2022 0.24306 96 2.30302 0.53421 f.
0.26432 96 56.8643 0.50965 96 1.93802 0.45039 080CT96 54.9262 090CT96 54.3896 0.20004 96 55.9873 1.35609 96 1.59771 1.44742 100CT96 54.0921 0.19745 96 57.0199 0.25091 96 2.92781 0.25026 110CT96 53.6750 0.25126 96 57.0993 0.50139 96 3.42427 0.50223 120CT96 53.6050 0.38165 96 56.7291 0.32245 96 3.12406 0.50280 130CT96 53.6283 0.32733 96 56.8478 0.34697 96 3.21948 0.49129 j
140CT96 53.5379 0.32213 96 56.6084 0.50906 96 3.07052 0.69241 l 96 2.90906 0.54550 150CT96 53.0421 0.23292 96 55.9511 0.51483 l
160CT96 53.2871 0.45873 96 55.6126 0.46515 96 2.32552 0.40350 1
170CT96 53.6604 0.34111 96 56.0231 0.68092 96 2.36271 0.60528 180CT96 53.8238 0.15776 96 56.7609 0.35462 96 2.93719 0.37382 190CT96 53.6487 0.57556 96 56.5446 0.77448 96 2.89583 1.10595 i l.
I 52.2698 0.20564 96 52.6249 0.95133 96 0.35510 0.98845
[200CT96 210CT96 52.1392 0.09934 96 53.0011 1.43814 95 0.86232 1.44742 220CT96 52.2614 0.22634 96 55.7318 0.55274 96 3.47042 0.55635 230CT96 51.9022 0.29845 96 52.1764- 0.25817 96 0.27417 0.44060 l 96 0.15906 0.49549 240CT96 53.0267 0.66036 96 53.1857 0.82512 250CT96 52.7422 0.33144 96 54.2625 1.09345 96 1.52031 1.28483 l 260CT96 52.4942 0.91764 96 54.5098 1.55214 94 2.00883 1.49986 ;
l ~
270CT96' 52.5324 0.54502 96 54.4644 1.02483 95 1.92242 1.15920 280CT96 52.6126 0.26509. 96 55.1670 0.65618 96 2.55438 0.85080 ;
I 3.95835 0.56432 j.. 290CT96 51.7788 0.27679 97
~
55.7371 0.39962- 97 300CT96 51.7667 0.66400 96 53.9658 * .22353 96 2.19917 1.46594 310CT96 51.5325 0.36181 96 54.5419 0.49820 96 3.00936 0.66941 MEAN 53.5378 1.36757 31 55.8304 1.66356 31 2.29216 0.96501 e
...~
~
- = , _ . .. . . . ~ . - . - . . . . - - ~ ~ -
Noveaber Monthly Stanary table for Seabrook Continuous Temperature Monitoring Data l
T7 T7 17 OS DS DS DS T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean ST0 N Mean STD N Mean STD 01Nov96 51.3692 0.23507 % 53.7953 1.05443 96 2.42615 1.01903 02Nov96 51.7216 0.28914 % 54.3929 0.25853 96 2.67135 0.37803 03Nov96 51.2029 0.24374 96 53.6136 0.64824 % 2.41073 0.63759 04Nov96 50.5438 0.35494- 96 52.7965 1.15280 96 2.25271 -1.05586 05Nov96 50.6028 0.90942 % 52.4940 1.63963 9 1.89115 1.09816 l
l 06Mov96 49.5871 0.15072 96 51.4543 1.86120 92 1.87043 1.93463 07Nov96 49.5623 0.20184 96 52.0280 1.06956 96 2.46573 1.19423 I 08Nov96 50.8063 0.60815 96 52.1804 0.84332 96 1.37417 0.58529 09N0v96 51.5558 0.27697 96 52.8172 0.59090 96 1.26135 0.64287 10NOV96 50.6458 0.24028 % 53.5446 0.32867 % 2.89875 0.41672 11Nov96 50.1529 0.13923 96 52.8693 0.39398 96 2.71635 0.35357 l
12Nov96 49.6662 0.26300 97 52.2555 0.58865 97 2.58928 0.76313 l
13dov96 49.2321 0.49361 96 51.7560 0.51924 95 2.51663 0.71372 14NOV96 49.0321 0.85030 96 51.6986 0.59909 96 2.66656 0.79390 15Nov96 48.0364 0.66337 9 51.2304 1.01142 96 3.19406 1.02663 16Nov96 4's.9633 0.31959 % 50.4830 0.37850 96 3.51969 0.53070 17Nov96 46.7272 0.28500 96 50.2573 0.62088 96 3.53010 0.84288 18N0V96 46.6106 0.30694 96 50.5175 0.43127 96 3.90688 0.47089 19Nov96 46.5942 0.09934 96 50.4264 0.46702 96 3.83219 0.43453
! 20Nov96 46.5475 0.18755 96 50.1116 0.46122 96 3.56406 0.38t94
- 21dov96 46.5621 0.10453 96 49.6299 0.540?6 96 3.06781 0.52647
' 22Nov96 46.6553 0.14396 96 50.0265 0.45677 96 3.37115 0.51709 23Nov96 45.9029 0.21108 96 49.9544 0.58666 96 4.05146 0.58948 24Nov96 46.1829 0.29853 96 49.6225 0.81243 96 3.43958 0.88485 25Nov96 45.2231 0.69610 97 49.6647 0.40621 97 4.44165 0.86228 26Nov96 45.3312 0.20294 94 47.0174 1.97475 93 1.68796 2.13979 27Nov96 45.0979 n.26052 % 47.8124 1.63115 96 2.71448 1.80914 28Mov96 44.3483 0.25668 96 48.8277 0.48998 % 4.47938 0.52053 l 29Nov96 44.3163 0.17861 96 48.5796 0.36529 96 4.26333 0.39055 j l 30Nov96 44.0392 0.11476 96 47.6492 0.81118 96 3.61000 0.84901 MEAN 48.0273 2.47256 30 50.9836 1.92820 30 2.95617 0.87588
~
l
[
I i
i
o 0
- c
.' m.----
I l
1 December Monthly Stenary Table for Seabrook Continuous Temperature Monitoring Data T7 T7 T7 DS DS DS DS-T7 DS-T7 DATE Mean STD N Mean STD N Mean STD 01DEC96 44.6692 0.40926 % 46.7925 0.49739 96 2.12333 0.57613
'02DEC96 46.2121 0.27665 96 48.4231 0.78076 96 2.21104 0.76009 03DEC96 46.2762 0.26432 96 49.4435 0.52595 96 3.16729 0.41314 04DEC96 45.1942 0.73126 96 49.7450 1.71951 92 4.52674 1.63536 j 05DEC96 44.5350 0.24121 96 46.9463 2.25060 86 - 2.41698 2.26956 06DEC96 44.0975 0.53097 % 44.6833 ~1.68023 95 0.58853 1.45872 07DEC96 43.9225 0.30078 % 48.2781 1.26730 93 4.35462 1.36652 08DEC96 43.9896 0.27403 96 46.9018 1.79072 95 2.91611 1.72591 090EC96 43.6979 1.03428 % 46.7324 2.29182 95 3.02084 1.72934 10DEC96 42.2425 0.23971 96 47.7345 1.76672 87 5.48897 1.85138 11DEC96 42.5692 0.23153 96 46.6696 1.84323 89 4.10281 1.67906 12DEC96 43.0475 0.18755 96 43.3049 1.44252 92 0.24141 1.55181 130EC96 42.8929 0.18053 96 42.9425 0.19825 96 0.04958 0.15198 1 14DEC96 42.4904 0.22064 96 42.9832 1.03032 96 0.49281 1.10307 15DEC96 42.1550 0.09309 96 44.3097 2.13139 92 2.15315 2.16629 l 16DECM 42.2210 0.13517 97 44.6949 2.34012 91 2.47341 2.35303 17DEC96 42.6392 0.09934 96 43.2912 1.24260 93 0.65333 1.21723 18DEC96 42.9658 0.19475 96 45.8669 1.57431- 93 -2.89484 1.53842 190EC96 43.0300 0.14073 9 44.2751 1.46695 93 1.24581 1.38440 200EC96 43.5637 0.64279 96- 44.3977 1.28210 96 0.83396 1.10598 21DEC96 44.0129 0.44827 96 45.9475 0.89914 96 1.93458 0.72753 22DECM 44.0654 0.54107 96 46.7218 0.69540 96 2.65635 0.91026 230EC96 42.5684 1.43630 95 45.5851 1.71773 94 2.95699 2.02671 24DEC96 42.4642 1.44798 96 45.7349 1.60373 - 96 3.27073 2.06712 25DEC96 45.4246 0.31631 96 48.1461 0.66747 96 2.72156 0.91101 26DEC96 44.8850 0.36845 96 47.0811 0.94551 96 2.19615 0.95308 27DEC96 44.4533 0.73765 96 47.6554' 1.47328 96 3.20208 1.01621 28DEC96 43.1379 0.75692 96 45.9989 1.46890 96 2.86094 1.68558 29DEC96 43.8408 0.48579 96 46.3483 1.32560 96 2.50750 1.16676 300EC96 45.2321 0.30637 96 48.2874 0.64336 96 3.05531 0.65555 31DEC96 42.5108 0.71007 96 - 46.8585 1.89983 96 4.34771 1.80599 MEAN 43.7099 1.18092 31 46.2187 1.84452 31 2.50534 1.32451 i
L_
I l
l ENCLOSURE ~, TO NYN-98058 l
l l
l 1
i I
i l
J l
l l
. I l
1 t
i 1 i
l l
L_.________--_--___-________ - )
(-
'. "g\wi,,,,
)
i North North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300
'fy Atlantic Seabrook,N u 03874 d (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System .
June 5,1997 NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 l N VE 97020 l
- Mr. Carl DeLoi
- New Hampshire State Program Unit i Environmental Protection Agency
! John F. Kennedy Building Boston, MA 02203 Seabrook Station l
1996 Chlorine Minimization Reoort Enclosed is the 1996 Seabrook Station Chlorine Minimization report as specified under Part I.A.2.h of the Seabrook Station NPDES Permit. This report describes the seasonal chlorination cycle employed by Seabrook Station's Cooling Water System, the duration of Cooling System chloriation, chlorine dosage level, chlorine utilization, chlorine demand prior to discharge, as well as chlorine discis ee concentrations.
In addition, a description of Cooling System inspections for the presence of biofoulug organisms is provided.
This report demonstrates that during 1996, chlorine levels discharged by Seabrook Station's Cooling Water j l
l System continued to be below the limits specified by the NPDES Permit. l l
Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, at (603) 773-7765.
l Very truly yours, l
NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.
t
- f ~
Ted C. Feigenbaum [
Executive Vice President and ChiefNuclear Officer
)
Environmental Protection Agency NYE-97020/Page 2 cc (with enclosures):
1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. Edward Schmidt Mr. Eric Hutchins NH Dept. of Environmental Services National Marine Fisheries Service Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Northeast Region 6 Hazen Drive One Blackburn Drive Concord,NH 03302 Gloucester,MA 01930 I l
Mr. Jeffrey Andrew!,
Supervisor, Industrial Permits Section NH Dept. of Environmental Services l Water Supply & Pollution Control Division NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 I Ms. Marcia Bowen Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Mr. Robert Estabrook 82 Main Street NH Dept. of Environmental Services Yarmouth,ME 04096 Water Supply & Pollution Control Division 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Mr. John Nelson i NH Fish and Game Department 225 Main Street Durham,NH 03824 Mr. Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department 225 Main Street ._
l Durham,NH 03824 l
Mr. Frederick Gay New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator
~
New Hampshire State Program Unit Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Building Boston, MA 02203 Mr. Jack Paar Environmental Protection' Agency 60 t'estview Street Lexington, MA 02173 J
f' 4
4 l .
l t
i l
I i
l ESCLOSURE 1 TO NYE-97020 l
l r
l f
l l
l I
i
^
Y
l ..
I l
1996 SEABROOK STATION j CHLORINE MINIMIZATION REPORT
- 1. Overview of Chlorination Pronram Seabrook Station employs continuous low-level chlorination to control biofouling in the Circulating Water and Service Water Systems as specified by Part I.A.I.a of the NPDES Permit.Section I.A.2.h of the Permit states that the " objective of this chlorination report is to continue minimizing the usage of chlorine consistent with maintaining a suitable biofouling control of the intake cooling water system and maintaining l
a high condenser efTiciency."
Macrofouling organisms (barnacles and mussels) have the potential for blocking water piping and restricting flow within heat exchangers. Microfouling organisms (such as blue green-algae) can coat heat exchange surfaces and affect condenser efficiencies. Continuous low-level chlorination controls the growth of both macrofouling and microfouling organisms in Seabrook Station's cooling water system.
. Chlorine minimization involves monitoring the effectiveness of chlorine application in controlling
.biofouling, while discharging the minimum achievable amount of chlorine to the environment. The l monitoring of condenser efficiency has become the most sensitive indicator of fouling and is the primary ,
input to the chlorine minimization program. An increase in back-pressure from the clean (no fouling) condenser baseline value is an indication of biofouling in progress.
Monitoring of in-plant biopanels and inspection of cooling system components are also used to assess biofouling control effectiveness. As discussed in previous reports, only incidental settlement by mussels and other macrofouling organisms were identified in Seabrook Station's Cooling Water System in l 1996. I The following chlorination system activities are conducted at Seabrook Station:
- Condenser performance evaluations.
. In-plant measurements of. Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) levels in the Circulating Water and Service Water Systems.
- Determination of chlorine demand values within the Cooling Water System.
~
- Biofouling panels evaluations.
- Maintenance and inspections of plant systems as necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program on minimizing the settlement and accumulation of fouling organisms.
During 1996, chlorine levels discharged from Seabrook Station, measured as the Total Residual Oxidant (TRO), continued to be below the limits of 0.2 ppm daily maximum and 0.15 ppm monthly average as specified in the NPDES Permit.
Page 1 of 7
_. J
7
~
I i .
- 2. Chlorination System Operation Application of chlorine to the Cooling Water System is achieved through the addition of a 15%
solution of sodium hypochlorite. Chlorine is injected into seawater and piped to the offshore intake structures where it is injected into the Circulating Water System. During the period from January 17,1996 to March 3,1996, when the ocean water temperature was very cold, plant performance measurement parameters indicated low biofouling activity. As a result, chlorination of the Circulating Water System was discontinued in accordance with the chlorine minimization program. During this period, chlorination of the Service Water System continued, due to its safety related function. During the remainder of 1996, the chlorination system was operated on a regular basis.
Operation of Seabrook Station's Cooling Water System and related cooling water flow (in millions of gallons per day) is presented in Figure 1.
- 3. Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) Measurements Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) measurements of the Cooling Water System discharge are obtained i at the Discharge Transition Structure prior to entry into the discharge tunnel. The TRO values are reported monthly in the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to both Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). NPDES Permit TRO limits are a daily maximum limit of 0.20 ppm and a monthly average limit of 0.15 ppm. During the 1996 reporting period, the TRO did not exceed the discharge limits as specified in the NPDES Permit. The 1996 average monthly TRO and maximum daily TRO values reported in the DMRs are provided in Table 1. Included in Figure 2 are the 1996 TRO values on those days that chlorine demand was determined.
1
- 4. Chlorine Demand Evaluation An evaluation of the chlorine demand (utilization) in the Intake Cooling Water System was conducted in accordance with the NPDES Permit. He higher the chlorine demand in the ambient ocean water brought into the Cooling Water System, the more sodium hypochlorite is required to maintain an in-system chlorine residual that will discourage the settlement and subsequent growth of biofouling organisms.
1 Chlorine demand followed a pattern similar to that experienced in past years. Low chlorine
- demand occurred during the winter months and increasing chlorine demand during the spring and summer ;
months when increased biological activity and organic matter occur in the ambient ocean water. An j additional peak chlorine demand is experienced in the fall, following the breakdown of the offshore l thermocline which can restrict nutrient transfer between water strata, j i
During the period, January 17,1996 to March 3,1996, when the Circulating Water System was not chlorinated pursuant to the Chlorine Minimization Program, the experimentally determined chlonne j demand was below the detection level of 0.05 ppm. j i
i Page 2 of 7 l
\
l t
- 5. In-Plant Bionanel Insnections Inspections of the biofouling panels were performed on a regular basis during 1996. Biofouling panels positioned in the forebays of the Circulating Water and Service Water Pumphouses have proven to be effective in monitoring the settlement of macrofouling organisms, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of chlorine application.
i Inspections of the biopanels has demonstrated that continuous low level chlorine application has 1 prevented a biofouling population from becoming established in the Cooling Water System.
l
- 6. Cooling System Insnections and Maintenance No outages were scheduled in 1996, therefore, no major inspections of the Circulating Water System or Service Water System were possible as these systems were in service. Two air removal system heat exchangers were inspected and were found to be free of fouling.
- 7. Potential for Thermal Backflushine -
J No plans to compliment continuous chlorination with thermal backflushing is anticipated during the next year.
i l
Page 3 of 7 l
)
(- .
j .
Table 1. 1996 Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) l i {
Month Average Monthly TRO Maximum Daily TRO (ppm) (ppm)
Jan 0.05 0.07 Feb 0.00 0.00 Mar 0.06 0.07 Apr 0.06 0.09 May 0.07 0.12 Jun 0.09 0.14 Jul 0.11 0.15 Aug 0.09 0.12 Sep 0.06 0.16
! 0.11 Oct 0.06 Nov 0.05 ,
0.07 Dec 0.07 0.10 Page 4 of 7 a
1 s .
l l l
' :osa l ', l : 000
', l : ^0N l l : 10 0 6 ,
l
- 10 0 l
l l : des l l : des
, 1 e , , . des 2
l l
, . des
- 6ny
$6 l
8 l'
o ' ' ' 6ny o- l l E l l 6ny O ' i
% l 6ny 0 l l 5 l l
- Inr e
c l l :inr O i ,
5 l l Inr Uo s ,
, m
.c , , inr e 3 l l 8'
.: Inr c-
.O l l
- u. , ,
m ,
unr S l- :
l l l junr O) l l - unc
.c , .
] l . unr o , ,
- leW e l l O i i i
% l l l : leW M l l l -- Aew x , , , ,
!o l l
l l
l l
l l
- dy E l l l l
- JdV w , , , ,
- jew co l l l l c) i , , , y
, i,' l . : 4ed W I I I I o o o o uer e 9 o 9 o 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
> e o e o e o e o e o e o m,- o o
,01 n n o e o o y v n n a n e u.
(ODW) Mold
e
- oeo
', oeo
>oz v - :
1 io t
) - - - - - - - - - :
O - -
- - a
- oee R -
T
(
t - - - - - - - - - :, oom n - - - - - - -
a - - - - - - - -
v d - - - - - - - - - .
ix -
- oew O -
l a - - - - - - - - - -
- ma<
u -
d i - - - - - : -
4 s - - - - - : - - - - -
- aa<
e - - - - - - - - - - - :
R -
l _
a -
- es<
t - - - - - - - -
o - - - - - -
T -
- M m -
4
- 4 t
e - - - 4 - - - - -
7 s - - - -- - - - - -
- 4 f _
y - - - - - -
- o .
S - - - - -
6 r
- m-p e
t e - - - - - - - p - -
- 4 g a
a - - - - - - - 5 - -
- - - - - - - 0 - -
P W -
- 0 -
=-
- 4 g ~. - - - - - -
it - -
in l
- - - - im-L o - - - - - - -
n -- -
' ca, o - - -
o -
it C -
- - - - - - c e -- - ,
e g
t e
D --
' ca, r -
a - - - - -
h - - - -
4 - - - : ca, p
c -
s - -
i v
D -
- xms n - - - - - - - -
o -
- 4 it t
a -
- xms S -
k o -
- 'Q<
o - - - - - - - - . - - :
r - - - - - - - v - - :
b - - - - - - - - - -
- 'Ss I
a - - - - - - - - - - :
e - - - - - - - -
S - - - - - - - -
- o 6
- _ea 9 - - - -
9 - - - - - ,
1 -
4 -
ce, 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e
r 0 0 0 u
ig F -
Ea" o:0p. _
L
- oeo
- ~ - - - -
~ - - - -
- ~ - - - ,
- oeo
- ~ - - - -
- ~ - - - - - :
- ~ - - - - :
- ~ - * -
~
~
4 >oz
- ~ - - - - -
~
- yO _
- yO
- ~ -
- ~ - - - - .
- ~
~
- aem
- ~ - - - - _
~
~
- : aem .
~ - - - - - :
- , aem
- ~ - - - - -
- ~ - - - - - .
~ - - - - -
- ~ - - - - - :
- ~
~
- aem _
- ~ - - - - -
- aa<
- ~ - - - - - _
~ - - - -
~ - - - - '
~
~
- - : ma<
- ~ - - - - - :
- ~ - - - - -
- ~ - - -
- ma<
- ~ - - :
- ~ - - - -
d - - - - - -
aa< _
n - ~ - - - - -
a -
m - - - - - - - : _
e D -
~
e - ~ - > , - - -
7 n - ~ - - - -
3, f _
i r - - - - -
- o l
o -
~
t 7 -
h - ~ - - -
- da n '
3, e C -
~
- - ix g
a m - - - - - - O l
3, P
a -
t e - ~ - - - - - u d :
s - ~ - - - -
- is
- e ; ca, y_ - ~ -
- - R +
S -
- - - - - - la r
e
- - to
- T
- ca, t - - - - - - '
a -
- ca, W -
- 4 g - -
- ca, i
n -
l :
o - - -
o -
- xms C - - -
n -
- - - - - : >ms i
o - - - - - -
t - - - - -
t a - - - - - -
- xms S - - -
- g<
k - - - -
o - - - - - - - :
o r
- g<
b - >
a - >
e -
- > : 'a2 S - - - - - -
6 - - - - - - -
o.oa 9 - -
9 - - - -
- t :
1 - - -
< - - em, 4 2 1 8 6 4 2 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 e
r u
i g Eab o ucmEeo ecto 5O .
F _
I 1
l l
ENCLOSURE 4 TO NYN-98058 l
l l
l l
l e \
l l
\
.l h
l l
l l
l
\
North North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 I
Atlantic Seehreet, Nu 03874 (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System
, July 30,1997 N1 DES Permit No. NH0020338 N YE-97024 Environmental Protection Agency NPDES Permit Operation Section P.O. Box 8127 Boston, MA 02114 Seabrook Station 1997 Environmental Studies Program Semi-Annual Reoort North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) submits herein the 1997 Seabrook Station Environmental Studies Program Semi Annual Report as required by Part 1.A.11.e. of the referenced NPDES Permit. This mid-year report provides the status of the on-going Seabrook Station Biological, Hydrological and Chlorination Studies Programs, the expected er:n in the ensuinr, six months, and a synopsis of the data and information since the last annual report.
Detailed information regarding the 1996 Environmental Studies irogram will be discussed at the annual Technical Advisory Committee meeting to be scheduled this summer. North Atlantic believes that after nearly seven years of commercial operation, the Ensironmental Studies Program continues to demonstrate that Seabrook Station has not had a deleterious impact on the balanced indigenous populations in the coastal waters ofNew Hampshire.
If you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, at (603) 773-7765.
Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CO).-
QWp 8- -
Ted C. Feigenbaum /
Executive Vice President and ChiefNuclear Officer
- - - - _ _ ]
{ l EnvironmentalProtection Agency
. NYE-97024 /P ge 2 I
l cc (with attachment)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY Dr. Edward Schmidt COMMITTEE:
NH Dept. of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman 6 Hazen Drive 134 Palisade Avenue l Concord,NH 03302 Leonia,NJ 07605 l
! Mr.Jeffrey Andrews Dr. W. Huntting Howell i NH Dept. of Environmental Services 12 James Farm
- Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Lee,NH 03824 l l 6 Hazen Drive l
- Concord,NH 03302 Dr. Saul Saila
! 317 Switch Road Mr. Robert Estabrook Hope Valley, R102832 NH Dept. of Environmental Services l Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. Bernard J. McAlice
, 6 Hazen Drive HC 61 Box 109 l Concord,NH 03302 Round Pond,ME 04573 Mr. John Nelson Dr. Robert Wilce NH Fish and Game Department Department of Biology 225 Main Street 221 Morrill Science Center Durham,NH 03824 University of Massachusetts Amherst,MA 01003 Mr. Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES l 225 Main Street Durham,NH 03824 Ms. Marcia Bowen l
Normandeau Associates,Inc.
l )
Mr. Frederick Gay - 82 Main Street l New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator Yarmouth,ME 04096 New Hampshire State Program Unit l
Environmental Protection Agency l
John F. Kennedy Building _
Boston, MA 02203 Mr. Jack Paar j Environmental Protection Agency l
~
60 Westview Street I
Lexington,MA 02173 Mr. Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service ]
Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930
i l SEABROOK STATION 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES MID-YEAR REPORT I i I
l BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM i
The 1996 Environmental Studies Report is currently being prepared and will be submitted later this year.
A preliminary review of the results of the 1997 Environmental Studies Program to-date, has not identified any significant changes to the balanced indigenous populations in the coastal waters of New Hampshire when compared to the final results from previous years.
Seabrook Station's Fifth Refueling Outage took pla:e between May 10,1997 and June 28,1997. During l most of the refueling outage only one circulating water pump was in operation., at which time, weekly ichthyoplankton entrainment samples were take.i. Weekly ichthyoplankton and bivalve entrainment samples were not taken during a two week perbd (6/2/97 to 6/15/97) when no circulating water pumps were operating.
In 1996,1.2 percent of the entrainment samples consisted of unidentifiable fish larvae. Unidentifiable means that a fish larvae is in a condition such that it cannot be identified, even to the family level. This was consistent with the data prior to 1995 when the number of unidentifiable fish larvae was between one and four percent. As reported in the 1996 Semi-Annual Report', the number of unidentifiable fish larvae in 1995 entrainment samples, at 21 percent, was higher than in previous years. The cause of the increase in 1995 was not determined.
North Atlantic temporarily suspended the Seabrook Station Gill Net Monitoring Program on March 19, 1997 after a dead harbor porpoise was discovered in the farfield gill net (Station Gl), deployed as pan of Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies Program. The temporary suspension of this program was summarized in a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dated March 21,1997.
l North Atlantic plans to meet with the Technical Advisoq Committee (TAC) this fall to discuss the Long-Term Environmental Studies Program Proposals which have been revised to include recommendations by the TAC. North Atlantic anticipates that the revised Program Proposals will be approved and implemented prior to the end of 1997. Elimination of the Gill Net Monitoring Program is included in the Long-Term Environmental Studies Program Proposals.
l HYDROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM The 1997 Hydrological Monitoring Program continues to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES Permit.
' North Atlantic letter NYE-96020, dated August 23,1997, "Seabrook Station 1996 Environmental Studies Program Semi-Annual Report" B. L. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA) 2 EPA Letter, dated March 21,1997," Suspension of Gill Net Use-Monitoring Program Modification, Seabrook Station, NPDES Permit No. NH0020338," C. DeLoi (EPA) to B. Drawbridge (North i Atlantic) l North Atlantic letter NYE-96021, dated August' 29, 1997, "Seabrook Station Long-Term l Environmental Studies Program Proposals," B. L. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA) l Page 1 of 2 l
s.
1
.. l 4
The 1996 Hydrological Report was submitted earlier this year.
CHLORINE MINIM 17ATION PROGRAM l The 1997 Chlorine Minimization Program continues to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES Permit. ,
5
! The 1996 Chlorine Minimization Report was submitted earlier this year.
I L On January 10, 1997 chlorination of the Circulating Water System was discontinued pursuant to the I Chlorine Minimization Program, as limited biofouling was occurring during this period of cold water temperatures. The Service Water System continued to be chlorinated due to its safety related function.
Chlorination of the Intake Transition Structure began on March 5,1997 when plant performance measurement parameters indicated the presence of biofouling organisms in the system. At that time it was not possible to resume chlorination of the Circulating Water System Intake Tunnel due to a calcium carbonate precipitate blockage of the chlorination line. This blockage had reduced the flow rate in the line and the effectiveness of the system to deliver chlorine (NaOCl) as designed.
North Atlantic notified the EPA and NHDES of its initial plans to chemically clean this line on January 7
l 23,1997 6and provided updated changes to these plans on April 10,1997 pursuant to the requirements of Part I.A.8.e (Outfall 026) of the NPDES Permit.
Chemical cleaning of Scabrook Station's chlorination line occurred intermittently between April 22, 1997 and June 27,1997. The cleaning activity involved the injection of hydrochloric acid (hcl) in Seabrook Station's chlorination line in order to remove the blockage. Continuous pH monitoring of the intake cooling water demonstrated NPDES Permit compliance during the chemical cleaning process.
l Weekly pH samples taken at Outfall 001 were also in compliance and showed no deviance from normal values; It should be noted that all chemical cleaning waste was collected and no discharge occurred.
l It is likely that some chlorination line blockage still exists because the current chlorine line flow rate is 175 gallons per minute (gpm) which is less than the nominal flow rate of 200 gpm. North Atlantic is evaluating the need to repeat the chemical cleaning of the chlorination line in early 1998 and will notify the EPA and NHDES if this becomes necessary per the requirements of NPDES Permit Part I.A.8.e.
North - Atlantic letter NYE-97008, dated April 10,1997, "Seabrook Station 1996 Annual Hydrological Report," B. L. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA) 5 North Atlantic letter NYE 97020, dated June 5,1997, "Seabrook Station 1996 Chlorine Minimization Report," B. L. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA)
North Atlantic Letter NYE-97003 dated January 23,1997," Chemical Cleaning of Chlorination Line," from B. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA)
North Atlantic Letter NYE-97012 dated April 10,1997," Chemical Cleaning of Chlorination Line
. Update," from T. Feigenbaum (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA)
Page 2 of 2 j
1 l
ENCLOSURE 5 TO NYN-98058 l
l l
l i
I I
I l
l i
- i l
l 1 !
l l
! i I
r L
! I l
i 1
I l
l 1
i i
4
f l "gv m. '
.~. t North Nonh Adan& Enugy Senie Corporaen P.O. Box 300 l r $q h
Atlantic Seatroot, Nu 03874 (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System September 25,1997 NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 i N YE-97027 AR# 97015983 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency l NPDES Permit Operation Section l P.O. Box 8127 l Boston,MA 02114 Seabrook Station Final Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program Pronosal North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) submits herein the Final Seabrook Station l
Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program Proposal for review by the Seabrook Station Technical
! Advisory Committee (TAC) pursuant to Part 1.A.11.d of the referenced NPDES Permit'. The enclosed final proposal incorporates Seabrook Station TAC member comments on the initial Long-Term Monitoring 2
Program Proposal submitted in August 1996 and reviewed at the annual TAC meeting on September 5, 1996. It should be emphasized that no program reductions or eliminations are in this proposal that have not received full consensus of the TAC.
North Atlantic requests that the program proposal be approved during the fall of 1997 in order to implement j the Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program in .1998. It is expected that when this proposal is j approved, the program reductions or eliminations will be effective immediately. Therefore, samples j l already collected in 1997 will not be analyzed and results will not be reported in the 1997 Environmental Monitoring Report. ,,
l North Atlantic is currently contacting TAC members in order to schedule the annual TAC meeting, currently anticipated to be in October 1997. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Final Seabrook Station Long-Term Monitoring Program Proposal and related Seabrook Station Environmental Monitoring Program issues, if you have additional questions, please contact me at (603) 773-7762.
l Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.
. A A i Jofir) B. Hart
~ "
M nvi onmental Compliance Manager Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit Part I.A.I1.d, states that " Annually, after the effective date of this permit, the permittee may propose changes to the approved biological, hydrological and chlorination programs to the Regional Administrator (of the EPA) and the Director (NHDES). After TAC acceptance and upon approval of the Regional Administrator and Director, the proposed program will become an enforceable element of this permit.
2 North Atlantic letter NYE-96021, dated August 29, 1996, Seabrook Station-Long-Term Environmental Studies Program Proposals," B. Drawbridge (North Atlantic) to C. DeLoi (EPA) f l w
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency NYE-97027/Page 2 cc (with attachment)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Mr. Carl DeLoi Mr. Eric Hutchins New Hampshire State Program Unit National Marine Fisheries Service U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Northeast Region John F. Kennedy Building One Blackburn Drive Boston, MA 02203 Gloucester, MA 01930 Dr. Edward Schmidt NH Dept. of Environmental Services SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY Water Supply & Pollution Control Division COMMITTEE:
6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman 134 Palisade Avenue Mr. Jeffrey Andrews Leonia,NJ 07605 NH Dept. of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. W. Huntting Howell 6 Hazen Drive 12 James Farm Concord,NH 03302 Lee,NH 03824 i
Mr. Robert Estabrook Dr. Saul Saila NH Dept. of Environmental Services 317 Switch Road Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Hope Valley, RI 02832 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Dr.. Bernard J. McAlice HC 61 Box 109 Mr. John Nelson ,,
Round Pond,ME 04573 NH Fish and Game Department _
225 Main Street Dr. Robert Wilce Durham,NH 03824 Department of Biology 221 Morrill Science Center Mr. Bruce Smith University of Massachusetts
< NH Fish and Game Department Amherst, MA 01003 225 Main Street Durham,NH 03824 ._
NORMANDEAU At'SOCIATES Mr. Frederick Gay New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator Ms. Marcia Bowen New Hampshire State Program Unit Normandeau Associates,Inc.
~
Environmental Protection Agency 82 Main Street John F. Kennedy Building Yarmouth,ME 04096 Boston,MA 02203 Mr. Paul Geoghegan Mr. Jack Paar Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency 25 Nashua Road 60 Westview Street .
Bedford, NH 03110 Lexington,MA 02173
1 I
Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The initial draft-proposal of the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program was prepared in 1996 by North Atlantic with support from the Northeast Utilities Environmental Lab (NUEL) and Normandeau Associates Inc. (NAl) in consultation with the Seabrook Ecological Advisory Committee (SEAC). The draft proposal was endorsed by the SEAC and formally submitted to the :
Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)in August 1996. Proposals were made for each of the seven major Monitoring Program components. Following the receipt of TAC comments on the draft proposal, North Atlantic held several meetings and consultations with individual TAC members as well as the SEAC to address TAC questions and resolve issues.
-Table 1 summarizes the responses of the TAC Agencies to each of the seven original draft program proposals. The TAC agreed that the Phytoplankton Monitoring Program should be terminated. The l other 'six program components, with _ some adjustments and improvements, have emerged as the consensus Seabrook Station Long-Term Monitoring Program and are listed below.
- Water Quality Monitoring
- Zooplankton l
- Finfish / Entrainment and Impingement l
. Marine Macrobenthos
. Epibenthic Crustacea
. Softshell Clam (Mya arenaria) l Following Table 1 are seven narrative summaries for each of the components of the Environmental Monitoring Program Proposal. They represent the TAC, SEAC and North Atlantic consensus for the Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program. Although Entrainment and Impingement Monitoring are part 'of the Finfish Program, they are described separately, because of their importance. Each ;
summary includes a map with the location of the sampling stations in the new program, and a two-
. column table comparing the new and previous components as to sampling design, frequency, and number of samples collected in each case.
Issues or questions on the proposed monitoring program raised by the TAC which required further
, discussion were addressed at several meetings with individual TAC agencies during the review of the initial proposal. Meetings were held with the following TAC members: Mr. Bruce Smith (NHF&G) on December 27,1997; Mr. Jeff Andrews and Mr. Robert Estabrook (NHDES) on January 31,1997 and Mr. Jack Paar(EPA) on May 16,1997.
_ Responses to TAC questions and the status of pending commitments are described below:
e Enhanced Entrainment and Imningement Monitorino Program Procedures are currently being drafted by Seabrook Station's Environmental Monitoring Program Contractor, Nonnandeau
. Associates, who will also implement these monitoring programs at Seabrook Station. These procedures will be available prior to the upcoming TAC meeting.
h j
-f . Biomass Matter Conversion The conversion of entrained plankton into nutrients, which could result l
in a nutrient enrichment in the plant's discharge area, was raised by the EPA. Although the dilution of the discharge water into the surrounding seawater is too large for the above effect to be ,
significant, North Atlantic will submit a white paper on this subject prepared by Dr. McAlice I (SEAC).
. Statistical Power of the ANOVA Statistical Model A question regarding the power of this model and other statistical tests conducted to assess impacts of plant operation, was raised by the EPA. It was agreed that Dr. Saila (SEAC) and Dr. Lorda (NUEL), in consultation with Jack Paar, would investigate availability of software to conduct a power analyses and will report the results to the
- TAC. No off-the-shelf software capable of analyzing the power of multiway nested ANOVA models l has been found to-date. Changes / additions to the program "PowerPack" developed at the University
! of Iowa are a possibility now being explored. The need for clear and consistent criteria to decide when an impact has occurred, was another issue related to the power of the tests. These criteria will be selected in consultation with the SEAC, but not before the power analysis issue is resolved.
e Abundance of Kelps A question from NHDES/NHF&G about an apparent decrease in the abundance of kelps (Laminaria spp.) in the plant's discharge area will be addressed in a technical paper to be prepared by NUEL.
- Lobster Study Dala A request from NHF&G to include additional lobster data (molt stage and the reporting of V-notches) in the annual monitoring reports is being pursued with Nonnandeau l Associates and the contracted lobsterman who performs this element of the program.
l e Rationale for a Five-Year Operational Period to Evaluate Monitoring Program The EPA asked l wh'at the rationale was for establishing five years of operational data as sufficient to evaluate the
! monitoring programs and propose changes. The rational was based on the following:
- 1) There is no reason to expect that, on the average, the next 25 years of plant operatio will be i
different from the first 5 years in tenns of cooling water usage, thermal discharge, etc.;
- 2) Except for fish, lobster, crabs and softshell clams and some benthic organisms with life spans of more than one year, most other organisms being monitored have very short life spans ranging from days and weeks for phytoplankton and microzooplankton to up to a year for some benthic organisms; since no reductions and only minor program adjustments were proposed for organisms with turnover rates longer than one year, it was reasonable to assume that additional years of monitoring at present levels of effort would not change the
_ conclusions reached in the 5-yr evaluation; and
- 3) The 5-year period was agreed to by the TAC during the December 1994 meeting in Seabrook.
- Real-Time Monitoring Data Response to EPA: Continuous monitoring of surface water temperature will continue at a site adjacent to the discharge, providing real-time data on the thermal plum'e and ensuring compliance with the NPDES permit
l
. Definition of Long-Term Monitoring Progtam Response to EPA: The proposed long-term monitoring program is not the final monitoring program, but simply a major revision based on what has been learned after five years of plant operation. As stated above, five years of operational data is sufficient to evaluate potential impacts on many of the organisms and communities currently monitored, based on life cycles. It is likely that as the monitoring program continues and more data are accumulated, it may be necessary to make minor program changes to better assess abundance and distribution oflocal species. Changes may be proposed as long as they are supported by valid data and sound scientific reasoning. Knowledge about marine populations and the established methodology for monitoring them has changed substantially since the inception of the program, it is advantageous to all stakeholders advantage that the ability to r.djust and refocus the program be retained. The ability to propose changes to the program is specified in Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit Part I.A.11.d.
. Basis for the Location of Nearfield and Farfield Stations Response to EPA: The current location of Station PS, the nearfield biological station closest to the discharge, was selected on the basis of modeling results for predominant currents, winds and tide conditions for the purpose of documenting discharge plume effects on the balanced indigenous populations. The model validation study conducted in 1990 during plant operation revealed that, for the cases tested, the thermal plume does not reach the Station PS buoy, which is almost 1 km from the discharge. On occasion, Station PS is within the 1 *F surface isotherm, with no plume effects at the bottom. Station PS was not designed to examine thermal plume effects in any direct way, but rather to monitor nearfield effects on the planktonic population, which is continually changing. Station P2, the nearfield station, which is used to monitor intake effects, is located close to the intakes (less than 300 feet, with tows encircling the intake marker buoy). Direct intake effects are also monitored by the impingement and entrainment programs. Because the entire monitoring program is based on the Before-After, Control Impact (BACI) sampling design, the usability of the current database depends on the maintenance of Stations P2 and P7 (farfield/ control station) at their present locations. Maps that show the location of Stations P2 and P5 relative to the predicted / observed extent of the thermal plume are enclosed as Aitachment 1. ,.
. Clustering Methods Use of clustering methods to summarize samples of assemblages oflarval fish and other organisms, has been difficult to interpret according to the EPA. It was agreed that Dr.
Saila (SEAC) would look into other alternatives and would recommend best currently available multivariate methods to the TAC. Written comments by Dr. Saila on this matter are enclosed as Attachment 2. These comments will be discussed at the upcoming TAC Meeting.
- Viability of Entrained Eggs and Larvae Response to EPA: North Atlantic has always conservatively assumed that no entrained ichthyoplankton survives. Estimating actual survival by
_ sampling the discharge area (i.e., the region bounded by the 3 F isotherm) is not feasible because of the rapid mixing and tremendous dilution ratio of the discharged water together with a relatively small number or organisms entrained per unit volume of cooling water.
~
o
_ ., - t s
t ed
. e u
on e d e o s e s d t
st t
iwi n a d _
l l
a m s a e n l a r a m e t
. a s e s s et n a n s
o ol e p me or o
p .
hi t
a r
g a r
g .g p
o om r
pa ib e p
omd r
pa e Om .
o r n r r nb r v S e p lai _
E P og oo og o r Pb o vk t o t o nl l t oa _
I I
l a s e pr r t e no se p rp p oi s r t pe _
n p iw e gd .
ps .
T i F
ge nt ai ps ge n
a y
t a n e ai o
Spram
- t. t N a a r a t a s imp hc in ad h n e e . hc op r _
vC r e po oi m e t
g O . _
coiim o r o i
h n r oor S M WoA t r n o Nle cT Nlc lA Dp Np TA I t NR EG G MO t
R e& hb p u _
MP a F t
t
'i ,
t o r
S dn wn od S O
CG l a ei oP t N i NSE e e
e e
e r at gins eo in e e
e e
e e
YI e e e e a e e e e e e CR D r g
r g
r g
r g ii s met r a gt r
g r
g r
g r
g r
g r
g NO l a A A A A Dl eaS A A A A A A _
ET I s
e e
e e
e e
e.
e e e e e e P e e e e e e OM r r r r r r r r r r r EM E t o NN A g
A g
A g
A g
A g g A
g A A g g A
g A A g _
TL s e
TA I T s
n o e p u m MN s e
s s
l l
i . t u
a r
ME s ss t
i g .
R n s e b, od OM y o t c s s
n .
rpt e
c a ioS is a a CN n e
r e po P e r i n O c 1 v mt t
a n n im t
Y RIR A Ano n o .
i l nca i o ni el e imtia Pi cC iat i s
OV E ge s s A h c leS t t sb e
e _
SN c a _
R aT d p r h p gd _
V E I
m o gl ot o t
om oi i
wd r u u S o DM iBde F , e o c _
e _
AR e e
.t n eb e
.l .
et r s ge s n e e
. t e e e
e e
LE e er se ei r s e a re e e e e e e .
r ge m r r r r r r r _
s s AT ge r g go g g g g g g _
A Ap Ap A iDag Al e A A A A A _
C-G I - _
NN d n
I I O a 1 CL s e t y t o g f hs y EN g n dnl in i
3 n it s
. o i f
d u
TO a a a m o
at igc n
o t et s h g s, e is a r
_ OIT C in re f
r t sf f i c
igae y TA s e e t s yad lptu e v e e e d r e iysz n im ST a p -
e s ma m m ta m. . vo vI 6 ES S
o p a e r a r
a r i c ar r e s s t b Intc s .
s p . g g lp g bh g ae e a n u
.d yv NK o r
t nmn e e e o
r o
r e
r o
r .
me a
s o r r l
m wa mn r m P p p .
p S p c a oa OO i r
t g leSp P P n e r cd .
PO l a t u
r y o x i s i' s i s
n gd on i
s is,s u r
t r g o;1 e
- s SR in n f o ht h' mn ai o he o r ah e r r pue gs h ge a of t t t i
p EB g e5P d e e st t
a t e n
s n a a m i t e t t a t a eh v g an t
s e si RA O r a n ol nv a n
a n et cS n S t
oi hh a
e vi oype a nw r
FE i i i
u p imio t s m im d p m o p /ny m r
ctg m r pc me a OSD i l
ESd ta is i
lE i
'E Rd e o r i
lE D r
I ma d E li on Nl e S a
I med c oc s r
Y E R S n n g AO m o o t a t n n n MP r g
k t
n k
n a
e a t o
k er e i lp g
n g
n t MO m i o s n a l v )t n o m lp i
lp n rt y o lp p r n e UR P n i t
t n o oo o a ge n a lpshf i
a a s m m m S P g e l a k o l nm r a a e nm a n a
t k z z o
ei of t n
t e s s g ie Q n o r vd n ui hty O. E n l e n 1
rl oE r lp o
a r c a
lal v c r a h s . l w
a n ip e lp ic t h l. 2 l
r i
e e t i Bi(nne i
c m
_ M t
l i
n t
a h y o o M f
n I a a iG T.
S I b o W P , Z a. b. c
. i F a b
c d c
a M T I 2
3 4.
1 w
s n n y o
l o w e e . d l i d e it d lod ve a s 'c a . n
- l a a n nt i l o u n reC ia s a t
a pa s
o p e roes p
o edet a olaA t n
p o
la e d e l
a p
r vRn r
a k esTe i a
r itr d s .
d i
t l m a s d, an o l
sl ph
. al m P
l t e e no t r
e t
d n e iri om t
s ri p e s t
omy t
l l
i a n ai nt n .
t e s a oab zs w n i a i g g b i
l imtse ll n etas d tnt n .s na logoe de m F lail pek ai pp l
i pelr io a
s n hc el in r v pa icr o c a v t
a r
g e a em e m ml p p a et ot o etut Kbi n e
Ks a e a oa o Kwps N t L si r a a n e p P
r g
n G .l pl p i
.l e& ea e ea t
a F edi r em ed r
t d gt Ka gt i
_ S na a re g .s el a a re e _
I lytin in e lytn e
. I rd r NSE la pp l i l
gi t ipa e e g a e e D iraeema t
s re tr e r g r g
a s
l it a e i a
s PKs Di n PK A A D o
p o
r AS e
_ P e o A F e e e e e r g
t OM e r
e r
e r a e r a s
e NN g g g g g s
_ s n A A A A A iD o
p s
e s e .
R n a p y o ve r c e r o n
c it a uI t k n a l t p rd e
g I s
p . e e t e re ona t A el a K bs o3 lp An Pi o e
di dt . l o t s moo E ge pr o e e
e h eer oz -
R r t r f o r
di n t
g a iwage a c r
e s v am. e op ya l
e ,
t e r e e e e llai d
e r ggle a ) r g
ek r
er i t r e r a nb ug r a
gt g t
r e g s a s Ab u
A at Pi n A iDc h cah r (t o r p D i
l t t
a b ;d s g n u l e n n ew d s i a i lp s
e d d lo ncl i n a o w ' ape ls t
r o
g an a n m f l l a a f up a pl n p ih s e a s e a e e empe eh nl e e h
d, sp n a ht m C d,
) soeK )r s )r e e d n a u n e
as d
e /yrd n. ) /y n o / yK n ai a n t r e s t o
t s i X a c n o
p X 3 )a ri3 dsX t t
a 3
( r).r
) s r n t hs ea v loo u
o ( yb( s ( y /y iohps t d r l c r l / rh l l /
n a a r daXX 3 ot t P d aXripe 1 p d a
I t
a el e sd - n a lr i
,g p
l a i (
t r sd it r itr
( ( pd a 5 et n e s n ,d e e sh t ei p P s 5 id ig t
in o gi i e.m i
t n
t inog e ni d emn e e io nb lo &m 3
ir e i a -d s a t t e a(d n e el d t f a o t a po l
O t a t t a
t t t a c n s . a sdi nmo t s n l i em. a i in em i a w Spon f pc u e
imk a rb at m imkad ims l bd o s a o rd lein n t il t r lein ps a u E a E s a ud Des Der
)
i d
e s l a
u m o ip ht
. p e
n a m c i
t r
g n ma e
a s ls a
t n o s b e e s o s .
a n u m o rt P n r e t
c lg a r c a C c v u P
_ a l
e r c
( gm n e ai mc t t s
e l
a m c
ih l l
i rl e ru d r e t o tn h e
1 oE in s t
n n t o e s e i t
r e o e B ib n l n a D N p o bt o M. .a G. b E S a
M b. c T
5 6 7.
A
. i WATER QUALITY Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The objectives of the water quality program are to collect environmental data to aid in interpreting information obtained from the environmental monitoring program and to determine whether the operation of Seabrook Station Circulating Water Sptem has had e measurable effect on the physical and chemical characteristics of the water column. The proposed long-term program focuses on areas that are most likely ~to detect potential power plant effects and will provide data to explain biological variability.
- 1. Water temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen are biologically important parameters that influence the distribution of fish, plankton and benthic organisms. Measurement of these parameters should be accomplished with dependable field instruments, utilizing current analytical technology, and minimizing difficulties associated with handling and storage of glass bottles, and generation and disposal of hazardous wastes from Winkler titrations.
- 2. Comparisons of recent data to the historical database will allow determination of whether changes have occurred since Seabrook Station began operation; comparisons between the nearfield (P2) and farfield (P7) stations will distinguish between localized (i.e., potentially power plant-related) and regional changes. Stations P2 and P7 have the longest time-series of concurrent data collection.
- 3. Modifications to past programs will have minimal effect on ability to detect power plant impact, should it occur:
I
+ suspension of nutrient sampling -- no impacts shown to date (see Phytoplankton evaluation); inherently high variability make it unlikely that this sampling could ever show impact. Questions raised by EPA regarding entrained plankton biomass conversion to dissolved nutrients are being reviewed by the Seabrook Ecological Advisory Committee. A report summarizing the outcome of this review will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee.
. deletion of sampling station _.P5 (discharge) - this station is actually over 1 km from the discharge, too far to be affected by power plant operation, and too far to even be considered a nearfield station. Discharge effects will continue to be assessed by the continuous temperature monitoring program.
., 2 j- .
i
,\- RYE ! EDGE y? l 4 '
i
!JTT , ,'
scaas . w ...
HEAD.J.
U
- 0 '5
. i Nautical Mile j-M- i .
?
C 1 2 Kilcmeters yy f FARFIELD AREA SCALE G-s OONTOUR DE.:TH g t" '
IN METERS o
i GREAT BOARS v ,
HEAD 8 3 . HAMPTON ,s
, BEACH \
' y ~. . .n
/, -j 7 ,.
BROWNS RIVER y 'l ..
Intde * *, 5 g P1 "?
NEARFIELD
/ f.t/
., * ' OUTER' g l : e ID
. gpgg SEABROOK - . 'DS STATION - gJy ;g . ,,
h... }D}scharge'
\
HAMPTON SEABROOK SUNK i .- l HARBOR ROCKS - l r
(
l
\ r SEABROOK BEACH
{,. -
LEGEND B = water quality :;tations l
L e = continuous temperature monitoring stations Water quality sampling stations for proposed Long-Tenn Biological Monitoring Program l for Seabrook Station. .
j l l
a, s
e r h ,
i m o f )
g c
s
-* ih u
. t e
4 sO p t D r o
/
) eD a , h d 0 r r l ly b p 1 2 o s ie f ~ ( f k e r F e o f
r a
(
er oi o mn e w
f o
n h
l p
(
ut t t d a a 7
P t
a or a t d
e l e
p d t
o rbi t d )
s i t
)
e pa rr r
o e m s f
e g a s
o g
r me e nk le c e
r a s s
r i.
s n
a /
t s n o o roaW nd in t
)
h r l a o m i c o i r
t a
i s f s e ,
)
a
. br di t
ta e p t r
d
( l c y t a t
s n a ai t s i 2 e e M S P
vf r r n 3 l
n x ht c c n
A e ui s a l
x o s o n o o
, t k, b c R )
e n r s s t p
/
7 G k i a r ip w d; P t r e a a ht e o r m 2 le n O t p nf t a 5 S e t ai de n ebe R n 8 l
(
i f
i r n P i(
l
( r r P t w o fa 4
T 2 mta p k or (
s I
t e ( 2 v u
n em c
S P 2 e I
I e 7 P e h f a ma A s l I m T N c r al e T-
- i :
P y t f o : a r yh a e s u e, e pC c r y a d c g - t _
n - p c p n n u r ri r _
e boa(mS n a e o at _
u o
/ _
f u r s 4 e 4 ) ei nn q pr b a 4 u q
0 e gc)e qh r 3 ,
e 1 1 r 6 e e r Ttel e a n et.
r l oa t a n r hi a f : : f r :
r f r a r h rt g
n Cwi - d a
e ge s a e
cl is p gM n a e win i S ); e d m i l
p e z /y indi /y lpth /y :
e yi ly l s lp t s ( o n s d t m
a go a orpan f
le p mc k l e
p S c DS mo a m lep e a tc h Sh l al a E S e p
/ o/ m S s m : m l s o
s n t sD /r sn pe a a Y
n o o
do sd gn n a s
/
nw oo s nP a s loh c p m hi l a
l a ion io e l a o T a il it t d) t t / t c a re t ad t a6 t h
_ I t e aO o t n o t 1 ai t o at r L S p MreD T Sa T S3 St w t
T Do A
U .
- e . e . . . * .
Q R t n
E e e m s
T m ht b om in _
A e r
i w
r po h a _
u t c
W s a
t n
e d
leb t
o e m
e r r i e f f
_ M u c h ht t o .
n k t e
e n
o c
iwtos c a a c
p x
v (
ht mr ot e l
dni m O n t
e a w
_ t d o b om )
t y yo e m 2 i it h v d n l i s l r n y ) i M o s p e a re a
. l a
bd ial A s e v ts S r u R
i D
s e c f e a e 2 d av c o
G m rd x n r O & it sua s a hgve R y 4 d m p e r .
ih e P i t /
7 e e ir u g y D n P rb t t lye u a n sl l i
8 h E
l a 2 ai 4
(
r e
i r tnt et S S P o O ew s p r a P s e
y ms s g l e m i
t n h t eh n
O i e o
- ely l
i c r n f o T m m i R f o n ei r ( a M a 4
P r e u )g t
e a d p y r g e r g tek me i
P r al qin a r 6 t i o u o d n e
r el r p r e a r 9 l a
u r
p t a
r p ou t t
- u f pu t :
r t r
ga m t i
- t a a O s a e s a n e a n s ll r e p p p wk r a e r oa e ipon l
p /y e m p :
ym s e
t a m o e m o
hs m m mk t ge l r T r t c
t W a c e a n ot l p f s f T S a e u e p a p
e /ps l lo a m a
e n g o g s r n o d n oo s i r
n a u n a
t n imm i o o y n e r h it ht h
t i it l a a u
h c
i t
h c i r o nf o
f s ah ed t o t o n o t f
O t
Si c Mda T E s
n C
o n N
u e
n
) ) ) ) o 1
- a
- 2 e 3 = 4 n
.' ]
~
\
ZOOPLANKTON Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station ;
l The proposed zooplankton monitoring program will focus on larger zooplankton, which based on l life history information have greater potential for plant impact, and bivalve larvae that support j commercially and recreationally important populations. j 1
- 1. . Macrozooplankton sampling program sampling design was based on the results of analyses of data' collected through 1995. Macrozooplankton collections will consist of one ,
sample per sampling date at stations P2 and P7. Station P5 will no longer be sampled.
)
- Results from ANOVAs for each selected species, using the proposed sampling desigr:, indicated that there would be minimal loss in sensitivity to detect a potential l plant operational impact. The estimated variances for the critical interaction and error terms were similar with either one sample at two stations (proposed) or with three
{
replicates at three stations (current), suggesting that current sample replication is i redundant.
- The sampling of only one of the two nearfield stations will not reduce the ability of the program to detect potential plant operational impacts using the BACI ANOVA model, nor affect additional analyses (i.e., numerical classification and MANOVA).
- 2. Bivalve larvae sampling program has provided abundance information and analyses for bivalve species, which indicated no significant effect of Seabrook Station operation after 5 years. However, this program will continue, with samples taken weekly from mid-April through October at stations P1, P2, and P7.
- No differences were detected with ANOVA between the two nearfield bivalve lan ae stations (P2 and P5). Further, based on the length of the preoperational database, which starts in 1975 for P2 and P7, but only in 1986 for P5, sampling will be discontinued at station P5. Stations P1, P2, and P7 will continue to be sampled, which will maintain the BACI design for future impact assessment. Finally, sampling at :;tations P2 and P7 will allow the bivalve larvae sampling to conform with the macrozooplankton and ichthyoplankton sampling programs, which have retained these two offshore stations.
l
1 i
~"
N M I. EDGE c .
IlTTIE BOARS l ,
p, \'
\
_ .. \ ..
HEAD ,' - . -
-\
l 0
.5 1 Nautical Mile
\
FARFIELD 0 1 2 Kilometers $ .-
AREA-SCALE >
CONTOUR DEPTH ; }l~
f IN METERS
\
0 t l GREAT BOARS #
HEAD :
9
\
i i
. HAMPTON ~ se l
~ BEACH ~
z \ ~
l ! l BROWNS ,""
RIVER P1 Intake ***
Discharge-
)V .
NEARFIELD O.UTEf: 6.
i gN /
AREA SEABROOK GD " -
STATION , , j fy . ..d... . .?
. . . . ~
HAMPTON :
c SEABROOK SUNK ... ;-
t, HARBOR ] ROCKS i
')
i ,
'%, SEABROOK _,
(i
~
'; .!l 8
% BEACH # '
U i
's M il. r
! LEGEND 1-
= zooplankton stations
= bivalve larvae stations Macrozooplankton (P2 and P7) and larval bivalve (P1, P2, and P7) sampling stations.
'. r e ht p n e o i
c d dn m w e a a t lp d e c e c e m lp a
s fai r t w
m 7 u sd n a p s -
d d a 7 e n 7 P s a P yr s a e ,
d d
n c o d S
P n ur d e
a r p
e s , a, be s S s 2 5F s P P e M ,
s e
e c
o P
, h c o
A 2 g t
2 a r I
r P c p P P uo p R i s
ner s s r 2 G n lp 6 nh 5 o e 1 iobo iotr 2 O i t
a 3 r 2
'm t
at t
ae d ;
R t
- d 0 t c t b e s d e
P S d e t e 0 SO S me s e t c
c 0 c ygh e
T y c
t c
e l
e 1
'm yc c e o l
'm S n lo r c u r r lo r A e l
lo c e p
no e r e p
nD e
p c e p
u c uh ulyr e 2 4 P q 8 y qt l s 4
2 y ;
0 y e s 8 t e t qhb d 5 t e 2 ei et nm i
r t 2 s r r t a is r e is f a :
r n f p c :
r n f oe t
c : n g
n i
l c
a e D e gA n -
i lp a D e gmv n o l e r a D e
p e l o e i
e /y : l i id e r /y i
- N c y lp r s e
d e
pm 2 s e
d e
l pehs 4
/
s e
d m 4 l m mlp g e a :
s p t c
c am :
s lp t c
e a mo u :
s lp t c
S
/ e m I S
/ r o e m l S
/a r e m l e
s t a I o sf t a l o s sh t t n' a s c ny a s n a a s lo N it oh i l
c l a a ol ik ic l
l a
c a i omh ic l a
c a
t n p t t a e p t toc r lp O t a o e t
o a e e t
o t
a at a o e t
o t
a SbM t t T Sm R T D S w R T D R T D K
N * * * * * * * * * * .
- A L
P ly O r e
k e _
O p e _
7s e w _
c d
- i t
w lp e
d e m**
a lp s _
m 7 .
a P s d 7 n M P d
a A n 2 P
R 2 a ,
G P 1
P O s n
s n
R io o P t i
t a 'm ,
a D S t
0 S t
E :
0 0 : e r
S y c
1 yb c o 'm d O n r e nt r
e e e c t
P e p p e O u q- 8 y uO s 8
6 y l
e qh e d R e r e 4 t is e g t 1
t is fr u t
i P f : n a : n n g lp r e gr o ic r e e n a D a D
_ o n m a e inh lp e e n m e -
t o
i t
k l
p s /y : l r /y : l s d pli s d t e
_ n m I
e e e mpr 2 e e k a a l
p t a lp t n m l
p S s c v r aA :
s c e a a r
o / e m le a S -
/d e m I lp g o s n
t a a l o l si t a a !
o o o z
o r it oh i c l s
a c
a e
v i nm o ic l s
a c
a o
z r
p t n lp l t m lp o is c a a or t t t t a t a o e o a v t e o a r c
Sm R T D i Sf R T D H M
- B iM
) )
I * * *
- 2 * * *
- e
~
FINFISH Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The objectives of the finfish program are to provide information needed to assess losses to fish j populations from entrainment and impingement due to Seabrook Station operation. While no impacts have been observed to-date, continued or enhanced monitoring is warranted in most instances, given the ecological and economic importance of many local finfishes.
- 1. Ichthyoplankton sampling program sampling design was based on the results of analyses ;
of data collected through 1995. Ichthyoplankton data will be collected at stations P2 and P7 )
four times a month (see attached). i No differences were detected with ANOVA between the two nearfield ichthyoplankton stations (P2 and PS) for nine selected taxa. In addition, the numerical classification (cluster analyses) for fish eggs and larvae showed that species composition was very similar between P2 and '5. An additional analysis examining differences between the two nearfield stations was performed using paired testing (Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test), which showed similar '
abundances at the stations for eight of nine selected species tested (see part 5 below).
Therefore, based on the length of the preoperational database, which starts in 1975 for P2 and I P7 but only in 1986 for P5, sampling will be discontinued at station P5. Stations P2 and P7 I will continue to be sampled and the ichthyoplankton study will maintain the BACI .esign for future impact assessment. ANOVAs for nine selected species were re-calculated asing data from only these two stations and compared to results obtained from all three stations. No significant differences were found after data from P5 were excluded from the analyses.
- 2. Trawl sampling program data provide ibundance information for species that represent the local demersal fish assemblages, including several that are potentially affected by Seabrook Station and require further evaluation ofimpact. Therefore, no changes are proposed for this sampling program (see attached), except for increasing the precision oflength measurements from 2 to 0.5 cm to improve the utility of the data for assessments. Sampling will continue to take place twice a month at stations T1, T2, and T3.
- 3. Seine sampling program data pro $ide abundance information for species that represent the local estuarine fish assemblage, including several that are potentially affected by Seabrook Station and require further evaluation ofimpact. Therefore, no changes are proposed for this l _
sampling program (see attached), except for increasing the precision oflength measurements from 2 to 0.5 cm to improve the utility of the data for assessments. Sampling will continue to take place twice a month at stations S1, S2, and S3 from April through November.
t
- 4. Selected species will be examined as in previous annual reports and will include the Atlantic herring, rainbow smelt, Atlantic cod, pollock, hakes, Atlantic silverside, cunner, American sand lance, Atlantic mackerel, winter flounder, and yellowtail flounder.
.~
- 5. Changes in the sex ratio of fishes as a result of thermal impacts was noted in a comment by one regulatory agency to be a potential issue related to fish population stability. However, a review by a member of the Seabrook Station Ecological Advisory Committee (see attached) indicated that this would not be a likely effect because of the short exposure to increased temperature caused by plant operation. Therefore, no data on sex ratios of fishes collected will be gathered.
)
l
)
I I
l \
\
l
~ '
RYE LEDGE N
o - .. ;
UTTLE l BOARS -~,_. 1
-I HE4D .-
p7
.5 1 Nautic.al Mile FARFIELD o '. _ ' . .'~
AREA 0 I 2 Kilometers 9 f
'j SCALE -8 ,
CONTOUR DEPTH 2d ,
IN METERS .,-
~ '[,' s GREATBOARS f i '; >* j \ T3 HGD ,
HAMPTON ss !
~ BEACH '
t
.-. , - - - <~ ,
BROWNS , _,
RIVER g intake, .
\ . ,..-: - '
' OUTER [p , NEARFIEL6 '
AREA' SEABROOK ..
i % Discharge STATION ;f fy -f RAMPTON l [ ,-
SEABROOK HARBOR ROCKS !.r+
-1j' ': D \
, ,7 ,
c
~~ SEABROOK g{<y
) l ,;,',
s- ..,
s, BEACH ,^ j- ; % , -) ' /
i N,
%. /*f
\
't ,a '/
/
N,/' . )[ /j SA12SBURY BEACH 3f'.! ( ($'
', \
/
\
h l ; <
l l LEGEND h= Ichthyoplankton Tows
@= OtterTrawls l
E @ = Seinc Hauls Ichthyoplankton (P2 and P7); otter trawl (T1, T2, and T3), and seine (S1, S2, and S3) i sampling stations.
) m 2 c f T a o t 2
s ht y a t s
e g s e m n lh t
t o r a
it e n p e r
l o r n u ;
m e o o 'm t
s t f e b s d 0 c o t 0 i n
le l
0 w o e p t 1
d t
m m r e e e a d e u r s e p lp d u s
s 7 s e m d a P e a a e e c v s v M d, o r
r a
e m n p l 3 i ht A a d T, l c g R S, 4
4 n 2 a n G a s e P 1 s T, y l O , d e d g a ;
e R 2 s e g I c
P P s e
t c
e T la w
n T : c e h : a y o s y t d S
l c r lo i
f c o n A n p c f n (
n b
u P e I o e a u 8 8 y u 4 q d; q 4 s e e 2 t is e 1 e r t
- n r i c
f c r e f :
r e g e a g p n
l l
e D n a s o i
/p ilp c /y s d
- l p s d 2 e e 2 e e m l p t m lp t a :
s c a :
s c S e m l e S e m e
/ / l s t a a l o s t a a lo n n it t
t oh a o S m n
i lp R
c e
l T
t s
a o
t c e a a a rv Dl a i
S t
t o
a i
l R
c p
e l
T t
s a
o D
t c
a a
l i
S I
. . . e . . e . -
F N t s
I F o p
d h e f
r s t
n o e a e
o ht y t s r m g l b c n ht o n a e n l i
s e
l o
i t o ht i
m n e w i
t
'm e u s r 0 c d t u 0 i e n -
o 0 w l e f 1 t b m r d a e d e e v r e p lp ie u lp e h s -
M a m c a e
m d v a a A
R a
s e s
s r
a 3 s s y
mm h c 7 e l
a G P c d T, w t
g5 O d o r
n a 2 l a
n0 -
R n lets
- P a p s g T, t o ,a D 2 d n g I
n e cl e
_ E P a e T ly nt S : d hs : a a y e y e dnt o O
c t i
c k
_ P n c f f n i
l( u O e le o e ba m c R u lo 6 y u q
4 P q c 4 s2 e 9 t e 1 it e
r e is r t
n : c s f
g lp :
r e f
g r e pr e n m a D n a s a a e e e n i l
p s /y :
i l
p /y : n o s d s d t
m I
e e m 2 e e m c ro k lp t l p
t n a :
s c l a :
s a S e m e w S e m lef l /
s t a
l l a /
s t a n p
n a s o r n a s loo o o ic c e T ic ) ci r it lp l
a aa r io t lp l
a2 ai s
c .
h a rv o T t
t a e t
o t
t e a e t
a e -
t r Dl a h t c S R T t S R Ta t Dp -
I ' O
) )
1 e e . . 2 * + * =
l m i
r c p 2 A -
m e r
o r
a e i n
f n y ly ly t o lh ht .
ht t s n s n s n t n o t n o t n
o e an e m e m m d m d m d e r ie e e e e r r lp u p u lp u s s s s a n a m a m e a s e a e -
a m s M s 3 m 3 m -
3 ht G ht ht A S g g G, g R ,
n 2 n 2 n G 2 e e S l G l G,
e O
l _
I, e I, e e R c c I
c P S n G n G n T : a : a : a .
y d y d y d _
S c n c n c n A n u n re u n u P e b eb b e b _
u a u o a u 4 a _
q 8 s qt s 8 s q s 4 s _
e 4 e e c t 1 e e t 1 e _
f r :
i c frO e s :
i c r e s :
i c
e f .
gr r p gd r e p g r e a h- a h- a p _
ine b e y
s nn i a 4 e s i
n 4 e s lpm / :
lp e, 2 /y : l p 2 /y : _
s d s d s d mev 2 l
e p t e
c mn a u 2
lp e t e m a
2 l
e p t e
S a o :
s e S J, s c S
s c e
/N a c m l
/
s y e m le / e m l s a l o
t a l s t a l nl i a s c n a r a s o n a s o _
og ic l oi ic l c o ic l c _
iu lp a a i:
r l a a i a a a o p lp t t t t t t t t
r e o a t ab e e t
o a t a e t
o a St h R T D SF R T D S R T D e e e e . e e e . * . e e l d i
r e s
p a A e r
c m n o
r i
f ht _
y i -
l ht w
- s n t n
o e m m d e r
e u lp s M a m e a
A R 3 s mm h c G S t g5 O 2 n0 R S lets P , ,
a D I e e cl E S nt S : aa O y c
dnt o d d
P n u e t e bacm t
O e t
e e e
- R u l e n l e
q 8 s2 l P e 4 e d l i
d r i t c t v t
_ , e s n f :
r e n r e e pa
_ gr a m
) n e e s e t m
e o m d
e i
l pm b y : n e l t
t le u
/
s d n e o e i
n e
mev 2 l
e p t e m c ro i
l i m a
b r
- m a _
t n n S a o :
s m r a r _
o i /N e m lefn r g e g c e s nh t
a a l oo e o n o
( S og ic l s ci s t
a r
p /
e r
p l
h it u lp a ai c w- s c a ro i
S c t t a e i a is I a t e o r d h f r h R T Dp F i t St h i T u T -
N I
l
)
M S
=
F 3 e e e e * . .
J
~.
~
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ,
Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The objectives of the entrainment and impingement sampling programs are to provide quantitative measures of the losses of marine organisms from Seabrook Station operation and the data needed to assess these losses at the population level. Enhanced monitoring is warranted given the ecological and economic importance 6f many finfishes, lobster, and bivalve shellfish.
Enhanced entrainment (ichthyoplankton and bivalve) and fish impingement sampling procedures in use at Seabrook Station are currently being developed and will be available for review.
- 1. Ichthyoplankton entrainment samples will be taken 4 times a month over a period of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> that encompasses both day and night. Previously, entrainment samples were taken only during the day. This change should provide more accurate entrainment estimates as -
densitiet of some species are greater in the water column during the night than during the i day. Further, some smaller larvae may be extruded though the 505- m mesh net presently 4 used. Therefore, a program modification will be made to sample ichthyoplankton with both i 0.333- and 0.505- m mesh nets. After completion of a mesh evaluation study, the )
entrainment sampling methods will be finalized to result in an improved procedure for the estimation of entrainment impact.
]
{
. Entrainment estimates of fish eggs and larvae are one of the most direct measures of plant operational impact and should be as accurate as possible. A direct comparison ,
of taxa collected in entrainment samples with those collected at station P2 indicated 1 l several discrepancies in dominant taxa. These differences may be due, in part, to sampling at night at P2 versus day sampling for entrainment. Other ichthyoplankton studies have shown that some fish larvae are more susceptible to entrainment and 1 capture by plankton nets at night. Therefore, entrairmnt sampling will include l ichthyoplankton collected during the night. This can be accomplished by reducing I water flow through the entrainment nets and collecting a sample over a long period (up to 24 h) that encompasses both day and night. Since the 24-h samples are '
effectively composite samples, no replicates need to be taken. If nets become clogged i
during entrainment sampling, they can be cleaned and samples combined until
! sampling has been completed. This method has an additional advantage in that a
- larger volume of water than in the past will be sampled. To determine any differences I l that may have resulted from the previous lack of night samples, as many as 16 L - comparisons between day and night catches ~on the same date will be made in a special study to be performed over the course of about one year. This work should give an indication of any underestimates of entrainment that may have been made for I affected species and should provide necessary data to develop a correction or scaling factor for past data, if needed.
j
a
' 1 l
.- i j
. 1
. Nets with a 505-pm mesh have been used for entrainment sampling. Published studies indicated that smaller (predominantly 2 to 5 mm) fish larvae can be extruded through this size mesh. Therefore, paired duplicate sampling using both 505- and 333-mm mesh nets will be conducted for at least 1 year to detennine if an appreciable fraction of fish larvae are being missed in entrainment samples because of net extrusion. If no apparent differences are found between the two nets, then future samples can again be taken with 505- m nets. If differences do exist, then all future entrainment samples will be taken with a 333-pm net. It also may be possible to calculate a correction factor for use with some taxa in modifying previous data to l account for undersampled larvae.
- 2. Bivalve entrainment sampling will take place 4 times a month from mid-April through October if at least one circulating water pump is m operation at Seabrook Station. Three ;
replicate samples will be taken during the day on each sampling date.
. Larvae of the recreationally important soft-shell clam are entrained in relatively small ;
numbers (about 0.1% of the total bivalve entrainment). Apparently, larval densities are not related to spat abundances, which appear to be habitat-limited. Similarly blue I mussel larvae, which represented over 50% of both field and entrainment bivalve larvae collected, have not been affected after five years of plant operation, despite numerically-high entrainment estimates. The high fecundity of bivalves, coupled with their relatively long larval life stage, during which they may be carried considerable distances by water currents, makes a localized impact less likely to occur, as these species have evolved to compensate for very high losses in their early
, life history. .
- 3. Impingement sampling will occur at least or:e a week when the traveling screens at Seabrook Station are rotated for cleaning. Weekly sampling will occur more often when screens are operated frequently, particularly due to heavy debris loading during storm events.
In that care, subsampling may be used to estimate fish impingement rather than making a complete census of the catch as done most of the time. The impingement sampling l methodology, however, needs further refimement to determine if estimates of this impact are j adequate. The addition of a small-mesh screen in front of the screen wash pit water drain in !
1996 has eliminated the potential loss of smr.ll organisms that may overflow or fall through l the mesh of the screen wash collection basket, but some loss of fish may also occur from decomposition because of the long period between screenwashes under normal operation.
- Therefore, a special study will be performed to determine the extent of the loss ofimpinged specimens, particularly smaller forms.
- A special study of at least 1 year in duration (when plant is in full operation) will be completed to determine if small fish are lost due to decay or other reasons during the ;
usual week-long interval that occurs between most sampling events; this would result in an underest.imate ofimpingement. To accomplish this study, screens will be
)
I washed after being held for about 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and, subsequently, for a second time )
l during the week after being held for the remaining 6 days. A numerical comparison L of the catches (after adjustments to equalize effort by time), the species composition, and relative sizes ofimpinged specimens should illustrate whether or not certain taxa !
i or sizes are inadequately represented in present impingement samples. Following the termination of this study, the impingement methodology will again be re-evaluated to optimize the frequency of sampling so that the most accurate impingement estimates can be made.
i 1
4 1
1
\
' j 1
1
_. __J
l i _
r f p 4 o A-d ht d i
e g lp n e
m m l m
a s
or e
r
'm0 f
ht t
u 0 n c 0 o .
ur 1
r ms e t
s ep a uo e e s eh n k a t
a v mee _
M i n a' r it r A
R k
o l
d 4 cs d -
o n en G b r a s lpio -
O a g mta t
R e g aS P S e S
_ ly k T :
y l a
h s : o 'm S c y i i
f yo A na t c r r P n f nb e ed e o e a p u e u q
4 4 y u qS e s 4 y qh e t t t e 1 i s ee t 8 i s
fr g s n a n n n :
r e frh t c :
r e _
i _
e a D a gt D
iqiru k a
e n a r lp e e T !p d t /y s d i
lpb e r /y s d
. N mh 3 e e 3 e e _
t mto
_ E a n : lp t c :
l p t c _
a c s
s _
M S o le /s le s O
/ e m e m E s m t l a
t na a s o nh a a s lo G c c og ic c ios li l a a e
u l N t e p a it o lp a a _
a rv t t t t _
I P tam e o t a r e o a Si t R T Dl a St h R T D
_ M I
_ D . e * . = e * .
N A e l T t.n n og i
r N h o n f p
_ ig s e o A- -
E o di 4 neh t n M dd c her lp e
t wa wo ht g
d N e nt a v hl l im I
_ lpa co m h sef o t
n _
A myahd a) s y le m R a ;
o sd ge nmses .- ' 'm ag iwmd
_ , r _
T N
eh r t inmr s o t l io me 0 f
ht E u bodnfo no ed t - s 0 n t
ar s a5 r s a 0 o .
e o c
r nyp e ug e0 -
ms 1
rh t p5 e r e
s isd e a pe o0 e r e a u t s b e r m f p o ke an ohb e sh e
a pe o t
M h ts ri o a n c vr imeer n me t
A a a e wt o twyd t
i h p R i we yeg n n a t k c e u 4 cs l
G o nbt s ,h 1 o, pl i
d d O o e sl et t n e o n R rh n a lpan s ym al a l pi b e s usa s
P a4 e2i se c oi mh at l g mta t
D S oa p r p s er t ot a e n g
e S aS _
E t s e o r ne k
_ S :
y pm a t oa mn h s : o 'm O t ims f t yo cnd uc o a n s i P e o r 6 lui f c r r _
- po 9 mr a f t n nb e _
O m e o6s de mr o e a p u e R ui r1 ;i t e y P
n qe o oe t 8 s ne t y
m q S e s 4 t i
a e r psa p c a 4d is n e e t 8
is .
- teh i
r ayro h- er n a n frh f i :
t 4 g r c s e a t c r e n gr np a e e r i a _
e n e v a e r 2 s D t gt n a lp e D .
n i omr lp . (
~e /yell o m :
n e i er e r /y : -
o s a a m s cm d c lpb 3 s d 1 i e e e e pb em t
k mh a n ,ta y t a e e : 8 t
l t a mt o l o
t n - c v a c :
s c a S ondo a sf e o mto33 y . e r a /Os e =
e a
s mie f o l
l /
n t lo s t a se 3. d a = u n
t a
c e s l
nh o aid ma s o s v e i m la lp 0t u c e e v og i c l c _
it sd s r lpu s iu a a ht e a m nh eou a e l t
o mi is ht t
a a v la t a o r lp e
t o
t a
Rv o h a r v t Dl ai t
I c Si t I t c Tas wh t B St h R T D
) )
I * * *
- 2 .
- e
- g t s
n n i
r e
_ u m
_ s d
n e
r -
a e u s
w k a
_ t a e .
n t m
a e lp b ht y g n a n
_ e e
- h m l
_ w s e e v ly l p i t
k m a e a t
nl )
e M w b s el s e A d u s
eh r
R e ( p /s G lp 2 ed r e O m 5 ;e
- R a f o
ecw a P S n T : m d(
a e s S y u A c m nd n u a balo P e i x
u a q s s e m ei r f
r : icb g r e pd e
n a s ; -
e i
l p
A
/ /y : m N s d c
- m e) s e0 a :
s l
pt n
t c1 _
_ S/ g s t e me a v le ts _
ni n a s e loe c r
- iot a ic l a rm ae a r lp a n t
a e p e t
oo t
Dt o t
S o R Tt s
- e
- e s
- s g g r e n n s fo n t
ilp i
r n k vle e u e ei pt m d m e
wfc e msa i s a n e
e r
u af e s yeetre n k s a a e t l, e
c e ihd ah mt b
e . m wts6i f e t g y ht o e aen f s i a g s oipn m n s e
)
d ya c
noe e ;
t d ri mm s e
l e
e et r t s lp v
- u u ya e n m i
t
't n M qd pd ey e a t a
nl )
i n A e u mordc u r t t b s
o R f s o gl ck st u el s e c G s s eh
( a e n ( r p /s T O i n icbe we h ois 4 ed e R lped th 0 r N P ms pl es e e,w 1
E a a ot uhf i g n ':f M D S ll i o c a E
E S
nwf oa w m n
a e s
- i ynl e e sl r mlo u d(
G O c opdf o f nd N P nimn m ua I O et a ai o ixa balo P R P
ur qe s a mss es d
s s M e ph
- el o s m i ei r fr o 4 r I
r s e : cb D f r e e _
_ N go ~2 heos t y -
a a e
pd s ;
in ae r a e A _
A lpe ngc r / /y : m T t myoirdb nee N s le) s d c te5 N n e a 1 gu eo :
s pt n c0 E
m S
/ oi sf r ndl b t e me a v l
e t s
nt lpei d a le t l M e a s e oe N n c u c c ra I n iaose mtc a e red e i
l p
l am ae a n t _
A ip al sl ph f lopc e t
oo r t _
R m t t S a oc a s R Tts Dto T
I N )
E 3
- e . *
. i 9 1 MARINE MACROBENTHOS Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The objective of the marine macrobenthos program is to determine whether differences that exist among benthic communities at sites in the Hampton-Seabrook area can be attributed to power I plant construction and operation. One potential impact on the local macrobenthos from Seabrook l Station operation is temperature-related community alteration to areas directly exposed to the l discharge thermal plume. Habitats in the upper portion of the water column (i.e., intertidal and shallow subtidal zones) are most susceptible to this impact. Thermal impacts are unlikely in deeper areas; however, increased turbidity in discharge water resulting from transport of suspended solids and entrained organisms could occur, increasing sedimentation rates and decreasing light j transmission.
i' The focus of the proposed long-term monitoring program after 5 years of plant operation is to monitor hose habitats most likely to reflect effects of potential impacts from Seabrook Station ,
(thermal plume effects and increased turbidity / sedimentation). While no evidence ofimpacts has been detected to-date, this habitat merits continued monitoring at this time, given its predominance in the in the area, its ecological importance, and the long-term cyclic nature of the benthic communities. .
l
- 1. Effort will be focused on station pairs with nearfield stations closest to the source ofimpacts (Seabrook discharge), and with longest existing preoperational/ operational period time-series.
These stations are most likely to reflect impacts, if they occur.
. B17/B35 - Shallow subtidal zone is hard benthos habitat, most susceptible to thermal plume exposure, although little evidence ofimpacts have been shown after 5 years of plant operation.
. B1/B5 - Intertidal zone, while less vulnerable to thermal plume effects than the shallow subtidal, will continue to be monitored because of regulator concerns for possible impacts to the Outer Sunk Rocks, the intertidal habitat nearest to the discharge.
. B19/B31 - Mid-depth zone would be most susceptible to potentially increased turbidity / sedimentation from the discharge, although little evidence of this type of impact has been demonstrated to date.
- 2. Sampling design and data analyses for these sites would be similar to previous years, maintaining the historic time-series:
. Destructive sampling
- Non-destructive transects (shallow subtidal, mid-depth and intertidal) and quadrats (intertidal)
. . General algae (collections made in conjunction with destructive sampling)
. -Bottom panels (with new wooden panel attached); subsampling of panel would provide replication.
. Study sample collection / processing f6r " incidental" parameters not analyzed in report would not be conducted (e.g., spirorbids, colonials, annual bottom panels).
- 3. Additionally, in response to regulator concerns for recent abundance declines of kelps at the nearfield stations, a one-year special study will be conducted to more closely examine trends in kelp abundance in the nearfield area. After consultation with Ecological Advisory Committee members, NUEI. is preparing a final proposal and study plan for this work which will be presented at the fall 1997 Technical Advisory Committee meeting.
j i;
M' l
l
1 .
- A
~f A R??!E.DGE l l
'(_'B5MLW' i
. .,\/! B5 M S L ' . -
/. 183 .
fe; - I.JTTII h .' i F ARF 1 ELD
~ AREA ~
BOARS HEAD f l; Bas ; ,
~ f 0 .5 1 Nautical Mile ,,'"'; I
(
0 1
2 K11ocieters
} ,,
'~.,,%.-
'~!
SCALE CONTOUR CE?TH
-) ,
l IN METERS .' t-
/) {
\!
0 GREATBOARS !-
L"";
HEAD : s ,
~'~
HAMPTON ~ ',
(*l h BLACH .
4 .-.-
.~
BROWNS j -.
i . - -
1' I
RIVER s - {. ,'IntaNe*.
I l :" NEARFIELD 3 [' . J'
~
O W .lB1MLWl AREA as ':d GlB17l !
I i hB1Mst,B19 h .
SEABROOK)'
STAT lCN . '"i y
. . 4~.~. Discharges'
/J .
l PMON '
SEABROOK SUNK . : .<~ ::;, .
\
HARBOR ROCKS , [ ' ' j')i
( /.
\ SEABROOK ,
- h. ; ' .,l1 i .)
i l N er^c" j
4 ) ;j 'A.c'; >
/
N f' , z{:l; [9' .
l
~
l ' :': )
\ :
\
SAUSBURYBEACH ' .
') '
N 's
, i j .) !
!' LEGEND I
I l = benthic samples Marine macrobenthos sampling stations for proposed Long-Term Biological Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station.
r y e
_ 5 3 o p 3, c
n B N dX t s e n c u
_ / ) , e
_ 7 a a3 e q l
r xa m s)h s n
e r
B;a ,r t os d
a p t a
r f
e l) a y ae t
n ao f ue qd t
la
%s
- t d yr s n e n s lad n u d t it r er p iu d i i e pX mt a ir m t r a o
- t ot t
e n c s ed n t s
nXI iml I d t n u
( 3d r e n a I e o i v i , o o
- Wdl Ll pm e p f
d cu t
( l Ld a
)
s e
di la do n n Si dM Mma 5 a s ad o Mbu t
o z
i t
_ M Bs) la rp 5 s 3 rd en A /)h t oer B n t
n a R
G Wh p e L pd t
t
(
t y /o r Uw Sl lo i
h in fi e c oh O
R Mdd I i
- i t
s d e n nc MhSa I
a e
r e r c
d e a n v u, P BiM B( 2 o T : M( Dh da t : 1 (
6-cl p
S y( 6 c d gn y3 c/ 9
/
ye
'A n1 1
n nu n 1 s cn k, P e3B Bd 0 a
ss slleb a e uB d
a 6 e ds u/n q9 1 qd u
q 2 u qr e e a 1 at nia e n 1
_ f r 1 B )p :
r mu ool o n fr a l
d a :
r el fr a g ), e g5 i6 d a ic B o - a %ib inlaDe e d c in3 tr s e t t /y :
, B et c /y : u pid( s ib a lp/7 t n e s d s 5 de rou n s e e ry S mbt 3I e t r m1 I n l t O : lp ei af aB :
a p I Se s/
/
uB s e m I c p I St,n S
/
), s et r m c o Ict s s w4 s s t o e t I I a o l a r a a a T n o3 c s c a a nt c s N iol la/ B i l a xi n oes lcd i i l a
cd a n t
4 lp t t a am t
it a anae r pb t
t o
t a u E tah S 0 o e af o t e u f l
l S( B R T Dod St yr RS T Do O
R C
e
- e *
- r e . e A . e p y M' 5 3
o 3 c -
N, dX - n E D s e -
/
7 ) n3 a) t c u q
N a e l
x sh s e I B a da t p n f r
R~ a
- ) a
, r t u e r
%s
_ A' l i
a e yr t
n a '. qd d
- l t
a
- t n d n l s u M t r e e p im d
ai it m di t
r t
n o a c t o rd e n su I nX d r ) te n na t
n im/
( 3 d o
I e i (l a oio Wd e f s o Ld
)
s dd a o Ll d e l M
i
_ p n p St b n A Mm 5 a a o r Mu o z
idM R B s l
a P 5 s t
rd e na G /)
t o s B 3 t O
R Wh L p t (
t y
e g Uw Sl o i n in n n h fo ih l
e a Mh P Md t is; n h a c a r r c
D I -
l S e e u E Bi d e C B( 2 v ,
op D o y( M 1
S : : (
O d N y/3 6- /cle c
P c
n1 a n (
n s y c k, O e3 e e 19 d ns R uB 0 s
s n uB a u
6 2
ed u e q/ 9 a i
qd _
P e 9 lp e n q 1 qr e r 1 m r l el r a i
f B : o m f a a :
n r r f d i
g ), a a g5 id6s a i iB %b lp inla e S in3 t e t _
/y : e l B
/
r t e c /y : u m lpid s d v p7 t n s e s d s a 5 c e m1 e e y mb t i S ip t t
c aB I
n lp t r e a u :
s c u :
s a r c o _
e S v S s e m l r /
), et m let s i
t c
/
sn w o t
a s a l o
t s
e s s nt c t l a a a s lo e r _
c ca o e cd u ol it a l
i lp l
a a x a D i s r lcd i i t
l a a n i - t a n pb u a a t
n t t t t
s ah S
e o a f t
g t e e u o af e t S( R T Do St yr RS T Do D - E
) )
I * * =
- 2 * = =
- X _
3X dI ; -
)
e p lped e mlp e L a D m
(
, S )s a s
4 lsMh o5 t )
3 B _
pe / _
oB p ek 4 eUd a 0 d
i t
Sd i mmh i
t n B
)
r WI LB1 e
( p t ht a pe y a x
,3d a e a -
M d r 5W/-9d x a d p
- e t t
n -
M BL1 i BM(
t a
A l
a iMX n R W/M 5 lg ( I i G L B l)a1 6 a 1 3 e l
s m o
O M/dB Wi f
o /n 9 a d R I BL b d t
e 1 p d e
P u n c B T : Ms a n e : a yu l t c
e S yI w )p s c n l oe e b e A c B,l n a n n e a s
P e s lad /
e f ul qoh( c u , o e oS 3 0
4 n qa r 8 2 s
) r p( 1 e s
e e fr y t
n f : :
d d3e5B r e / r u o
e gi B 4 /
a r p gX le a c u nt e in3 n e n
i lpS1 L /7 B 3
/
y : l pl s a p /y :
/ s d e s d .
mn i
e e mMB4 e 1
t I
e n a5 ) B
, 0 :
s l
p t
c e
a a :
s lp t c
e o SBl a ; e m l S p e m l c /
s>d r r t a a l o
/
s l a
t a a l o
(
S nl t ie e oS r a a e ic l s c n o u n i c l s c yy a a i n l a a O
it a Mt lp t t t a
p t t l t I n re re e o D
a ta i R
e o D
a _
i SBI ( pp R T St r T
T N * * * * * * *
- E B _
O 5 n R 3 i C /
B l s t s
e n A l 7
n u i B a p o 5 ,
c l .
E l) r * ,
a p a a - u s N d i ye n n o I t r r a de R t e ep i r r e
A i(
n X )
t T
M 4p ,
W3 d e a
x M L e a d- a Mlp x t A a d t n
R 5 m t i a
G B a l a M n W)
/ s (
O lg a 1 im R Lt h f 3 o P Mpe o /
)
s d I 9 s e D l d- e 1 e
l p d e
E B d c n
B l p t S : m c
- i e y m a e O yM c b s c a s l e
P O n(
e1 /
a n e b s b u
s f s
R u3 e u u o q/9 8 c q s 4 P 1 n e 4 2 s t
e1 e r ( n l e rB : s f :
u n f e g ),
r a r p
g n
l e
n r
a o c p a
e e linl pi d a /y s d s
i l
p p a
/
y s
de d n
e e t 1 e e 1 e oo n
e mb lp t c
l e m a lp t c
l a
s u s s e n S
s e A / e m l a / e m l w s w t a a l o P s r t
a a lod l
a n o c s c n a c s c e r iola i l a m oe y i l a hc l
a a e
n e
t ah t S lp e
t o
t a t t
o o
ita/X t
lp e
t o
t at a S( R T D B S3 R T Dta G
) )
3 * * *
- 4 *
- e *
- I l
f EPIBENTHIC CRUSTACEA l
Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station 1
l The objective of the epibenthic crustacea monitoring program is to assess potential entrainment j
effects on larval crabs and lobsters, and discharge-related effects on juvenile and adult forms.
This objective has been successfully met, so the proposed program would remain essentially the same as in previous years, due to these species' recreational importance and high profile with the l public and regulators. Proposed changes would improve our ability to detect impacts and still maintain continuity with historically reported data.
l 1. Adult Lobster / Crab Survey would continue unchanged. Additionally, Cancer crabs will be l enumerated in impingement samples.
i
- 2. Lobster / crab larvae sampling design and data analyses for these sites would remain almost identical to previous years, maintaining the historic time-series presented in reports:
l . No changes are proposed for the lobster larvae neuston sampling program.
. Cancer spp. larvae sample replicates would be reduced from 3 to 1 (through the macrozooplankton program) and only stations P2 and P7 would be sampled; analysis
! indicated that the ability to detect impacts is not affected.
l l 3. New Hampshire Fish and Game requested that' additional data be provided on lobster molt l stage and the presence of V-notches. North Atlantic is pursuing plans to have this data l collected by the commercial lobsterntan who currently performs the lobster sampling j program.
l l
l :
l E
I
l 1
. 4 e
- ATE 2:GE 5 -
N.
/.
1 So } b/p.,.
HEAD ; L7
- a .
c:
e 1 Nautical Mile FARFiELD o ..-...
AREA l ~
l o
1 m
2 Kilometers l SCALE . !
'# N -
CONTCUA OEPTH IN METERS j.:
/
U ' -
GREAT BOARS j HEAD ,
HAMPTON ~ 0 &
9q BEACH '
l
( e r.:
I BROWNS $;:. nl ! ! ."
ANTR '9\' ! . Intake 9
I *
.d NEARFIELD '
AREA
, .; b 2 UTER h., ' , ' , ' , . ::
SEABROCK ..
STATlON - ;. ~' jy ,
,,. h,g% :
l *s *'
1 HAMPTON SEABROOK SUNK , ~ . i ROCX5 H L1 '
HARBOR
! i
! ~
%, SEABROCK ,
- ii.. { , .'i .
j
{ .~\
BEACH
%~ .:l.7 2 .
%r p s ;.*i rl ;,,'.~.> '
%# j ' /. j i
['
SAUSBURY BEACH :
ll i i
I .t il i i i LEGEND 1
= Lobsterlarvac(neuston)
~
- p = Jocah and rock crablarvae (mac:czooplankton) i- L = Lobstertraps (15 traps)
Epibenthic crustacea sampling stations for proposed Long-Term Biological Monitoring
- Program for Seabrook Station.
l t
. r e
p d e i
c im w t
m d
- v. o r e o x e
f lp N s k e m n
ht e a s
u w d g 7 e r
J, k
e l
n e
e e
p P
d n
s s
e c
e c X a, o
r d
e w a I p s r p ; 5 s e a 7 P e s e p r P , c M a c 2
, t a o r
A X ,
d n P i c p _
R 3 e a s lp 6
- c n e G 7 n 5 y o r 1
L a P t i 2 O / d ,
is t
a 3 d; 'm R l L
n u
2 P n t ;
e 0 P e S d t b d e c 0 T :
y a :
y e y
t c e 0 S c b c a c e l 1 A n a n v n l
l loc r
e P e r c e r a e o p u 6 u l u c 8 q ) 5 /r q 3 r q s 8 y s e e 6 e e e 2 t e
r p 1 t
s r r t is f a : b f :
t s f a : n r r o r b c r e g t a g a o g il a n 0 e L n e l n p e D i
3
( /y : i t l
/y :
i l e r /y :
lp s d pc s d p s d _
1 e e n mO- I e e m 4 c e A m a :
l p t ci o ad : lp t c a : ip t c
E S
/
s e m leta Si
/
s e m le S/
s e m l e
C s n
t a a s loin s no m t a s a l o
c s
n t
a a s
l o
A o c c n c oh c c T it i
lp l
a t a ne iot t y i
lp l
a t a it t n i
l p
l a t a
a e t
o at e a a e t
o a a o e t
o a S t R Dd SM t
D t
R U S T R T S m T D -
R e e e e C * . * * * = *
- C I
I n I i o d T t a i r
e N i n m p E .
m r
m o
e c _
B' v e r i I o t e
f w P N d, 'k e d t
E n ht e l e
u g w p J, n r m e ep a k l s
e e )
e c ) X e 7 w a I P p d in M r e a s e 7 l
o d
n A p r a p o P m a R X c, hc o d a 2 G 3 r n s P et a O ; c o nn p
S n n R 7 a - s P ty o o P L dV e g k t i t
D
/
l nf n 2 is n n t a 'm L u o P e a S 0 E b a i 0 h d n S :
y a e c c :
y e o y
0 O
1 c b n o c a o c r P n ae r N n v z n e c s e r o e p O b u e
6 /e (
u a r u R a q )
s 5 r e p r
n q 3 l
r c q 8 ity P r e p 1 t o e 6 e a e 4 s C r a sd t s r t s m r e : n f : b n f : f l k g t r r oa, u g r b o
(
g p r e c a L e a e m a D o n 0 e e N n e l a n a e i
3 g i.
y v i
R
/
l p ( /y s
d a e l
pc t
/
s d r lp s /y s d r 1 e e st a mO 1 e e a m I
c e e m lp t v -
lp t l ip t t a :
s cl t r ad :
s c . a :
s c b
s S e m e o a Si e m e p S e m l e
/ l L /
s m t l
p /
s t a l o s t a lo m a lo a o L n a c s c ,
x r
e n
ot o a ic s c s
r n
oh c s c t io i lp l
a a e t y lp l
a a e it n
i lp l
a a l t t s s it a a t t c t t t u a e t
o af b e o a n a o e o a SM a t t d S t
R T Do o R T D S m R T D A - L C
) ) )
1 e *
- e 2 e e e e 3 e e .
- l MYA ARENARIA ,
I Proposed Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program for Seabrook Station The objectives of the proposed Mya arenaria program are to ensure the continuity of the current database on the soft-shell clam and its predators, and to make available information needed to explain to the public major changes in clam abundance which may occur in the future. Given the local economical and recreational importance of this species and the public level of concern, no changes in this program are proposed. The proposed Mya arenaria monitoring program would have three main components:
1
- 1) The Hampton Harbor Population Surveys;
- 2) The Near/Farfield Study; and I
- 3) The Predator Surveys.
- l. The Hampton Harbor Survey would continue the data collection of adult Mya at flats 1,2, and 4, and of spat at flats 1 through 5, once per year in the fall. The monthly sun'ey of green crabs on Flat 2 would also continue unchanged.
- 2. The Nearfield/Farfield Study would be the same as in the past; this study provides valid data for statistically testing whether future clam abundance declines, mass mortalities, etc. can be attributed to plant operation.
- 3. The green crab surveys and clam-digger counts would continue unchanged. However, an effort would be made to investigate other measures of annual exploitation rates because some reviewers of the draft proposal indicated that clam-digger counts did not appear very reliable.
l T
1
" ~ W & y Q ,i i*
HAhtntL<11vER % f
~
g ;
BR WNs k o .
}f .
D $R l jf w 0.,.
f
';"..; \
"y "w -
HAMPTON
) 25 Y' BEACH
.]ggyg I
"- # ' 1
? - ~ .. .u
':,;W:2%..,
, . .)^. ' y wg,. g Seabro dkStadon: .... p;.
.:gg Y ?"gg- wq ' ,
i
\
u%.:, ^ 2 . % .?$$
3 ,- $k$$5
- ~:; e -..
g'~ Ab.;y ;
+
)
, , , +
I :. . w.
If s yg;; " Aq:g
~ ;.., ..%; M;M. - -.
s
- 7 ,.g
.. ~ g:m l
- b
- v - .; >. .,
o d g::a
- M
- SEABROOK
".s v:n:< MQ-.'u n,s:w.<yv
- ... =t@a ... . . "Y
- g #p.. \
y .ss iC. %.w WW y>;.$
M.3 -
....s. s
'.hml. CREEE ','"
a ~ * %
. .a BEACH yu ^;
- jy7, >
f c:+,.st:9: ' + g ., , : .
JS . . ,
s+.- l a L.e < RW
. f:.:L : cr . L" '* * " .h '
O *5
+ " ft:y:3 % 0 ~' 4. "s (34^:;' q.lj:J. j? ; :;;. '
l tts sig; ,,s q;; c
'^
j v ~~~~ ,
~
43f'! "g):flc'f .Q
- ji.'..j# #
M.::: ,. NAUTICAL MILES 1
i 6."
ISLES OF y ~
- r. . :G2; ' ^
- f + . N l
SHOALS ca HAMPTON SEASROOK s.a'
^
@ M.sjs{f a(- , j VF1f%
' ESTUARY
- % ;g ' Gri
.5 p.: .7.1., :g. . h .d ~F ygh ..s.w. . . '
esa s y .y
,...' I
[ t y : .).f..
- 5 w
s- ..
' 'J l }. .
4
- Q'r.kg;
- s MERRIMACE y
RIVER l
l
%a A_.
1 PLUM !SLAND 0 5 to SOUND (IPSWICH, MA) g LEGEND Q = C12m Flats g = Green Crab Traps g = Spat Sampling Sites Hampton-Seabrook estuary and Plum Island Sound soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) and green crab (Carcinus maenas) sampling areas. Seabrook Operational Report,1994.
ts a
d n
~
_ l f a -
- r t
o .
a br -
p a s
u i
l n
f3 o .
A t p
/ _
m -
_ 4, a 2, l l
1 s i n
t _
_ a h _
- l f c ty a
M - el .
is n
. A l ts s nf la e R u io e d .
G d tath ) _
_ a s _
O u s
a t
s n m .
R f
j lc 0 ir m
- P A e 1 a 2
_ T : z : e 1 y . i yy S c s c 1 _
ner
( _
A l
ni y .
- P e fa b e p m -
u qe y u e 0 a
eh t qc 6 l
c rt is er n d
. f n n f o :
r e gi s e gd e
. n ra i e D in nu a
e S i
lpy e r a :
lpo /y :
v d s d mr a e :
t e
c mS ad 3
l e
p t e
c p s c s S
/ e e I S n e m le
/ a s c t a Io sl n s t
a a l o
no n ic c o I ic s c i o l A
I t
a5 l
p t a it a u m l p t a t a
e s e o a R
. t - t D
l S1 R SP R T D A
N * . . e . e E
- R A
d A
Y n
a r
_ f o l br
. l a
l
. s 1
n e
g t o
n p a m
_ h m a
_ c l o m l n I in d
M ;
e r t y t a e s
h c
A fo il g o a ty R
i b n p el. i s
e a i
t o s la n G b i r
r a r nf e O s a t p o e d a v s R e s s e iat h t )
P r l
a s a g t s n m o m c ;
n m
_ D b a s
i r lc a 0 i
r
_ E r o e h 1
a 2 S a : t s z c : e 1 l y yy O c ih is o c 1
ner
_ l
(
_ P n n y y n O o e b - e p m
- t u b u e a R p q y y qc 0 P e d
e t
d e 6 lc i m r n is n u r n d a f e
t f o, :
r e l
g im S gd e I
- i n r e
D d l in nu a
e S y lp t
e : e lpo /y :
e d d i f 3 s d v
r m t e r a
mS l e
p e
u a :
s c F
ad :
s tc s S e l e / S n e m le
/
s t / a a lo d sl t a a lo m n c c i
c ns c s c o o li i r o I i l d it p t a r im u t lp a t a
n a e a a a l e t
o a a t S R D e t SP R T D R .
N
) )
I e *
- 2 e * = *
. k -
e e
w n _
r i e
p 2 t
e a c
n lF o u
- y 5
M r.
d a n
a nM 4,
ihdn t
3, 2, .
iwa .
1 t
a 4b - e l
s f 1 F _
M n o
r e
s t np A i p oe c R t a
t s
r it a x G St s e g S t e O : u g : ly E R yg 0 id yh U P c u 9 ct P nA 1 f n n C T e o e o S uh qg r r e um 0 ly _
A e u a e b qe 6 ht P e c 1 fr r o n m ri
/y f :
o gh s u gt w r _
n e t
n N n ; a e M o r s ipun l i t : i o lpb /y :
t a d s d _
n u
mJ I v
r t e mr a 2
lp e t e
o am :
s e c e s ai :
s c e
c S/ or t e
b s l b Sl
/s n e m l r sf n a o lo a r nt o t
a a s lo .
e iop t c c o p c c _
g e
i lp l
a a C it i
lp l
a a ig t a c t t n m t t d t x e o a e ta a e o a A S e R T D e r Sl l
R T D I m R l a G
. . * . e
- A C )
b N )
a E
R k A e e _
A w n Y r i e 2 M e e
p t
a t
a c iF r n n o ,
u _
j io 5
t a d M ra. n i
t n nM i o _
o a t lp 4, ihdn t
a u
wa i
x 3, l
a e .
v M l 2, t 4b e a 1 a - e A u s l
f 1 F n R n n r s t o n e n p t G a io p oe k O e t a s ic t n t t r a xe a R a St s
e g d e
t S: ly l
p P i m : u ig s E o D t s yg 0 d
o p
yh U o e c u 9 ct P z E
S o nA 1 f o o r n n o C ht e e O t s uh qg r r e
p um 0 6 ly i P n e u a b s e
qe 1 ht w io e e c d O fr r o m g ri n t /y n f :
o e R p gh t s u a gt w r s s
P s o n e n N h n ; a e M u t r o c r c t
ne i lpu n i t
- ipb o l
/y :
uh t a d o s d is s o o c
mJ 1 v
r t e n mr a 2
le t e d y
rt e am :
s e c e
- ai :
s p c :
e e
e S or e s s Sl e m le a gga l
/
v t b l b /s n t a
r u gi t sf n
o p t ic a o o c a r no p ot a
c s lo c
vr a
id esv l i l S it e lp a t a C i t
m lp a a L r a c t a a a t o
t t
o mn aI t
S e x
R e
T o
D n
e e
t Sl l
R e
T D a e v
a l r l d C a e G v r * * * = * * = = i P )
a '
) B
) b )
3 4
^
ATTACHMENT 1 TO NYE-97027 a
[
1.N TAKE MODEL DATh O P2 Cc9
/
/
,1 '
/
1 , j
.s .
,2 [ .-
1 OUTER SUNK / ,
'/
ROCK 5 / / ' .,c~. 7
,,2, ,,
CG
(' ,
27 AF FIELD DATA
/~
/ [ ' l' /,/
/-
. qq 1' 2 */ ,- n
',/ .. .
\t ,
y()
2.
/ ,.,
~ 7y#: ' '='-
5-3
. i
' s., , 3 , ; r =. - I N'<, -- .
N
% :: - I 6 sm i.0m :.mo SCALE IN FEET S P5 I
j MCCEL FE.D 0 1 2 3 1 *H DEC.1990 O
DATA M TE37Ill. MG. 377 OF ARL R PCET [2L Rot,7R $ 13 06 14:13 hrs CM. 4 TP3 I-1 ME' O DATA 000 M k mDAt 4 N n/ f fh $sh i l h af am b 10-lk(
E, CONDITION 3 h ((g j ff HED DATp D3ADON ffJ / / / $ MCOE1. DATA i 13.0 16 11 17.73 f TLME Ofotnts) g g5.
S to E hp l ;g, o
4,. STAGE (PT) U8 pi, -
3T T 9 AT FROM DYE DATA
~
- 6 N.!.. ::: $ - o St00n. PREDICTED AT
, . [ U l / @E
='
f 8
2 4.
.f 2
/ l
/
t M,,
d vExTicAL TEMrtutt;tE R3E e LOCATION l lO 51'RVEY T1ME3 lul l.Jlt ll l 1 C FOR FIELD DATA 16 F FOR MODEL DATA 0 1 2"34.5!6718930 32 14 le 14 20 22 to
' nwE piouxs) 25 ,(
AX. AT*F M,1eonoEo s.n r .wr g, i
Attachment 1. Location of nearfield plankton stations P2 and P5 in relation to Seabrook Station the: mal plume isotherms (*F) based on model and field data under various tidal conditions.
1.% 'T.GE
-MODEL DATh S P' -
- f,
,l
/
/ 1
{/
1 ' [ )
~s ./ I s
a t
/ ,2 ,/ l
' OUTER SUNK - - - - -
,2 ROCKS ]' ; ,-.. .
C%
( 2j a
A ,r FIELD DATA j
/- /
1
,/ ,[ ' l'
/* /
, ~%g G
?
1' 2 .
'/ - .
l
\, j '
// /g,)
n 2,
'7
_ y# = #'#:.~'b '
3
'%g%3 , y .. . i
// N l \s' % g 1 O soo i.om :.a SCAI.E IN FEET S P5
. j EMPERATOLI Rf31, AT*F HCDE N g 0 1 2 3
)
^^ " ARL R.MRT [21, Rot R 8 13.13614:"3 HR3 i
0.144 FPS 3-1 FIE:.D DAT .
OE M l j fff},ffffjjj a T1De 4 N2 i i.
M DAT DURATIOre
- i. m I to- i CONDLTION3 f/
a
/ g k, f f ff f f / /f h MCOEL DATA i
s 1;.0 16 11 IL73 2 TIME OloURS) ! is -
l
= ,
10 E I t HMdT {
4
. ET.I cz en e. l ll ll .
29, 1 l Y e AT FROM DYE DATA
- 5 6 '
\ '
\r - 25 - o MQ0El.PREDICTC AT 5
m
/ E
=' E mTicartumATuRE
. y / I c Rn1 e LoCAT1oM
.4-2 M- 0 G TURVEY TIME 3 Ij C FOR FIELD DATA 0 1 2'34,5!671 9 to 12 14 to La 20 22 24 0 F FOR MODEL DATA TIME Diouts) 23 ,f f
! MAX. AT*F 3 3.F
- 3J'I so Ji l RscotDtD Attachment 1. Location of near5 eld plankton stations P2 and PS in relation to Seabrook Station the: mal '
plume isotherms (*F) based on model and field data under various tidal conditions.
i 1
4
- y' INTAKE
%.n C"
MODEL DATA l
! OUTER SUNK ,..g -
ROCKS / ,.-
3
/ 1s, y
s~
0 ,e*~Fa \,
.G - ) \
( ,'s -3 i<
N
' . s \
[l'
! q 2
(
- h. - h >
\ -
/ 0 3c0 t.aee :.coe T '[ fs , ,,,,, " , SCALE FEET 2 \\s s,
[.2- . _ _ -
(
N FIELD DATA y s 9 P5 ,
l mtP11A URE1:31. AT*F NO O I 3 1 i
' i - - -
inn Dsc. im ,
DATA ss? Tzn 3 :.nc. ::v oF tit-t:40 HR$
ARL RIFCET [*]. HOUR 3 $
l 3 . FIELD C A7A ,
0 6 4 i fI k f l
TID O VMEO(CURO 3 73 $
caomas //[ l/ /,/g///
- 3.0
$f f4 f fi # # / / #/
Omo m c 10 -
b MODEL DATA g
f DE l 4.0 1.0 l 1.0 _t.13
=
Ft LD DATA DURATION { 13 f f {' i TfD4 MUGM i ,
D DTEN TTARTly
{ l6 g '6 4 at f. 3M DYI DATA
~
3 E .
/
.? , , , , . E [ .i l '
$ :S H' O '4% FREDICTED AT i
. 2 I AI / r t <i I
lL./ I I / E YE2TICAL TDIPERATURI RszetocAnox
., . 3. ,
\ 12 $UtVEY TIMIJ ll F: } , C FOR FIELD DATA F FOR MODEL DATA 0 12 3 4 5 618 9to 13 le 1618 30 22 24 ii TIME 040UR4 33-
RECORDED l . . . .
At:schment l', continued 1
i..... _ _
. 1 t
~
INTAKE
%' =' l. r2
,/
,! MODEL DATA 01/TER SUNK f f
- RCGS Q /
i
/
i >
g M ,1 ,-
FIELD DATA
, i /^
' i
,d 2' f/ i a f' f
,2 f N 3 HA 2/, i
. /'
%,+4 3 j,f 3 .
{ ao :.mo g,'/ o i.xo SCALE IN FEET e P5 nna Nu^Trazmr c r l ucoc. ( 3 0 I 2
- TH ere. i,9a 8
. . i e i oA A sr- TIri su. nc. cs er es AJtL R_"CET PL Hot,*R I 16.18. liJ4 HR3 I 5 -
j' g/4 siff 4 fI\\t
- oE= ////// /M/// " """" " .m .f,",
ie emom TDa y 1 ' ' ' ' ' _' '.
, ,6 i'2 nu e
- ,[A-ATA
. _ _ 3 ,,
o .
I'
- STACE A g 20 -
e AT TROM DYE DATA
~
2 A.R \ C MODC.PRzDCID. AT i, liv R /i1 E, j VUTl:AL TIMPERATVRI l l l $
2 v. . 30 e R'110 LOCATION l {2 $URVIY TD4E31 w CFORT1 ELD oATA H TOR MOOEL DATA 0 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 12 44 16 18 20 22 24 TIME Ot0URS) 15 uAx. AT ' 2.i r 2 '*F REcoRoca .e -
Attachment 1, continued
i 1
4 INTAKE
-: \;,, e P2 f MODEL DATA ,
~
OUTER SUN'< N
/~ ~~' N i
/ , _ '_
pigtp DA7 Q f ,. .
L</ / AF .,------.~--'N
/
1- -./,/ . 2 N
2 .I
.7A G i
,f_ -
fJ
({- c3 .,-3 -
s !
, $,. 3 - _ . - -- -
[
3
. 2 - s a soo n.cm 2.xo .
N',_ _ _ . g_.
---_'_.,'%. ,~.
SCALE IN FEET N,
s.
d I 1
9 P5 i g TEMFELGlRE AISE. AT*F 0 t 2 3 0
- 7137 311. FIG.1 7 OF 1:TM DE* 199o a a
- DATA 3ZT 924 11:4 AAL REPORT (21. Hollt 3 I
, 1 8 - r:r.D De 0
} } f ,f i s / s s yj m^L / .1$ T?s .:5 b
//nh /a/// s .oja e 4 el e s my / />./*/
s c== Ti.vE o.coen.g To u m io -
c.
hME l y
, . pt ii. s g flELD DATA DURATION 15 -
a McCP. DATA
. se E s
. STAGE 77) b8 i
. NE "EI# I g as f :g.
!U 2 U IT NTI l e AT FROM DYE DATA
,,.\.,,,,
C MCDEL PREDICTE3 AT
\ 25 2 3 if V ,
g I I
'l L
/ $ ,,
%TRTICAL TEMPELATL*RE x:st e LocATies I
. a ve ag/h M '>
l {c st;tvEY TIMI3 ll l q, C FOR T! ELD DATA 0 123;45673910 12 14 16 iS 2o 22 24 ,, F FOR MODEL DATA
. TtwE oiount is -
wax. st F 3.e y ur aoj az enDcD Att:tchment l',' continued .
l .
s ..
(
N RYE LEDGE ft\ /'m . .
r.
V// .. , ,
n O \ :.;
l
.)
i
.s -.. \
0 .5 1 Nautical'~Mile % / ,,
f ~.
\
FARFlELD 0
1 2 Kilometers
$ fj /-
5.e '
,./. Aggg SCALE ..., \_ ,)
, /
CONTOUR DEPTH IN METERS /
//
/
o / / l
! i
'l. .
s i.
l e
i ' ,,/
Longshore Current
- , -)
. O ; . . .
v -. < l P1
i ntake I *** I
' / Discharce '
l
' P, o O,UT$NI ?. ,
) NEARFlELD AREA 1q -
D(.. .? . .)
s' SEABROOK'OV .
(
STATlON A. ,I 1
,j/'";)fy-
, .- y - /,
) ,-
HAMPTON ;
SEABROOK SUNK (
HARBOR ROCKS f l ! r '., li
'}
.' )
i / ',.
- i. (
m -
\ ..!
(lI '
i l
/ %
N -
(\ s u N \l' n (~' /
Attachment 1, continued. The New Hampshire coastal area corresponding to the Hampton-Seabrook Harbor, showing the location of Seabrook Station, the plant's intake and discharge, the plankton sampling l
stations (P1, P2, PS and P7), and an-arrow corresponding to the prevailing direction of the longshore
- current in the area.
l l.
!
- I l' '..
s is
%,ce.TA.u o r2 1
1 OUTER SUhX ROC:G h!ODEL DATA 2
0 l ~
b
- x y
~
(i.I ~ %' . vI <
g.
. 2 /
\\ g \ 3 r- F
,J%, ,,1 2 .4+ 3 j 1 o , saa i.a :.a
,(p ,-
\ '
g N SCALE FEET
]
\. -2 ^N,_ ,x .
1 i
( s , 1 '- N N)
. s, s -
FIELD DATA 4 P5 i
~
TDIPERAT1l111:!!. 4T'F MCDEL I FIELD e t
- 1
- * - M TIIT 310. FIG. I:t OF 097H NOV.1990 E^IA IU Att RE?ctT (01. HOCR tI t *511$ M11
$~
g '
4 FI!LD DATA l f TfDAL C.25 fps '
L s yy -- - --
' ~8 E \ N C:: CmONS
\l N % / TiMt isotts) e.es e rFs
- io .-
g TIME -
g, 8 * " / / 11 3
' FIELD DATA DCll.ATION h"
MCDti. DATA E
l l l l l fke lT TlDE HEICHT Q l l _
E'6ovo : 1/ lllilI11l lIifliTI
' ' "^**
- E a
- START 1 '
e at FROM DYr. D ATA
~
$ lk Ihh.II !!g $ ." C MCDEL FREDICTIO. 47
{;/
$l 1kAl 1i4 11 il IlI ,l: I j .3 y,,,,c ,,,,_,,.u ,,,,
1 y , vi u ti ii:vi ii i ,,
e =ATio=
J2 $URVEY TIML3ll l )] l l l l l.l t> H FOR MODEL D AT A
~,
1 FOR FIELD DATA e ~g i 2 3 4 3 e 18 9 to 12 9 le Ia 20 22 24 ,,
M*
WI CHOL't!) ,,
0 MAX. AT*F Syr 3 , .7 4.o at:DactD Anschmenti, continued
i
~
l
! e i
RYE LEDGE l N l ,
0 .
,J 0 .5 1 Nautical Mile \
0 1 2 Kilometers y FARFIELD AREA l l
SCALE 4-i CONTOUR DEPTH
! IN METERS
/?
Io ,
s Longshore Current )
%, . se
,w
.. 'f .
intake * **
!. ! Discharge j .
NEARFIELD
% [NOUTER @ .:-
. . . AREA :
SEABROOK = -
STATION .,.
~'
fy.;g .,g f HAMPTON SEABROOK SUNK
. HARBOR ]ROCKSfj Attachment 1, continued. The New Hampshire coastal area corresponding to the Hampton-Seabrook Harbor, showing the location of Seabrook Station, the plant's intake and discharge, the plankton sampling stations (P1, P2, P5 and P7), and an arrow corresponding to the prevailing direction of the longshore current in the area,.
l
I i
I 4 l
1-I -
l ATTACIIMENT 2 TO NYE-97027 l
l l
O m
W 1
1 Attachment 2
- - [
Some Comments and Suggestions Related to Multivariate Statistical Analyses and Result Presentation in Response to Regulatory Concerns for Seabrook Monitoring Program Modifications S.B. Saila Background- .. .
The past decade or more has seen an enormous increase in the development and application of multivadate methods in ecology and environmental monitoring. This has J been especially true of techniques for exploring pattern in data sets and for providing j
succinct summaries and displays. It, therefore, seems appropriate to carefully review and assess the multivariate methodoltsgies currently in use at Seabrook Station.
I Many types of data are collected, but in community studies, the priman.j data is i f
usually species abundance. !
It is sug:.sted that greater emphasis be placed on the visual display of the results of multivariate analysis. Simple graphical methods can be used for preliminary inspection. Scatter plots are commonly used for biovariate data. For multivariate f data, various types of shapes,'ssch as glyphs and stars can be effectively used for representing a large number of variables. Pie charts and three dimensional perspective vicws may also be helpful in some cases.
- It is also suggested that a critical review of existing multivariate procedures be conducted. In panicular,it is believed to be useful to consider non-hierarchical as well as hierarchical methods. These should include principal component analysis I and various clustering algorithms.
- An easy introduction to this subject area is: B. Flury and H. Riedwyl.1988.
Multivariate statistics - A practical approach. Chapman and Hall, New York.
- Further specific detail regarding multivariate procedures related to the Seabrook Monitoring Program will be forthcoming.
- {
l l
1..
(
Some Cotuments and Suggestions Related to Sex Ratio Estimation
)
in Fishes as a Response to Regulatory Concerns for l
Seabrook Monitoring Progrant Modification .'\
l
, .I n
- S.B. Saila l
Background- ., -
f I
A search was made of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts from 1971-1996, as well as of the entire National Sea Grant holdings. Relatively litdc information was
! found on sex ratio changes in fishes. A summary of some of the relevant documents
.i j follows.
Conover and Fleisher (1986) demonstrated a temperature sensitive period for i development in the Atlantic silverside by measuring sex ratio changes in larvae between low and high temperature treatments. They found the sensitive period of I
sex determination to be fixed at 15 mm in length at higher temperatures for male production. A specific development period was found for temperature dependent sex differentiation.
- Lewis and Sower (1982) found that dietary testosterone induced a significantly 4
higher production of male fish compared to controls in feeding studies.
Coleman et al. (1996) have demonstrated that some grouper species, which are protogynous hermaphrodites, are influenced by high fishing intensities with skewing of sex ratios in favor of fema}es.
l Tate (1984) has suggested that effective breeding numbers can be increased by i
altering the sex ratio in controlled breeding populations in order to minimize 1
- genetic drift.
- Kvarnemo et al. (1995) demonstrated effects of sex ratio changes on breeding behavior of smalllaboratory populations of the sand goby.
. .... :~. . .
" . .f..,.g.,3y., , , ,
- .j
- W.i .; , j,g;;. * ;?.:...! c,
- . ;,; ,. :.;.; g,,g ,,: .; ., ,
- l::.
.< . . s .:l... - , .
^
(q..
B ;-
."G . , * :y ,
[ .
2 1
i
. Comments- -
Determination of the sex oflarval and juvenile fish is difficult in the sense that .
i microscopic examination of the gonads is usually requir'ed, and a substantial amount of i
skill is also needed for sex differentiation. There is a very small region in the vicinity of the ij diffuser pons of Seabrook with a temperature increase of 30C above ambient. A
! temperature range of 60C above ambient for periods of tens of days was required to induce ]
sex changes in the work described by Conover and Fleisher. The probability of larvae or juveniles of silversides remaining in the vicinity of the Seabrook diffusers long encugh to l
be significantly influenced for sex ratio changes is believed to be extre nely low, t
No records of the effects of sex ratio changes were found for regionally important ,s a
i cortcnercial species in the Seabrook area. It is concluded that determination of sex ratios d
with a view toward detecting power plent effects in this case is not cost effective, and its ]
j implementation is not recommended.
4 a
i i
.. . * ,a,,.
- i. .'.').* ** ** ., . , ,
- -k ,* , . h, .**S,*# (fff s','.
...* . . .:O: ..'.
- ** 3 [* .,,.; , ,
.[ . .
- e ,, . .. . . .
- *:;t..*...i* ,*. p*:
- * ,. :q* ..* *. , .!*N.
~ '
- . . .
- .,,g . .
* * - - . ' - '@i9: ;g. .. . : ;
.;;;;,, .,.g ,
i l 3 4
t-s References .i L 4
.g l
Conover, D.B. and M.H. Fleisber.1986. Temperature-sensitive period of sex l 1
1 determinW .. .u; Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(3):514-520.
Coleman, F.C., C.C. Koenig, and L.A. Collins.1996. Reproductive styles of shallow t
I water groupers (Pisces: Serranidae)in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the consequences of fishing spawning aggregation. Environmental Biology of Fishes l 47:129-141.
Lewis, K.M. and S.A. Sower.1994. Effects of dietary testosterone on growth and sex l ratio of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, Vol. 9, No. 5/6:513-517.
1 Tate, D.1984. Effective breeding efficiency: An index to justify the effects that different I
breeding programs and sex ratios have on breeding and genetic drift. The i Progressive Fish Culturist 46:292-298.
j Kvarnemo, C., E. Forggren, and C. Magnhagen.1995. Effects of sex ratio in intra- and 4 inter sexual behavior in sand gobies. Animal Behavior, London, Vol. 50(6):1,455-4 l
1,461.
1 1
1 i
1 1
1 l
l
. . . :; ). .:.: -.
$ . {."d?
.. . . .'i.:e.
. . . . ..? ..
- ':W:?i:M.::~%:.ci:SM.l? 5..;;. .i .. >*.y{. '
- ..?.'.i.h .SI. '. ..Q.5. 3
- .g.l.!." ';. . :.;'-' '. , .4
- w. ...?
59.::~;g9.:. . .' ::w._..
.. .% -. . . . ~...-.
...~.
- *
- 3.v$;t.
.- ?/,;. .
.y.:qC .4 .. . ,, ,
- A ENCLOSUllE 6 TO NYN-98058 1
i l
l l
l l
1 i
v m ..
'"g Nortli North Atlantie Energy Senice Corporation P.O. Box 300 Atlaritic Seabrook, Nil 03874 (6033474.,321 The Northeast Utilities System November 20,1997 NPDES Permit No NH0020338 NYE-97035 AR #97027946 Mr. Carl DeLoi New Hampshire State Program Unit U. S. Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Building Boston, MA 02203 Dr. Edward Schmidt NH Dept of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Seabrook Station Revised Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program The purpose of this letter is to request final EPA' and NHDES approval for the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) revised Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program (the Program) for Seabrook Station. The Program consists of the following components, which in turn consist of various Program elements.
- 1. Water Quality
- 2. Phytoplankton -
- 3. Zooplankton -
- 4. Finfish
.5. :
Marine Macrobenthos
- 6. Epibenthic Crustacea
, 7. Softshell Clam (Mya arenaria)
North Atlantic submitted proposed revisions to the Program components and elements to the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee in a letter dated September 25, 1997.' The TAC approved the proposed revisions at a November 6,1997 meeting with the exception of the following three program elements which are being held for further review as described below.
' 4 North Atlantic letter NYE-97027 dated September 25,1997, " Final Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Proposal," John B. Hart to EPA s~
\
l U. S. Environmental Protection Agency NYE-97035/Page ' '
4.a.2 Finfish-Ichthyoplankton-Entrainment - De TAC withheld final approval of this Program element pending their review of the revised Fntrainment procedure which North Atlantic expects to submit to them l
in early December. Since this is a program enhancement, as agreed at the TAC meeting, North Atlantic will '
go fonvard and implement the revised Entrainment program as soon as possible and will adjust it later, if necessary, on the basis of the TAC's review. 4
)
4.e Finfish-Impingement - Re TAC withheld final approval of this Program element pending their review of the revised Impingement procedure which North Atlantic expects to submit to them in early December. Since this is a program enhancement, as agreed at the TAC meeting, North Atlantic will go ;
fonvard and implement the revised Impingement program as soon as possible and will adjust it later, if necessary, on the basis of the TAC's review. ,
5.c Marine Macrobenthos - The TAC withheld final approval of this program element pending final l receipt of the Kelp Study and a commitment on the part of North Atlantic to implement the follow-up j recommendations presented to them at the TAC meeting. In addition, as agreed at the TAC meeting North Atlantic will drop the mean sea level stations but maintain the tidepool stations in the revised p.opm.
I Summaries of the current (labeled Past Program) and the Revised Program (per the November 6 TAC l
Meeting) for each Program component are provided in the seven tables comprising Enclosure 1. These l tables detail North Atlantic's sampling and analysis obligations per the TAC's revisions of November 6, )
1997, including our interim approaches for those three Program elements which are subject to fmther l
review by the TAC. North Atlantic also agrees to evaluate the existing 1997 backlogged samples associated with Program components and elements that are being revised. l Section I.A.11.d of Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit requires that, after acceptance by the TAC, final approvals of Propn revisions are required from the EPA Regional Administrator and the Director of the l
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division or their designees. North Atlantic would like
]
to implement the revised Program as described in the Enclosure 1 tables by January 1,1998 and, therefore, respectfully requests these approvals as soon as possible.
The original sign-off sheets documenting the TAC's decision on each Program element were collected at I the November 6 TAC meeting by TAC Chairman, Frederick B. Gay of your staff, and will be retained by the EPA as part of the record of the meeting. Copies of these sign-off sheets are enclosed (Enclosure 2). i If you have additional questions, please contact me at (603) 773-7767.
Very truly yours, l NOR TLANTIC[NERGY SERVICE CORP.
. 1 I 6 ' '
ohn B. Hart
vironmental Compliance Manager 1
f I ;
t ,
i U. S. Environmental Protection Agency NYE-97035/Page 3 cc (,vith attachments)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY Mr. Jeffrey Andrews COMMITTEE:
NH Dept. of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman 6 Hazen Drive 134 Palisade Avenue Concord,NH 03302 Leonia, NJ 07605 Mr. Robert Estabrook Dr. W. Huntting Howell NH Dept. of Environmental Services 12 James Farm
! Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Lee,NH 03824 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Dr. Saul Saila 317 Switch Road Mr. John Nelson Hope Valley, RI 02832 '
NH Fish and Game Department i 225 Main Street Dr. Bernard J. McAlice Durham,NH 03824 HC 6i Box 109 Round Pond,ME 04573
.Mr. Bruce Smith I NH Fish and Game Department Dr. Robert Wilce 225 Main Street Department of Biology
-l Durham,NH 03824 221 Morrill Science Center University of Massachusetts Mr. Frederick Gay Amherst, MA 01003 New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator
- New Hampshire State Program Unit Environmental Protection Agency NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
' John F. Kennedy Building Boston,MA 02203 Ms. Marcia Bowen Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Mr. Jack Paar 82 Main Street EnvironmentalProtection Agency Yarmouth,ME 04096 60 Westview Street ~
Lexington,MA 02173 Mr. Paul Geoghegan
_ Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Mr. Eric Hutchins 25 Nashua Road National Marine Fisheries Service Bedford,NH 03110
~
Northeast Region
. One Blackburn Drive Gloucester,MA 01930 t
4 1
S i
ENCLOSURE 1 TO NYE-97035 1
1 1
l l 1 1 f
I i
~
l l
~i . . ,
g 4 3
) 2 e e . I k ) ) )
_ n y N C E O p
t u
t o
n s T o
a dM iS c t f g
ri t t
u t de ha t
f s
T i a a it hi t h
w c
e n N n N r l tih y o o a
- h si t
s o u n
o i n
s a
oo nd p on r e R p
p c u c e ao l s / E s p h s h m l l a S T V eg o
\ r a a p t n a e _
o n
a g n
g T g n W a el my: km m I
S s
c r e e s t
op g a e t p l E
r i
a f m f e y/ e a n i l e r
b m e
r o
p e
r o e a
r a l l
s agn r
a D
_ d m r O r t up t P
o l e a m u :
r mf :
i era c
m p a
t u
p a
a 9
p r l e r
e R r a l
e s r s i
6 e iq n O am
_ t l n
_ t p
t e
p t y
(
p r dt e g u
) e r' o G d r o M r o T o ie n f R el g o g e f i
n r g s y c i l
A e r n r m el s : e s
t a a m M i
e
.d m t
o r m n e (
s we ia P
S r 4 l l s ,2 a P
_ ni a 8 br u P l
i E
_ g t u t ee n r 7 i R
r md i
/ t e p 4 y ._
_ s a us 1
_ a x dr t
i
& 1
_ n e f m /
d 2 a e D 6 S s t
ec ve s i s
/
9 a .a e p s o 7 yr na e
_ l i ) r n l v T i
2 d m e y) t mo b o d A
_ e t t n t O C
_ t e o h x
_ r s m (
c y
g M
o e E oi w
_ t n n E t c t
hh ef u
r M T I
r e N
i e
1 be n a .
ol t
t d t s
u G
_ op w r mro i t
e W A
b h m e e T
- n t
E R
- * * . . * . * . Q U
oDa T wtS t
3S t T aS T Dr p S A Oa eM r
o nt e e t
ht i a 1
6a o da o r a t
L t
a c t t
) dt oa e i t /t a l t a mti I p no Noi i i h p c ho l
s Pn l
s oo wn l
s an ng o o nos T _
_ oI s I a
m e s r / Ds: a m s
/
S a ds d a p/ o n
t /
Y _
m h S
_ p e ht c pl mS a E SD p a a l
ck m p n r o l
a om al fy og a e t
e s n c S el s p l
e y i m
,e :d y/
t hl p o( y
/ t ii l
y/
s zel : p mdi l dn
_ n e i
n e e e) S i n
iw t a Mg p s c a eg s a d ;w C -
g r h a o r a f
.r r lih a r f r r in a n a
- : : f
_ t l e l t e T- r cg r
,e e 6 t e 1 q 1 a e hq b rp q
)e )e u n 3 r 0 4 s r ni ea f o u u e 4 e n
4 ( ao u e
t r
ir o
r g n a
r p/
a c p r Smb Cp l a e n P hy c
- i t
e y o c
,e s u a c N:
d T
r a : f i
Tes 2 t y
A a r h m H el S mfac n oP
.v ,2 (
h e H s p r
t am P T me t
e ( ok 2 u
f a r ( 4 be d (i P ow n
ia t
r i
e ,S P r f
i
(
5 l
l a
8 e ne p n t
R a e t n P e
l 2 m pi t
r fnt oe h a k O 4
r c
t 7 ;d w p t s r ai s r n )
e G o c/
b o
k s o n x as i u er l
t ,
P R
n c c e
t h x l 3 nr if va S A e
t r
n p e
s t
a 2
t i
i a
r s
t a.
y t a c
e s l (
d i
M
_ b ) s a
t i
o r
m t
i o
n d
al )
r o Wao i nr f
c h
o s s / ndt e a n n t a
r e kn gr _
s o
t s a g c l
e r ap em e f
h m e r o r e )
i s t t
o n pl ) d e i br a t P t J e d ar ot 7 a a d t t t u (
p l
n
,. f w ior o e f a
h o e nm r o F e
r e k (~ f i
s l fo (2 1 e
,b l
p .
y r r 0 d h
o D a Dpe )
/
0 r u e t
h )
Os 4 t
1 ,s c
,. g i f o
h r mi e
s
g - ,
"3 .t g
P k
n y h
v t p
o g
r p t\
l a R a T h
n E c.
p a i s
k t
o V
I p p r
r n S p$
h g o E 3t o
r a D t
a m P b
d d e
R u
c l e
O t
e G d R A
M P
E R
1 1
, /
6
/
9 7
T A
C M
E E 2 T
I N P G
I
. I Y
. T O
P
. . . . . L A
d D T R hmS t N m
i
. a o t
e r o nt oa t K
t a l a pl i
c gu hoi t T c s O o a a hy n sl l
l m
t e Nis / N
+
e c p s: o n a
- t e
i c 2 vJam e
7 d
s y/
mnp ul i
- e bar n e
" D e
a ry g r . ,
f n
s Fr i
t 1 e bq e
- y 2 r u P
- p 6 ue an A
- ' e r r y yc S l
i a: T n
t e P
- r dS R
t Da t e i c O eno G ms b P R
- e r
,2 A
- t*
aP nS M
. da t n wd i
c P
" e7 ms a om n
t p hl l e
- y d Mo a c n r
" c e h
0 2
- . '$ ' .' d, .
~
g . e . 3 . . . . 3 . 3 t
n
.c
. .h a y
T T mS p
D R fSOI r D R T
_ r a o e ot f a l
i a o e oa t M h A g\ t a
t a p mti s f v t a
t a p n a i s l R oh a t l li t ti c i a l i l ho r p c E m n o v l
c- c s c c s c r a o a a is r e o a a n s
o r o o V p l t d/e l t i g z p el m e - S: al l
e m e /
S o r o I
r\ c p s
- Aa r c pl s
- a o a o S t l pr m v t p p l
m e e 2 a e e 2 m l m i u
t a
d s
y/ r ipl l e d y
s
/ c p a n e r t
D h e o l l e i e p t
hni e i
n k k P d
a D e
a l r g o
De a
l l
e g t
o m t o R
_ s r i c r c n e n :
a uf n : f n n O g er _
s t s t
e r t
. i 1 e i 9 e G y
t 6 s hq y t
6 d q d e
p 8 Ou c e p c u e
l e R e
r t oc n e r
o l p I
n c
t e A m' by e :
1 0
l e
c t
r o
c y
d
. M _
r S 0 e e S P 0 ;d s E t
a s t a
_ t m' e t R
i 4 d o
i o
8 n
s p n s
1 1
r /
P o P 6
,1 c 2 /
e a 9 P s s
e n 7
,2 d a
d P T A
n 7 d
P s
a C 7 m M s pl a e E m d E pl e
t w T I
3 d i c
e N e
w p G Z e e k r O y
l O
_ P L
= * * . . = . .. . e a = A N
,- D T R wS D T R mS D T R MbS K
_ a t o
t p e e e a t
a t
o t p e oa n
t a
t o
t p e a ot r
t a t
T _
a a l ki t
a a l t t
i a a l c o i t
O y no hmo n l
l i l i ho l i c
c o
l s
a c
a t fs c
o l
s a
c a
t n
s c
o l
s a a t
t hs s N .
e r / e e oms r a /
l l / l e m s oS e m s S e m s c c p up a t
e pl e
mam c t
e p
l e
2 a
m t
e l
e g l m d s y/
2 r
mp d s c p d s y/
4 c heps e il : y/ o l :
Nli D e p di- n D e l i
n D e ol o n e
a r
l i
c Ag e a
r el c
g e a
r l
e vmg n :
a p f n : t f n : c e of r r e mnr t s r s t e
si 2 e ie l
i 1 d e i 5 d t e t
y 2 s q t y 4 ; q t y 0 bhq 4
t hu 4 I u 4 2
e ryl ue P _
p e
r e on p
e c o p e n
p e c p Dn A r uc r l r
o c r o r e c S o
gy cy T l
m' 1 l
e c y l h: 0 c e : m' e c e :
c e P
OS 0 0
t e s s S t e s mS c
t a t
m' ;
d e d
t a d s
e bt e a R oti bo 7
t i
o 2
d r i t o t
O e
r s n p 2 n s
5 2
hn r s G
P o r
P p o uP R
,l c e ,2 r o g ,2 A P s s P c
e h
F M e ,P
,2 e 5 s 5 a d s P
a e ba n u adn d r
,5 d a P n 7 yr P 7
_ d s a -
P a n
_ 7 m ds u
_ s p t r
_ a l e wf ia m d c e e c
pl t T
aan e
d e' md o
p n e
r t
h 0
3
~
t
- i . . . . 3 mN .c eot s
p :e D a
T o
R e
OSE c t n
R i
e T a v
_ r h
t a
t a p l
t otir t
al R me c l
s i
c boa e
v E oS o a a r ni s n e V n e t
p l
l e m t
e a s/m l a I
- h. e t c pl s
t t a e r S t
hmn v E e e a Tm e p : t 3
D
_ d s e hb
- y/ r Sl (
ie e e in c P s r D e a
p a g o
_ h2 a e r li c b n R _
s ,5 n s
a r f or t O .
b1 i t 8 t
e oe kq d'
) G e 9 y 4 s u
_ e 9 n7 p Se R
_ c l e
r t
a n ti c A
he a
n e t
t m' oy n: M g r s S P e f dr o c
r a E c e epm R o m nl 1 nN he 1 s
e o od /
r r vt uw s 6
/
a h t
ee
. e 9 v A i k l
7 t
y e
yl n l
a
' T ti f
r A t
oc o C ot m n o M 3 m
_ c e E i E
P d-E Z p A e
r i p A T O wdn I
O r
e i i
l N P
_ e c ka t
h G L t r t e o A o ,d u r
e u g
h N f
l e d n K _
c t r e . . * .
T _
t hh t O
_ e e N
_ f a D a
T o
R e
t h S t (
c r P"~ t t p
r ot a c
o a a o gu oi
_ t l
n t l i hp c s c a
t s o~ o a a hn s t i
s e l
l e m t
e O s/ n od c p s
- c a u mPr t e
l e
s 3 om t
bp e
d e o d e )
mgr r
_ : y/ e r il -
e pl a n oa D a t g nm e r i c t f
t h " n s
a hr s c i 8
t e e e _
wo t Sq y 4 s e P a u l
iu p e A lm l
hn e
r bn r c S a, oy vt .
m' o:
k.
T e h S P a
mt 1 Sa t R a m
_ ot r h e es t
ip O _
ol G t
he n ed .
R a s s c 4
_ na r A fm e t I
r opl u
e emi n M _
s he s o
w w e ua s
e o .m e
ku o s l n
. d t b h e f r _
t a o k m e
n m f i o d u -
r A p
ri 0
4
1 - .
g . . * . 4 . . e . 4 k a a
u . .
v r 2 l l D v o R T S ayaditniS p
a r a st 0 toto e .
l a D R .
r vt u3 l e a mta r a o e t a I yd33 bt gi a a e a up s e t I
c vt t p t c R t
e c ml s e sads i
h a a a l i a
c-
- c ls e c i
s dia o
n t e c l
s i
c o n
h t E o mol a a s a o a V a
oms h h t
p l g t e i y l a t s y mle m r e d ps /
/
p el e ,n o o l m e I n S r c e s . e s S o S mtcpl a : a p c pl : a pl n t e c E ia 16 hm l t e t ds e t
e e a e e 2 m a D
1 h
t d s r p n d s p n a : h s y/ ( l c ol : y/ c t
s k o l
k b ;
e mea i
h ~ o ve in t e
i n t P d
o D a 2 n4 -
t u mrg o D a l
l g o R e n u r n e r e n c n t a
r at :
l t h ydpa af n : c f O s t r p e r r t
h - s e -
i in9 e c i 1
d e G o
t y n e 6 oieq s r E q p n yt 9 ;
u O R o mof e uo a m boiu e snoe o 2 e f f
f nsy ra l
sp t
o p dn t
r a
f c o p I
n c
f s
h A
i s
h t
s, t msi e t ebu r epcy:
t i
n f
i s
h ll e
r c
o y o
r M e a mnole t e f owt m e c e e P r e oS t
g a hs e e s P E g pl e ts oa me 2e n g
g d s 2 s i w1 n dm o e n4a t s
- e a R a g i lp d dhr ob a 9 d n 1 oa vy e nko t
n hy e ol n 6 d t g ,e 1 d o y e ac d p P /
l a
r b .0 5 a r
o
) w h
r noi n
l ar r
o 7
s 6
/
v e 0 f i t
h dmt v c a 9 r 5 c e a e- - o h e np k a a s m 7 p
e a m p' e r e
cg i a s e p e s e p T
s mra ohs el e
r s
e p
r ut s cgnru r
i s t e r
d d A 1 s s mtio e s e a c 1 f o C 0 e se ,n e -
t ochou bt r 0 u 0
0 d h n t f t 0
0 r M m' fa o ni w s a
a e s he m' t
i E l
o dh l
t ye odsa a ;
m e
E l
e wot s
a a r
ny m l e s T I
n i n w m a hapl t
n a g
g n e o p n e ne g m
N t
h t wsa l e ds a n4 dd t h o G o htimp i
t hmg i o n 4 s h t
f f h l
e e e ,t n h s F I
N
. . . .- . . . . F I .
S _
~
. l D a
r a T
o R t i S a D l T o
R mS i l
vt t p e mt e t a r vt a t e
p oa nt t
a a a l s i a a a l t i a no e c l i c e c l i c ho o s a a o s a a n l
l e m t
e s
ms oS
/
l l
e m t
e s
s
/
S c
t p : n a c t
p : a hm l l e e 3 t
e e 2 m d s p d s p
- y/ t a dl : y/ c l e k u i r n e o i n
D a e ig D a l l
e g e
n r
- n n g f e
n r
- c f s r s t e r si 1 e t e i 2 d e y
t 4 q hq y t
q 4 u e u 8 8
u P o e n de o c I
e A f t ya cn f
o p n S f i . f r c i
s al y s
i ll e
o c
y
- T h y l
h c e e S e t e s P P s
g g
e a
g g d e ,2 R O
s b s d r 1 P a o a 4 ,S G n o n 4 d k d p a n R k
l a
r i
n l
a r
r o ,d A .
v a
e t
a k
v a
e c
e s
P 7
M -
p e p s
e s -
e s t e d a .
r r r m u 1 p 1
0 c 0 l -
0 t
u 0 e _
0 r 0 d _
e f m' s m' o
- a ; u _
r l
e m l e t n p n i g
l e g m t
d t es h
o 4 h
o a _
f f -
0 5
"b*.* * . .
s i ,
.^ 3: .
. G -
. . . . 4 -
. 4
. 4 c .
.b .b pr D a T R S gg T gg T e a t
o e t a
O ir l a ih l
S ir cia t
Tt 2a p t t
t n tns u l an hi l
s M s
ic ) l l
i c
i o
e r e ep r nt e ep i
d R o o s a a n s T t
s dr o f
a s dr t
o
- E nl f cel m t
e s
/
S r
a d bg ey ra c
e d bg ey r a w
a V I .
r p : a /
n t S
ot med l
e 2 m w
l pl oP Em e pl Em e r E
_ s p a oP _
n; e s y/
e l
i ye Ael e
r- ye Ael e
gi l
D n dp h dp l ap em R
_ r e e a
r g a r e o a r em e n s t e O s c : f t s
_ r p 3n o p 3n t t i 2s e 1
4 q e
a r 2
/ t d m a r 2d
/ t G _
c a 4 u t 1 e
/ l g t 1
/e R _
mb u ( e n
o9e f 7t i
l o9el f7t A p l e l l o n t
a a d
i k
e y c
r e .d ot t n
e p l e r e ot
.d M t y l
g e I t
g et I P _
_ l n T r a ,r n r n E
_ e a ,c e n o ,1 t
e a ,r t e R s l t
T mfoi r mfr
, oi t
e a l l I o m l o m l
2
.0n l 1
wa wa 5g w /
_ c h t
y a T 3
ip np ip np 6/
mme s a
c s
a g ro av g ro av 9
7 a m s
u hi p!
ha at l ha a
l T r
e e
v e r bo r bo t
A
_ m a
b d
t od od r e C -
e pr eel l
n t
e d
i w
c ot e r
p e ot l
M s
u e p p r e E
_ w e m iohi t
oh t
E i
t h
t o o s s e p ii s s T 4 _
_ n e p I i
l o t t a N kgo r t r
n c
r b
s yl h
i a
kgo G F I
e a
t e nr g a i r n
g a N r
s e p im n
im n
F d o I s
t S
I _
I
_ . . * * * . . . . . e . (
c
_ o D T R S D T R S D T R FS n t
a o e t a a o e t a a o e e t i t
a t
a p t a
t t a p t t a
t a p ba t n c
l l
i c
i o c l il c
i o c l
l i
c r i u o u
_ o s a a n o s a n o s a a r n e I t s a t s a y s/ d e.
l l t
/
e I
m e S l
e m
/
S l
m e , )
s s e J S c p a c p a c p s u a nm t l t l t l e e 2 m e e 2 m e e 2 _
_ d s p d s p d s ,e lp
_ : y/ l i
- y/ 2 il y/ 2 -
4 4 a i p
s e a g n
p s e a h g
n p
s e a h
- n dg n .
e r
- e r e r c f c : s f c : s f .
i e 1 r
e ei 1 e
t r
e ei 1 e
t Or c e s 4 q s 4 s q s s t q a 4 u a 4 u a 8
o u P b
u (
n e
n b u
e n b u
be e
r n A _
n o y c n c n c S d t
- d y d y T a : :
a a a n
c l
T n c G n c G P e w R a ,I ,e ,l ,e ,1 O
y l
e n
s a
T 2
l e
n G
l e
n G G g c gt ,2 ,2 _
g R
t h T G t
G 1
h i e
v 3
s h
3 h
3 A m e a m s m s M -
e e a e a a
s d m a s m a s m u d pl u u r u e r pl r pl e e d e e e e m t m d m d e o t w e e n l n m n m t o i c t o t o s
t b
s e s n t
s n t
o t e m h h _
n r o yl yl e p n i a
r o t
t h n e s y l
st a t
2 c T 2
m )
0 6 '
.. - ~ :' ,_
. = . . 4 * . e . 4
.c d oDa t
s t
o o T R s cp a of c oat S I pr D T R t h S H
nt r p e hp l l s l t
a n t e a o e r t a e e a ma t
e r e a e t p ci a t t a p ot a a
r c l
l i
c de u c c mst i a
o i n s l l u g o i
c R e
s o e s v a a l iep t
n g ic oo s a
ci a hn s h E l t e ab dl io f /s e n S V e m l t t l e n e n s oe t l ug:
dn r S c f e l
m e N/S o
e v a I
1 c t p l r c s
.0et s
) el bdr 1
- e n ot p
ni S em l
s N e e ioy n med e 2 s E m :d n t s mp y/ / r cg n eepl n: /
D ms e A e- y a ar i e y
e bi l
h ~ og n e n t
s
- p a a s ap a rg R roe 2 de r r e c
- s e l er -4 orfe f e s ce r
- f r
O bi e r m s o s s m hpeq t i 2s e 4 e G .
is s
l a
b i
n e d s a s r u oia a e c a 8 q u
e R
A o
a u i
m of sd nmt f in mbu n e p o
(
dnd u m
l omr e l l ny c t
od n y c M _
a i:
a a :
P s
e o wal o wn a n t n E
f c il oaS l e
S _
a ,c w ,e f nf t hus a e r 1
0 g i s elp m s e ,I R _
t dep l S
e e dp
/r s e 4
(
s h
io s hwbc nee e ia in l
t 0n 5g t e ,2 1
1
/
hs u st s kc lg S 6 el n e b uct os f c h 3 /
l
) t a s
a ydre omu e e dp dq t
r mme s a
9 7
m net ray u a m .
T t
i pl e s p _
v e e ;s e e on t u
r l
e A ir d l
e s mmt ay c e d C n m p io s s i n o m m e
g t
h y
a ne g i6s a e s f t n
t o
n M b e f - t w s t h
E m e mtha dhi e ce wi yl E e
a s
t a e ey n r e t h f T
I 4 k t e s f a r .
u e a fe i o N a s mc we n _
r n s i F
e m d m t
pl i e c
r m G I e u r pl e v k e a p A N n e s t
s i
n i n nf o e i r F g g e r s d l I s I S _
I
. . . e . * * . (
c .
o _
oDa t
s T R T n poS t D R S t
t t h
oo e e a a o e r t i nt r p ot a n t t p ma t
e a r ti a a u a o gu io l l ar c l i c t c
l c
i e o e s a i n n o s a hn s e s l v a t g / s l a t d t l e e nm e S l
e m e N/S )
1 c t
t s
p s
- r
. c t pl :
s o
v a 0e ) el m e e em c d s N p d s 2 mp m:
- s y/
e
/
A l i
n s
y/
e bi e n l
dp a g p a rg e e r
- f e r
- f bci r c r r
ie q e i e 4 e s s mi s 8 q l a ni u a u P ob a u m e
n b u
e n A an u y c n c S
( d s m
- d y T .
e a a .
a n c o S n c S P _
we e;
f 5
I a
m e ,I R O
e r 2 p l S
e de s/ rp
(
s l
e n ,2 G he u b
d g t S R le s s v s h 3 A
i
)l ena t a
m e
c m e
s a M k m t
i pl yl a s p v e u l e s w r e l e d e m h e m n y a n e m g
n o t
h b pl t n e a s t t h m t a n o y l
e t a e k
w n f r
s e u
r n a s a r
o e d e m u s m
e r
i t
p A
n g n 2 r t
s c i l
m 0
7
- ~i D -
g 5 . = . . 5 k
n b y
. .a p
N oD f T o
R (StS D
g r
o t a e ha c n a ta t p a t\ a t i a N - x l l
i l i o l c- a c o n wsn o D c l p
a c e o s a a t e
R p h s t
l l
e m t
e s s S
/ E t
b n
a n
r u
c t pl : ua e v V a
c g
e c
t e
d e
s 5 bm t
i S I
S r
o i :
y/ dpl a E t f r v e a a
b o e S
B i
a )l gni
, p m D r
d o
m a o : Bf r l
i P c p m 1 n R a m a 9 9 e g s
t pl s s 0 /q Bu O p
r g i
n a n
3 en G g
o d 1
(y c R r
a D M: A m
e n iB l d M si t d e M P y p L E (t
o )
t hW /
R t 1 a s B 1 l
a5 /
a n
d p mM l L 6
/
e 9 f
o r
dW 3(
7 d
o XIn M p e t E 5 m e rt E .
r ni a y di T n e a a
r , )l I
N M t
t a G A x B R
)
a 1 7
I
, /
B N N 3 E
.o 5 M
A
- . . . = * * = C R
oD T SR y t r S doD T R B (S tS O f a o u e e at ofa o e 0 B ut t a bp a n r a mt a a t t pl 4 ha na t i i l s i e o t
a /at l i E dc e
l s dc c n ix n
a ,a c l
s i
c Bl o N o a a a t o a a 3 o n r
s l l
m l
t e t s s
) /
n t Sl l m
t e 4 ws
/s
/ T BuaS t
o ce r p r a s n:
, S Ba f p e c icr p s I
l y e t u
nr oe l t 1 _
3tbm O l
e s
s I 1 m e 5 s d u: y/
e c n t 7p
/ ,a b :d s ( ip d S b e t e s- r Bi l i c d B g/ Da l 3 n )l gni i e d %
t a 6i d t
5g oc e, _
r a
l rfe a a fr ol um n ooi r
- p
) Bf r _
rq 1 q
l n e i n a 1 a 1 e
e deu 2 u dq Bue a ,t l s s 1 n/q9 P
,s n 6 a a l as 0 dBu A
d 1 n be un B3 en ng d n kc s- 9 c 1 S _
ey /
1 c _
pl c/ 6 3y dthD (6 (M :
y T _
, o ( 1 B a e P u
r e v 2 e
(
Sl n a c n n MiB d I R
i dM s
c ho r a c
h hMS a
l e di t o/ y d-d pe L O if ni i n
l oL r(
r e t p hW / G R
t a n w/B e o t l n dr et 3 s 5 pr a t
)h )s B A t z uM o l s a5 v
Mi o a d o n
e b
t i S da n u amML mpl M
l dL c d p e d
id oo )
s a(
l i
t if v r o l
e dW a n e _
hm ai I
n t
nt de r s d d3(
I XIn c n e t o a Xp e t o a r t mti i d t m e r ut n i d da u
s i n p
e d r t i
n ; s a -
l o a ry y e a t
s l dq n
% t r
a pe u a f
s t
t e
a a;r ,l) f n t
d oa r B 4
q r
e s e )
h s mx e )a 1
u c 3a n ,
7
/
e n
t s
Xd N B 3
c ,3 p y e .o 5 r
0 8
. 3* , . .
/ .. - J 4
,i -
. . $.;.. y[; . _
. . . = 5 . . . .
. 5
.d c a aD t T o
R 3 S B D T R (
S BS G t
a e Xt o a o e t y/ ai 1
t p p h a e R
t al So Mti t t c
h a a l t t t a a l n e c l
s i
c e o o c l i c l e E a a n s o r dol wel a
m t
e s
r s
/
S m
P o
l el a
m a
t e
s wLn s
/s B s/
a l
V I
oc pl : a a c pl : u 5 a A S ot e e m n t e e bMm g l
E d 1 e
s D
I t e .d p p l d s i Spl a n y/ l s : y/ d e p c e a
a n
i n p e l Li a n P a
n o r e g r e r a ) t ig
, d R e u l
n ( f r s e
- Bep fer O l t 2 4 e 1 s
o 4 s q u
n c
3 0
9oq
/ ou G
f s u
u b e e
/
3l
,s e R s
el b s
s a n c
a b (
1 Bc n A ec a m y s
e Mly M t
e p m pl e B n
c e
dM:B i
- P d l e )
s 1 dLI e E d s 9
/
o p WM R o 3 f /
m 1 a hB L t
1 i
n ( gl a
)
s 5W 1 a Mi l aM/B /
6 n
t d-t a mL5 /
9 t
a d x pl WM 7 a e(
x e di L 5
,a p t
3t nW T .
T )
h Xer t A e
r t
r p i di e de t
C M e
d i
a r ap M A o n y ), o R l
s n e o E I u l p a a r
B ,s E N T
. l 1 c
o p
a 7
/ I E u
n n e
B N M t
s l
s 3' G A i
n C R
O
. . . . = . . .
B E
N D T R S T T t
_ r D R p p (I BS _
a t
o t p e it a a a t
o t p e e re r n1t t
a I I
a a l nt a a yy e Mti _
l i ni o u
l l
i e e r i So O a n c s c c s c a a t
o a a s o a a r r duns S -
l l
m t
e l
/ l l
t e
a / (
e c p s p S a a e
c m
p s B ),l B 5 a S c nm 0 o .
4BMm t l t l e e 1 e e e n d s p lp d s 1 / 1 Sp t
- y/ s c e a
n 3ni l :
p y/
e B 7 Ll 3/ i i
n o a e Xg r a 4Bt
/ 3 ig n u u r l
y/ fr e r
- B 5ef d e n s p r e e e 1 d
3 (S o e t
2 a q n 4 )
s o 8 ,r u e c 0 ( hoq u
f ae /
a D
e a s e
,l P s
e nn b ll n A l
e nc uy: s p e wobc ly S e )
c a n as T n u M:
t e pl B 1 c P d a 1 e db LB R o
Bd/MWI t
d n 9 /
i O
o el 3 f a G m s 1 gl 1
6 )l a B5 L R i
I ( ,
n a (
A a
n XM i l
t MB M/W 1 LB M l
p d a i t
t a
e -
r d e
x a d9W5
- /
d3, M x y ep e 1 BL a p(
hMMtW t l a
r h) t i i B ndSi d 0
t a dUe p
4
/
)pket 5Bo e
B sa )h M ,ol 3 s 4 S
(
D msa pim L
e ep p
e dl e
)
- I d
X3 X
o n
. S
~ '
g = . e . 6
.\
6 * . = . 6 c a n c. b .
v- .
p D T o
R mS oD T R S A g
t a p
e o: t C
a L f s a o e t a d t
a t
a n i
n o t t p R t\
a c- c o
l s
l i
c a
h%
t
- c e
N o
b s
e a
,x c a
l s
l i
c t
i o
n u
l t E mlo a V t
p a l a t s r c e a t s I l
e / r p e m s S s h oe l m e /
S o I r
\ c p : a p a L l c pl s
- a b S c t l p n a t
t s E pi e e m .
g s e e m t I
r a :d t
b s
y/
p l
l a e v a g t
a d: s y/
1
( p l
e r
/
D e
i r f 3 i P
d D a n v r o e ,e L e a 0 n R o
c e r g a N a o r t g o R n : e m r c s
f r
e (
p e
u n b ds p
a f r
e k O 9 G i t y
t 6 q m a s p e 1 s q C a t 5 )
p c u s o r r/ 6 u r R o e c t n e c e a e
r l n c
r a
p r
s e ra n c
b A o
l 1
0 e
c t
y w
a n
g r
nb c
e a y
M 0 e S a b P 0
r ,d a l
m o u L E i
t a a fn l Vd R i' 4 t n
/
8 i o - a L p n k
t nn oc 7 1 r o c ,e 1
o P n t 3 /
c e
2 s hc X 6 s a n a a r p /
9 s m a e e d p r 7 d n a P
7 l
i c e w T s
n e
e e A a C l
) e ,k m g n J pl e ,h t u
.n M 6 J
d - E t d e N E E w
i t
e o
v T I
P c r I p
e m N B e n i
a G E r t N oi T n I I
- I
. e e . e e *
- e . *
- C C
D T R mS D To R MS dD T R S R U
a o e oa t a e a a t e a o e t a -
n n t
t t p t p e a a l t t
a a l y i t r a t t a pl ti S c
o l
s ci a
ho n c o
l s
i c
a t o on mc l s
i c
a o
n T l
l a
m t
e s
/ l a t e ms /
io nl a t e
s
/
A C
l e s S e m iS al m S c p s ti c e s
- a c p : da p : a t
e l
e m t
e l
e
- ot ned l
e E d s 2 p d s I Om cp s 1 p
m A
- y/ c l : y/ t l : y/ ( l e o i n e
. i n e 3 i D a l l
g l
o a g L a 0 n e r e o g n : c f b :
r r t r
s t r s f r b : a f r
e e t
e e s p i
t 1
d q r 6 q t
e 1 s e y 4 ; 3 5 ) q p 4 I u l a u r/
c 6 u P e
r c
o p e
n r v ,
e n r a
e n A l
r o y c a y c b c S 1 l e c e y T 0 c
- : a :
0 e d b 0
t e s S e I P u L P
,d s
e t a n ,2 n R m' d s
d l
/
O t i 7 i o
t y P a L 2 n S n 7 G p s c ;
a ,e 3 R I r P n o
c ,2 d c a
X A e P r p s
s e ,S P ;
7 p a e r M d I a w a X c e e n e d p l
,k e e P r n J 7 g u s w ,h t
a e n.
r.
. e s pl k e N f
r x o e o .v d
t m w m ci i e d p
e r
1 0
, l ll
, , 1 o -
g 7 7 k
n h
. .a v.
p t M R c a g
t\ a n R a
c- N r l N d E s o i t
o o V p c h c m I p h h r a l
/ a s S
\
m r
. E n u E y g a g r nt a
e s
r li e
s v
e D b t c t y P t
o I d
o -
R x p p I a
s S a s
l a O p
t t
u p
t m G r
d v r p R g
o g o t o A n
r a
m r
a l i
M
. .m a P r
b E o
r R
1 1
/
6
/
9 7 _
T A
C M
E E
T I
N 7 G
M Y
A A
= * * * . e
- P E
. D T R PS D R 1 S N A
. a o e l t u a a e - t t
a t
a p mto t
a p ;
5a t R l
l i
i l i
o n o i I
A c n c s c I c c o
l a a t
s n l s o l
a t s l
e a / e e /
e m s nS '
l e s p S c
t p : da c : e a Sm l t e e e r d s 3 opl d v a yp m
- y/ u i : r e l S e a nn
,d g D i
e s
a i r gn e r e i e : of n nf d r s t r c 6 n cq e ti he eq l
a 0 e u y P a f u m p e e n n a l e n A
( r c d l
. c S 1
- yy l y T 1 e: e :
2 a 1 n A P r 0 g m i ns h t
ff a
R m t a t
t o a O
)
d hti e o n d u G e
n fn a s e
a l
t R f
si l
. e l r e
s A
y t a c
s t f l M h a i
m t s
n m l ,1 l
a ,2 4
m /
pt A o yl n
l a i s r
a p b a t
r o -
f a l a
n u
t d s 1
9 R
ll1
.. ~, $ .
~
. ~ -
7 7 d
2 1 .c
- e e
- B G P i
r C r v
a e l a e R l N e n D T R e x S I
n m d
a E v
e o a o t
p e c a t
v t V
c C t
a a e ti e d o I L h r c l
l i
c p o s gi r S
a a a o o a t
n t
g S r
v g n b s
l b t f r s gi a e u E a e -
el c
s e
r e
s o/ S ma t e
r c
r v D e f n t o e P
- r o o e v a J m o u y d m c .d t I
upl n
t h n s R i
s h i
o e i n
e r
t s O c
u p
a a
n Nu n
s t
hg o G s
s s
t g e m y/ r orf p t
R e
d p
r s b e
e a ue gq i
o A o p r r
- hu n M w g r o s i
t h
r a p o f 1 Ae u c n t o P 9
z m o s g d
i 0 gy u: e E o
o e
d g s t St s
t i
R p e 1 r
s a m l
a t a 1
/
p i t n e o e 6 k r ns a /
t o f n 9 n
l a ,1 n 7 e .t ,2 u T v a a ,3 4
l e
A l
u a p x C a n ti o
d l
o M 7 n ;
5 i
t a
E .
o E n
t i
o T M c n I Y
p e
r a
N A e
r t G A w
- e. R E
_ e e
k N A
_ )
b )
a RI C A
. e *
- G e * . .
_ r e
e l
a (c o
n m D T R l l S D T R e x St d n a o e a at C a o e c at g i
t i
t a
t a p l mt p io r
a t
a t
a p l
e pt o i g n c
l c
i c
l i c e u s o n b o n t
o a a s o a fs r e
. l t n/ s l b t e
r / c )d e oS l
e 2 S l
e s o c
t p
l s
l i a a
c t
e r
v s
- ma u n
e d
e s 2 r m e d a I J upm t
/ bp t s
- y oli : i nl e r n o e in n
M a t g N u s t
hg
_ o r
- wf / r f P n m y or t
h 1 i r c
eqe ,
b e a u e gq A
6 e r S yl 0 mu r o
- hu T
C P
o e n n c g f 1 Ae uc n P d 9 R
t gy U hy l : g i
0 u:
E y S g e
s t S O e
x a t
r s
t a G
' c ti e o p t
i o
R p n t s e
r n s
A FI e -
f l
a ,1 M
.b4 .t ,2 an i w ,3 t 4 dh a
- Mni n d
a A
.r 5 y/ :
a o
.- F n l c
. a t
e
- p 2 e r
- i n
,. w e
e _
t k 1 _
2
i 1
s .
l l
l l
l 1
ENCLOSURE 2 TO NYE-97035 l
e M
l -
l 1.
li
~
i I .
Program Element 1 A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Temi Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Tecnnical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or l conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated. l Table 1 Program Element ll September 25,1997 Final Proposal l
- 1. Water Quality Eliminate nutrient sampling and Station P5 for ,
temperature, salinity and dissolved oxycien. i l
1 No additional comments.
1 i
l W D <
Approve Disapprove j Robert Estabrook i NH Dept. Of Environmental Services 1 Water Division ,7 9
b-Approve Disapprove -
Eric Hutchins N National Marine Fisheries Service A isapprove j' l
- Jack Paar Environmental Protection Agency D 1 0 ,
Approve Disapprove kliA CA , & L f Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department 01
~.. O
, l Program Element 2 A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members ,f the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element 1 September 25,1997 Final Proposal l
- 2. Phytoolankton ll Eliminate this program
', We agree to eliminate this program subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing
! backlogged samples and presentation of White Paper on Biomass conversion to TAC. Program may be reinstituted to address TAC concems after evaluation of the backlogged data.
i I'
04 0 Approve Disapprove Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environme JServices Water Division
.o f././-
l 1
' Approve isapprove <
[/s Eric Hutchins #W
! National Marine Fisheries Service 1
0 7 Approve Disapprove Jacl@aar" l Environmental Protection Ag y Approve isapprove C 4. - d -
} Bruce Smith j NH Fish and Game Department i
2 1, 02 e a
- Program Element 3.a A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element !l September 25,1997 Final Proposal l j
l 3.a Zooalankton-Microzooplankton II Eliminate this prociram We agree to eliminate this program subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing backlogged samples. Program may be reinstituted to address TAC concems after evaluation of the backlogged cata.
l l
l
- 0 Approve Disapprove Robert Estabrook s !
NH Dept. Of Environmental Se Water Division )
0 ,
h/- ,j l
' prove D,sapprove i ,
r Eric Hutchins j
National Marine Fisheries Service 0
Approve Disapprove l V !
Jack P6ar }
Environmental Protection Agency Approve isapprove CC , 4 14/ _
} '
2 Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department ;
l 03 1
Program Element 3.b A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or
, conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
Table 1 Program Element l September 25,1997 Final Proposal l
Elimination Station P5 and reduced sample l 3.b Macrozooplankton )
, replicates from 3 to 1.
l We agree to proposed modifications subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing j backlogged PS samples. Program may be reinstituted to address TAC concems after evaluation '
of the backlogged data.
W D AA Approve Disapprove
{
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental pervices Water Division / '
g Approve Disapprove ,I
/- '
Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service R isapprove s Approve #
VV
- ]
Jack PaK ' l Protection Ag Environmenta cy
- i
~
0 g h, -
Approve Disapprove Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department
- ]
04
1 Program Element 3.c i I
-A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seatrook Station Long-Term Environmental j Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized The in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter.
undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee r hereby j render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions o I conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated. l Table 1 Program Element 0 September 25,1997 Final Proposal l
3.c Zooplankton-Bivalve larvae Drop Station P5 (including entrainment) ,
1 e The program will be maintained with the exception of the elimination of Station PS subject to evaluation of the backlogged samples, 1
W D Disapprove ,
Approve Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environme ta ervices ,.
Water Di 'sion kLApprove 0
Disapprove b1 ['/'.
Eric HutchinsF ~
National Marine Fisheries Service O '
p-Approve Disapprove _
V -
Jack PW Environmental Protection Agency
- Approve isapprove .h .@
.{ Bruce Smith
/' NH Fish and Game Department J
.]
05 l
l l 1
- .. m. . .
Program Element 4.a.1 ;
1 A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, j 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersignd members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby ;
render be following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or l conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element l September 25,1997 Final Proposal [
4.a.1 Finfish-lchthyoplankton- Drop Station P5 Offshore a
The program will be maintained with the exception of the elimination of Station P5 subject to the evaluation of the backlogged samples, j l
l M 0 !
-h
~
Approve Disapprove -
U
' M ,
I Robert Estabrook I NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division f
0 1 O/ )
- ' j A prove Disapprove i
I Eric HutchiW National Marine Fisheries Service W
Approve D
Disapprove
, M_
+
Jack"$dar T' Environmental Protection A cy 1
isapprove M (*
Approve .
Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department 06
)
f Program Element 4.a.2 A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to disass modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
Table 1 Program Element 0 September 25,1997 Final Proposal 4.a.2 Finfish-ichthyoplankton- Improve program by investigating day / night Entrainment and mesh effects Hold for further review.
V D Approve Disapprove Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division 5
Approve D
Disapprove Ait
'V' /
-/-l Eric Hutchins' National Marine Fisheries Service
=
ve isapprove ' "
Jack Pgdf Environmental Protection Agency Approve isapprove f Bruce Smith c/- , .,
NH Fish and Game Department l
l 07
0% .-: . .
. s Program Element 4.b A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications am summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or i conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated. l l Table 1 Program Element ll September 25,1997 Final Proposal 4.b Finfish-Gillnet sampling Eliminate this pmgram (NOTE: Interim approval already granted as a result of harbor cornoise take)
No revisions. It was eliminated per a letter from the EPA dated March 21,1997 and l
suspended as of that date.
~
rove isapprove ._
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division ,
5pprove Disapprove / ,
Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service i~ O ,
I
. Approve Disapprove -
~
Jack Paar Environmental Protection ency A ve isapprove c #-
~
j Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department i 08
- .a. , a Program Element 4.c A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Temi Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element h September 25,1997 Final Proposal 4.c. Finfish-Trawl Sampling No changes except increase precision of length measurements.
W D . ..
Approve Disapprove __
4 w Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services . .
Water Division YApprove Disapprove c
Eric Hutchins V f National Marine Fisheries Service l D
Approve Disapprove ;
Jack'Vaar ~
Environmental Protection Agency .
ca i j Approve Disapprove .
Bruce Smith l NH Fish and Game Department i
I i
l I
09i i
Program Element 4.d i I
A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, l l
1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The l undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby i render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or I conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated. l
\
l Table 1 Program Element 1 September 25,1997 Final Proposal I l
4.d. Finfish-Seine Sampling No changes except increase precision of length measurements.
l I
0 ,
f Approve Disapprove >
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division /r I
k
' Approve 0
Disapprove / !
" D Eric Hutchir(i [ '
National Marine FisherieiService A e isapprove p Jack @aar !
Environmental Protection Agency j Approve isapprove * '
Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department
! 10
, :n Program Element 4.e l A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby i render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or i conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
Table 1 Program Element 4 September 25,1997 Final Proposal , l 4.e Finfish-Impingement investigate fish decay issue; conduct 1-year study comparing 1-day vs. 6-day ,
screenwashes l
Hold for review.
GV[ G ~
r -
)
Approve Disapprove -
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division Y
Approve D
Disapprove i% ._
Eric Hutchins
- National Marine Fisheries Service A e isapprove .
Jack #aar
- Environmental Protection Age cy
(
Approve isapprove Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department
.1
's
! 11
A e -
- 9 . .
Program Element 5.a A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The l undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element ll September 25,1997 Final Proposal l 5.a Marine macrobenthos-Destructive Eliminate deep and intake stations samoling l
We agree to changes subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing backlogged samples.
(
)
l )
j W: D -
Approve Disapprove _
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division g
?
W Approve D
Disapprove f l' '
i
[
- V Eric Hutchins l National Marine Fisheries Service
- e isapprove i
Jack Vaar " " l Environmental Protection Agency Approve isapprove a(. t Bruce Smith
' NH Fish and Game Department l l
12
y -
4 Program Element 5.b A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element ll September 25,1997 Final Proposal l 5.b. Marine macrobenthos-Non No changes, keep all intertidal sampling.
Destructive W D -
Approve Disapprove -
f ebj Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division
/
Er Approve o
Disapprove 4
//j,'
Eric Hutchins " V National Marine Fisheries Service
~
0 Approve Disapprove -
~
Jack P6ar Environmental Protection Agency Approve isapprove e A.- -
Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department 13
~
,; ;u .- . ... . , . . . .- , .a..
,. 4 Program Element 5.c A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental l Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The l undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element 4 September 25,1997 Final Proposal l l - 5.c Marine macrobenthos-General Drop tide pools and mean sea level stations I algae l
! Hold for review.
j 1 Add sampling stations B1MLW/5BMLW tidepools and B1MSilB5MSL tidepools. Review
. backlogged data. !
i I '
V D '
Approve Disapprove Robert Estabrook j
NH Dept. Of Environmental Services
- Water Division I
O /
/
{mYd/
l Esf Approve Disapprove c i ,
Eric Hutcilins"
~
ve fiapprove ,
f j Jack PJw(r 4 Environmental Protection Agency i
I '
. D \
Approve Disapprove M / .rb l Brued Smith -
N#ith and Game Deph6 ment 14 w
m : .-. -
./.
.:m , , . .;. , .
Program Element 5.d A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 '
attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
Table 1 Program Element ] September 25,1997 Cinal Proposal 5.d Marine macrobenthos-Bottom Eliminste deep stations and annual panels; panels subsample mid-depth triannual panels and all wooden panels.
I We agree to proposed changes subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing backlogged samples. Program may be reinstituted to address TAC concems after evaluation of the backlogged data.
V D Approve Disapprove '
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division
~
g'" 9 -
/
Approve Disapprove - -
Eric Hutchins
. National Marine Fisheries Service
. O Approve Disapprove
~
Jack Phif' Environmental Protection Agency Approve isapprove R ,
d l Bruce Smith \ ^
i
! NH Fish and Game Department i
i 15
,' .. s . . s. . ,H
, 'h Program Element 6 l A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described more fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
l Table 1 Program Element 4 September 25,1997 Final Proposal l l
- 6. Epibenthic crustacae No changes to lobster program. PS dropped from crab program. Reduction in crab replicates from 4 to 1.
We agree to proposed changes subject to satisfactory completion and evaluation of existing backlogged samples.
l l
W D ~
Apprcve Disapprove - -
Robert Estabrook NH Dept. Of Environmental Services Water Division -
e D
( fApprove Disapprove
/(-
2 Eric Hutchins National Marine Fisheries Service A ve isapprove ~
Jack Pifff Environmental Protection Agen Approve isapprove " r4 Bruce Smith NH Fish and Game Department u
. .. ;M :; . 3:: . . . . , ,. ,
1 Program Element 7
) A meeting of the Seabrook Technical Advisory Committee was held on November 6, 1997 to discuss modifications to the Seabrook Station Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program as described in North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's letter to the EPA dated September 25,1997. Those modifications are summarized in Table 1 attached to that letter and described mole fully in the enclosure to that letter. The undersigned members of the Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee hereby render the following decisions on the modifications. Where additional revisions or conditions have been made by the TAC, they are so indicated.
i
! Table 1 Program Element ll September 25,1997 Final Proposal l l 7. Softshell Clams ll No changes to existing program.
1 i
I i
j O -
Approve Disapprove ,- e -
com
_. p Robert Estabrook i NH Dept. Of Environmental. Services Waters Division -/M
./;;
l , [y' O //~ # '_#>:'
l Mpprove Disapprove -
! Eric Hutchins i National Marine Fisheries Service I e isapprove h ! -
- Jack Pasr "
._ Environmental Protection Agency i
! 0 , ) f l
Approve Disapprove cA- W . l l Bruce Smith j NH Fish and Game Department ;
i W
g..
4
( ENCLOSURE 7 TO NYN-98053 l
l l
I 1
l l
1 h
l l
l 1
i
)
I f
- g\W...
1 North North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 1 $s Atlantic seahro a ,N n 03874 (603) 474 9521 The Northeast Utilities System j l
November 21,1997 I l
NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 N YE-97036 AR #97027946 Mr. Carl DeLoi New Hampshire State Program Unit U. S. Environmento! Protection Agency i John F. Kennedy Building i Boston, MA 02203 i
Seabrook Station l Keln Evaluatiga and Studv Plan North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (No.th Atlantic) provides herein "An Evaluation of Kelp Communities in the Hampton-Seabrook Area," (Enclosure) as was committed to in the November 6,1997, Seabrook Station Technical Advisory Committee Meeting and the Resised Long-Term Emironmental Monitoring Program.' 3e evaluation concludes that recent declines in the kelp species, Laminaria digitata, are not likely caused by Seabrook Station. The exact em,ironmental factor or factors responsible for the decline have not been identified. Therefore, North Atlantic will conduct a one-year special study 13 collect the physical data related to potential impact mechanisms (i.e. temperature and turbidity inenases).
To characterize temperature conditions, North Atlantic shall deploy remote continuous temperature data loggers throughout the year at kelp sites (B.l7/B35 and B19/B31). Two replicate temperature data loggers would be deployed at each stat.on.
Potential turbidity effects in the nearfield area will also be assessed with remote data loggers.
Continuous turbidity data loggers shall be deployed near the bottom at mid-depth stations B19 and B31 for one month during a period of historically high phytoplankton abimdance.
i 3
Letter dated November 20,1997 from J. Hart (North Atlantic) te C. Deloi (EPA) and E.
Schmidt (NHDES), " Revised Long-Term Environmental Monitor lng Program."
Environmental Protection Agency l=. NYE-97036/Page 2
- =
I Following analysis and review of the special study results from 1998, the results will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee.
If you have additional questions, please contact me at (603) 773-7762.
Very tmly yours, NORTH A TI NERGY SERVICE CORP.
i
. . i. A. .- y i
Jo 13. Hart viranmental Compliance Manager l
l l
l l-i I
l: .-
l O
L ., . .
1 Environmental Protection Agency
, . NYE-97036/Page 3 l cc (with attachment)
TECH'NICAL ADVISORY Mr. Eric Hutchins COMMITTEE: National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region Dr. Edward Schmidt NH Dept. of Environmental Services One Blackburn Drive Gloucester,MA 01930 i
Water Supply & Pollution Control Division L 6 Hazen Drive i Concord,NH 03302 SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL !
ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Mr.Jeffrey Andrews Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman NH Dept. of Environmental Services 134 Palisade Avenue Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Leonia,NJ 07605 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Dr. W. Huntting Howell 12 James Fann Mr. Robert Estabrook Lee,NH 03824 NH Dept. of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. Saul Saila j 6 Hazen Drive !
Concord,NH 03302 317 Switch Road Hope Valley, R1 02832 Mr. John Nelson Dr. Bernard J. McAlice NH Fish and Game Department HC 61 Box 109 225 Main Street Round Pond, ME 04573 Durham,NH 03824 Dr. Robert Wilce Mr. Bruce Smith Department of Biology l NH Fish and Game Department 221 Morrill Science Center 225 Main Street University of Massachusetts Durham,NH 03824
- Amherst,MA 01003 Mr. Frederick Gay i
New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES l
New Hampshire State Program Unit Ms. Marcia Bowen
~
Environmental Protection Agency Normandeau Associates,Inc.
John F. Kennedy Building 82 Main Street Boston,MA 02203 Yarmouth,ME 04096 Mr. Jack Paar Mr. Paul Geoghegan Environmental Protection Agency Normandeau Associates,Inc.
60 Westview Street 25 Nashua Road Lexington,MA 02173 Bedford,NH 03110
l l
4 1
ENCLOSURE 1 TO NYE-97036 1
i m
An Evaluation of Kelp Communities in the Hampton-Seabrook Area Introduction Several kelp species form extensive canopies over many subtidal hard substrate habitats in the Gulf of Maine, including the Hampton-Seabrook area. Kelp are an important component of macrobenthic communities because they are highly productive (Mann 1973) and provide habitat for a variety of other species, including invertebrates and other seaweeds (Sebens 1986; Witman 1987; Ojeda and Dearborn 1991). Because of their ecological importance, and their proximity to the Seabrook Station intake and
- discharge stmetures, kelp have been monitored as part of the marine macrobenthos studies since 1978 to determine if power plant operations have had any effect on nearby populations. Kelp , :pulations are monitored using a non-destructive transect study (NAI 1997) conducted in two depth zones (Fig.1). The shallow subtidal stations (B17 and B35; 4-8 m depth) were established to monitor possible thermal plume effects. The mid-depth stations (B19 and B31; 9-12 m depth) were established in deeper water to monitor possible effects ofincreased turbidity and sedimentation (i.e., ' detrital rain' from entrained plankton).
More than 20 years ofmarine macrobenthos studies, including 7 years of Seabrook operation, have documented that balanced indigenous communities continue to thrive on subtidal rocky habitats near the Seabrook discharge, with little change beyond that
~
expected from natural variability (NAI 1997). A possible exception to this generalization that has become an issue of concerii is the decline of the kelp Laminaria digitata in the nearfield area, particularly at mid-depth station B19. The purpose of this report is to address these concerns by providing: 1) detailed analyses of historical data collected to date; 2) a review of current literature on the status of kelp populations and subtidal communities in the Gulf of Maine and nearby areas; and 3) if necessary, recommendations for additional studies to answer any remaining questions regarding changes in local kelp populations.
1
. .. : w.: .:. .
Review of Historical Data Kelp densities have been monitored in the Hampton-Seabrook area since 1978, and preoperational/ operational period trends have been assessed annually in the annual Seabrook Environmental Monitoring Reports (e.g., NAI 1997) using analysis of variance (ANOVA). While overall conclusions based on these analyses indicate that balanced indigenous communities continue to occupy subtidal habitats near the Seabrook discharge, there has been a decline in the kelp Laminaria digitata in recent study years (NAI 1997). Specifically, the significant interaction term of the ANOVA model applied to shallow subtidal data indicated a decline of L. digitata at nearfield station B17 in the operational period relative to the preoperational period, while no difference between
. periods was detected at farfield station B35. L. digitata densities also declined at both nearfield (B19) and farfield (B31) mid-depth stations, but to a greater extent at the nearfield station, resulting in a significant interaction term of the ANOVA model.
Possible mechanisms affecting local kelp populations, such as power plant impact, sea urchin grazing, storms and competition, were considered in NAI (1997), but conclusions indicated that, based on analyses presented, factors responsible for the observed decline ofL. digitata remained unclear.
Additional analyses, presented below, were undertaken to further investigate possible causes for changes in local kelp communities. Complete time-series of annual mean 2
densities (plants /m ) of all kelp species are presented for mid-depth and shallow subtidal stations in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. At mid-depth stations, Aganem clathratum and L. digitata form most of the canopy along with small amounts ofAlaria esculenta and L.
saccharina. A. clathratum is the clear dominant at nearfield B19, with densities typically 2
fluctuating between 5 to 11 plants /m over the study period (Fig. 2). Trend analysis of annual A. clathratum densities at B19 indicated no significant trend over the study period.
L. digitata was considerably less abundant at B19. Annual mean densities were generally 2 2 around 1 plant /m from 1978 to 1987, increased to nearly 4 plants /m in 1988, then 2
steadily declined to about 0.2 plants /m in 1992 and have remained at that level through 1996. Trend analysis perfonned on annual L. digitata mean densities did not reveal a 2
l l
l l
significant t nd over the entire time series. At the farfield station (B31), kelp dominance alternated betweer, A. clath,atum and L. digitata. A. clathratum densities at B31 were 2
generally lower than at B19, typically ranging from 2 to 6 plants /m from 1978 to 1993, 2
but increasing to nearly 9 plants /m in 1994 and remaining high thereafbr. Despite the increase in recent years, trend analysis indicated no significant trend os er the complete ,
I time series for A. clathratum density at B31. Conversely, L. digitatc densities were j higher at B31 than at B19. Highest densities were observed in early study years (up to 8 2 2 plants /m ), but have declined since that time to less than 2 plants /m . Trend analysis indicated that the decline ofL. digitata at B31 since 1978 was significant (slope =-0.345 2
plants /m /yr; p<0.01).
Kelp communities at shallow subtidal stations are almost entirely dominated by Laminaria saccharina and L digitata (Fig. 3). At B17 in the nearfield area, L.
saccharina was generally most abundant with annual mean densities exceeding 8 2 2 plants /m in the first study year (1979), but mostly fluctuating between 1 and 5 plants /m 2
Densities ofL. digitata were also highest at B17 during early study years (2-4 plants /m 2
during 1979-1984), but were around 1 plant /m or less after that period. Trend analysis indicated a significant decline in annual L. digitata densities at B17 since 1979 (slope =-
2
.054 plants /m /yr; p<0.01). Laminaria spp. densities at the farfield station (B35),
inonitored since 1982, were similar to those at B17. L. saccharina was dominant during 2
most study years at B35, with densities fluctuating between 2 and 5 plants /m . As with 2
B17, L. digitata densities were highest in early study years (~3 plants /m ), but gradually 2
declined to 1 plant /m by 1996. This decline was significant, based on trend analysis 2
(slope =-0.180 plants /m /yr; p<0.05).
Laminaria digitata trends were also examined using mean percent-cover for each sampling period (April, July and October) since 1985, and comp tred to adult sea urchin 2
(Strongylocentrotus drochachiensis) densities (no./m ) over that same time period. In both mid-depth (Fig. 4) and shallow subtidal (Fig. 5) zones, L. digitata percent-cover trends closely followed trends described above for species density. Cover was as high as 40% during peak years (1988-90) at B19, but has been s3% since 1991. Urchin densities 2
were low (<1/m ) during 1985-1991, but increased after that (during the operational 2
period) and peaked to nearly 10/m by 1994. At B31, L. digitata cover was highest in 3
1985 (~60%), but decreased over the study period to <10% during the most recent study years. Urchin density trends at B31 were similar those observed at B19; urchins were not 2
abundant until 1993-1995, when densities were as high as 20/m ,
Laminaria digitata cover was lower at shallow subtidal stations (s30%; Fig. 5), and exhibited moderate declines similar to those observed for plant density. Urchin densities 2
were also lower than those observed at mid-depth stations, generally less than 1/m .
2 Short-term increases in density were observed at near- and farfield stations; 4 urchins /m 2
were observed at B17 in 1985, and 6/m during 1994 at B35, the latter peak comciding with urchin increases observed at mid-depths stations.
Kelp communities were also assessed by examining time-series of annual densities of all kelp species combined (Fig. 6). At shallow subtidal stations, kelp densities were
' 2 highest during the early study period, and were as high as 13 plants /m at B17 (1979) and 2
9 plants /m at B35 (1982). Total kelp densities generally declined at both stations to 2
about 3-4 plants /m by 1996. Kelp densities were higher at mid-depth stations; peak 2 2 densities were 17 plants /m at B31 (1980) and 15 plants /m at B19 (1988). For the most part, total kelp densities at B19 and B31 followed similar trends over the study period,
~
with the exception of 1987-91 when B19 densities increased while densities at B31 I
fluctuated little. This was laigely due to increases in both Laminaria digitata and Agarum clathratum at B19 during that time (Fig. 2).
Discussion Kelp community dynamics are. controlled by complex interactions of physical and biological mechanisms which determine spatial and temporal pattems of distribution and community composition. Many of these mechanisms are natural (e.g., temperature, depth and available light, water movement, storm disturbance, grazing and predation, and competition; Kain 1979, Dayton 1985). However,in coastal areas, anthropogenic effects including pollution (Axelsson and Axelsson 1987; Yarish et al 1990; Schroeter et al.
i 1993; Reed et al.1994; Reed and Lewis 1994), introduced species (Bennan et al.1992;
} I' Lambert et al.1992; L. Harris (unpublished)), and indirectly, overexploitation of 4
commercial fisheries (Breen and Mann 1976; Elner and Vadas 1990; Vadas and Steneck 1995) must also be considered. In the case of Seabrook Station, the primary objective of kelp monitoring studies is to detenaine if chant,es in kelp communities in the nearfield area are related to impacts from the plant condenser cooling water discharge. Given this objective, the impact mechanisms and possible effects of this disch .rge on local kelp populations will be considered first below, followed by discussion of recent scientific literature about other mechanisms unrelated to Seabrook operation that may be affecting local kelp community dynamics.
Potential Power Plant Effects The type ofimpact a community is vulnerable to is dependent upon its relative position in the water column (e.g., temperature effects for shallow water sites, turbidity effects at deeper water sites). The nearfield sampling site used for the Seabrook shallow subtidal kelp studies (B17) was selected because it occurs within, and best represents, the shallow water communities that are most susceptible to incursion by the Seabrook Station discharge
~
thermal plume. Hydrodynamic modeling, conducted prior to plant start-up to predict the
' areal extent of the thermal plume under vuious meteorological and current regimes, indicated that thermal incursion to this site would be muumal, with temperature increases of
<1 C (Teyssandier et al.1974). Subsequent field studies after Seabrook began commercial operation verified this pred:ction by measuring temperature increases of <1 C at the shallow subtidal site (Padmanabhan and Hecker 1991). Long-term temperature data measured directly at station B17 are lacking, however. Even so, based on plume studies it is unlikely that this low level of thermal incurs. ion is stressful to L digitata, given the typical ambient temperature maxima of13-14 C at the bottom and 17-19 C at the surface (NAI 1997) Kain (1979) and tom Dieck (1992) noted optinv.1 growing temperatures of 10-17 C for L.
digitata, with no growth reduction occurring until temperatures reached 20-21 C. In laboratory culture experiments, Bolton and Lnning (1982) had similar results, and further noted that 22-23*C was the maximum survival temperature for gametophytes.
Another possible impact resulting from operation of coastal nuclear power plants is related more to altered water circulation pattems than to thermal incursion. Specifically, the 5
I':
- l l \
- l. i l
l introduction (discharge) of turbid water to an area of historically lower levels of turbidity j can decrease light penetration and increase sedimentation rates. Possible sources of this turbidity include suspended inorganic and organic particles, ifintakes are located in more turbid waters, and potentially, increased detrital deposition remiting from settlement of entrained organisms. Higher sedimentation rates (and impacts to nearby macrobenthic communities) associated with a thermal effluent were evident in the operation of a nuclear power plant in California (Osman et al.1981; Schroeter et al.1993). Here, the major source of turbidity was fine inorganic sediments transported from inshore waters where plant ;
intakes were located. The organic component of these sediments contributed little to the overall flux of sediments, and organic enriclunent was not observed at sites near the discharge.
The Seabrook intake is located about 2 km offshore,5 meters above the seafloor, and thus draws in relatively low turbidity water, similar to that near the discharge. Therefore, transport of fine inorganic particles is unlikely and any increase in sedimentation would be the result of settlement of organic material fium entrained organisms. However, this type of impact has never been documented for any coastal power plant. As such, organic loading near SeabroA discharge appears unlikely and h'as not been evidenced dudng the operational period. In addition, the stability of all other algal and faunal species and I
community parameters monitored in the nearfield area over the last 19 yems (NAI 1997) further demonstrates that turbidity-related impacts are not occurring, and therefore not responsible for the decline ofLaminaria digitata.
Effects Unrelated to Seabrook Operation i
Over the last several decades, increased grazing activities by the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, has been shown to have considerable influence on kelp community structure in the northwest Atlantic (Chapman and Johnson 1990).
Locally dense aggregates of sea urchins in the subtidal zone can preferecially eliminate populations of foliose algae (Breen and Mann 1976; Novaczek and McLachlan 1986; Johnson and Mann 1988). What remains after severe grazing is a barren ground of f
primadly crustose coralline algae. Urchin dominated barren grounds extend over wide 6
1 areas throughout the nonhwest Atlantic, including the Gulf of Maine and coastal New Hampshire (Sebens 1985; Witman 1985).
While barren grounds have not been observed at Seabrook study sites, urchin densities l
have increased during the operational period and the concomitant decline of Laminaria 2
digitata may be related to these increases. Urchin densities of 2-10/m , similar to those observed during the operational period at mid-depth stations (Fig. 4) have resulted in overgrazing of kelps (Wharton and Mann 1981). Urchins preferentially graze on L.
digitata over other foliose algae, while the other dominant kelp in the mid-depth zone, Agarum clathratum, is the least preferred (Larson et al.1980; Keats et al.1982; Himmelman et al.1983; Himmelman and N6d61ec 1990). Kelp conununity changes in the Seabrook study area (i.e., L. digitata decrease, with maintenance or increase of Agarum canopy) are consistent with changes observed elsuhere attributed to moderate i levels of urchin grazing (Miller 1985; Keats et al.1990).
Urchin grazing may also explain the sharper decline ofL. digitata at the nearfield mid-depth station B19 relative to B31 in the farfield area. Urchin grazing can determine the lower depth limit of kelps. Miller (1985) found that L. digitata was limited to shallower depths (<10 m) when urchins were present, but was found as deep as 12 m in areas without urchins. Agarum clathratum had a similar distribution with or without urchins. ;
Similarly, at nearby Isles of Shoals off the New Hampshire coast, Witman (1987) found l that kelps (including L. digitata) were abundant at depths of 4-8 m and declined sharply to 11-12 m prior to urchin removal, but extended to >12 m following removal of urchin fronts. The nearfield mid-depth study site B19 is deeper than the farfield study site B31 (12 m versus 9 m). Therefore, it is likely that the L. digitata population at B19 was near the depth limit for this species prior to urchin increases, and more susceptible to grazing effects from moderate increases in urchin density observed in the study area during the operational period. Furthermore, conditions near the depth limit for this species may
~
slow recovery by reducing recruitment and growth relative to shallower areas.
Another grazer, the gastropod Lacuna vincta, can also reduce kelp canopy (Kain 1979; Johnson and Mann 1986; Johnson and Mann 1988) and retard recovery through infestation of young kelp (Miller 1985). Lacuna densities in destructive samples, near i kelp study sites increased during the operational period by 50 to 100%, relative to 7
i l
! I
- i. l preoperational years (NAI 1997). New Hampshire algal stands, including populations of Laminaria digitata and L. saccharina, were virtually destroyed by Lacuna during the l 1
carly 1970s (Fralick et al.1974). In another New Hampshire study, Witman (1987) l suggested that Lacuna grazing was an important cause ofjuvenile mortality and may also I
increase the vulnerability of kelp to stonn defoliation.
Storms, even without grazing damage, are another important mechanism causing kelp mortality (Kitchings 1937; Dayton 1985; Chapman and Johnson 1990). Large scale removal of kelps (particularly Laminaria digitata at B19) was noted after Hurricane Bob in 1991 (NAI 1992).
A species recently iM,roduced to the Gulf of Maine is also thought to negatively impact kelps. The introduction and spread of the encrusting bryozoan Membranipora membranacca appears to have contributed to the defoliation of kelp beds (Laminaria I
saccharina and L. digitata) at Cape Neddick in York, Maine by making lamina more j i
brittle and more likely to break during storms (Berman et al.1992; Lambert et al.1992). j Competitive exclusion ofLaminaria digitata by other species may be related to !
successional community developement under the new environmental regime created by mechanisms described above (e.g., increased grazing and suseptibility to storm damage),
or a natural long-term cycle. A closed canopy in a perennial kelp forest can discourage recruitment (Kain 1979). In recent years, dense canopies of Agarum have been noted at !
both mid-depth stntions (Figs. 2 and 3). This dominance by Agarum may be related to depth (at B19) or selective grazing by sea urchins (at B31). Scheibling (1986) suggested that Agarum canopy may limit recruitment ofjuvenile Laminaria spp. Given the longer life expectancy of Agarum (5-7 years vs. 2-4 years for L. digitata; R. Vadas, pers. comm.;
Smith 1985), an established canopy could limit recruitment of other kelps for long periods of time. Additionally, red algal turfs such as those present at subtidal study sites have been shown to significantly reduce kelp recruitment (Chapman and Johnson 1990).
~
Removal of red algal turf has been shown to enhance L. digitatu recruitment by as much as ten times (Chapman 1984; Witman 1987).
l t
8
q :. .
. .n l .
l l Conclusions Spatial and temporal kelp community characteristics in the Seabrook area are l determined by complex interactions of many environmental factors. In recent years, 1
1 these interactions have created conditions that resulted in a significant decline of one kelp species in particular, Laminaria digitata. While power plant impacts were considered in an attempt to explain observed declines, they appear unlikely for several reasons: 1)
L significant decline ofL. digitata has occurred at most study sites, including both farfield ^l l stations and began prior to Seabrook start-up, suggesting an area-wide change; 2) data from physical (thermal plume studies) and biological (plankton) studies suggest that the l possibility ofimpact (i.e., thermal plume and ' detrital rain') to nearfield study sites is remote; and 3) scientific research has documented significant changes to Gulf of Maine l
! kelp communities brought about by ecological events unrelated to Seabrook operation (e.g., increases in sea urchin grazing and introduced species). Still, the exact environmental factor or factors responsible for the observed decline ofL. digitata have not been identified. In any case, changes in kelp communities, whether related to power plant impacts or natural factors, have not resulted in significant changes to the remainder
'of the balanced indigenous macroalgal or macrofaunal communities currently monitored (NAI 1997). This stability of the understory communities is likely dt e to the maintenance of a dense kelp canopy, albeit of different species composition, at all kelp monitoring stations.
. Recommendations i
~ '
A considerable amount of biological data has been collected since 1978 to document long-term trends in macrobenthic communities in the Hampton-Seabrook area, such as those observed for kelps described above. However, relating these trends to Seabrook Station operation is difficult due to the lack ofin situ physical data related to potential impact mechanisms (i.e., temperature and turbidity increases). To address this, a one-year special study is proposed to collect this necessary data and help determine if 9
. <g . , ' , ,
qqc , . -
g .
, ,.]
l Seabrook operation is affecting the physical environment at kelp monitoring stations. To characterize temperature conditions, it is recommended that remote continuous temperature data loggers be deployed throughout the year at all kelp sites (B17/B35 and B19/B31). Two replicate temperature data loggers would be deployed at each station.
Potential turbidity effects in the nearfield area would also be assessed with remote data loggers. Continuous turbidity data loggers would be deployed near the bottom at mid-depth stations B19 and B31 for one month during a period of historically high phytoplankton abundance (late spring or autumn).
Following analysis and review of special study results from 1998, the need for additional work will be discussed with the Seabrook Ecological Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees, References Cited Axelsson, B. and L. Axelsson.1987. A rapid and reliable method to quantify environmental effects on Laminaria based on measurements ofion leakage. Bot. Mar.
j 30:55-61.
Berman, J., L. Harris, W. Lambert, M. Buttrick and M. Dufresne. 1992. Recent invasions of the Gulf of Maine: Three contrasting ecological histories. Conserv. Biol.
6:435-441.
Bolton, J.J. and K. Luning.1982. Optimal growth and maximal survival temperatures of -
Atlantic Laminaria species (Phaeophyta) in culture. Mar. Biol. 66:89-94.
Breen, P.A., and K.H. Mann. 1976. Changing lobster abundance and destruction of kelp beds by sea urchins. Mar. Biol._34:137-142.
Chapman, A.R.O.1984. Reproduction, recruitment and mortality in two species of Laminaria in southwest Nova Scotia. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 78:99-109.
Chapman, A.R.O. and C.R. Johnson.1990. Disturbance and orgamzation of macroalgal assemblages in the noithwest Atlantic. Hydrobiologia 192: 77-121.
j Dayton, P.K. 1985. Ecology of kelp communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16:215-245.
Elner, R.W., and R. L. Vadas. 1990. Inference in ecology: the sea urchin phenomenon in
{ thenorthwestem Atlantic. Am.Nat. 136:108-125.
i 1
.10
i Fralick, R.A., K.W. Turgeon and A.C. Mathieson.1974. Destruction of kelp populations l by Lacuna vincta (Montagu). Nautilus 88:112-114.
Himmelman, J.H., A. Cardinal and E. Bourget.1983. Community development following removal of urchins Strongylocentrotus drocbachiensis, from the rocky subtidal zone of I the St. Lawrence Estuary, eastem Canada. Oecolologia 59:27-39.
Himmelman, J.H. and H. N6d61ec. 1990. Urchin foraging and algal survival strategies in i intensely grazed communities in eastem Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47:1011-1026. I l
Hiscock, K., and R. Mitchell. 1980. The description and classification of sublittoral epibenthic ecosystems. Pages 323-370 in J.H. Price, D.E.G. Irvine and W.F. Farnham (eds.) The Shore Environment, Vol. 2: Ecosystems. Academic Press, London and New York. 945 pp.
Johnson, C.R., and K.H. Mann. 1986. The importanceof plant defence abilities to the structure of subtidal seaweed communities: the kelp Laminaria longicruris de la Pylaie survives grazmg by the snail Lacuna vincta (Montagu) at high population densities. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 97:231-267.
Johnson, C.R., and K.H. Mann.1988. Diversity, patterns of adaptation, and stability of Nova Scotian kelp beds. Ecol. Monogr. 58:129-154.
- Kain, J.M.1979. A view of the genus Laminaria. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.
17:101-161.
Keats, D.W., G.R. South and D.H. Steele.1982. The occurrence ofAgarum cribrosum (Mert.) Bory (Phaeophyta, Laminariales) in relation to some ofits competitors and predators in Newfoundland. Phycologia 21:189-191.
Keats, D.W., G.R. South and D.H. Steele.1990. Effects of an experimental reduction in grazing by green sea urchins on a benthic macroalgal community in eastern Newfoundland. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 68:181-193.
Kitching, J.A.1937. Studies in sublittoral ecology II. Recolonization at the upper margin of the sublittoral region; with a note on the denudation ofLaminaria forests by storms.
J. Ecol. 25:482-495.
Larson, B.R., R.L. Vadas, and M. Keser. 1980. Feeding and nutrition ecology of the green sea tuchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in Maine, U.S.A. Mar. Biol. 59:49-62.
Lambert, W.J., P.S. Levin and J. Berman.1992. Changes in the structure of a New England (USA) kelp bed: the effects of and introduced species?. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
88:303-307.
i 11
,r o: , .. . ,
Mann, K.H.1973. Seaweeds: their productivity and strategy for growth. Science 183:975-981.
Miller, R.J.1985. Succession in sea urchin and seaweed abundance in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Biol. 84:275-286.
NAI (Normandeau Associates,Inc.).1997 (draft). Seabrook Environmental Studies,1992.
A characterization of environmental conditions in the Hampton-Seabrook area during the operation of Seabrook Station.
NAI 1992. Seabrook Environmental Studies,1991. A characterization of environmental conditions in the Hampton-Seabrook area during the operation of Seabrook Station.
Tech. Rep. XXIII-I.
Novaczek, I., and J. McLachlan. 1986. Recolonization by algae of the sublittoral habitat of Halifax County, Nova Scotia, following the demise of sea urchins. Bot. Mar. 29:69-75.
Ojeda, F.P., and J.H.
Dearbom. 1991. Feeding ecology of benthic mobile predators:
experimental analyses of their influence in rocky subtidal communities of the Gulf of Maine. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149:13-44.
Osman, R.W., R.W. Day, J.A. Haugsness, J. Deacon, and C. Mann. 1981. The effects of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station on sessile invertebrate communities inhabiting hard substrata (including experimental panels). Hard Benthos Project, Marine
- Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. Final Rep., 223 pp.
Padmanabhan, M., and G.E. Hecker.1991. Comparative evaluation ofhydraulic model and field thermal plume data, Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. Alden Research Laboratory,Inc.12 pp.
Reed, D.C. and R.J. Lewis.1994. Effects of an oil and gas-production effluent on the colonization potential of giant kelp (Macrocystispyrifera) zoospores. Mar. Biol.
I19:277-283. __
Reed, D.C., R.J. Lewis and M. Anghera.1994. Effects of an open-coast oil-production outfall on patterns of giant kelp (Macrocystis pynfera) recruitment. Mar. Biol.
120:25-31. I Schiebling, R.1986. Increased macroalgal abundance following mass mortalities of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) along the Atlantic coast ofNova Scotia. l Oecologia 68:186-198.
Schroeter, S.C., J.D. Dixon, J Kastendiek, and R.O. Smith.1993. Detecting the ecological effects of environmental impacts: a case study of kelp forest invertebrates. Ecol. Appl. l 3:331-350. !
4 12 ;
J
V Sebens, K.P.1985. The ecology of the rocky subtidal zone. Am. Sci. 73:548-557.
Sebens, K.P.1986 Community ecology of vertical walls in the Gulf of Maine USA: small scale processes and altemative community states. Pages 346-371 in P.G. Moore and R. l Seed (eds.). The Ecology of Rocky Coasts. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. l Smith, B.D. 1985. Recovery following experimental harvesting of Laminaria longieruris and L. digitata in southwestem Nova Scotia. Helgolunder Meeresunters. 39:83-101.
Teyssandier, R.G., W.W. Durgin, and G.E. Hecker. 1974. Hydrothermal studies of diffuser i discharge in the coastal environment: Seabrool Station. AldenResearchLaboratory Rep. No.86-124.
tom Dieck, L 1992. North Pacific and North Atlantic digitate Laminaria species (Phaeophyta): hybridization experiments and temperature responses. Phycologia 31:147-163.
Vadas, R.L. and R.S. Steneck. 1995. Overfishing and inferences in the kelp-sea urchin interactions. Pages 509-524 in Skjoldal, H.R., C. Hopkins, K.E. Erikstad and H.P.
Leinaas (eds.), Ecology of Fjords and Coastal Waters. Elsevier Science.
Wharton, W.G. and K.H. Mann. 1981. Relationship between destructive grazing by the sea l
urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, and the abundance ot American lobster, Homarus americanus, on the Atlantic coast'of Nova Scotia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
i 38:1339-1349.
Witman, J.D. 1985. Refuges, biological disturbance, and rock,/ subtidal community structure in New England. Ecol. Monogr. 55:421-445.
Witman, J.D. 1987. Subtidal coexistence: storms, grazmg, mutualism, and the zonation of kelps and mussels. Ecol. Monogr. 55:421-445.
I Yarish, C., C m. Penniman and B. Egan.1990. Growth and reproductive responses of Laminaria longicruris (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) to nutrient enrichment.
Hydrobiologia 204/205:505-511.
i s.
-(.
l -!
.i.
13
7.,..,,_.. ... -
n . . .. .. .
y RYE LEDGE f
... /
y[ ..t B31 :
i LITTLE BOARS '
^
h[' i.FARFIELD HEAD f gas ; AREA'-
o .5 1 Nautical Mile 0 1 2 Kilometers SCALE Q-4 CONTOUR DEPTH "' j f IN METERS
<\ li GREAT BOARS i /c l HEAD lll j ,
^
HAMPTON ;
so BEACH \
i
's ,
BROWNS ;\ [,.
RIVER L lntake ,
, NEARFIELD d .' l0_UTENg! g37 l ' M SEABROOK*h'R'.
STATION s , ; )mfggy ,h i -
Discharge .
^
HAMPTON i
. SEABROOK HARBOR
) UNK f ROCKS ? '
% SEABROOK b!
%, BEACH { '. __,, . .
\ '
/
\/ _
o
/ i SALISBURYBEACH \
Fig.1. Non-destructive kelp sampling stations used for Seabrook marine macrobenthos studies.
14 . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r o.
l l
l l
I i
STAS 19 12
! 10-l l 8-
- l. .t I
_$ 6-o O
Q-4, OJ Y ,O's, I p\ '
j/ s / D, 2- /
\ ,/ 'n -!
,.crfL -ty ' *s ' ,
0
,J ',
- I
- g. S'-- -
- , . .. . .-g . -s .~.t- -- .e, 'kw.p gf .
7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agorum -e "-e---e Alario l
'-- - - L. digitoto -- L. socchorino l l
l l
STA=31 12-i .
l l 10-8- . ,o, a r
_s / 's, k
' ~
6-' ,D D'~o~. ,D,
.o l ,
i \
O f
,/ N
\
.9 4 l' b' D l , ,0~~
i M 0 E
' s' ,
l *. '
O ~ . #
2
'g D
(.#g I.
's -s\ s O,
s - E .{ s "*E M - T T P C T,4a,Ag , p,,,D$s/%
5 s-7 7 8 8 8 8 8'8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Agorum -e " -e " - r Alorio
~-- --e- L. digitoto ' - - - ~ L. socchorino 2
Fig. 2._ Annual mean kelp densities (plants /m ) at mid-depth stations, nearfield (B19) and farfield (B31),1978-1996.
i I
- l
[ 15
. . l ,C.' '
., . .. + . .
STAa17
' 12 -
So; )
Ss
\
8 s N
D N
- G N c
c2 6- g ,
i g
O \
\ /
sh\
_C._
o 4; s E
g 0 -s s [ s
, o's \ jss\
M
$' s N D, "
s / 3
\ / \
'y' ' s's
, 's y' E ' #
\ ~'
2- 'bs s' s /
's 3 /
- ['
'O - - D ' D'"
- D - .- .
? ... _ -,-.-= .' D- w; . .-D* * ?' ' '%
0, C'. ..-=-
- z. _. -- =. _..
_ _ _. _. =. =. --
7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -7 Ago ru m -e-- r --e Ala ria
'-"--- L. digit a t o ' - -
- L. secchorino STAS 35 j 12-l l
10-l 8-b
- E 6-c
- Si O \ A g'
i
's
$ 4- 's s
[*s Yd D, \
g / k\ /
/
's 2- ' ,y';nc,,g'
's- - s- 4 D' 'D '~O " D - ._g -D 3,'3,'tr-1' ,
- ,,D tr 0- C: 5. 5. 5 5. 5. 5 Ec^ 5. 5. C. - 5 5. C%
7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 l
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Agorum -- --- Ata rio
- '- --" L. digitato ~- -- L. s o c c h a ri n c i
l l
2 l Fig. 3. Annual mean kelp densities (plants /m ) at shallow subtidal stations, nearfield (B17) and farfield (B35),1979-1996.
16
',.Ol
+ :g. .
STA=19 100- 25 90-u
.y 80 20 o
L)
. 70-
@ -c u 60- 15 8 D ?.
a O_
50- O
~
d co 3
~
d 40- u 10 m 5- .', d 5 30: di
's 20- .
5
! 6.,
10- .u. .u
. l a.
O -u u u ' Uuu:Muu B u u .* Uue: ...._ = uc.$cc-ccs. O l 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 l
l I
l l
l I STA=31 100- 25 l 90-c
.y 80 y 20 o :t 702 'I E 'i =
60- 0 15 o l
o_ . .a 50: ~. O 6
e 10 m
~ 40- i .
E V
e 30 _
20- ,
5
- ! f .u u.y 10-
- 1 l -
oL~u+u,~...~.u-.nu..-u~ ~,~. .u,a; h a 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fig. 4. Mean percent cover ofLaminaria digitata and densities of adult 2
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (no./m ) for each sampling period (April, July, October) at mid-depth stations, nearfield (B19) and farfield (B31),1985-1986.
1 1
17 j
.c.
.gg, -- w.. ,
, -. + u n * ' - - '
.s STAsi7 100 1 25 90-u y 80- 20 1 o U
~ 70-C I l E u 60- 15 m o gr, O a l e 50- a m
~
D i d 40- 1 O sn ch 5 5 30i 20- 5 U f 10-
- ' < "-'> '..u'"
~
O "y.-' ' '<# '- ' O 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 I
STAS 35 100- 23 l i
i .
! 90i .
! u
,y 80 20 i l
o O
1- , 7O-E o 15 m 5
60 l 0 =r.
m I .. o .
l d
50- a o
l L .d 40 __
10 =* 8
- - e x
! e l
$n 30- _
d 20 5 I m 10- .
~
0: -u uu . uu u Uu' u"u : Urb uuu L'uu.'U*d NU 'Myu uve. O 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fig. 5. Annual mean percent cover ofLaminaria digitata and densities of adult 2
Strongylocentrotus droebachtensis (no./m ) for each sampling period (April, July, October) at shallow subtidal stations, nearfield (B17) and farfield (B35),1985-1986.
{
( 18
y;;; i <' .
.,: .: v .. . . . . . .. ., . .
20 I cil Relps comb.ined j 18 Shenow S.otidel Stations l
16f 14-i x 12-i
' Di c 10-o O F 8-
-a g
M 6- .
- y. + .. ..9.,
..f 4: y...p... .* 'P .,
.,...r....,.-
2:
O.
7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 -8 8 89 09 9 92 93 94 95 96 97 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 17 - ---*---' 35 l t I i l- 20) oli kelps combined 18 Mic-Dep n S ctions F.
164 .
l
/ .r. .
. , a.
! /
I 12- E ' r. .. ' E p., .F
~ !. b i '\ ,
. . r.,
.. G w
10 .
's
. p.. :
.:.. : F .
1 a -g. .
- a. ! .p . . #.
f p ...F .,
I
- a *p M 6- p l . - 1. . ~~
i
- ._ l 4-j .-
)
.2 -
- i. o. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 98 O9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 4
19 .......... 31
.i 2
Fig. 6. Annual mean densities (plants /m ) for all kelps combined, at shallow subtidal (nearfield B17 and farfield B35) and mid-depth (nearfield B19 and farfield B31)
- stations, 1978-1996.
3g j
ENCLOSURE 8 TO NYN-98058
i
- g\v .1 North Nonh Adande Energ Ses Corpondon y P.O. Box 300 d
t Atlantic Seahroet, Nu 03824 (603)474 9521 The Northeast Utilides System December 12,1997 NYE-97039 l
Mr. Frederick Gay NPDES Permit Coordinator New Hampshire State Program Unit Environman*al Protection Agency Johr v enedy Building 5 m h: 02203 Seabrook Station On-Site Environmental Monitoring Program Procedures f Enclosed please find copies of the following on-site Seabrook Station Environmental Monitoring Program Procedures as we committed to provide to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at our November 6, l 1997 meeting.
. Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Sampling e Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Sampling
. Impingement Assessment These procedures are currently being reviewed under the Station's formal procedure review process. Any changes made to these procedures as a result of this review should be administrative or editorial in nature only and are not expected to change the scientific aspects of the procedures.
As requested at the TAC meeting, also please find enclosed 1996 screen wash data, including a listing, by date, of the screen washes for the year, screen washes for which an impingement assessment was performed and the composition of debris in assessed screen washes.
If you have additional questions, please confact me at (603) 773-7762.
Very truly yours, NOR TLAN pC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.
N s B. Hart l En rironmental Compliance Manager l
Environmental Protection Agency NYE-97039/Page 2 cc (with Enclosure)
TEC11NICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. Edward Schmidt NH Dept. of Environmental Services Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman Water Supply & Pollution Control Div. 134 Palisade Avenue 6 Hazen Drive Leonia,NJ 07605 Concord, NH 03302
, Dr. W. Huntting Howell Mr. Jeffrey Andrews 12 James Farm Supervisor, Industr: ' Permits Section Lee,NH 03824
- Dept. of Environ , ental Services l Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. Saul Saila
[ 6 Hazen Drive 317 Switch Road Concord,NH 03302 Hope Valley, RI 02832 Mr. Robert Estabrook Dr. Bernard J. McAlice
- NH Dept. of Environmental Services HC61 Box 109 Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Rou:. ' "3nd, ME 04564 6 Hazen Drive l Concord,NH 03302 Dr. Robert Wilce Department of Biology Mr. John Nelson 221 Morrill Science Center l NH Fish and Game Department University of Massachusetts 225 Main Street Amherst, MA 01003 Durham, NH 03824 l
Mr. Bruce Smith NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES .
- NH Fish and Game Depanment l l 225 Main Street Ms. Marcia Bowen Durham,NH 03824 Normandeau Associates,Inc.
82 Main Street -
l Mr. Jack Paar Yarmouth,ME 04096 Environmental Protection Agency 60 Westview Street Paul Geoghegan Lexington, MA 02173 Normandeau Associates,Inc.
25 Nashua Road Mr. Eric Hutchins Bedford, NH 03110-5500 National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region
- One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930
1 l
1 l
1996 Seabrook Station Screen Washes and Impingement Assessments 1 l Screen wash basket volume = - 1 cubic yard.
" Not all screen washes assessed. No value shown is an unassessed screen wash.
- Screen wash composition (excluding fish) determined during impingement assessments ,
Date Debris Volume
- I Ddbris Volume " Composition of Debris "*
(screen wann Basaets) Assessed % sr- _: % shes 1 Jan-96 0.50 0.50 95 4 Jan-96 5 0.50 l 6-Jan-96 0.50 I 9-Jan-96 0.50 0.50 100 10-Jan-96 0.50 0 15-Jan-96 0.75 0.75 100 16-Jan-96 0.13 0 23-Jan-96 0.25 0.25 100 28-Jan-96 0.33 0 I 0.33 100 30-Jan-96 0 l 0.50 6-Feb-96 0.20 i 0.20 100 13-Feb-96 0.25 0 0.25 100 20-Feb-96 0 0.33 0.33 !
24 Feb-96 100 0 1.00 l 27-Feb-96 0.50 0.50 90 29-Feb-96 10 0.10 5-Mar-96 0.50 0.50 90 10 10-Mar-96 0.25 0.25 80 20 12-Mar-96 1 0.05 15-Mar-96 0.50 18-Mar-96 0.33
' 0.33 19-Mar-96 0.13 26-Mar-96 0.33 ; 0.33 80 20 2-Apr-96 0.33 )
0.33 10 9-Apr-96 90 1.00 0.50 9-Apr-96 80 20 1.00 11-Apr-96 0.33 16-Apr-96 0.33 0.33 90 18-Apr-96 10 0.75 23-Apr-96 0.50 0.50 40 60 30 Apr-96 0.75 0.38 20 80 4-May-96 0,13 7-May-96 1.00 1.00 30 14-May-96 70 0.75 0.75 21-May 96 20 80 1 0.50 0.50 30-May-96 40 60 0.75 0.75 4-Jun-96 20 80
~ 2.00 0.66 4-Jun-96 10 90 1.00 5-Jun-96 0.50 5-Jun-96 1.00 6-Jun-96 0.75 6-Jun-96 0.75 7-Jun-96 0.75 7 Jun-96 0.50 8-Jun-96 1.00 9-Jun-96 1.00 -
'+
Page 1 of 3
'l 10-Jun-96 0.33 12-Jun-96 1.00 1.00 '
1 99 14-Jun-96 1.00 16-Jun-96 1.00 l 17-Jun-96 1.00 0.50 i 1 99 18-Jun-96 1.00 22-Jun-96 0.66 22-Jun-96 1.00 1.00 24-Jun-96 0.50 0.50 2 98 25-Jun-96 1.00 3-Jul-96 1.50 0.75 1 99 9-Jul-96 1.00 1.00 5 95 12-Jul-96 2.00 14-Jul-96 1.00 16-Jul-96 1.00 1.00 I
, 22-Jul-96 1.00 0.50 5 95 29-Jul-96 1.00 1.00 5 95 30-Jul-96 0.20 2-Aug-96 0.75 4-Aug-96 0.25 5-Aug-96 0.66 0.66 20 80 13-Aug-96 1.00 0.50 10 90 21-Aug-96 0.75 0.75 5 95 27-Aug-96 0.75 0.75 5 95 2-Sep-96 1.00 1.00 90 10 2-Sep-96 1.50 2-Sep-96 0.13 4-Sep-96 0.33 0.33 90 10 7-Sep-96 0.50 9-Sep-96 0.50 0.50 20 80 13-Sep-96 0.25 0.25 80 20 17-Sep-96 0.50 0.50 80 20 24-Sep-96 0.33 0.33 80 20 2-Oct-96 0.05 0.05 90 10 8-Oct-96 0.50 0.5 40 60 9-Oct-96 0.58 10-Oct-96 0.50 11-Oct-96 0.50 15-Oct-96 j 0.50 0.50 90 10 j 20-Oct-96 6.00 '
21-Oct-96 15.50 0.50 0 100 22-Oct-96 4.00 23-Oct-96 1.08 -
24-Oct-96 1.50 25-Oct-96 0.25 26-Oct-96 0.40 29-Oct-96 0.25 0.25
- 100 0 1-Nov-96 0.25 3-Nov-96 0.25 0.63 100 0 5-Nov-96 0.25 0.13 100 0 10-Nov-96 0.50 11-Nov-96 0.33 0.17 100 0 12-Nov 96 0.33 100 0 13-Nov-96 0.33 15-Nov-we 0.25 17-Nov-96 0.50 18-Nov-96 1.50 0.75 i 100 0
~
Page 2 of 3
l I
l 19-Nov-96 1 0.58 l l 20-Nov 96 0.50 22-Nov-96 0.25 l 26-Nov 96 0.13 0.13 100 0 28-Nov-96 1 0.25 1-Dec-96 1 0.25 l 2-Dec-96 l 0.50 3-Dec-96 1 0.75 4-Dec-96 1 0.25 0.25 100 0 7-Dec-96 0.50 l 8-Dec-96 0.50
} 10-Dec-96 0.50 0.50 100 0 12-Dec-96 0.25
_,13-Dec-96 0.25 15-Dec-96 1.00 16-Dec-96 0.50 0.50 100 0 17-Dec-96 0.25 23-Dec-96 0.50 0.50 100 0 25-Dec-96 0.25 30-Dec-96 1.00 1.00 80 20 O %sh6ataWenns96 mis i
l l
Page 3 of 3
SEABROOK STATION Licensing Procedure Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Sampling ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 l
l I
l l
Level of Use Procedure Owner:
Ron Sher General
l l
Seabrook Station Licensing Procedure Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Sampling l- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. P U RP O S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................3
- 2. PREREQUISITES . . .. .. .. .. ... ............. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........4 l
l 3. P REC AUTI ON S .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
- 4. IN STRUCTIONS ................. .. . . . ..............................................................................6 4.1 Entrainment Sampling Preparations ... .. . .......... ............. .......... . . . ... ............... ... . ......... 6 4.2 Entrainment Sampling Equipment Instructions ....... ....... .. . ..... .. . ................. ....... . . . .... 6 1
4.3 Ichthyoplankton Sample Net Set-Up.. .. ... ... .... ....... . .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......7 4.4 Ichthyoplankton Sample Collection.. ... . . ..... ... ... .......... ... ..............................8 4.5 Ichthyoplankton Sample R :moval from Nets .... .... ... ... ......... . .. . . . . . . . . . .........9 l l 4.6 Next Ichthyoplankton Net 5 et-Up . ... ... ............. . . . ... ... ... ... ..... . . .... ..... .. . .. . ... 10 l 4.7 1chthyoplankton Sample F reservation.......... ......................... ...... ...... .. . .. ... .... .. ... .. I 1 5 . RE F E REN C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 6. S U MMARY O F C HAN G ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l
FIGURES AND FORMS 1 i
Figure 1: Diagram of Entminment Sampling Equipment ........... ..... . .. .. ... . .. . .. ..... ...... .13 Figure 2: Example of Sarr ple Jar Intemal and External Labels... . ... .............. . . ... .. .... . .. 14 Figure 3: Ichthyoplanktou Entrainment Analytic Procedure ... ................................ ............. 15 Form A: Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet.. .... . ...... .... ... ... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 2 of 16
l l !
- 1. PURPOSE 1.1 Objective !
- l. This procedure describes the process for the collection of weekly entrainment samples ofichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) from the circulating water system. Ichthyoplankton entrainment sampling is a requirement of Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit and is performed weekly (48 times per year). l l
1.2 Discussion Entrainment sampling is part of Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies !
Program which is a requirement of the Station's NPDES Permit. Environmental studies which evaluate the number ofichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae), ,
l entrained by the Station's circulating water system (CWS), determine the potential l impact to the population of these organisms due to Station entrainment. 1 Ichthyoplankton entrainment samples are collected four times each month for a total of 48 samples per year. Each weekly collection consists of a sample collected with the 0.505 mm mesh net and a sample collected with a 0.333 mm mesh net. l About 100,000 gallons of water from the discharge of each CW pump is passed through each of the 0.505 and 0.333 mm mesh ichthyoplankton nets during a 24-hour sample period. Ichtyoplankton samples are normally collected Wednesday to Thursday of each week.
Each 24-hour sample will be divided into four 6-hour subsamples. Subsamples are necessary to ensure that the entrainment sample is adequately preserved, and that specimens are not damaged in the collection cup. In addition, collection of i subsamples will allow comparison of day and night samples. Sixteen paired day-night ichthyoplankton comparisons will be made each year. Day-night samples will be collected twice a month in February-August and October-November, when larval fish are most abundant. Day-night subsamples will be collected beginning at about 1800h,2400h,0600h and 1200h.
Entrainment sampling is in two trains (A and B). Train A will use a 0.505 mm mesh nets in each of the samplers to collect an entrainment sample.
Simultaneously,0.333 mm mesh nets will be used in the two samplers of Train B ,
I to collect an additio'nal entrainment sample.
L l
1 l
l ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 3 of 16 i
r 1 l
l l The plankton net is placed in a 30-gallon drum which is suspended in a 55-gallon drum. Water diverted from the CWS enters the 55-gallon drum from the bottom and overflows the 30-gallon drum into the plankton net. After passing through the plankton net, the water discharges through the bottom of both drums. The collected ichthyoplankton are washed from the plankton nets into sample l collection jars and preserved. Weekly samples are delivered to the Normandeau Associates Hampton lab for analysis. Ichthyoplankton entrainment sampling is performed weekly (4 times per month). Entrainment sampling can be performed only when at least one CW pumps is operating, when sufficient flow is available to supply ocean water to entrainment sampling equipment.
Ichthyoplankton sampiing should be performed before bivalve larvae sampling l (during those months of the year, mid-April through October (28 weeks), when the sampling programs overlap).
Figure 3 provides a description of the Entrainment Analytic Procedure.
! 1.3 Frequency l
Ichthyoplankton entrainment samples are collected four times each month for a total of 48 samples per year. Day-night samples will be collected twice a month in February-August and October-November, when larval fish are most abundant.
Day-night subsamples will be collected beginning at about 1800h,2400h,0600h and 1200h.
l l 2. PREREOUISITES l
2.1 Requirements Entrainment sampling can be performed only when at least one circulating water l
I system pump is in operation, when sufficient flow is available to supply ocean j water to entrainment sampling equipment.
l 2.2 Initial Conditions One of the following three valves, minimum must be OPEN in order to proceed (valve is open when handle is pointed toward pump):
CL-V-59, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39A CL-V-60, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39B ,
CL-V-61, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39C (These valves are located at the discharges of the circulating water pumps at approximately (+) 13' and are normally open]. If they are closed CONTACT the Operations Department (ext. 4079) to request that these valves be opened. Do not attempt to open these valves yourself.
)- ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 4 of 16
f l
\
1
! }
l-2.3 Tools and Consumables I
2.3.1 Sample collection cups for end of plankton nets, with 0.505 min and O.333 min mesh openings.
2.3.2 32 oz. plastic sample jars for ichthyoplankton samples.
2.3.3 37% formaldehyde. Expiration Date: 1 year from opening.
- 3. PRECAUTIONS l None 1
i I
i l
l ZNil20.01 Rev. 00 Page 5 of 16
l
- 4. INSTRUCTIONS i
NOTE If for any reason entrainment samples cannot be acquired, notify Ron Sher (ext. 7729), or Al Legendre (ext. 7773), or John Hart (ext. 7762).
4.1 Eairainment Sampling Preparations 4.1.1 If CW-V-130, entrainment sampling isolation valve, is not already open, NOTIFY the Control Room (x-3380 or x-3480) that you will be i starting plankton entrainment sampling and will be opening CW-V-130.
/ 4.1.2 OPEN/CIIECK OPEN CW-V-130, Entrainment Sampling Isolation Valve.
/
NSO ,
1 4.2 Entrainment Sampling Equipment Instructions i
j NOTE l Entrainment sampling drum assemblies are set up as two trains (A and B), each with two drums. Train A is normally used for entrainment sampling with the 0.505 mm mesh net and Train B is used for sampling with the 0.333 mm mesh net. The following procedures (steps 4.2.1 through 4.3.5) are written for sampling with Train A. Sampling in train a should be started before Train B.
The instructions for sampling with Train B are identical to Train A with the exception of some valve designations. These exceptions are presented in parentheses, i
4.2.1 Train A (0.505 mm mesh net) Entrainment Sampling Equipment Instructions. Sampling in Train A should be established before sampling in Train B is started.
4.2.2 OPEN/ CHECK OPEN CW-V-132 (B Train: CW-V-135) and CW-V-133 (B Train: CW-V-136), Entrainment Sampling Outlet Isolation Valves. j 1
ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 6 of16
l 4.2.3 CLOSE outer drum assembly drains by inserting the drain plugs on the l steel rods towards the back of each drum. l
! CAUTION !
If the next 2 steps are not performed in rapid succession the entrainment barrels I will over flow.
l 4.2.4 Slowly THROTTLE OPEN CW-V-131 (B Train: CW-V-134),
l Entrainment Sampling Inlet Valve.
4.2.5 FLUSH system for at least 2 minutes or until water is visibly clear.
4.2.6 Slowly CLOSE CW-V-131 (B Train: CW-V-134).
l 4.2.7 ALLOW drums to drain to fish pit.
NOTE Ensure nets are clean before proceeding. If residue from last sample is evident, rinse nets with salt water from salt water supply, CW-V-0211. ,
1 l
l 4.3 Ichthyoplankton Sample Net Set-Up i 4.3.1 SUSPEND the two 0.505 mm ichthyoplankton nets from the hooks above i each drum (B Train: 0.333 mesh nets). These nets should not be confused with the finer mesh bivalve nets (0.075 mm).
4.3.2 FASTEN a 0.505 mm mesh collection cup to the " Cod" (small) end of the net (B Train: 0.333 mesh collection cup).
4.3.3 CLOSE CW-V-132 and CW-V-133 (B Train: CW-V-13 5, CW-V-136)..
4.3.4 Slowly FILL both drums until the water level is at least 2 inches from the I top of the inner drums by THROTTLING OPEN CW-V-131 (B Train: i CW-V-134).
l l 4.3.5 CLOSE CW-V-131 (B Train: CW-V-134) when water has reached the desired level.
! ZN1120.01 l Rev. 00 l Page 7 of 16
' I 4.3.6 LOWER the plankton nets into the inner drums, DISPLACE any trapped air and " hoop" the net ring around the outside of the inner drum (See Figure 1).
4.3.7 RESET the button on the flow totalizer CW-FL-6052 (B Train: CW-FL-6053), to r, cero the gallons throughput.
4.4 Ichthyoplankton Sample Collection
! CAUTION !
If the next 3 steps are not done in rapid succession the plankton nets may become dislodged or drums overflow. Avoid overflowing the drums.
NOTE Final flow through the drums should be approximately 70 gpm as read on CW-FL-6052, entrainment sampling flow totalizer for Train A (Train B: CW-FL-6053). A total of 4 subsamples of approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> duration will be collected from each train on each sampling day. The total s alume collected will be about 100,000 gallons. Steps 4.3.1 through 4.5.13 are for the collection of one 6-hour subsample. These steps will be repeated three more times in the course of a 24-hour sample:
4.4.1 SLOWLY THROTTLE OPEN CW-V-131 (B Train: CW-V-134) allowing water to rise above the nets.
4.4.2 THROTTLE OPEN drum drain valves CW-V-132 and CW-V-133 (B Train: CW-V-135, CW-V-136). NOTE as start time and RECORD on Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form A).
4.4.3 MAINTAIN level of drums to about 2 to 6 inches above inner drum by adjusting outlet valves CW-V-132 or CW-V-133 (B Train: CW-V-135 or CW-V-136) or input valve (CW-V-131)(B Train: CW-V-134).
4.4.4 If at any point the water level goes below the level of the net ring go back to step 4.4.1.
4.4.5 MONITOR the water level in the drums periodically to prevent overflow.
ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 8 of 16 l
l
1 i
)
4.4.6 REPEAT steps 4.2.2 through 4.4.5 for Train B using the 0.333 mm mesh nets.
NOTE Totalizer reading is in gallons.
l 4.4.7 After approximately 6-hours of collection on both Trains A and B, COLLECT the next subsample.
4.5 Ichthyoplankton Sample Removal from Nets 4.5.1 REMOVE the nets from the drums and HANG them on the hooks over the drums. RECORD the time of sampling and the volume sampled from the totalizer on the Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form A) when the net is removed from the water.
4.5.2 REMOVE the sample from the nets in the A Train first, and then repeat the procedures for the B Train. Specific procedures for the B Train are indicated in parentheses.
4.5.3 HANG nets on hooks above the A-Train drums (B Train: use hooks above B-Train drums).
4.5.4 ATTACH garden hose to salt water supply CW-V-0211.
~
4.5.5 OPEN CW-V-0211.
- 4.5.6 RINSE down the nets into the 0.505 mm mesh collection cup, (B Train
- i 0.333 mm mesh collection cup).
l 4.5.7 Be sure that any material caught in net seams in step 4.5.6 is also rinsed to the sample collectionjar.
4.5.8 When theiiomass has settled in the collection cup, rinse the sides of the collection cup and collar of the cod end to the bottom of the cup to ENSURE that all sample material is in the cup.
~
4.5.9 TRANSFER the contents of both 0.505 mm collection cups
- (B Train
- 0.333 mm) to the 32 oz. samplejar. Make up to no more than 1 inch from the top of the 32 oz sample jar with salt water.
ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 9 of 16
4 l
NOTE I All ichthyoplankton entrainment samples must be preserved with formaldehyde.
Approximately 50 ml of volume (no more than 1-inch of space from top) must be left in the 32 oz. Samplejar, after rinsing, to accommodate addition of buffered I formaldehyde. See Section 4.7 for the preservation of samples.
4.5.10 If the jar has >50% biomass (by volume) two 32 oz. sample jars must be .
used. FOLLOW the remaining steps, after splitting the sample into two )
sample jars.
4.5.11 PLACE a label with sample number that matches the outside label, on the inside of the 32 oz. samplejar, and CLOSE the sample collection jar.
4.5.12 On the outside label (Figure 2) ENTER "SEABRK" under PROJ.
ENTER "ICH" under METHOD. Record the date under DATE.
. ENTER "0.505" for Train A, or "0.333" for Train B under STA
- ENTER "1" for first subsample under REP.
. ENTER "2" for second subsample under REP.
- ENTER "3" for third subsample under REP.
. ENTER "4" for fourth subsample under REP.
4.5.13 RECORD the end time of subsample collection under TIME.
l 4.5.14 RECORD all information on Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form A).
4.5.15 CLOSE CW-V-0211.
4.6 Next Ichthyoplankton Net Set-Up i 4.6.1 RESET the 0.505 mm mesh nets in Train A and the 0.333 mm mesh nets l in Train B for the collection of the next subsample following steps 4.3.1 to 4.5.13. RECORD the time when the nets are reset back in the l
- - samplers and RESET the Totalizers to 0 on both Train A and Train B.
l l 4.6.2 After the flow to the sampling nets is stabilized, FOLLOW step 4.7.1 for the preservation of subsamples.
ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 10 of 16 f
L
i
(
4.6.3 After 24-hours of sampling and the collection of four subsamples from i each sampling train, TERMINATE the collection process. At this time the four subsamples from each Sampling Train (A and B) should have a l sample volume of about 25,000 gallons in each subsample.
4.6.4 Slowly CLOSE CW-V-131, and CW-V-134, and RECORD the stop time on the Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet.
i 4.6.5 If bivalve entraimnent sampling is not scheduled to be performed, REMOVE drain plug from rear of drums to allow drums to drain, RINSE nets and inside of both drums with potable water from PW-V-66, and hang nets from hooks above drums.
1 4.6.6 CLOSE/ CHECK CLOSE CW-V-130.
4.6.7 NOTIFY Control Room (extension 3380 or 3480) that plankton entrainment sampling is completed and CW-V-130 is closed.
4.7 Ichthyoplankton Sample Presen ation
- ! CAUTION !
Carefully transfer subsample to sample jar which already contains buffered i formaldehyde to prevent spills. >
l 4.7.1 ADD subsample to samplejar which already contains 43 (forty-three) ml of bifford formaldehyde solution.
l 4.7.2 ENSURE all information is filled in on the entrainment sampling data !
sheet (Form A).
l 4.7.3 Make a copy of data sheet and provide to Ron Sher, Environmental l Co apliance Department.
l l 4.7.4 Deliver samplejars and sample data sheet to the Hampton Lab.
r I
l ZNil20.01 i Rev. 00 1 Page 11 of 16
I I
5, REFERENCES j 5.1 NPDES Permit NH0020338 j 5.2 ON1038.07, Circulating Water Chlorination System Operation
.5.3 OS1090.03, Operation ODI on Operating Valves I 5.4 ON1038.01, Circulating Water System Startup l l
5.5 RTS 96RL00002012 I
- 6.
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES 6.1 Rev. 00: InitialIssue, l
1 l
ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 12 of 16 o
Figure 1: Diagram of Entrainment Sampling Equipment Train B Train A 1
l CW-V0211 CW-V134 CW-V131 CW-FT6052 0 CW-V130 k
/
(/
l CW-V135 CW-V136 CW-V132 CW-V133 l
l Drum Detail ouin orein Plug innw Drum N
N
/
/ '
/
i ,
i L1 -
i inne orum me v.w l l l
G moradmagesWmagesf 2N\112002 ese ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 13 of 16
Figure 2: Example of Sample Jar Internal and External Labels Sample Jar Sample Data External Label Sample Jar X Sheet Label Internal Label PROJ. , , , , , , , METHOD w cn
^ ' ' ' ' ' , , STA. ,,,,,
No 150987 O REP. u TIME , , , , ,
SAMPLE NUMBER 150987 i
I PROJ. , , , , , , , METHOD w co No 150988 g DATE,,,,,,,STA. ,,,,,
8 REP. u TIME , , , , ,
' SAMPLE NUMBER 150988 PROJ. i , , , , , , METHOD w A E,,,,,,,STA. ,,,,,
No 150989 .
O REP. u TIME , , , , ,
SAMPLE NUMBER 150989 G:\Wordumagesumages_P.ZPA112002a ds4 ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 14 of 16
\
i l
Figure 3: Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Analytic Procedure The annual entrainment estimate for each mesh size will be calculated as follows:
Ep = (D,,p) (Vp)
Em= ;p.i.4 E p E = ;m-i i2 Em i where, ,
E, = entrainment estimate for a sample period (usually one week),
D,,, = density ofichthyoplankton in a sample for period p, V, = volume of cooling water pumped by the plant in a sample period (usually one week).
Em= monthly entrainment estimate, E, = annual entrainment estimate.
Differences in the entrainment estimate for each mesh size will be evaluated through paired t-tests for key species. Community analyses including Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) will be used j to determine if the species composition entrained by the two mesh sizes are different.
Similar techniques will be used to investigate diel differences. Paired t-tests will be used to determine if there are significant differences in the mean densities of key species between day and night. MANOVA will be used to investigate differences in the species composition between the day and night samples.
I l
, i l
l ZN1120.01 Rev. 00 Page 15 of 16
e d
y h d ).
e e l dd l m ad 3 mA(
o r
4 F
t e
a 6 1
D 1 f
e 0 o t
a) e 00 20 6 1 t
Rmp D a 1 vg e wg 1
o( Ne ZRP a
l F
e g mi n :
ud e oe a )s m l
t i e r n T e Vre el ol h l za :
S pi l g e a mta a o i m
t a S (t T D
_ g n
_ i l
p l e n oe)s pi t t
u ma r n m e a e a ui c m n S a S D (m i a
t n N l p
_ e s r m m o d o
_ n t
c e
n C i E e l a
a r
l l
o em t t C l
pi n n e E
mT a m S n
- o r
A e i
v n
em m l y E
_ r pT i
b o mt s r,
e F ar e h
. St a t a S S
i c n o
s o s R e
z m m m m m m m m A o m m m m m m m m u
_ t i
S 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 a m 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 e r h 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 d s
e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n f o
_ a M m r
y d
e o B t
e d
e l N d l
p t
c e o e m e rb t v o l e a d i e c
_ l bl e c o
C me v r
e e f o
ui v R y s
e N ser)e i l
e s e p l
p ehdhe D l o _
l pa p c m s e S
a me ac l e
p m
a d Sl a S i v
e m o t
a P
( a r D S P
i 4
PROCEDURE BASIS INFORMATION -
Rev. 00: InitialIssue.
l l
i ZN1120.01 1 l
Rev. 00 Page1of1
]
1 l
1
l l
SEABROOK STATION Licensing Procedure i
l l
l l
Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Sampling ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Level of Use Procedure Owner:
Ron Sher General
g a k
Seabrook Station Licensing Procedure Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Sampling TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
PURPOSE.......................................................................................3
- 2. P RE REQ U I S I TES . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Requirements.. ... ........ ....... ..... .............................................................................3 3 . P RE C A UTI O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
- 4. IN S TR U CTI ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........5 .......................
4.1 Entrainment Sampling Preparations ...... ............... . ............ .................. ....... ... .... ........ . .. 5 4.2 Train A Entrainment Sampling Equipment Instructions............ . . . .. ........... ......... ........... 6 4.3 Bivalve Larvae Sample Net Set-Up . .. ....... ........... ... ................ . .... ....... .......... ... . . .... 7 4.4 Bivalvc Larvae Sample Collection ... . . .... ... .... .... ... ... ............ .... ... .... ... . . .. . . ... ..... .. . .... ... . . . . 7 4.5 Bivalve Larvae Sample Removal from Nets ........... ................................. ...... ... .... ............ 9
- 4. 6 S ample Jar Labeling . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .... .. .... .. ... . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
, 4.7 Next B ivalve Larvae Net Set-Up., . ... ..... .. .. .. . ... . ... ...... ... . .................. ........ .. ... . .. . .. .. .. .. . 10 4.8 B ivalve Larvae Sample Preservation ................................ .... ............. ......... ............... .... I 1 5.
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................12
- 6. S UMMARY OF C HANG ES ... . . . . . . ... . . . .. . .. . . . . ....... .. ... ... .. . .... .... .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .
FIGURES AND FORMS _
E 1
Figure 1: Diagram of Entrainment Sampling Equipment ... . ... .. . .... ..... ...... ....... .. .... ... 13 Figure 2: Example of Sample Jar Internal and External Labels.............. ............ ............ .....14 Figure 3: Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Analytic Procedure .. ............. ................ ........... . . .. 15 Form A: Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet......... ............... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ..... 16 ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 2 of 16
l
- 1. PURPOSE 1.1 Objective I This procedure describes the process for the collection of weekly entrainment samples of bivalve (soft-shell clam) larvae from the circulating water system.
Entrainment sampling is a requirement of Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit and I
is conducted every week from mid-April through October. I 1.2 Discussion ,
Entrainment sampling is part of Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies !
Program which is a requirement of the Station's NPDES Permit. Environmental studies which evaluate the number of bivalve (soft-shell clam) larvae, entrained by the Station's circulating water system (CWS), determine the potential impact to the population of these organisms due to Station entrainment. Approximately 2,000 ;
gallons of water from the CW pump discharge is passed through 0.075 mm mesh l bivalve larvae plankton nets. Entrainment sampling equipment is in two trains (A and B). Each train consists of two double-barrel systems. The plankton net is suspended in a 30-gallon drum which, in turn, is suspended in a 55-gallon drum.
Water diverted from the CWS enters the 55-gallon drum from the bottom and overflows the 30-gallon drum into the plankton net. After passing through the plankton net, the water discharges through the bottom of both drums. The l collected bivalve larvae are washed from the plankton nets into sample collection l jars and preserved. Weekly samples are delivered to the Normandeau Associates l Hampton lab for analysis. Entrainment sampling for bivalve larvae is performed every week from mid-April through October (28 sample weeks). Entrainment sampling can be performed only when at least one CW pumps is operating when sufficient flow is available to supply ocean water to entrainment sampling equipment. Bivalve larvae entrainment sampling may be performed before or after ichthyoplankton sampling.
Figure 3 provides a description of Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Analytic Procedure.
l 2. PREREOUISITES 2.1 Requirements _
Entrainment sampling can be performed only %en at least one circulating water system pump is in operation, when sufficient flow is available to supply ocean water to entrainment sampling equipment.
I l ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 3 of 16
i i
2.2 Initial Conditions l
l One of the following three valves, minimum must be OPEN in order to proceed (valve is open when handle is pointed toward pump):
l l
CL-V-59, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39A l CL-V-60, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39B CL-V-61, Seawater Supply from 1-CW-P-39C i
! [These valves are located at the discharges of the circulating water pumps at l approximately (+) 13' and are normally open). If they are closed, CONTACT the l Operations Department (ext. 4079) to request that at least one of these valves be opened. Do not attempt to open these valves by yourself.
l 2.3 Tools and Consumables l 2.3.1 Sample collection cups for end of plankton nets with 0.075 mm mesh openings.
i 2.3.2 32 oz. Plastic samplejars for ichthyoplankton samples.
2.3.3 Table Sugar l
2.3.4 37% buffered formaldehyde - obtained from vendor. Expiration Date:
1 year from opening
- 3. PRECAUTIONS None l
I ZN1120.02
~
Rev. 00 Page 4 of16 I
- 4. INSTRUCTIONS NOTE If for any reason entrainment samples cannot be acquired, notify Environmental Compliance, Ron Sher (ext. 7729), or Al Legendre (ext. 7773) or John Hart (ext. 7762).
4.1 Entrainment Sampling Preparations 4.1.1 If CW-V-130, entrainment sampling isolation valve is not already open, NOTIFY the Control Room (x-3380 or x-3480) that you will be starting entrainment sampling and will be opening CW-V-130.
/ 4.1.2 OPEN/ CHECK OPEN CW-V-130, Entrainment Sampling Isolation Valve.
/
NSO i
E ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 5 of 16
NOTE Entrainment sampling drum assemblies are set up as two trains (A and B), each )
with two drums. Train A is the normal train to use. Train B components may be used as a backup.
4.2 Train A Entrainment Sampling Equipment Instructions NOTE Three replicates of bivalve larvae samples are taken during each sampling week (Mid-April through October for a total of 28 sample weeks). Ichthyoplankton samples are taken throughout the year (48 sample weeks).
I 4.2.1 OPEN/ CHECK OPEN CW-V-132 and CW-V-133, Entrainment l Sampling Outlet Isolation Valves.
4.2.2 CLOSE outer drum assembly drains by inserting the drain plugs on the steel rods at the back of each barrel.
I
! CAUTION !
If the next 2 steps are not performed in rapid succession the entrainment barrels will over flow.
4.2.3 Slowly THROTTLE OPEN CW-V-131, Entrainment Sampling Inlet Valve.
4.2.4 THROTTLE OPEN CW-V132 and CW-V-133, Entrainment Sampling Outlet Isolation Valves.
4.2.5 FLUSH system for at least 2 minutes or until water is visibly clear.
4.2.6 Slowly CLOSE CW-V-131.
4.2.7 ALLOW drums to drain to fish pit.
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 6 of 16
l l
NOTE Ensure nets are clean before proceeding. If residue from last sample is evident, i l
rinse nets with salt water from salt water supply, CW-V-0211.
4.3 Bivalve Lan ae Sample Net Set-Up 4.3.1 SUSPEND the two 0.075 mm bivalve larvae nets from the hooks above each drum. These nets should not be confused with the coarser mesh ichthyoplankton nets (0.505 mm and 0.333 mm).
4.3.2 FASTEN a collection cup to the " Cod" (small) end of the net.
4.3.3 CLOSE CW-V-132 and CW-V-133.
4.3.4 Slowly FILL both drums until the water level is at least 2 inches above ,
the top of the inner drums by throttling OPEN CW-V-131 4.3.5 CLOSE CW-V-131 when the water has reached the desired level.
l 4.3.6 LOWER the plankton nets into the inner drums, DISPLACE any trapped air and " hoop" the net ring around the outside of the inner drum (See Figure 1).
4.3.7 RESET the button on the flow totalizer CW-FT-6052, to re-zero the gallons throughput.
4.4 Bivalve Lan'ae Sample Collection
! CAUTION !
If the next 3 steps are not done in rapid succession the plankton nets may become dislodged or drums overflow. Avoid overflowing the drums.
4.4.1 SLOWLY THROTTLE OPEN CW-V-131 allowing water to rise above the nets.
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 7 of 16
4.4.2 THROTTLE OPEN drum drain valves CW-V-132 and CW-V-133. !
NOTE as start time and RECORD on Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet j i (Form A).
i i
l NOTE Final flow through the drums should be approximately 100-400 gpm as read on CW-FL-6052, entrainment sampling flow totalizer for Train A.
l l 4.4.3 MAINTAIN level of drums to about 2 to 6 inches above inner drum by adjusting outlet valves (CW-V-132 or CW-V-133) or inlet valve (CW-V-131).
4.4.4 If at any point the water level goes below the level of the net ring go back l to step 4.4.1.
4.4.5 MONITOR the water level in the drums periodically to prevent overflow.
1 l
l NOTE Totalizer reading is in gallons.
l
! 4.4.6 When the totalizer displays approximately 2,000 gallons slowly CLOSE CW-V-131. NOTE as stop time and RECORD on Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form A). I l 4.4.7 ALLOW water to drain from drum.
l ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 8 of 16
m_ _=- _
4.5 Bivalve Larvae Sample Removal from Nets NOTE Bivalve larvae can only be rinsed into the sample jars with salt water.
4.5.1 REMOVE the nets from the drums and HANG them on hooks above A-Train drums.
4.5.2 ATTACH garden hose to salt water Supply CW-V-0211.
4.5.3 OPEN CW-V-0211.
4.5.4 RINSE down the nets into the 0.075 mm sample collection cup.
4.5.5 When the biomass has settled in the collection cup, rinse the sides of the collection cup and collar of the cod end to the bottom of the cup to ensure that all sample material is in the cup.
NOTE All bivalve larvae samples must be preserved with formaldehyde.
, Approximately 10 ml of volume must be left in tL: 16 oz. sample jar, after rinsing, to accommodate addition of formaldehyde. See Section 4.8 for preservation of the samples.
4.5.6 TRANSFER the contents of both 0.075 mm collection cups to the 16 oz.
samplejar.
4.5.7 If collectionjar has >50% biomass (by volume) two samplejars must be used. FOLLOW the remaining steps for both collection jars after splitting the sample into two sample jars.
4.5.8 TRANSFER the biomass from both sample collection cups and sieves to one labeled 16 oz. samplejar using salt water in a squeeze bottle to wash them in.
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 9 of 16
l 4.6 Sample Jar Labeling 1 1 4.6.1 PLACE a label with sample number that matches the outside label, on the i inside of the samplejar, and CLOSE the sample collection jar.
4.6.2 On the outside label (Figure 2) ENTER "SEABRK" under PROJ.
. ENTER "BL" under METHOD.
. RECORD the date under DATE.
i
. ENTER "1" for first replicate under REP.
. ENTER "2" for second replicate under REP.
. ENTER "3" for third replicate under REP.
4.6.3 RECORD the end time of replicate collection under TIME.
4.7 Next Bivalve Larvae Net Set-Up l 4.7.1 REPEAT sampling process beginning at step 4.3.1 for a total of three bivalve larvae samples, placing each sample in a separate 16 oz. sample !
jar (3 samples total). l l
4.7.2 RECORD all information on Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form B).
4.7.3 CLOSE CW-V-0211.
. 4.7.4 REMOVE drain plug from rear of drums to allow drums to drain and from PW-V-66. RINSE nets and inside of both drums with potable water.
4.7.5 HANG rinsed nets from hooks above drums to dry.
NOTE Ifichthyoplankton samples will be collected next, preserve bivalve samples (step 4.8) and proceed to step 4.3 of "Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Sampling Procedure", ZN1120.01.
Ifichthyoplankton samples will not be collected next, proceed to step 4.7.6.
4.7.6 CLOSE/ CHECK CLOSE CW-V-130.
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 10 of 16
r .
l.
l
- - 4.7.7 NOTIFY Control Room (extension 3380 or extension 3480) that l entrainment sampling is completed.
l 4.8 Bivalve Larvae Sample Preservation l
l ! CAUTION !
Carefully transfer sample to sample jar, which already contains buffered formaldehyde, to prevent spills.
4.8.1 ADD subsample to samplejar which already contains 3 (three) ml of buffered formaldehyde solution and 1/8 teaspoon of sugar.
4.8.2 ENSURE all information is filled in on the Entrainment Sampling Data Sheet (Form B).
4.8.3 Make a copy of the data sheet and provide to Ron Sher, Environmental Compliance Department.
4.8.4 DELIVER sample jars and sample data sheets to the Hampton Lab.
1 l
l l
l .
l ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 11 of 16
I l 5. REFERENCES 5.1 NPDES Permit NH0020338 l
l 5.2 ON1038.07, Circulating Water Chlorination System Operation 5.3 OS1090.03, Operation ODI on Operating Valves l 5.4 ON1038.01, Circulating Water System Startup l 5.5 RTS 97RL00001028
! 6.
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES 6.1 Rev. 00: Original Procedure. InitialIssue.
I l
i l
I r
l -
ZN1120.02 i
Rev. 00 Page 12 of16
1 l
l 1
Figure 1: Diagram of Entrainment Sampling Equipment i i
Train B Train A l
CW-V0211 l CW-V134 CW-V131 CW-F f6052 CW FT6053 CW-V130 k k
/ /
7 CW-V135 CW-V136 CW-V132 CW-V133 l
t
- Drum Detail l
Outer Drain Not __
pg inner Drum l N l
'N / -
l l l
U _.
t
. Inner Drum Dr.in v.w II O wworcNmagesumages_P2N\112002 OM ZN1120.02 l Rev. 00 ,
I l Page 13 of 16 k
Figure 2: Example of Sample Jar Internal and External Labels Sample Jar Sample Data Edemal Laki Sheet Label Sample Jar l Intemal Label i I
PROJ.,,,,,,i METHOD w l l
m DATE ' ' ' ' ' ' ' STA'
No 150987 8 o -
REP. u TIME , , , , , i l
SAMPLE NUMBER 150987 PROJ.,,,,,,i METHOD w co A E,,,,,,,STA. i,,,,
No 150988 h o
REP. u TIME , , , , , l SAMPLE NUMBER 150988 1
PROJ.,,,,i,i METHOD w c)
^ '' ^'
No 150989 $
m l
REP. u TIME , , , , ,
SAMPLE NUMBER 150989 G WWytNmageswnages_P.Zm112002a os4 i
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 14 of 16
i- 1 1
1 Figure 3: Bivalve Larvae Entrainment Analytic Procedure The annual bivalve larvae entrainment estimate will be calculated as follows: i E, = (D,,,) (Vp)
E = ;p.i. 4. E, l
l E =; 4..ioE.
l where, l E, = entrainment estimate for a sample period (usually one week),
l D,,, = density of bivalve larvae in a sample for period p, V, = volume of cooling water pumped by the plant in a sample period (usually one week).
l E = monthly entrainment estimate, E, = annual entrainment estimate (mid-April through October). I 1
l
{
l 36 ZN1120.02 Rev. 00 Page 15 of 16
E D
Y I
l E R 2 6
1 DA 0 f LG 00 o AUD :
e 206 1 _
MS E t 1 a .e Ne vg a 1
RDD D OND FAA ZRP
) _
WEM OT P e
LA t _
a FR( G D _
t )
e S _
e N h E :
e S M O _
L m t
a U L i T
a L A OR D V E G g EI ZG n L LN i
l p PAI D _
MO T A :
e m E e c S
a ATR S( i m n a
t T i l
p n e N)S e m m m EIO LTTE o
n a C N PAU l a
MRN i
a r
s I t n
t n
'r t
l o E o r
v n
m PT :
y E r
o MD b r F AN s e
e SE t h
S i
a c n E o s
o M
- s R ET I
A t o
LT u a m PR e r MA d n f o
AT SS a
d m
r t e
o e d
e R E N :
l p
t c EVI t o
b y m o
l e BS d d c l
o ME) e r e f C UHE e v i v o s
e NDR E i c
e y p
E AH l
l e e o p
L D R PCE E L c m s ;
- e a e e S MA B l p
l p
d i
e A L A v o
t S( PL m m
~_- D a
S a
S a
P r
l l
l PROCEDURE BASIS INFORMATION Rev. 00: InitialIssue.
1 I
1 l
l l
i l
l t
t 1
1 4
ZN1120.02 Rev. 00
' Page1of1
SEABROOK STATION Licensing Procedure l
l l
Impingement Assessment Procedure l l
ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 i
i I
Procedure Owner:
Level of Use Ron Sher Continuous
~
1 l
Seabrook Station Licensing Procedure ,
1 Impingement Assessment Procedure l 1
i l
1 1
l TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. PURPOSE......................................................................................................3
- 2. PREREQUISITES ....... . ........... .. . . .. .... . . ... .. . ...........................................3
! 3 . P REC A U TI O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 l
l 4. IN STRU CTI ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1
l 5 . RE F E REN C ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. ...8 l
- 6. S U M MA RY O F C HAN G E S . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1
1 FIGURES AND FORMS I Figure 1: Impingement Analytic Procedures........... . . .... ... .. . . ...... ..... ... .... . . . . ......9 ,
4 Form A: Sample Fish / Lobster Impingement. Data Sheet ... ...... ........ ............ ...... ... ..... ......10
- Form B
- Number of Subsamples and Scaling Factors for Screenwashes . ......... . .. . ... .. 1 1 i
l ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 2'of 11 i
I
- 1. PURPOSE 1.1 Objective l
This procedure describes the process for conducting the weekly screen wash .
! impingement assessment Impingement assessments are a requirement of Seabrook Station's NPDES Permit and are conducted every week of the year.
l l .Two assessments will be regularly scheduled each week. The first assessment, made on Tuesday of each week, will include all screenwash material from the previous screenwash to Tuesday moming. This will usually be a 6-day period, j j although it is possible that unscheduled screenwashes will have occurred during the 6-day period. The second assessment will generally occur on Wednesday and will represent a 24-hour assessment. It is the goal of the program to monitor all screen washes, including unscheduled screen washes. In the case of an .
unscheduled screen wash, the Environmental Compliance Department shall -I NOTIFY personnel from Normandeau Associates (NAI), Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies contractor, who will be on-site within 24-hours to assess .
the screen wash debris. In the unlikely event that a screen wash is not enumerated, j the number of impinged organisms will be estimated based on the volume of screen wash material in the unscheduled wash, and the volume in the next regularly scheduled wash (see Figure 1, Impingement Analytical Procedures).
l 1.2 Discussion Weekly impingement assessments are part of Seabrook Station's Environmental Studies Program which is a requirement of the Station's NPDES Permit. Fish and lobsters are impinged (drawn into) the Circulating Water System along with seaweed and other debris. Weekly impingement assessments are performed in the Circulating Water Pumphouse to determine the number and size of fish and lobsters that are impinged by the Station's Circulating Water System.
- 2. PREREQUISITES None
- 3. PRECAUTIONS 3.1 Fish spines and other sharp objects in screen wash debris can be hazardous. When performing a screen wash assessment, heavy rubber gloves shall be worn to protect hands when removing fish from screen wash debris. Following the removal of fish from dcbris it is appropriate to use a thinner latex glove for species identification and counting.
l ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 3 of 11
<n
- p. . . . .
l
\
- 4. IN_STRUCTIONS I
NOTE
- 1. If for any reason the weekly impingement assessment cannot be made, contact Ron Sher (ext. 7729), Al Legendre (ext. 7773) or John Hart (ext. 7762).
- 2. The Operations Department (Work Control) notifies the Environmental Compliance Department by cc: mail following all screen washes. The notification includes the time and date of the screen wash and the volume of screen wash debris in increments of screen wash baskets (one cubic yard).
Operations personnel ENTER the same information in the screenwash log in the pumphouse.
4.1 The regularly scheduled screen washes are generally performed on Tuesday and Wednesday of each week, however, conditions may require that screen washes be conducted on other days of the week. When an unscheduled screen wash occurs, it will be necessary to record the volume of screen was:. debris in case the screenwash is not enumerated. The volume of screenww.h debris in the unenumerated screen wash will be recorded in Section III of the data sheet for the next regularly scheduled screen wash. The volume of screen wash debris of the unenumerated screen wash can be used to estimate the number of fish impinged using a ratio of fish to debris in that screen wash using the reference (assessed) screen wash.
NOTE If the screen wash debris has not been removed from the screen wash basket, ,
contact the Operations Department (ext. 4078) and request that the debris be removed from the basket. -
4.2 Impingement Assessment Procedure 4.2.1 RECORD your name and date and the total volume of screen wash debris in Section I of the Fish / Lobster Impingement Data Sheet.
ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 4 of 11
- r. . . .
l . 4.2.2 DETERMINE the volume of screen wash debris from the screen wash log l in the Pumphouse. If the volume of screer wash debris is greater than two baskets, consult Table 1 for the number of subsamples, if the volume of debris is more than four baskets, see Step 4.2.3.
- a. SEPARATE the volume of the screen wash debris sequentially into the number of subsamples specified in Table 5-1. For example, if four subsamples are required, split the entire pile in half and randomly select one of the two halves using a coin toss. Split the selected halfinto two more subsamples. Select one of the remaining subsamples for assessment using a coin toss,
- b. RECORD on the data sheet (Form A) in decimal form the scaling factor (from Table 1) used to estimate the total number ,
of fish impinged. l l
- c. Enumerate all the fish in one of the randomly selected J subsamples following t'te procedures in steps 4.2.4 through 4.2.12.
4.2.3 It is possible that during severe weather, more than four baskets of screen wash debris will be impinged, and it may not be possible to stockpile the material in the screen wash collection area. At this time, the Environmental Compliance Department will declare a "High Impingement Event" and the screen wash material will be stockpiled in containers or dumpsters at a designated area outside the screenwash collection area. Normandeau Associates Personnel will be on-site as soon as possible, but no later than 24-hour after the declaration of the High Impingement Event to assess the screen wash debris. Plant personnel will record the total volume of screen wash debris in the screen wash log in the Pumphouse.
4.2.4 Separate all fish and lobsters from the screen wash debris to be assessed.
4.2.5 Ifit is not possible to identify a specific fish, PUT the fish in a plastic bag with a tag (RECORD your name, date and your opinion of fish species on the tag) and PLACE the tag in the Pumphouse freezer. RECORD the unidentifiable fish on the Fish / Lobster Impingement Data Sheet (Form A) as species code = 2000000.
f ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 5 of 11 l
i o
4.2.6 Measure the total length (carapace length for lobsters) to the nearest mm, l a maximum of twenty fish per species in the assessed screen wash debris.
l a. If more than 20 fish of a given species are collected it will be l necessary to subsample for length measurements. Spread out all the fish of a given species in rows on a flat surface ensuring that all sizes are mixed together thoroughly. Select the first l specimen to be subsampled by using a random number table.
NOTE RANDOM NUMBER TABLES FOR THE SELECTION OF FISH FOR LENGTH MEASUREMENTS REFER to the random number tables provided in the Pumphouse Storage Desk to be used for the selection of the random starting point for fish length measurements when more than 20 fish of a given species are collected. To select the starting point, h first determine the total number ofindividuals of a species collected, and then select the table with the next highest number of fish. For example, if 36 fish are collected, select the table for up to 40 fish. ENTER this table at the first random number and if l it is less than or equal to the number of fish collected, use it as the starting point. Ifit j is not, move to the next number. For example, the first number in the selected i random number table is 39. It is greater than the number of fish collected, so reject !
this number and move to the next number 28. This number is appropriate, so the starting point for the selection of random fish is the 28* fish. Cross off each random number used, including numbers that were rejected, so that they will not be used again.
NOTIFY Ron Sher, Environmental Compliance (ext. 7729) when you have reached the last row of any random number table so more tables can be generated.
~
- b. Proceed from the first fish selected taking every i* specimen in succession for the subsample until 20 fish have been selected, where "I" is deten lined by dividing the total number of fish
_ by 20. If"1" is not a whole number, rotmd up to the next whole number. The purpose of this step is to ensure that every specimen has an equal chance of being included in the l subsample, regardless of size.
I ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 6 of 11
4.2.7 If the number of fish in a species in the assessed screen wash debris is greater than 20, RECORD the number of fish not measured in, NO. OF FISH NOT MEASURED on the Fish / Lobster Impingement Data Sheet.
4.2.8 SEPARATE seal remains from screen wash debris and PUT in plastic bag with a tag describing the contents (e.g. three seal bones), date and your name. PLACE the bag in the Pumphouse freezer.
4.2.9 RECORD a description of seal remains in screen wash debris in Section IV of the Fish / Lobster Impingement Data Sheet AND NOTIFY Ron Sher l
(ext. 7729), Al Legendre (ext. 7773) or John Hart (ext. 7762).
l l 4.2.10 RECORD the makeup of screen wash debris (to the nearest ten percent) of shells and seaweed in Section III of the Fish / Lobster Impingement Data Sheet.
4.2.11 NOTIFY the Operations Department (ext. 4079) that the impingement 1
assessment has been completed and the screen wash debris can be l cleaned-up.
l 4.2.12 LEAVE the screen wash debris for utilities personnel to clean up.
4.3 Data Sheet coding instructions:
SECTION I EMPLOYEE NUMBER: ENTER your employee number.
. DATE: ENTER the date in mm/ddlyy format.
TIME: ENTER the time of the screen wash in 24-hour clock format from the screen wash log located on l the desk in the screen wash room.
TOTAL VOLUME OF ENTER the volume of screen wash debris (in l SCREEN WASH DEBRIS: baskets) from the screen wash log located on the l desk in the screen wash room.
SCALING FACTOR: ENTER in decimal form, the scaling factor for the amount of screen wash debris assessed lfrom Form B.
L ZN1120.03 l Rev. 00 Page 7 of 1i 1
l
l SECTION Ili l
l SPECIES: ENTER the common name and species code for l the impinged fish.
LENGTHS: Record the total length to the nearest mm for a maximum of 20 randomly selected fish per species.
1 NO. OF FISH NOT If more than 20 fish are collected ENTER the MEASURED: number of fish per species that are not measured.
SECTION 111 ENTER a percentage estimate of the amount of seaweed and shells in the screen wash debris.
SECTION IV ENTER a description of any seal remains present in the screen wash debris.
4.4 COPY the Fish / Lobster Impingemem Data Sheet and send a copy to Regulatory Compliance Senior Scientist, Ron Sher (mail code 01-48). Retain orignian copy of the data sheet.
S. REFERENCES 5.1 NPDES Permit NH0020338 5.2 ON1017.02," Circulating Water Screen Wash Operation 5.3 RTS 97RL00003041 2 l
- 6.
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES 6.1 Rev. :OriginalIssue.
ZN1120.03 l
Rev. 00 j Page 8 of 11 '
-.C.."..
( ,
l 1
i l %
l l
l Figure 1: Impingement Analytic Procedures '
l l
The annual impingement estimate will be the sum of the 52 weekly impingement collections made during year. This can be represented as:
1, = ;w-L52 Iw l I, = 1, + 124 + l u where, I, = annual impingement, .
l 1, = weekly impingement I, = six-day impingement 124 = 24-hour impingement, and I o= impingement from unscheduled washes.
It is the goal of the program to enumerate all unscheduled washes. In the unlikely event that an unscheduled wash cannot be enumerated, the number ofimpinged organisms will be estimated based on the ratio of screenwash debris to organisms in the next regularly scheduled wash. This can be represented as:
Ix = (I, D )/D, x3 where, I x= number ofimpinged organisms in the unenumerated screen wash, I, = number ofimpinged organisms in the next regularly scheduled screen wash, D, = volume of debris in the unenumerated screen wash, and De = volume of debris in the enumerated screen wash.
ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 9 of 11
- w. - .
I 1 I i l I I 0I T 0I 0i F I u
0 g ,M 0 0I 4s 2I 2T 2I 2I gI lI ll gI ii 2I g1 21 e 3I 1 g1 I I l g P 1 1 5
0 gl lf gt gl 2 1 I I l 1 1 t t
ii af gI lI ga I gt e 1 91 1
9I 1
9I 9l 1
9 l g1 9I D 1 11 1 gt l
l gI 1
1 g1 1
lf 1
MT I gi l
gI 1
1 P_ 3 f o
1 HD HD HD l 1 0
~ S IE FR i
S I E 1
SE I
1 HD SE I
1 HD SE t
00 20 0 t I I
FR I FR l FR I FR FR FR I FU8 1 FU 61 FU 8 FU8I OS FU8I FU 8I FU 81 w A 1 1
O!A I
OSA I OS A l
OS A 1 I OS A 1 1
OS A 1
1 1
RE RE RE RE RE RE vg e 1 l l 1 1 1 RE 1 EM B
1 EM B
i EM B
i EM B
1 EM B
1 EM B
1 EM B
1 1
MTO7 1
MT i MT MT i MT MT MT -ru Ne a U O7 U O7I UO71 1 I I t U UO71 U O7 1 UO7 R e NN 1
1 N N1I NN 1
I NN I NN 1 NN I NN 1
1 0
1 ZRP e l 1
1 l
i l I 1 1 1 h l i I 1 1 1 S
1 I
yl 8 1
gl oI t
lI eI
- gr 6 1
I gf 6I 1
y1 6 1
i gl o t
i 1 I 1 1 I I R i t
a O r
gI l
l gl I
I lI 1 1
gI 1
1 gt I
I g1 l
i gI l
i a T
- gt 5l gI 5I iI 5
i gt 5
I gI 5I g1 5
I gI 5
I DE E G
N u
3I 1 l
l jt 11 l
gI 1 I
l gt 1 1
1 gI 1 1
1 l
1 I
1 gI 1 I 1
t A gl iI gI gI gI gt gI H C l l I 1 1 1 1 nS l 3t 4
I gl 4
I gt 4
1 g1 4
I gr 4 I gi 4
I gI 4 i e A 1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
mT
- I gt gI gf gl gr lr I
1 1 l 1 1 1 1 A L [I 1
gI 1
gI l
gI 1
gI 1
gI 1
gI 1
e D S 3 l
S 3 i
S 3I S 3I S 3I S 3 I
S 3 I
gT I EE 1
l EE 1 I EE 1
I EE 1 I EE 1
1 EE 1
1 EE 1
I CD CD CD CD CD I
n N CD CD I I i E i EO l EO l EO I EO 1 EO 1 O 1 EO I pM s PC S
l PC S
I PC S
I PC S
1 PC S
1 MC S
1 PC S
I s
E % 2 I
2 I
2 I
2 l
2 1
2 1
2 I
l le mGN 1 1 1 1 I I I i 1
1 1
l 1
1 h
!" E 1 1 1 l S
I H 1 1 1 i 1
1 l
l 1
1 %
I r P e M I s 1 1
I I
1I 1I 1
1I i
1 1
I 1
1 1
i I
1 1
I 1
1 1
I I
t s R Ms I I I i I i I _
b ET )
R I o
I I
oI I
oI I I I
oI I
o I
I oI I _
oS U O
t i tI t 1 0
1 l t 1 t 1 t
I d _
e LB
/ O H I
l I
I I
1 1
l l
1 1
1 1
I I
e w
L Q I
e _
h H /
E 1 I I I I 1 i e is S I 9 I 9I 9I 9 I 9i 9 1 ei S _
MI I T % s F F I l I
l I
1 1
l i
l i
l l
I I
m N I t
e l e O I I 8
I 1 8I I
8i I
eI I
8 I
1 8I I
8I I
d h
pT 1 l l I 1 1 1 s a
A mT I 1 I i I 1 1 1 w
S E I 7I 7I 7I 71 7I FI i p n a T A
7 u
e e
e S OKO l I I l 1 1 I -
D I k c r
l i
l i
l i
l l
1 1
1 1
l I
a s I M n R s I I f 6 6I 6 6i 6I e 6I i ABA t
I I 1 I I 1 i 1 m n 1 1 I I 1 1 1 t
e e s
E R E E D e mS E E E E E I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 E M M M M M M M h r
p B l s
r M I A
N 5l A
N 5I A N 5i NA 5 1
A 5I N
A N 5 1
A N 5 I
a s U ! i 1 i i I n
o N E
I S
A l
S E 1 S
E l S
c 1 S
t l S
E l S
E 1 W
n e
e F
I I I E
l C 1 C i u 1 u I C i C 1 e m Y I E E E t t E E e e r
P I P I I I I I 1 S 4 P 4 P 4 P 4 O e r 4
m 4 c a 4 t L S S S S c a P
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 S e M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s E I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y n
l 3
I I 1 i I 3I 3 I
a 5 )
's i )s 3I )
s 31 )
s 3I )
e 3i $
M i )
s 1 b
e 1
M l ou 1 M 1 ie l la l e l e
m 1 n T 5 m i v
o 1 m 1 m l w
s i m i m 1 c C 1 a c a a c de i t s
. s s n e e n e K 4 I I e2I d 2I I I e2I O
R 1
7 d
.e e
2 I e21 e
c o p
1 e I d e
s 21 d 0 21 e
s I D.
P 1 S
I S
1 S
1 S
1 S
1 S
1 S
1 i
t N 1 H I H 1 H 1 H 1 H 1 H 1 H 1 tm n 1 T T T T T T T u o G1 I G1 I G1 i G . I G1 I G1 i G1 i t
c N N N N N N N tc e I
E I
E I
E I
F I
E I
E I
e E.
f 1 L I L 1 L I L I L 1 L l S S
[ .-
.q 1
9 i l'
Form B: Number of Subsamples and Scaling Factors for Screenwashes l
NUMBER OF BASKETS NUMBER OF OF SCREEN WASII NUMBER OF SUBSAMPLES SCALING DEBRIS SUBSAMPLES ASSESSED FACTOR
(
<2.0 0 All debris assessed 1 l 1
l 2.0 to 4.0 2 1 2 4.0 to 8.0 4 1 4 l i
1 i
> 8.0 8 1 8 1
1 v
(
l ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page 11 of 11
\
< PROCEDURE BASIS INFORMATION l l
Rev. 00: Initial Issue.
l 1
l l
l l
l I
i i
l i
ZN1120.03 Rev. 00 Page1of1
)
ENCLOSURE 9 TO 'NYN-98058 I
l
l o [- \
i Nw...
\M North -
Nod Atlan& Enugy Smice Corpomion P.O. Box 300
$ Atlantic seatroot N n 03824 a (603) 474 9521 i
The Northeast Utilities System I
February 12,1998 NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 NYE-98002 AR #97001295 Planning and Administration (SPA) :
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency P. O. Box 8127 Boston,MA 02114 Seabrook Station -
1996 Environmental Monitoring Reoort l North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) encloses the Seabrook Station 1996 Environmental Monitoring Report in accordance with NPDES Permit Section 1.A.11e'. The effects on the balenced indigenous populations of aquatic biota in the vicinity of the Circulating Water System intake and discharge structures were evaluated through continued monitoring at sampling stations established during the preoperational period, with statistical comparison of the results at both the community and species levels.
The 1996 Repr .ovides a comparison of 1996 Environmental Monitoring Data to previous years and cohtinues to demonstrate that Seabrook Station has not impacted the balanced indigenous populations in the'$ampton-Seabrook area.
Should you require additional information regarding this matter, please contact me at (603) 773-7762.
Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.
1 Y "
a '
B.Han Em 'ronmental Compliance Manager cc: New Hampshire DES Water Division Permits and Compliance Section 6 Hazen Drive, P. O. Box 95 Concord,NH 03302
! 3 Seabrook Station NPDES Permit No. NH002338 l
m U. 3. Environmental Protection Agency NYE-98002/Page 2 ,
(with attachment)
SEABROOK ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY Iff FINICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: COMMITTEE:
Mr.Jeffrey Andrews Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman Nrl Dept. of Environmental Services 134 Palisade Avenue Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Leonia,NJ 07605 6 Hazen Drive Concord,NH 03302 Dr. W. Huntting Howell 12 James Farm Mr. Robert Estabrook Lee,NH 03824 NH Dept. of Environmental Services Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Dr. Saul Saila 6 Hazen Drive 317 Switch Road Concord,NH 03302 Hope Valley, R1 02832 Mr. John Nelson Dr. Bernard J. McAlice NH Fish and Game Department HC 61 Box 109 225 Main Street Round Pond,ME 04573 Durham,NH 03824 ;
Dr. Robert Wilee Mr. Bruce Smith Department of Biology NH Fish and Game Department 221 Morrill Science Center 225 Main Street University of Massachusetts Durham,NH 03824 Amherst, MA 01003 I
Mr. Frederick Gay New Hampshire NPDES Permit Coordinator NORMMDEAU ASSOCIATES EnvironmentalProtection Agency Ms. Marcia Bowen John F. Kennedy Buildmg Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Boston, MA 02203 82 Main Street Yarmouth,ME 04096 Jd Pm Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Paul Geoghegan 60 Westview Street -
Normandeau Associates,Inc.
Lexington,MA 02173 ,
25 Nashua Road Bedford,NH 03110 Mr. En.cHutchm.s
_ National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region
~
One Blackburn Drive Gloucester,MA 01930 l
l Seabrook Station 1990 Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton - Seabrook Area gm
- ww m sg a. . . - , , , ywg. .
g ; .g g sawway' q p , 7;;- n , m, , v ' ' ',
, ;; }; <
- .; gyp,' v ' 'Og s t
.g I{?. ~ ?llf : :
- v!j, 'k
- ' ' ' ' s cc~ - - m't; ' , '(y e e i ,$k'l 'f, L ,' #* *
',k
- l. '. h 4 ! i esw , -h.
- ) ,e.'
, . a,. 4
[
i; w
n.. +
psmenth a n d adtk 47. ,. .~
l-Q, $ ..
1+
m
. .ijy
,){ - .Q,;g2Mhhhk fd*[w;-[I m
- wG+. m* g ; yr:, .
mm e A Characterization Of Environmental Conditions Fy ,4_North
//p\% Atlantic
SEABROOK STATION 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN THE HAMPTON-SEABROOK AREA A CHARACTERIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS DURING THE OPERATION OF SEABROOK STATION i
i Prepared for NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION P.O. Box 300 Seabrook Station Seabrook,New Hampshire 03874 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 25 Nashua Road Bedford, New Hampshire 03310-5500 Critical reviews of this report were provided by:
THE SEABROOK STATION ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. John Tietjen, Chairman (City University of New York)
Dr. W. Huntting Howell (University of New Hampshire)
Dr. Bemard McAlice (Emeritus, University of Maine)
Dr. Saul Saila (Emeritus, University of Rhode Island)
Dr. Robert Wilce (Emeritus, University of Massachusetts)
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Safety, Health & Environmental Services Aquatic Services Branch Waterford, Connecticut 06385-0128 January 1998 Printed at Seabrook Station
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 -
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l SECTION 2.0 -
WATER QUALITY SECTION 3.0 -
PHYTOPLANKTON l
SECTION 4.0 -
ZOOPLANKTON i SECTION 5.0 -
FISH SECTION 6.0 -
MARINE MACROBENTHOS SECTION 7.0 -
SEALS SECTION 8.0 -
EPIBENTHIC CRUSTACEA j SECTION 9.0 -
SOFT-SHELL CLAM l SECTION 10.0 -
APPENDIX A
1 1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
J LIST OF FIGURES . . . .. .. . ... ... . .... .... ...... .. ..... 1-il LIST OF TABLES . ... .. ........ .... .. .. . ...... .. ...... 1-ii 1.1 APPROACH .... .......... . . .... .. .. .... .. .. 1-1 1.2 STUDY PERIODS . . . ...... ... ........ .. .. . .. ... .. 1-5 1.3
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS .. .. .. . .... . . .... . 1-6 1.4 LITERATURE CITED ..... .. . .. ... .. .. . ...... 1-16 l
1-i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUbibiARY LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1-1. Seq-.nce of events for determining if there are environrtental changes due to the operation of Seabrook Station. . . ... .... . ....... .... .... 1-2 I
LIST OF TABLES 1-1. Sumrnary of Biological Comrnunities and Taxa Monitored for Each Potential Impac: Type.
Seabrook Operational Report,1996 . . . .. ... ... ... 1-3 1-2. Monthly Characteristics of Seabrook Station Operation for the Period 1990 Through 19%.
Seabrook Operational Report,1996 . . . .... . ..... . .. ... .. 1-6 l
l 1-ii
1 l
l i
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l l
j 1.1 APPROACH +3*F (1.7'C) isotherm has been shown to cover l l a relatively small 32-acre surface area l Environmental monitoring studies were con- (Padmanabhan and Hecker 1991). Because of ducted to determine whether Seabrook Station, the surface to mid-water location of the plume, which became operational in August of 1990, had temperature differences do not extend below the an effect on the " Balanced Indigenous Popula- thennocline. Due to its location within the water tions of Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife" in the column, the intake is also expected to have only nearfield coastal waters of New Hampshire. A a localized effect. This impact is quantified by biological monitoring program established under the entrainment and impingement sampling the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination programs.
System (NPDES) permit, jointly issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of A basic assumption in the monitoring program is New Hampshire, forms the framework for study, that there are two major sources of natural-occurring variability: (1) that which occurs A systematic approach of impact assessment was among different areas or stations, i.e., spatial, used to determine whether the operation of and (2) that which varies in time, from daily to Seabrook Station has affected the aquatic biota, weekly, monthly or annually, i.e., temporal. In This approach incorporated both temporal and the experimental design and analysis, the Sea-spatial components for each biological commu- brook Environmental program has focused on the i nity evaluated (Figure 1-1). Potential operational major source of variability in each community effects could be ruled out if: (1) results from the type and then determined the magnitude of operational period were similar to previous variabil?v in each community. The frequency (preoperational) years, given the natural variabil- and spat i distribution of the sampling effort ity in the system, or (2) differences within the were determined based on the greatest sources of operational period were observed in both variability for each parameter (NAI 1991).
nearfield and farfield areas. In addition, other potential sources of change have been investi- Biological variability was measured on two gated before the conclusions specified within this levels: species and community (Table 1-1). A report were drawn. This study design was species' abundance, recruitment, size and growth modeled after objectives discussed by Green are important for understanding operational (1979), which have been described previously in impact, if any, should changes occur in these more detai* (NAI 1991). parameters between stations or over time. These parameters were monitored for selected species The validity of the impact assessment model is from each community type. Selected species based on comparisons between nearfield stations were chosen for more intensive study based on within the influence of Seabrook Station and at either their commercial or numerical importance, farfield stations beyond its influence. Modeling sensitivity to temperature, potential as a nuisance j studies, as well as operational validation, clearly organism, or habitat preference. Overall com-indicate this to be true for thermal effects in munity structure of the biota, e.g., the number relation to the hermal plume. The extent of a and type of species, total abundance and the 1-1 l
t
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR DETERMINING IF THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CH ANGES DUE TO OPERATION OF SEABROOK STATION is Operational
.Pe,riod YES No similar to > impact previous years at nearfield station 7
NO Operational Period YES No nearfield -
> impact similar to farfioid
?
NO Observed changes NO No related to > Impact plant operation 7
l YES t
Operational Impact i
Figure 1-1. Sequence of events for determining if there are environmental changes due to ,
the operation of Seabrook Station. Seabrook Operational Report,1996.
1-2 I
)
1,0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Table 1-1. Summary of Biological Communities and Taxa Monitored for Ea PotentialImpact Type. Seabrook Operational Report,1996.
Level Monitored Monitoring Selected Area Impact Type Species /
Sample Type Community Intake Parameters Entrainment Microzooplankton x x Macrozooplankton x Fish eggs x x
Fish larvae x Soft-shell clam larvae x x x Cancer crab larvae x x Impingement Juvenile / Adult fish x Lobster adults x Discharge x Thermal Plume Nearshore water quality Phytoplankton x x x Lobster larvae x
Intertidal / shallow subtidal macroalgae and macrofauna x Subsurface fouling x community x x Turbidity Mid-depth / deep macrofauna (Detrital Rain) and macroalgae x x Bottom fouling conununity Demersal fish x x x Lobster adults Cancer crab adul:.s x Estuary x Cumulative Estuarine temperature Sources x Soft-shell clam spat and adults Estuarine fish x x x dominance struuure, was also reviewed to deter-mine potential plant impact. Trends in these organisms) settling from the discharge. The parameters were reviewed against the natural current study continues to focus on the likely variation in community structure. sources of potential influence from plant opera-tion, and the sensitivity of a community or pa-A previous Summary Report (NAI 1977) con- rameter to that influence within the framework of natural variability (Table 1-1). A community or cluded that the balanced indigenous community in the Seabrook study area should not be ad- species within the study area might be affected by more than one aspect of the CWS. Results from versely influenced by loss of individuals due to entrapment in the Circulating Water System this monitoring program will be discussed in light of that aspect of the cooling water system that has (CWS), exposure to the thermal plume, or expo-the greatest potential for affecting that particular sure to increased particulate material (dead component of the biological community. En-1-3
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A mixed model, randomized block design trainment and impingement are addressed ANOVA was used with the following sources of through in-pitnt monitoring of the organisms variation: Preop-Op, Station, Preop-Op X Sta-entrapped in the CWS.
tion, Year (Preop-Op), Time (Year), (e.g., week l
or month) and Error. The term Preop-Op had The effects on the balanced indigenous popula-two levels: preoperational and operational. This tions of aquatic biota in the vicinity of the CWS term compares data collected during the intake and discharge structures were evaluated preoperational to operational periods regardless through continued monitoring at sampling sta-of other sources of variation such as Station. A tions established during the preoperational pe-significant Preop-Op term does not indicate a riod, with statistical comparison of the results at plant impact, but rather an area-wide trend at both the community and the species levels. The both the nearfield and farfield areas, where the null hypothesis in all tests is that there has been farfield area is presumably beyond the influence no change in community structure or selected of the plant. The Station term compares data species abundance or biomass that is restricted to collected from the sampling stations throughout the nearfield area. This in turn would indicate, the study period, both preoperational and opera-based on the approach outlined in Figure 1-1, tional periods. A significant Station term indi-that the balanced indigenous populations have not been affected. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) cate.s a difference between the nearfield and farfield areas; by itself it does not suggest a plant was an important statistical method used in the effect because the data span both the Seabrook Environmental Studies Monitoring preoperational and operational periods.
Program to determine whether the operation of Seabrook Station has had any adverse effects on The Preop-Op X Station term (interaction term) the local marine balanced indigenous populations.
was the most important term in the analysis, as it The ANOVA model used in the monitc g alone could indicate potential plant impact. A program was based on Green's (1979) Before-significant interaction term indicated a significant After, Control-hnpact (BACl) principles. In the difference occurred during the operational period BACI model, samples are taken both before and that was restricted to only one of the areas after the potential effect, and in both control and (nearfield or farfield). The remaining terms, impact areas. In the Seabrook Monitoring Pro-Year (Preop-Op) and Month (Year), were nested gram, the Before and After temis are represented terms that explained some of the temporal varia-data collected during the preoperational and tion in the data and improved the fit of the operational time periods, and the Control and model. The error term included all the variation Impact terms are represented by data collected in not explained by the model, nearfield and farfield areas. The advantage of the BACI model is that potential impacts are A change in the community composition, or indicated by the significance of the inter.ction abundance of a selected species that did not occur term of time (Before-After) and location at all stations leads to the following questions:
(Control-Impact).
1-4
l l
l 1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Table 1-1. Summary of Biological Communities and Taxa Monitored for Each PotentialImpact Type. Seabrook Operational Report,19%.
Level Monitored Selected Monitoring Species /
Area Impact Type Sample Type Community Parameters Intake Entrainment Microzooplankton x x Macrozooplankton x x Fish eggs x Fish larvae x x Soft-shell clam larvae x x Cancer crab larvae x x Impingement Juvenile / Adult fish x x Lobster adults x Discharge Thermal Plume Nearshore water quality x l Phytoplankton x x 1 Lobster larvae x ;
Intertidal / shallow subtidal i macroalgae and macrofauna x x l Subsurface fouling conununity x x Turbidity Mid-depth / deep macrofauna (Detrital Rain) and macroalgae x x Bottom fouling community x Demersal fish x x Lobster adults x Cancer crab adults x Estuary Cumulative Estuarine temperature x Sources Soft-shell clam spat and adults x Estuarine fish x x dominance structure, was also reviewed to deter- organisms) settling from the discharge. The mine potential plant impact. Trends in these current study continues to focus on the likely parameters were reviewed against the natural sources of potential influence from plant opera-variation in conununity structure. tion, and the sensitivity of a community or pa-rameter to that influence within the framework of A previous Summary Report (NAI 1977) con- natural variability (Table 1-1). A community or cluded that the balanced indigenous community species within the study area might be affected by in the Seabrook study area should not be ad- more than one aspect of the CWS. Results from versely influenced by loss of individuals due to this monitoring program will be discussed in light entrapment in the Circulating Water System of that aspect of the cooling water system that has (CWS), exposure to the thermal plume, or expo- the greatest potential for affecting that particular sure to increased particulate material (dead component of the biological community. En-1-3
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l l
l trainment and impingement are addressed A mixed model, randomized block design '
through in-plant monitoring of the organisms ANOVA was used with the following sources of entrapped in the CWS. variation: Preop-Op, Station, Preop-Op X Sta-tion, Year (Preop-Op), Time (Year), (e.g., week The effects on the balanced indigenous popula- or month) and Error. The term Preop-Op had tions of aquatic biota in the vicinity of the CWS two levels: preoperational and operational. This intake and discharge structures were evaluated term compares data collected during the through continued monitoring at sampling sta- preoperational to operational periods regardless tions established during the preoperational pe- of other sources of variation such as Station. A riod, with statistical comparison of the results at significant Preop-Op term does not indicate a both the community and the species levels. The plant impact, but rather an area-wide trend at null hypothesis in all tests is that there has been both the nearfield and farfield areas, where the no change in community structure or selected farfield area is presumably beyond the influence species abundance or biomass that is restricted to of the plant. The Station term compares data the nearfield area. This in turn would indicate, collected from the sampling stations throughout based on the approach outlined in Figure 11, the study period, both preoperational and opera-that the balanced indigenous populations have not tiorial periods. A significant Station term indi-been affected. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) cates a difference between the nearfield and was an important statistical method used in the farfield areas; by itself it does not suggest a plant Seabrook Environmental Studies Monitoring effect because the data span both the Program to determine whether the operation of preoperational and operational periods.
Seabrook Station has had any adverse effects on the local marine balanced indigenous populations. The Preop-Op X Station term (interaction term)
The ANOVA model used in the monitoring was the most important term in the analysis, as it program was based on Green's (1979) Before- alone could indicate potential plant impact. A After, Control-Impact (BACI) principles. In the significant interaction term indicated a significant BACI model, samples are taken both before and difference occurred during the operational period after the potential effect, and in both control and that was restricted to only one of the areas impact areas. In the Seabrook Monitoring Pro- (nearfield or farfield). The remaining terms, gram, the Before and After terms are represented Year (Preop-Op) and Month (Year), were nested data collected during the preoperational and temts that explained some of the temporal varia-operational time periods, and the Control and tion in the data and improved the fit of'the Impact terms are represented by data collected in model. The error term included all the variation nearfield and farfield areas. The advantage of not explained by the model.
the BACI model is that potential impacts are indicated by the significance of the interaction A change in the community composition, or term of time (Before-After) and location abundance of a selected species that did not occur (Control-Impact). at all stations leads to the following questions:
1 1-4
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
- 1. Is there a mechanism for a po- fixed effects model are found in Appendix A of tential plant impact? NAI (1995),
f lyses) ar respons bl or Results from both the mixed and fixed ANOVA I
observed change? models were presented in 1996. The results of the mixed model are presented in the main body
- 3. Did the change begin prior to the of the report because it is considered more appro-initiation of plant operation, or is priate for our study design (Underwood 1994).
it possibly part of a long-term The results of the fixed model ANOVA are l presented in Appendix A of this report for com-l 4. Is the ch nge possibly caused by parison with the mixed model, an unrelated environmental vari-able?
1.2 STUDY PERIODS
- 5. What is reported in the recent literature or by investigators in Environmental studies for Seabrook Station the region? began in 1969 and focused on plant design and siting questions. Once these questions were Results of further investigations of significant resolved, a monitoring program was designed to differences in community composition or a single assess the temporal (seasonal and yearly) and species' abundance, density or biomass are spatial (nearfield and farfield) variability during developed by the section author or principal the preoperational period as a baseline against investigator, then reviewed by a peer with techni- which conditions during station operation could cal expertise in the area of investigation, then be evaluated. This report focuses on the reviewed by the Project Manager and Corporate preoperational data collected from 1976 through Officer. Following these reviews, the report 1989 for fisheries studies and from 1978 through sections are reviewed by NAESCo, Northeast 1989 for most plankton and benthic studies.
Utilities Millstone Laboratory, and the Ecological During these years, a consistent sampling regime Advisory Committee. and the addition of a farfield station provided the background to address the question of operational All sc=ccs of variation, except Preop-Op, were effects.
considered random because they represented a small fraction of all the possible times and loca- Commercial operation of Seabrook Station began tions of sampling (Underwood 1994). Preop-Op intermittently in July and August 1990, and was considered a fixed variable because there continued for periods of approximately three were only two possible levels (preoperational and weeks in September and October. Therefore, operational) and both levels were sampled. The August 1990 is considered the beginning of the use of both random and fixed variables makes the operational period for the purposes of this envi-model a " mixed" effects model, as opposed to a ronmental assessment. After operation at 100%
- fixed" model ANOVA where all sources of for less than a week at the beginning and end of variation are considered fixed. Further discus- November, the plant operated nearly continu-sion of the differences between the mixed and 1-5
~
ously from December 1990 through July 1991 1.3
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS when it was shut down for routine maintenance.
Resumption of full power operation began again Water Ouality in October 1991 and continued through a second maintenance outage m late September 1992. Full Water quality parameters were collected to aid in power operation began again in November 1992 interpreting information obtained from the bio-and continued with only minor interruptions logical monitoring program, as well as to deter-throughout 1993. In 1994 the plant was opera- mine whether the operation of the Seabrook tional from January through early April, and Statio a Circulating Water System had a measur-August through December. The plant continued able effect on the physical or chemical character-at full operation in 1995 except for short outages istius of the water column. Water quality sam-in June and November. With the exception of pks were obtained within the vicinity of Sea-shon outages in January and February, the plant brook's intake and discharge structures, and at operated nearly continuously in 1996. Monthly farfield locations outside of the influence of characteristics of the Circulating Water System operation. Measured parameters included tem-operation throughout 1990-19% are presented in perature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutri-Table 1-2.
Table 1-2. Monthly Characteristics of Seabrook Operation for the Period 1990 Through 1996. Seabrook Operational Report,1996.
Days of Circulating Water Average Daily System Operations Flow (mgd)
Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Jan 31 3 ', J1 31 31 31 31 324 584 585 587 566 576 570 Feb 28 28 29 28 28 28 29 564 580 578 587 589 572 507 Mar 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 563 580 584 580 573 572 573 Apr 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 563 581 576 579 352 573 577 May 31 31 31 31 24 31 31 562 581 581 582 188 625 637 Jun 30 30 30 30 25 30 30 563 578 593 582 171 662 686 Jul 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 582 535 593 578 331 685 689 Aug 31 21 31 31 31 31 31 588 253 583 579 681 687 691 Sep 30 26 29 30 30 30 30 588 257 314 574 6% 686 691 Oct 31 31 24 31 31 3' 31 590 552 159 574 690 685 678 Nov 30 30 30 30 30 21 30 590 590 556 612 692 287 647 Dec 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 589 591 563 608 628 486 599 1-6
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ents (total phosphorus, orthophosphate, nitrate, periods at both the intake and discharge areas, nitrite, and unmonia). but there were no changes at the farfield stations, indicating a potential plant effect. The small Potential impacts to water quality related to the decreases in mean salinity (0.3 to 0.2 ppt) were operation of Seabrook Station include: (1) statistically significant, but an order of magnitude temperature changes resulting from the discharge less than seasonal variations observed over the of a heated cooling water from the Station con- course of a single year. There is no reasonable densers, (2) the discharge of chlorine (sodium mechanism by which the withdrawal of bottom hypochlorite) used to prevent the settlement and water from the intake area, and its subsequent accumulation of biological fouling organism release as heated effluent into the discharge area, within the Circulating Water System, and (3) could reduce surface salinity in the intake and associated changes related to the addition of discharge areas. The watn masses in the intake moribund entrained plankton to the nearshore and discharge areas are essentially identical and marine environment. the salinity of this water mass cannot be changed ,
by passage through the plant.
The annual mean surface and bottom tempera-tures were significantly wanner during the opera- Surface and bottom dissolved oxygen concentra-tional period, but these differences were con ^ s- tions exhibited a seasonal pattern in 1996 that ,
tent u all stations. There were also significant was similar to previous years. There were no differences among stations that were consistent significant differences between the preoperational between the preoperational and operational and operational periods, or among stations for periods. The discharge station had higher tem- bottom dissolved oxygen. Surface dissolved peratures than the intake station, which in turn oxygen levels decreased at all stations between was higher than the farfield station. This consis- the preoperational and operational periods, but tency between periods and among stations indi- the decrease was smaller at the discharge station, cated that the operation of Seabrook Station has indicating a potential plant effect. However, the not significantly affected surface or bottom water observed changes are the opposite from those that ,
temperatures in the study area. Mean surface might be expected from a thermal discharge. A water temperatures decreased in 1996 compared potential plant effect right be indicated by a to 1995, ending the increasing trend that began in significantly larger decrease in dissolved oxygen 1993. Bottom water temperature in 1996 in- at the discharge station relative to the other creased compared to 1995. stations, as heated effluent reduces the oxygen content of the surrounding waters.
Seasonal patterns of mean surface and bottom salinity were similar between preoperational and There were no significant differences between the operational periods. There were no significant preoperational and operational periods or among differences between the preoperational and stations, for nitrate, nitrite, orthophopsphate, operational periods or among stations for bottom total phosphate, and ammonia. ,
salinity. Surface salinity decreased significantly between the preoperational and operational 1-7
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Most water quality parameters showed a distinct ods, while the yellow-green alga Phaeocystis seasonal cycle that was consistent throughout the pouchert: dominated during March and April.
mo,hring period. Significant differences This pattern of seasonal succession in among years were typical, reflecting high year- phytoplankton is well documented in other north-to-year variability. Increases or decreases in all ern temperate waters. The seasonal pattern of parameters, with the exception of surface salinity succession and abundance was slightly different and dissolved oxygen, were consistent between in 1996, as diatoms were dominant in all months nearfield and farfield stations, indicating that the except June and September. The average abun-chemical and physical environments in the study dance of phytoplankton in 1996 was higher than area are dominated by larger regional trends. the preoperational mean at all stations, but simi-lar to the annual means from 1993-1995. Despite Phytoolankton these minor differences in 1996, there were no significant differences in phytoplankton abun-The phytoplankton monitoring program was dance among stations or between the initiated to identify seasonal, annual, and spatial preoperational and operational periods, indicating trends in the phytoplankton community and to no effect due to station operation.
determine if the operation of Seabrook Station had a measurable effect on this community. The During both the preoperational and operational purpose of the monitoring program was to deter- periods, the monthly chlorophyll a concentrations mine if the balanced indigenous phytoplankton exhibited March through May, and October community in the Seabrook area has been ad- peaks. This pattern was similar in 1996, with the versely influenced, within the framework of exception that the spring peak occurred earlier in natural variability, by exposure to the thermal February and March. There were no significant plume. Specific aspects of the community evalu- differences in chlorophyll a concentrations ated included phytoplankton (taxa a10 pm in between the preoperational and operational size) abundance and species composition; com- periods, or among stations. On an annual basis, munity standing crop as measured by chlorophyll there appeared to be no relationship between a concentrations; abundance of selected species chlorophyll a concentrations and phytoplankton (Skeletonema costatum); and toxicity levels of abundances. The lack of a trend is likely due to paralytic shellfish poison (PSP), as measured in differences among taxa with respect to cell size the tissue of the mussel Mytilus edulis in the and chlorophyll a content. Seasonally, Hampton-Seabrook area. preoperational and operational chlorophyll a concentrations followed a pattern similar to that Monthly abundances of phytoplankton during the of phytoplankton abundances during the same operational period showed seasonal patterns that periods.
were similar to the preoperational years. On average, diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) dominated Skeletonema costatum was chosen as a selected the phytoplankton assemblage during January species because of its historic omnipresence and l through February and June through December overwhelming dominance during much of the during the preoperational and operational peri- year. There were no significant differences in 1
I 1-8
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
the abundance of S. costatum between the effect on the community or any species. The preoperational and operational period, and there entrainment of bivalve larvae within the CWS has were no significant differences between stations. also been evaluated.
During the operational period, both spring and fall peaks were larger than the preoperational Microzooplankton species composition during the period but followed the same general pattern. In operational period continued to resemble the 1996, S. costatum abundances generally followed hist 3rical patterns. While the abundances of I historic patterns, except in May when mean some taxa were different between the operational abundances were higher than those typically and preoperational periods, these differences observed, were generally consistent between stations. A significant Preop X Station interaction term was During the preoperational period, paralytic detected for the copepodites of Eurytemora sp.
shellfish poison (PSP) toxicity levels, commonly Record high abundances in 1983 contributed to known as red tide, were above the detection limit the observed operational period decline that was in tissue of the mussel Mytilus edulis and above more pronounced at the farfield station. No the closure limit during the late spring, early significant changes were observed in adult abun-summer, and late summer. In the operational dances suggesting that the population of E.
period, PSP was less prevalent, with outbreaks herdmani is unaffected by the operation of Sea-occurring occasionally only in the spring. No brook Station. Abundances of the other PSP was observed in 1996. Throughout the microzooplankton selected species were generally operational study period, there were no outbreaks similar among stations and between operational of PSP that were restricted to New Hampshire, periods.
censistent with recent research pointing to a non-local origin. Differences in the bivalve larvae community were detected between the preoperational and Zooplankton operational periods. Typically the early-spring assemblage, characterized by low numbers of Three components of the zooplankton commu- Hiatella sp., changes to a late-spring assemblage nity, microzooplankton, bivalve larvae, and where Hiatella sp. predominates along with low macrozooplankton, were sampled separately to numbers of Mya truncata and Mytilus edulis. In identify spatial and temporal trends at both the most years of the operational period, a new community and species level. Initial monitoring assemblage characterized the transition between characterized the source and magnitude of varia- early and late-spring, characterized by moderate tions in abundance and species composition in the numbers of Hiatella sp. As this new assemblage zooplankton community and provided a template occurred at both nearfield and farfield stations, it for comparison to data obtained during the is unrelated to Seabrook Station. MANOVA operational period. The zooplankton community results indicated that although significant differ-is currently evaluated to determine whether ences in species abundances occurred during the entrainment within the Circulating Water System operational period, they occurred at all stations, (CWS) of Seabrook Station has had a measurable indicating an area-wide change. The abundance 1-9
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
of the selected species, Mytilus edulis was at a the holoplankton and meroplankton was variable record high level in 1996, but no difference was from February through April. During the opera-deteved between the preoperational and opera- tional period, this period of variability shifted to tional periods. January and February, followed by a consistently recurring community in March and April.
Entrainment collections provide a measure of the actual number of organisms directly affected by MANOVA detected differences between periods Station entrainment. Anomia squamula replaced for the holoplankton and meroplankton abun-Mytilus edulis as the most commonly entrained dance. These differences were consistent among bivalve larva in 1996. The number of bivalve stations indicating area-wide affects. Of the larvae entrained in 1996 was higher than in any selected species, significant Preop X Station previous year, a result of high abundances of interaction term was detected for the adult dominants M. edulis and A. squamula. There Calanusjinmarchicus. Abundances decreased at was no indication that entrainment within the all stations in the operational periods, but the CWS has affected 'he balanced indigenous bi- decrease at the control station (P7) was greater.
valve larvae community in the nearshore waters. The relative relationship among the three stations was similar in both preoperational and opera-Actual entrainment estimates differed from tional periods in terms of rank and changes in predicted entrainment esthnates developed in the magnitude (except 1993). Differences in the late 1970s (NAl 1977). Entrainment of soft-shell abundance of adults had no effect on the clam (NAI 1977) is much lower than predicted copepodite stages of C. finmarchicus. Abun-for two reasons. Estimates were based on unusu- dances of the other selected species were similar ally high larval abundances; actual levels are between the preoperational and operational much lower than predicted. In addition, the periods.
cooling water system pumping rates are lower than predicted for one-unit operation. Predic- The demersal zooplankton community composi- j tions of larval blue mussel entrainment were tion showed no differences between the !
within the range of actual annual entrainment. preoperational and operational periods. The demersal assemblage varied among stations. The To better understand community dynamics, the demersal selected species, Neomysis americana i macrozooplankton was Fvided into two compo- showed no significant differences between the nents. A holoplankton and meroplankton compo- preoperational and operational periods.
nent was defined as organisms that spend their entire or a distinct portion of their life in the Fish Population water column. Demersal plankton, the other component, was defined as organisms that live on Finfish studies at Seabrook Station began in 1975 or near the bottom, including those suspended by to investigate all life stages of fish, including currents (tychoplankton), and benthic organisms ichthyoplankton (eggs and larvae), juveniles, and that actively migrate into the water co'umn. adults. Potential impacts of Seabrook Station Preopenationally, the community composition of operation on local populations include the en-1-10
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMAfARY trainment of eggs and larvae through the Circu- Examination of the annual time series indicated lating Water System and the impingement of that the stations generally followed the same larger specimens on travelling screens within the trends among years. This consistency among Circulating Water pumphouse. Local distribution stations suggests that the changes in density are could also potentially be affected by the thermal unrelated to plant operation.
plume, with some eggs and larvae being sub-jected to thermal shock due to plume entrainment Entrainment of eggs in 1996 was the third highest upon discharge from the system diffusers. The recorded and higher than the 1995 estimate, the main objective of the finfish studies is to assess only other year with sampling throughout 12 whether the operation of Seabrook Station has months of the year. The most numerous eggs had any measurable effect on the nearshore fish entrained in 1996 were Atlantic mackerel, hake, population. and cunner /yellowtail flounder. These three groups of eggs were also among the most numer-Ichthyoplankton analyses focused on seasonal ous in 1995, the only other comparable year.
assemblages of both eggs and larvae, as well as Entrainment oflarvae was the highest recorded to on the collection of selected larval species. date. The most numerous larvae entrained in Consistent temporal (among months and years) 1996 were Atlantic seasnail, rock gunnel, silver and spatial (among stations) egg and larval hake, and hake. Entrainment of silver hake and assemblages identified through the monitoring hake was greatly increased compared to 1995, programs suggest that the eperation of Seabrook possibly as result of increased densities of these Station has not altered the seasonal spawning larvae in the nearshore area.
time nor the distribution of eggs in the Hampton-Seabrook area. Although the temporal occur. Actual entrainment of eggs and larvae at Sea-rence of fish larvae, both monthly and annually, brook Station was lower than predictions of was less consistent than for eggs, spatial parame- entrainment made in the 1970s (NAl 1977),
ters were consistent. Ichthyoplankton composi- which were based on peak egg and larval densi-tion at all three stations was very similar within ties in the nearfield area and the maximum each year and month. Temporal changes in pumping rate for one unit at Seabrook Station. I assemblage abundances were consistent at all Egg and larval entrainment densities were much three stations. lower than offshore densities, in part a result of j
'the midwater intake location. Actual pumping Among the selected larval species, with the rates were slightly lower than predicted pumping exception oflarval American sand lance, changes rates, resulting in lower entrainment than ex-in density were consistent between the pected. l preoperational and operational periods at all j stations, indicating no effect due to the operation In the pelagic fish community, Atlantic herring, j of Seabrook Station. Density oflarval American blueback herring, silver hake and pollock were i sand lance was not significantly different between dominant during the preoperational period. l the preoperational and operational periods at During the operational period, Atlantic herring, !
Stations P5 and P7, but increased at Station P7. Atlantic mackerel, pollock and blueback herring i l
1 l
1-11
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
were dominant. The change in the species at Seabrook Station. Rairibow smelt was the composition of dominant pelagic fish reflected most common fish impinged, followed by ale-larger changes in the pelagic fish community in wife, grubby, and northern pipefish. The major-the Gulf of Maine. Atlantic herring and Atlantic ity of impingement in 1996 occurred in October mackerel biomass have increased greatly in the and November, during strong northeast storms.
Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. Impingement in 1996 increased compared to 1995, probably due to ineneased storm activity.
The geometric mean CPUE of demersal fish at The design of the Seabrook Station offshore all stations combined increased in 1996 compared intake with a mid-water intake fitted with a to 1995, but remained well below levels in the velocity cap has apparemly resulted in fewer preoperational period. Dominant demersal fish numbers of fish being impinged when compared in the operational period were longhorn sculpin, to other coastal power pla.nts. l winter flounder, skates, and hakes. Catches of nearly all species declined from the A number of differences were found between the preoperational to the operational period, particu- preoperational and operational periods for adult larly for the yellowtail flounder. Changes in fish assemblages in general, and for most se-CPUE of adult fish between the preoperational lected species in particu!.ar. In nearly all cases and operational periods were consistent at all where differences were fcund, abundance during stations with the exception of rainbow smelt, and the operational period was significantly lower winter flounder. The decreases in rainbow smelt than during the preoperational period. However, and winter flounder abundance began in the in many instances, the declines began in the early preoperational period and probably are not due to or mid-1980s. Several .of the decreases reflect plant operation. long-term declining tunds of overexploited commercial fishes, including Atlantic cod, winter The geometric mean CPUE for estuarine fish flounder, and yellowtail flounder.
caught at all stations increased during 1996, continuing a trend that began in 1992. Average Marine Macrobenthos catches were less for the operational period than f observed during the preoperational period, a Horizontal rock ledge is the predominant benthic result of diminished catches beginning in 1987. habitat in the vicinity of Seabrook Station's The Atlantic silverside dominated catches in all intake and discharge. These rocky surfaces years sampled. Winter flounder, killifishes support a diverse community of attached (mummichog and striped killifish), ninespine macroalgae and macrofauna. Studies were stickleback, and rainbow smelt also contributed implemented to identify the species inhabiting to the catch. Trends in the CPUE paralleled nearby intertidal and subtidal rock surfaces in fluctuations in catch of the dominant species, nearfield and f.irfield control areas. )
Atlantic silverside. Preoperational studies described temporal and spatial patterns in species abundance and identi-i During 1996 an estimated 26,794 fish, and 31 fled physical and biological factors influencing lobsters were impinged on the travelling screens observed variability. Operational studies have fJ 1-12 l
l
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l focused on evaluating any changes in the distri- showed inconsistency among stations between bution and abundance in the macrobenthic com- periods. These shifts in abundance began prior to l
munity and its dominants in light of the operation plant startup and were apparently not related to of Seabrook Station. Possible impacts include plant operation.
temperature-related changes in areas potentially exposed to the buoyant thermal plume, the in the shallow subtidal benthic community, no intertidal and shallow-subtidal stations. Thermal changes have occurred that could be related to impacts would be unlikely at deeper stations; the operation of Seabrook Station. Community
, however, suspended solids and entrained organ- parameters, including the number of faunal taxa isms in the discharge plume could potentially and total abundance, and number of algal taxa increase turbidity and sedimentation, adversely and total biomass, as well as results of commu-affecting benthic organisms. nity analysis, showed no significant changes between periods. No significant changes in Potential thermal Effects abundance of selected dominant faunal species, in the biomass of dominant understory alga Hydrodynamic modeling and subsequent field Chondrus crispus, or in the frequency of domi-verification studies have indicated that intertidal nant kelp species Laminaria saccharina occurred locations showed no temperature increase related during the operational period. Frequency of the to Seabrook Station; shallow subtidal areas subdominant kelp species Laminaria digitata showed temperature increases of < l'F showed differing trends among stations and (Padmanabhan and Hecker 1991). Intertidal and between periods, decreasing at the nearfield shallow subtidal community composition was station and showing no change at the farfield stable throughout the monitoring period. Of the station. There was no apparent relationship community parameters tested (total biomass, total between physical factors or density of its domi-abundance, number of taxa), only one showed a nant predator, the green sea urchin change between the preoperational and opera- Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Additional tional periods that differed between nearfield and studies will be undertaken to investigate the farfield areas. Number of algal taxa in the decrease in Laminaria digitata in the shallow intertidal zone decreased between periods, and subtidal zone and the potential role of Seabrook the decrease was greatest at the farfield station. Station.
The decreasing trend at both stations began prior to the initiation of plant operation, suggesting it Potential Turbidity Effects was unrelated to Seabrook Station.
Community structure and abundance / biomass of Of the selected species studied in the intertidal dominant species in the mid-depth zone have zone, the dominant algae, Chondrus crispus, and shown few changes during the operation of dominant faunal taxon, Mytilidae, showed no Seabrook Station. Community parameters includ-significant change in abundance throughout the ing number of algal taxa, number of faunal taxa, study period. Dominant fucoid species total algal biomass, and total faunal density, Ascophyllum nodusum and Fucus vesiculosis showed no change between periods Algal 1-13
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
community composition in the mid-depth zone 1996 contained higher than typical levels of was stable throughout the operational period. Phyllophora/Coccotylus and lower than typical The mid-depth macrofauna community during the levels of Ptilota serrata in comparison to previ-operational period was similar to the ous years, making it more similar to deep intake preoperational period with a few exceptions. station B13.
Collections at two stations (intake station B16 in 1996 and farfield station B31 ia 1990 and 1996) Epibenthic Crustacea had lower numbers of the dominant taxon Mytilidae and higher numbers of subdominant The objective of the epibenthic crustacea moni-amphipod Caprella septontrionalis, creating a toring program was to determine the seasonal, unique assemblage. The occurrence at both spatial, and annual trends in larval density and nearfield and farfield stations suggests that the catch per unit effort (CPUE) for juvenile and change is unrelated to Seabrook Station. adult stages of American lobster (Homarus americanus), Jonah crab (Cancer borealis) and Most of the dominant macrofaunal and rock crab (Cancer irroratus). Analyses were macroalgal taxa showed no significant change in done to determine if the discharge from Seabrook abundance or biomass during the operational Station had any measurable effect on these spe-period. The kelp Laminaria digitata, a cies.
subdominant in the shallow subtidal zone, showed a significant decrease in both frequency Annual mean densities of lobster larvae in 1996 and percent cover between periods. The de- continued the trends observed in 1991 through crease, which began prior to plant operation, 1995. Imbster larvae densities during 1996 were intensified during the operational period and was higher than during the preoperational period more substantial at the nearfield station, suggest- (1988-1989) at all stations. There were no ing a potential plant effect. The decrease coin- significant differences between preoperational cided with increases in dentities of its dominant and operational periods, or among the three predator, the green sea urchin stations during the 1988-1996 monitoring period.
(Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis), but the Monthly trends were similar to those observed in relationship was not statistically significant. previous years. Increases in densities during Additional studies will be done in 1998 to further 1996 were due mainly to increases in Stage IV inves:! gate changes in Laminaria digitata. and Stage I larvae, historically the most numer-ous of the four stages. Stage IV larvae are Macrobenthic deep water communities have hypothesized to originate, at least in part, off-remained stable throughout the preoperational shore in the warm southwestern waters of the and operational periods. The macrobenthic Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.
community structure, number of taxa, and total density has shown no change between periods. Total CPUE for lobster in 1996 was higher than The macroalgal community also showed no the preoperational and operational means, and change in community parameters, with one was the highest observed during the entire study exception. Collections at nearfield station B04 in period. CPUE declined between the 1-14
1 LO EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
preoperational and operational periods at the the farfield station. Despite these differences in i
farfield station , but increased at the nearfield 1996, there were no significant differences I
station, indicating a potential plant effect. The between periods, or between stations for rock differing trends in CPUE between the two sta- crabs. The relationship in rock crab CPUE tions may in part be related to a large increase in between stations was consistent between the lobstering activity in the nearfield area, which preoperatior ;l and operational periods, indicating may be providing a food source for sublegal no effects due to Seabrook Station. Rock crabs lobsters. The monthly trend of CPUE in 1996 have been less prevalent than Jonah crabs was similar to that observed during the throughout the study ata, probably because of preoperational period. Legal-sized lobsters in their preference for sandy substrate, which is 1996 were 4% and 3% of the total catch at both rare in the study area.
the nearfield and farfield stations respectively, slightly lower than the preoperational averages of Soft-Shell Clam 8% and 7%. The decrease in the percentage of legal-sized lobsters in the operational period is The objectives of the soft-shell clam (Mya likely due to the increases in the legal-size limit. arenaria) monitoring programs are to determine the spatial and temporal pattern of abundance of In 1996, 31 lobsters were impinged in the Sta- various life stages of Mya arenaria in the vicinity tion's Circulating Water System. A total of 118 of Hampton Harbor. Pelagic life-stages may be lobsters have been impinged since the station subject to impacts from Seabrook Station opera-began operation in 1990. The current level of tion due to entrainment into the Circulating impingement does not pose a serious threat to the Water System. Benthic stages (after settlement to indigenom population. the bottom) in the Hampton-Seabrook estuary may have been subject to impacts from dis-Abundances of Cancer spp. larvae in 1996 were charges from the Station's Settling Basin, which similar to the preoperational and operational were eliminated in 1994. Nearfield/farfield periods at all stations. The average density comparisons of clam densities are also made during the five-year operational permo was not between Hampton Harbor and a nearby estuary, significantly different from the preoperational Plum Island Sound, Ipswich, MA.
average, and there were no significant differ-ences among stations. The 1996 mean CPUE for Mya arenaria larvae occurred most weeks from Jonah crab was lower than the preoperational and May through October during the preoperational operational periods at both the nearfield and years. Peak abundances in 1996 were in June farfield stations. CPUE of Jonah crab was not and were higher than the preoperational average.
significantly different between the preoperational There were no significant differences in mean and operational periods and there were no signifi- larval abundance between the preoperational and cant differences between stations. In 1996, operational periods or among stations.
CPUE of rock crab was lower than the preoperational and operational averages at the Mean density of young-of-the-year (YOY) clams nearfield station while the opposite occurred at (1-25 mm) in 1996 at all flats was relatively high 1-15
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
compared to the historical average. Density of entrainment of larvae (see bivalve larvae sum-yearling clams (26-50 mm) in 1996 decreased mary) and the discharge from the settling basin.
I Larval density showed no significant differences slightly compared to 1995 and was within the range of previow years. Density of adult clams between periods. In addition, densities oflarvae
(> 50 mm) in 1996 res the highest observed in appear unrelated to sets of YOY. Therefore, the operational period, and among the highest removal of larvae through entrainment into the observed since 1974. There were no significant cooling water system of the plant has had no i differences in mean density between the apparent effect on YOY clam density. The preoperational and operational periods for YOY discharge of the settling basin ceased in April of and yearlings, indicating that the operation of 1994, and is not likely to have affected clam Seabrook Station has not affected the density of densities in 1996. The differences in clam den-these lifestages. Density of adults was signifi- sity were probably due to a wide variety of cantly greater during the operational period, but physical and biological variables that include this is probably due to the closure of the flats in recreational harvesting and the presence of 1989, and the limited harvesting that has taken neoplasia.
place since 1994.
1.4 LITERATURE CITED In 1996, the mean density of seed clams (1-12 mm) in Hampton Harbor (nearfield area) was Green, R.H.1979. Sampling design and statisti-cal methods for environmental biologists.
much greater than the preoperational and the J hn Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 257 pp. !
operational mean. Densities of seed clams in 1996 in Plum Island Sound (farfield area) were Normandeau Associates Inc. (NAI). 1977.
lower than the preoperational and operational Summary document: assessment of antici-means. There were no significant differences in pated impacts of construction and operation of Seabrook Station on the estuarine, coastal seed clam density between the preoperational and and offshore waters of Hampton-Seabrook, operational periods or between areas. This New Hampshire.
consistency across periods and stations suggests that settlement has been unaffected by Seabrook 1991. Seabrook Environmental Station. Studies, 1990. A characterization of environmental conditions in the Hampton-Seabrook area during the operation of Sea-Sarcomatous neoplasia is a lethal form of leuke-brook Station. Tech. Rep. XXII-II.
mia m soft-shell clam. Neoplasta was prevalent at Flats 1 and 2 and absent from Flat 4 in 1986 Padmanabhan M. and Hecker, G.E. 1991.
and 1987. By 1996 neoplasia was present at all Comparative Evaluation of Hydraulic Model and Field Thermal Plume Data, Seabrook three flats.
Nuclear Power Station. Alden Research "I #7' "#'
it is difficult to attribute the differing trends in mean YOY, spat, juvenile and adult clam densi- Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BAC1:
ties to the operation of Seabrook Station. The Sampling designs that might reliably detect two possible impacts of station operation include environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications,4(1): 3-15.
i 1-16
2.0 WATER QUALITY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2.0 WATER QUALITY S UMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ............... .... .. . ...... 2-ii LIST OF FIGURES . .. .. ...... ... .. ... . . .... .. .. 2-iii LIST OF T B LES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... . ........... .. . 2-v
2.1 INTRODUCTION
. . . . .. . ... . . .... .. .. .. ...... . . 2-1 2.2 M ETH OD S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ......... ....... ........... 2-1 2.2.1 Field Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ... .... .. .. .... . . 2-1 2.2.2 Laboratory Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... .2-3 2.2.3 Analytica! Methods . . . . . . . . ..............................23 j 2.3 RESULTS........................................................ .2-4 l
l 2.3.1 Offshore Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .. 2-4 l 2.3.1.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .. . ...... 2-4 2.3.1.2 Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... ................... 2-21 2.3.2 Estuarine Water Quality . . .. ... ....... ....... ......... . .. 2-23 l
2.4 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ....... .... . . .. .. . .. .. 2-25 l
2.5 REFERENCES
CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................2-31 1
2-i
l 2.0 WATER QUALITY
SUMMARY
Water quality data collected in 1996 were similar to those in previous years, with the exception of surface salinity which was the lowest recorded to date. On average, air temperatures in 1996 were slightly cooler than' previous years, but surface and bottom water temperatures were slightly warmer than the preoperational and operational period averages. Both surface and bottom water temperatures were significantly warmer in the operational period. However, this increase occurred at both nearfield and farfield stations, and cannot be attributed to the operation of Seabrook Station. There were no significant differences between the preoperational and operational periods, or among stations, for bottom salinity, bottom dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. Salinity at all three stations was among the lowest recorded to date, paralleling a trend observed at Boothbay liarbor.
There was a significant decrease (0.3 to 0.2 ppt) it mean surface salinity at the intake and discharge stations between the preoperational and operational periods, but there was no decrease at the farfield station, resulting in a significant interaction term. There is no reasonable mechanism by which the withdrawal of bottom water from the intake area, and its subsequent release as heated effluent into the discharge area, can reduce surface salinity at the intake and discharge areas. The water mr.sses in the intake and discharge areas are essentially identical, and the salinity of this water mass cannot be changed by passage through the plant.
Surface dissolved oxygen decreased at all stations between the preoperational and operational periods, but the decrease was less at the discharge station, as indicated by the significant interaction term. A potential plant impact might be indicated by a large decrease, relative to the other stations, at the discharge station as heated effluent would reduce the oxygen holding capacity of the surrounding waters. However, the observed changes are the opposite, where the discharge station has higher dissolved oxygen levels compared to the intake and farfield stations. Therefore, the differing patterns in surface dissolved oxygen between the preoperational and operational periods cannot be attributed to plant operation.
I 2-ii I
2.0 WATER QUALITY a
LIST OF FIGb&
PAGE 2 1. Water quality sampling stations . . . . . . . . ... .. ... ........... .... ..... .... 2-2 2 2. Surface and bottom temperature (*C) at nearneld Station P2, monthly means and 95%
confidence inten als over the preoperational period (1979-1989) and the operational period (1991-1995), and monthly means of surface and bottom temperature at Stations P2, P5, and P 7 in 199 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....... ...................2-6 2 3. Time-series of annual means and 95% confidence intervals and annual minima and maxima of surface and bottom temperatures at Stations P2, PS and P7,19791996 . . . . . . . .... 2-12 2-4. Monthly mean difference and 95% confidence intervals between surface and bottom temperatures (*C) at Stations P2, P5, and P7 for the preoperational (1979-1989) period and monthly means for the operational period (1991-1995) and 1996 . ........... .... 2-13 2-5. Comparison ofmonthly averaged continuous temperature (*C) data collected at the surface at discharge (DS) and farfield (T7) stations during commercial operation, August 1990-December 1996........................................................216 2-6. Surface and bottom salinity (ppt) and dissolved oxygen (mg/L) at nearfield Station P2, monthly means and 95% confidence intervals for the preoperational period (1979-1989) and monthly means for the operational period (1991-1995) and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 17 2-7. Time-series of annual means and 95% confidence intervals of surface and bottom salinity (ppt) at Stations P2, PS, and P7,1979-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 2-19
. 2-8. A comparison among stations of mean surface salinity (ppt) during the preoperational (1987-1989) and operational periods (1991-1996) for the significant interaction term (Preop-Op X Stat. ion) of the ANOVA model(Tabic 2-2) . . . . . . . . .. ... ....... .2 20 2-9. A comparison among stations of mean surface dissolved oxygen (mg/l) during the preoperational (1987-1989) and operational periods (1991-1996) for the significant interaction term (Preop-Op X Station) of the ANOVA model (Table 2-2) .. .. 2-20 2-10. Time series of anual mean surface dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 1987-1996 (data between the l time dashed lines were excluded from the ANOVA model) .. . ... . .... .. .. . 2-21 2-11. Surface orthophosphate and total phosphorus concentrations ( g P/L) at nearfield Station P2, monthly means and 95% confidence intervals for the preoperational period (1979-1984 and 1987-1989), and monthly means for the operational period (1991-1996) and 1996 . . . 2-22 2-iii
1 2.0 WATER QUALITY l
PAGE 2 12. Surface nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen concentrations (pg N/L) at nearfield Station P2, monthly means and 95% confidence intervals for the preoperational period (1979-1984 and 1987-1989), and monthly means for the operational period (1991 1996) and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . ...... . . . . . . . . 2 24 2 13. Monthly means and 95% confidence limits for temperature measured at low and high tides in llampton liarbor from May 1979-December 1996 and monthly means in1996................................................. . . 2-26 2-14. Monthly means and 95% confidence limits for salinity measured at low and high tides in llampton liarbor from May 1979-December 1996 and monthly means in 1996 . . . . . . . 2-28 l
1 2-iv
l 2.0 WATER QUALITY .
LIST OF TABLES PAGE 2-1. Annual Means and Coefficients of Variation (CV,%) and Minima and Maxima for Water Quality Parameters Measured During Plankton Cruises at Stations P2, PS, P7 over Preoperational and Operational (1991-1996) Years, and the Annual Mean, Minimum and Maxim um in 199 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .... . . . .. 2-7 2-2. Results of Analysis ofVariance Comparing Water Quality Characteristics among Stations P2, PS, and P7 During Recent Preoperational Years (1987-1989) and Operational (1991-1996) Years . . . . .... ..... ...... ...... . .. ..... ...... . ..... . . . 2-9 2-3. Annual Mean Surface Temperatures (*C) and Coefficients of Variation (CV,%) at Stations DS and T7 . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. ...... ..... . ... . 2-15 2-4. Monthly Mean S urface Temperatures (*C) and Temperature Differences ( AT,'C) Between I
Discharge (DS) and Farfield (T7) Stations Collected from Continuously Monitored Temperature Sensors, July 1990-Deceml> r 1996 ....... ....................... . 2-14
! 2 5. Annual Mean and 95% Confidence Limits for Temperature ('C) and Salinity (PPT) Taken at Both High and Low Slack Tide in Hampton Harbor from 1980-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27 1
2-6. Summary of Potential Effects of Seabrook Station on Ambient Water Quality. Seabrook Operational Report, 1 99 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 3 0
\ l l
l f
1 2-v
2.0 WATER QUALITY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
the submerged diffuser in the direction of discharge.
Water quality data were collected to aid in interpreting information obtained from the Seabrook Station uses continuous low level biological monitoring program and to determine chlorination in the circulating and service water whether the operation of the Seabrook Station systems to control biofouling. Information was Circulating Water System has had a measurable gathered through the Chlorine Minimization effect on the physical and chemical characteristics Program, which assessed the effectiveness of of the water column. To provide information on chlorine application in preventing biofouling the physical environment, water quality samples while using the least amount of chlorine.
were collected in the vicinity of the Seabrook Residual levels of chlorine at the diffusers, when Station intake and discharge, as well as at a farfield measured, have been below detection limits, location outside of the influence of Station operation. Parameters measured included 2.2 METHODS temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. Potential impacts related to the cooling 2.2.1 Eield Methods water system include temperature, through the discharge of a heated effluent from the Near-surface (-1 m) water samples for nutrie'it condensers, and the application of sodium analysis were collected during daylight hours hypochlorite as a biofouling control measure. In using a General Oceanics* 8-L water sampler addition to the offshore sampling, temperature from the intake (Station P2,16.8 m depth, and salinity were recorded weekly at high and MLW), discharge (Station PS,16 m depth, low slack tides in llampton Harbor to MLW), and farfield (P7,18.3 m depth, MLW) characterize conditions in the vicinity of softshell sampling locations (Figure 2-1). Nutrient clam and fish seine study sites, sampling commenced at Stations P2 and P5 in 1978 and at Station P7 in 1982. Sampling contin-Seabrook Station employs a once-through ued until 1981 at P5 and until 1984 at P2 and P7.
circulating water system. Ambient ocean water Sampling resumed at all three stations in July is drawn into the system from approximately 1986, and has continued to the present. Water 7,000 feet offshore through three intake samples were taken once in January, February, structures and discharged to the ocean through a and December and twice monthly from March multiport diffuser system approximately 5,500 through November, in conjunction with the feet offshore. All discharges are controlled under phytoplankton and microzooplankton sampling, the Station's National Pollutant Discharge and within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the weekly macro-Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by zooplankton and ichthyoplankton sampling.
the State of New Hampshire and the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA). This permit Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity specifies that the average monthly temperature measurements began in 1979 at Stations P2 and rise shall not exceed 5*F (3*C) within the P5, and in 1982 at Station P7. Sampling at P2 nearfield jet mixing region. This applies at the and P7 has continued to the present; sampling at surface of the receiving waters within 300 feet of P5 was interrupted from January 1982 until July 2-1
l N "' " "**
~ o ........
12TTLE BOARS Q
U HEAD Y 0 .5 1 Nautical Mile b.-
0 1
2 Kilometers g FARFIELD AREA SCALE CONTOUR DEPTH IN METERS 0
GREATBOARS ,
HEAD ,
HAMPTON se BEACH t
e T7
/
BROWNS i RIVER %
P1 Intaice**.E 8 q ..
OUTERf [e ID [ NEARFIELD gagg SEABROOK STATION jDS /
INNER ..:...- Discharge HAMPTON .
SEABROOK SUNK HARBOR OCKS U
\ SEABROOK .,,,,, , .
s BEACH g ('
LEGEND O = water quality stations e = continuous temperature monitoring stations Figure 2-1. Water quality sampling stations. Seabrook Operational Report,1996.
2-2
l I
2.0 WATER QUALITY l
r l
1986, but was sampled concurrently with P2 and Chemical Analyses of Water and Wastes (USEPA P7 from July 1986 until the present. At all 1979) and Standard Methods (APHA 1989).
stations, temperature and salinity profiles were taken in 2 m increments four times per month 2.2.3 Analvtical Methods during January through December with a Beckman* Thermistor Salinometer (through Results from these collection efforts were used to i March 1989) or a YSI* (Model 33) S C-T Meter describe the seasonal, temporal, and spatial within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the weekly macrozooplankton characteristics of the water column within the and ichthyoplankton sampling. Beginning in nearshore waters off Seabrook Station and in the 1995, salinity samples were collected at near- Hampton-Seabrook estuary. Offshore water surface (-l m) and near-bottom (+1 m) depths. quality analyses used data from all stations, but Collections were made in wax-scaled glass bottles focused on Station P2 since it was sampled for a and analyzed in the lab using a YSI Model 34 S- longer period of time than Stations P5 and P7.
C-T Meter. During 1996, field temperatures Any values that were less than the detection limits continued to be collected using a YSI Model 33 were assigned a value equal to one-half of the S-C-T Meter. Duplicate dissolved oxygen detection limit for computational purposes samples were also collected at near-surfa e (-1 m) (Gilbert 1987). For both offshore and estuarine and near-bottom (1 m above bottem) depths. stations, seasonal trends were analyzed using Samples were fixed in the field wifa manganese monthly arithmetic mean temperatures and sulfate and alkaline iodide-azide, and analyzed by salinity, and (for offshore stations) nutrient and titration within eight hours of collection. dissolved oxygen concentrations. Monthly means Continuous temperature data were collected from for the preoperational and operational periods the discharge (Station DS), and farfield (Station were calculated from the monthly arithmetic T7) areas at a depth of 0.6 m beginning in August means for each year within each period, resulting 1990 as pan of Seabrook Station's NPDES permit in a sample size equal to the number of years in compliance program (Figure 2-1). The monitors each period. Monthly means for 1996 were j were retrieved weekly and the data downloaded calculated as the arithmetic average of all l to a PC. Water temperatures were continually samples taken within a given month.
integrated and recorded over 15-minute intervals.
l The 15-minute intervals were averaged to Among-year and between-period trends were produce a daily mean temperature, and the daily evaluated using annual or period (preoperational, mean temperatures were averaged within a month operation) means. Annual means of 1996 collec-to produce the monthly mean. The results of this tions were calculated as the arithmetic mean of all monitoring are included in this section. observations within the year. The means of preoperational and operational collections were 2.2.2 Laboratory Methods calculated as arithmetic means of annual means over all years within each period, which varied Water quality samples were analyzed for five among stations and parameters. The precision of nutrients (total phosphorus, orthophosphate, the mean was described by its coefficient of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia) using a Technicon* variation (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). Preoperational Autoanalyzer II system. All analyses were periods for the different analyses are listed on the performed according to EPA Methods for appropriate tables and figures; in all cases, the l 2-3
2.0 WATER QUALITY operational period consisted of collections from concurrently (thus maintaining a balanced model 1991-1996. Collections from 1990 were not <lesign). These results were evaluated in conjunc-included in these analyses since the year was tion with means calculated over all available j divided between the preoperational and opera- preoperatwnal years to help distinguish between tional periods, and the inclusion of partial years recent trends and long-term trends.
in each period would bias the means.
2.3 RESULTS Operational /preoperational and nearfield/farfield differences in monthly means for offshore water 2.3.1 Offshore Water Ouality quality parameters were evaluated using a multi-way analysis of variance procedure (ANOVA), 2.3.1.1 Physical Environment using a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design to test for potential impacts of plant operation. A Climate mixed-effects ANOVA model was used to test the null hypothesis that spatia! and temporal values The weather in 19% was slightly cooler than during the preoperational and operational periods normal with more precipitation (Boston Globe were not signi6M1v (p>0.05) different. The 1997 and Portland Press Herald 1997).
data collected for the ANO7As met the criteria of Differences from the long-term monthly means ;
a Before-After/ Control-Impact (BACl) sampling ranged from-5.0 to +5.8'F. Temperatures were design discussed by Stewart-Oaten et al. (1986), below average in March through May, and July where sampling was conducted prior to and through November. Portland also experienced a during plant operation and sampling statien summer-fall period of below-average locations included both potentially impacted and temperatures. Both Boston and Portland non-impacted sites. The ANOVA was a two-way experienced the year's coldest day in January and ,
factorial with nested effects that provided a direct the hottest days in July and August.
f test for the temporal-by-spatial interaction. The main effects were period (Preop-Op) and station Precipitation, especially snowfall, was above (Station); the interaction term (Preop-Op X average in 1996 both in Boston and Portland.
Station) was also included in the model. Nested After above-average precipitation in January, j temporal effects were years within operational Boston experienced below-average precipitation period (Year (Preop-Op)), months within year during February, March, May, June, August and (Month (Year)), and the interaction of station and November. Precipitation was notably above year within Preop-Op, which were added to average in both areas during September through reduce the unexplained variance, and thus, November. Both areas received record snowfalls increased the sensitivity of the F-test. For both in 1996. In Boston, snowfall in 1996 was twice nested terms, variation was partitioned without the historic average. i regard to station (stations combined). The final l variance not accounted for by the above explicit Temnerature sources of variation constituted the Error term.
The preoperational period for each analysis was Monthly mean surface water temperatures at the specified as 1987-1989, which was the period intake area (Station P2) followed a similar during which all three stations were sampled seasonal pattern during both the preoperational 2-4
2.0 WATER QUALITY l
and operational periods (Figure 2-2). In 1996, As noted for surface temperatures, bottom monthly mean surface temperatures were coldest temperatures at Station P2 in 1996 were generally in January and February, and warmed by only warmer than preoperational temperatures (Table 1.6'C in March (Figure 2-2). Monthly mean 2-1; Figure 2-2). Operational monthly -mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from April temperatures were also generally warmer than through June, deceased slightly in July and preoperational temperatures, particularly during reached a peak in September. Following the the summer and fall. Bottom temperatures in September peak, mean surface water 1996 were similar among the three stations, temperatures decreased rapidly. The single (Table 2 1; Figure 2-2). Annual mean warmest surface temperature measurement in temperatures for both 1996 and the operational 1996,20.0*C, occurred on 9 September. The period were warmer at each station compared to coolest temperature for the year, 0.9'C, was the preoperational period. Bottom water recorded on 5 February, and was the fourth temperatures at each station have increased from lowest minimum temperature on record for 1993 to 1995, but decreased in 1996, similar to Station P2. surface temperatures (Figure 2-3).
Mean annual surface water temperature in 1996 ANOVA model results for bottom temperatures at the intake station (P2) was 1.4*C higher than were similar to results for surface temperatures.
the preoperational mean (all years) and 0.7'C The long-term increase in temperatures since higher than the operational mean (Table 2-1). 1987 was reflected by the significantly warmer Monthly mean surface water temperatures in water temperatures in the operational period.
1996 exceeded the preoperational mean in March, Station differences were significant, and May and June, and August through December arithmetic means indicate that, over all years, )
(Figure 2-2). bottom water temperatures at P5 have been warmer than at P2 and P7. This relationship has l Surface temperatures at Stations P2 (intake), P5 remained constant between the preoperational and (discharge) and P7 (farfield) were similar during operational periods, as reflected in the non-1996 (Figure 2-2), with annual means differing significant Preop-Op X Station interaction term l
by 0.5'C or less (Table 2-1). Surface (Table 2-2).
temperatures at all stations have shown long term l increases, as indicated by the significant Preop- Monthly mean differences between surface and Op difference in the ANOVA results (Table 2-2; bottom temperatures (surface - bottom; Figure 2-Figure 2-3). Temperature differences between 4) indicated that the water column at each station stations over all years were significant, with was essentially isothermal (AT = -1*C to +1'C) temperatures at P5 the warmest and those at P7 during five to six of twelve months, during both I coolest. This relationship was consistent in both operational and preoperational periods.
the preoperational and operational periods, and Temperature stratification began to develop at therefore the Preop-Op X Station interaction term each station by May in 1996, with AT values was not significant (Table 2-2). This consistency between 4 and 5'C. At Station P2 in 1996, the also indicates that the operation of Seabrook maximum AT occurred in June, with a surface-Station did not affect surface water temperatures bottom difference of 6.l*C. A smaller peak at nearfield stations. occurred again in August, with a difference of 2-5
2.0 WATER QUALITY Surface, hake fbttom, Hake E' Preoperabord Faw.u d
w -----
gg
- ' @ g
- pp\
'/ ', +-+m- g g l j y ,s
, '\
/
/ ,' Y h \
f %s 6
y e rf~l~.534 m , g.-
i' j' ~y*q ,
f5 5
. [
y <
g ,
W N /
N/
- 0. O!
JAN FEB W W W JUN R AUG SEP OCT N0/ DEC M FEB M APR W JUN R AUG SEP OCT @ DEC M m WM SJtace.1996 Hae (P2)
Hake m ---- Dachage (PS) g - - Ds:hage (PS) ,, g
-- Fa% P/) ,,y lg
-- FaM (P7) 15 ,s g W S
$" i 5 $5 W % ~~
n ,- ,
0 0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JLN JUL MJG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEM WMREE@M C
= = ;
1 1
Figure 2-2. Surface and bottom temperature (*C) at nearfield Station P2, monthly means and 95%
confidence intervals over the preoperational period (1979-1989) and the operational period (1991-1996), and monthly means of surface and bottom temperature at Stations P2, P5, and P7 in 1996. Seabrook Operational Report,1996.
l i
2-6 i l
L l
)
X 008 725 062 995 8. 0 541 d A 009 778 222 222 1 22 I. e 221 1 I 1 u M 1 1 1 333 333 1 1 1 1 I I i
n t
k n y o 6 N o i
t o r
9 9 I 906 01 0 5.0 9 01 0 454 878 7 0.3 900 406 787 820 677
(
c l
d ba 1 M 222 233 a
u n e Q "a l S Y 572 000 331 777 666 5 5.4 01 0 r a . 1 1 1 888 000 333 1 1 1 333 999 999 t
e n6 o9 ai9 Wta1r n r
op e i X 489 004 204 21 7 371 1 21 f
a e om A M
000 222 665 1 1 1 444 333 444 333 222 1 1 1 222 1 1 1 r u i mPm i L
A N 1 02 x r x N 0. 1 2 656 595 0 0.9 494 aea O I
I M 000 000 636 222 856 222 776 555 MvoM T A
d7nP ,n d R E V 4 8.4 1 55 644 01 3 333 01 7 a a P C 767 878 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 322 aS O mPm ,u 8 0.6 786 3 3.3 0. 9. 0 565 1 20 i
n2 i 9091 777 iP m i 1 1 1 333 21 2 333 999 999 Msnin nim d o t ,
)
aa na t
X A 0 4.3 989 725 778 2.6.0 443 5.3 4 444 1 1 0 333 331 222
%, tS e
_
- M 1 1 1 1 1 1 333 333 1 1 1 1 1 1 V aM S
_ R
_ sl A N 201 004 846 082 Ce
( sau E I 000 000 41 9 999 0 4.3 777 2.3 0 666 i Y M 221 222 nun T or n N iCA t
a E
C V
C 076 333 771 233 21 0 078 1 00 0 0.3 2.4 4 444 i ne E 1 1 1 1 1 1 r oh I R
at t A Vk n dn 01 8 674 654 1 1 2 777 221 N T 998 666 1 1 1 222 999 999 f
O ol a 333 333 a I sP s , T t A -
ngr R e na i i e E
P c r i
f uY 6 O
E X
A 3 5.3 999 725 778 266 444 5.3 4 444 01 2 636 1 30 6261 f
eD)6 99 R P
M 1 1 1 1 1 1 333 333 1 1 1 1 1 od 9 1
- Ce9 r1 t
, S R N 201 004 746 082 5.3 3 2.3 7 d u -1 r A I
M 000 000 41 9 999 676 664 ns p o aa9 E 221 222 Y
s e9 e L nM1(R a l l L
A V
C
- 0. 7.3 806 8 9.3 869 4 9.3 1 01 868 000 1 69 340 685 462 e s r a a 1 I
- Meteii nn oo 1 97 1 58 675 2.3 2 767 201 I
amaa l t t 998 776 1 1 1 222 999 999
- u a r r 333 333 n r e pp e na N APOO )
C E
- G
( Y 1
. E ) X
- R R t p O 2 E U p T T ( D e E A Y E l
R T V b M I L
a A E
P e
ca m N e c m O ) e m T R M f o
t I
a L fr2 57 o t
La c S /f t o
r257 t 257 t 257 S gr257 t 257 A E uPPP oPPP A uP PP oPPP I oPPP P TS B SS B D (mS u P P P B g
X 500 050 0.0.0 055 5 5.0 A 788 763 422 798 660 2
763 535 335 980 M 1 21 2 6 N 8.3 8 9 550 0.0 0 333 333 _
9 I 1 21 3471 000 000 000 _
1 M _
851 51 9 542 758 485 i 557 1 1 1 801 233 1 61 445 222 1645 1 1 X 500 050 0.0 0 0.5 5 5 5.0 A 788 763 422 798 960 763 335 980 2 535 M 1 21 2 L
A N N I
5 0.0 0.5 0 333 333 8.3 8 O 1 21 397 000 000 000 I M T
A R V 6.3 6 9.9 7 9.4 9 51 5 8 7. ?.
E 454 445 633 01 6 229 P C 1 1 1 222 221 1 21 665 O
9.5 6 31 5 777 31 6 784 Y 445 1 1 1 001 333 494 434 222 090 1 1 is X 000 000 0.0 0 000 999 a S
A M
428 343 000 667 000 000 222 799 - - - 8 88 999 1 1 1 777 i
n o
m R 8 88 m A N 555 000 000 555 999 . a s E
Y I
M 000 500 1 1 555 000 - - -
1 1 1 4 ,,,af n or 8 88 1 4 e T 999 md o N 724 2 525 265 1 1 1 l
- - - a ir V 8.9 --- e 5 3 E 421 462 637 882 up C C 1 1 1 1
1 1 222 1 1 1 778 n 999 nl I
, E R
1 1 1
= = = f a na A 966 270 1 02 oi o 0.2 4 N
O i 445 1 1 1 991 223 427 444 222 --- 257 PPP a na e ep t
r I :
T t s m, e o A n e
) r 2 p R i r - ,
E t u 28 P e8 O 'X 0.0 0 000 000 0.0 0 000 N b 9 l
1 -
E A 468 520 000 899 000 a l -
R M 363 987 000 223 Ti
( r 222 9 p P -
S '
8 9 AV A
Oi n 1
R N I 5.5 5 000 0.0 0 5.5 5 000 7 A M 000 578 555 000 555 8 9
Nd e E Ag Y
91 9i 1
, n na -
L 888d c h -
L V 472 862 994 9 0.3 708 999 e A C 720 221 822 I 21 094 21 2 062 323 058 1 2I 1 1 1
- - - i if ia 992 778 c e n o 999 pm s
- 9. I. 9 851 081 01 9 41 6 1 1 1
)
d T 225 1 1 1 579 222 092 434 221 667 = = = do a m
257i r e ,
PPP ef .r p o
u s8 9
n S :
s lan do19 i T r t
N s .e oh r n E ne t
it t
e e o I a
e m a
r el mb C R s mr a pa e m R UT u
( t e r o la p a oc ei e c
E a r t yD T N hp h u y
. pl 1 p nt a -
- E E s o
s o
a nl i
9; n8 2 M C h h i n
aa 8 a8 A p P e foqu 9 e9 e A F ) t e o 1 s1 Lo la a t m r - u l
b R R /h gt 257 t 2S7 ir257 t ir2 t S7 m257 n at e 7 ai l a A U (p O PPP r
oPPP N PPP iN PPP PPP e a 8 c r 9 e p P S T A MW T
- 1 6
BA oo tS
i illIll ll l
)
d e
u
. n 6 i t
g9 n o
i1 n9 n (
c r ,
)
r O ut e 5 Dro d r
P e
r 7 p 'S o Ng P R e E n 7 d L SOi a s
o p 7 P
p o
7 P 0 0
n a l PI e > e >
a n I
T Rr ec r P 2 P P r 2 P
7 L Ae > > n 5i o U Pd p S
> p 5
> O Pt a O P O P 2
, r M OMn i e
r d
2 e Pp Cek P 5
n sO n (
a r P e
r i
oko 2 t
a r o t
Sb a ge nS o
- SSS a a
- N *"
- NN
- N"
- NN NN"N* N S
N* " NNN s
c e 0003 7 9 3 25 8 58 204 23 3 ;8 04 0!
iY t
F 71 03 08 501 61 0 021 93 8 206900 1 8 203 6 01 51 50
- 9. 6.2 7 7 4 025601 s) 3 5 1 5 5 5 3 i6r 5 4 e9 t 9 1
c1 a -
r1 a9 h9 C (1 yl 347955 6 381 93 78 857865 8 1 8 1 8 464 t a S 75 40000 81 93.000 96222 0. 0 8052000 i
l n M 8 873000 7861 000 0740000 1 41 0000 ao 4 8 9 3 ui t Qra r e e p t
aO Wdn F D
1 792248 9 1 9 1 792243 9 1 9 I
792248 9 1 9 I 792248 9 1 9 ga 1 1 1 1 i n) r9 a8 p9 m1 o7
")p
)
p
) )
8 P p C 9 O -
O- O- O-e1 p p p p c( o ne o 8 o o ns ne ne ne or or or or a r iP t
iP t ) iP iP a(r a (r a (r t t i a r e :
- FN *
)
t S a )
t S a p
O) ta (r S a )
t S ae
')
VaY OO pa r e ) r pa e - r pa e ) r I '
- oe XY oe XY oe XY pa oe XY f a l
ET peYr pX peYr pX peY pX peYr pX on CA O P h('nopor O- n OP( h n -O n OrP( O OP( h n -O n s o .RI
.UR p (r t p (r o por t p (r h
t n -
opor n p (r nioio opor o a o a nioior a rr t
i i s t OA e nioio r e oa e a r t t e
r e o a e t t o ae nioio e
t t oa er t a r o e ae oa e a rr t t l
ya r SV PYMSPSE t r t r PYMSPSE t t r PYMSPSE t r r PYMSPSE t r t ae np o
Ae f r oP st l
t n
ue s c e
r e r
u u e e t a t a
RR R r e
p r
e t y ty E p i n
i n
2-T m e m i l
i E
l e a a T T S S 2 M e e e A c o
m c m o
l R fa t fa t b A r u
t o r t o
a P S B S u
B T
y*
( j
)
d e _
u -
i n
t _
- n _
o c
(
n
)
r O e 7 d n r
'S o O Ng 2
. E Oi n p p
. L S s O
. O
.I PI a
.T . Rre >p o
5 e
.L Ac e e P r
.U Pd P r
7 M OMn i e r
Cedk P 2
n e a
r r
( P 5 _
S* S
- SSS -
- N"N*N N 91 3531 N *" N N N N N *'e sNN 497 - 1 1 N""NNN 1 391 68 04 3 41 5 F 01 61 1 3 365 7.9 0 059 n o0. 6 0.7.8 6 5 6 604370 008421 009 n00 04 9600 8 8 3 1 1 440441 3 7608835 1 51 0457 779223 1 8 41 1 000 1 99.3001 7.21 2.0.3 4 9682569
. S 2030000 240005 4888035 36424 57 M 1 21 1 1 2 21 791 23 73 1
F D
i 792248 9 1 9 1
1 792248 9 1 9 1
I 792248 9 1 9 1
i78224% 9 1 1
)
) ) )
p p p p O -
O- O -
O -
p p p p _
o ne o ne o ne neo or iP iPor or iP i orP
) ) t a (r t t t
- S a (r t ta (r p O) a (r t
p O) t FN ) r
) S ae ) r
) S ae - r S ae - r S ae OO I pa oe XY pa oe XY pa oe XY pa oe XY ET peYr pX peYr OP( O pX peY r OP(h nopor On pX peY r OP(h nopor O pX C
RIA OP( h nopor O p (r nioio- n UR p (r t
- n p (r opor n
- ht n -
o p (r t
ae nioio o
a t
OA o e ae oa rt r
nioio t t ea r o
e a r
nioio t
e oa er a rr t
e r
t oa ret arr t r e oae a rr e t t SV PYMSPSE r t PYMSPSE t t PYMSPSE t PYMSPSE t r t _
) _
d e
u _
i n _
t n d d s o . .
e v
e v e u C .R l l t
a r
o
( .E o s
o s h h 2- T s s p s
p s
E i o o iD D 2 .M ,
en me n h p
h P
e ;A c
ag e og o l l
b R fr y t t y ht t a
.A u x ox r o a sP SO BO O T T ..
f_
s t
e c
- T t
e
- )re i
n a
$ dr m
'S Ng o t n
xE EPISOi n
s i
f i
a c
s n
.T I
Rr e is g
.U A ee
_