ML18086B538: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 63: Line 63:
==1.1 INTRODUCTION==
==1.1 INTRODUCTION==


This report is requ.ired by the Environmental Technical if ica.tions (Appendix B to Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station. It includes the results of analyses carried out under the ical environmental monitoring requirements described in the Environmental Technical Specifications  
This report is requ.ired by the Environmental Technical if ica.tions (Appendix B to Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station. It includes the results of analyses carried out under the ical environmental monitoring requirements described in the Environmental Technical Specifications
{ETS). The reportinq requirements within Appendix *B to Operatinq License DPR-70 became effective on December 11, 1976, and to Operating License DPR-75 on.August 2, 1980, when the units involved achieved initial criticality.
{ETS). The reportinq requirements within Appendix *B to Operatinq License DPR-70 became effective on December 11, 1976, and to Operating License DPR-75 on.August 2, 1980, when the units involved achieved initial criticality.
It is noteworthy that in 1979, the NRC issued Amendment No. 23 to Facility Operatinq License No. DPR-70, which deferred control of most environmental issues to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Station's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit. Since the Yellow Creek ruling {Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board,. Docket Nos. STN 50-566, 567, 1978), the EPA has taken responsibility for all environmental water quality monitoring requirements at the Station. This is reflected in the.existing Salem 2 operating license (No. DPR-75) ETS -sections.
It is noteworthy that in 1979, the NRC issued Amendment No. 23 to Facility Operatinq License No. DPR-70, which deferred control of most environmental issues to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Station's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit. Since the Yellow Creek ruling {Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board,. Docket Nos. STN 50-566, 567, 1978), the EPA has taken responsibility for all environmental water quality monitoring requirements at the Station. This is reflected in the.existing Salem 2 operating license (No. DPR-75) ETS -sections.
Line 220: Line 220:
====2.2.5 Chemical====
====2.2.5 Chemical====
Releases (ETS Section 3.1.1.5) These estimates were drawn from inventory control forms and chemical purchases for the year. The numbers presented below are based on the assumption that all purchases were also utilized during the course of the year. Since production wells were used to supply certain systems which ultimately discharge to the river, well water chemical constituents were. taken into account in making estimates of the parameters presented in Table 2.2.s. It should be noted that most well water is processed (i.e., passes through a mixed *bed demineralizer) prior to use. The substances cumulated within the bed are eventually treated (upon wash) in the Station's low-volume water treatment system. Thus, most of quantities discharged will be much lower than* values listed herein.
Releases (ETS Section 3.1.1.5) These estimates were drawn from inventory control forms and chemical purchases for the year. The numbers presented below are based on the assumption that all purchases were also utilized during the course of the year. Since production wells were used to supply certain systems which ultimately discharge to the river, well water chemical constituents were. taken into account in making estimates of the parameters presented in Table 2.2.s. It should be noted that most well water is processed (i.e., passes through a mixed *bed demineralizer) prior to use. The substances cumulated within the bed are eventually treated (upon wash) in the Station's low-volume water treatment system. Thus, most of quantities discharged will be much lower than* values listed herein.
* The only source of many of the reported chemical parameters is the water withdrawn from the production wells. These parameters have been shown not to affect the river water quality. An ETS change request will be submitted to request approval to delete the reporting requirement for the ing parameters:  
* The only source of many of the reported chemical parameters is the water withdrawn from the production wells. These parameters have been shown not to affect the river water quality. An ETS change request will be submitted to request approval to delete the reporting requirement for the ing parameters:
: 1. Calcium 2. *Magnesium  
: 1. Calcium 2. *Magnesium
: 3. Potassium M P82 83/01 4. s. 6. Nitrate Silica Phosphate TABLE 2.2.5 CHEMICAL RELEASE ESTIMATES*  
: 3. Potassium M P82 83/01 4. s. 6. Nitrate Silica Phosphate TABLE 2.2.5 CHEMICAL RELEASE ESTIMATES*  
-1981 CHEMICAL CONSTITUENT Chlorine as cl 2 Calcium as Ca Magnesium as Mg Sodium as Na Potassium as K Copper as Cu Sulfate as so 4 Chloride as Cl .Nitrate as N0 3 Silica as Si0 2 Phosphate as P0 4 volatile-Amines Hydrazine Suspended Solids PREDICTED AVERAGE NET AMOUNT DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 870 135 56 600 55 1590 138 2.4 46 11 4.2 0.04 <1000 1981 ESTIMATED AVERAGE NET DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 805 1,789 (1) 634 (1) 4766 (2) 1.6 0.7 (3) 8,363 (4) 1,151 (1) 8.3 (1) 77.2 4.1 71 ( 5) 167 (6) 5 *In accordance with NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, the daily maximum and monthly average concentrations of SC-22 and BD-5 (comosion inhibitors) in the cooling system discharge were monitored and submitted on the EPA's Discharge Monitoring Report form. No environmental impacts associated with their use was noted *
-1981 CHEMICAL CONSTITUENT Chlorine as cl 2 Calcium as Ca Magnesium as Mg Sodium as Na Potassium as K Copper as Cu Sulfate as so 4 Chloride as Cl .Nitrate as N0 3 Silica as Si0 2 Phosphate as P0 4 volatile-Amines Hydrazine Suspended Solids PREDICTED AVERAGE NET AMOUNT DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 870 135 56 600 55 1590 138 2.4 46 11 4.2 0.04 <1000 1981 ESTIMATED AVERAGE NET DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 805 1,789 (1) 634 (1) 4766 (2) 1.6 0.7 (3) 8,363 (4) 1,151 (1) 8.3 (1) 77.2 4.1 71 ( 5) 167 (6) 5 *In accordance with NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, the daily maximum and monthly average concentrations of SC-22 and BD-5 (comosion inhibitors) in the cooling system discharge were monitored and submitted on the EPA's Discharge Monitoring Report form. No environmental impacts associated with their use was noted *
* M P82 83/01 NOTES (1) Chemical analyses of the production wells yielded higher contents of calcium, magnesium, chloride and nitrate than anticipated.
* M P82 83/01 NOTES (1) Chemical analyses of the production wells yielded higher contents of calcium, magnesium, chloride and nitrate than anticipated.
The river water survey cates no environmental impact associated.with these discharges.  
The river water survey cates no environmental impact associated.with these discharges.
(2) Most of the sodium released from-the Station is buted to sodium hydroxide's (NaOB) use in pH control and demineralizer regeneration.
(2) Most of the sodium released from-the Station is buted to sodium hydroxide's (NaOB) use in pH control and demineralizer regeneration.
Even with this greater loading, the total sodium discharged in the circulating water discharge produced an increase less than 0.2 mg/liter compared to ambient levels 104 times greater (See Figure 2.2.5-13)  
Even with this greater loading, the total sodium discharged in the circulating water discharge produced an increase less than 0.2 mg/liter compared to ambient levels 104 times greater (See Figure 2.2.5-13)  
'Therefore, there was no mental impact .. (3) These quantities are attributable to average copper levels in NPDES discharge t48C. This represents a charge concentration of 2 *. 65 x 10-S mg/liter, much lower than 0.082 mg/liter, which is the natural copper concentration in the river. Furtner, this level falls below the discharge limitation set by the USEPA. It is concluded that the Station did not adversely influence the ambient copper in the river. ( 4) The estimated' sulfate discharge is primarily based on station use of sulfuric acid for pa control and eralizer regeneration.
'Therefore, there was no mental impact .. (3) These quantities are attributable to average copper levels in NPDES discharge t48C. This represents a charge concentration of 2 *. 65 x 10-S mg/liter, much lower than 0.082 mg/liter, which is the natural copper concentration in the river. Furtner, this level falls below the discharge limitation set by the USEPA. It is concluded that the Station did not adversely influence the ambient copper in the river. ( 4) The estimated' sulfate discharge is primarily based on station use of sulfuric acid for pa control and eralizer regeneration.
Even if the full amount of S04 utilized at the site was released, the* effluent tration would be* 0 mg/liter, much lower than ambient river levels (See Figure 2.2.5-6).
Even if the full amount of S04 utilized at the site was released, the* effluent tration would be* 0 mg/liter, much lower than ambient river levels (See Figure 2.2.5-6).
As indicated in the river water survey, the Station did not have an adverse affect on river sulfate levels. (5) Ammonium hydroxide is used for pH control in the ondary condensate feedwater system. This represents a discharge concentration of .003 mg/liter, much lower than 0.32 mg/liter which is the natural ammonia tration in the river. The river survey shows no tion-related change in river ammonia levels. It is concluded that the Station did not influence the ambient ammonia concentration in the river.  
As indicated in the river water survey, the Station did not have an adverse affect on river sulfate levels. (5) Ammonium hydroxide is used for pH control in the ondary condensate feedwater system. This represents a discharge concentration of .003 mg/liter, much lower than 0.32 mg/liter which is the natural ammonia tration in the river. The river survey shows no tion-related change in river ammonia levels. It is concluded that the Station did not influence the ambient ammonia concentration in the river.
(6) Hydrazine is used for oxygen scavenging.
(6) Hydrazine is used for oxygen scavenging.
It reacts with dissolved oxygen in the unit steam systems to form nitrogen and water. 167 lb/day of hydrazine were used at the station. All the hydrazine reacts and poses in the system and very little or no hydrazine is actually discharged.
It reacts with dissolved oxygen in the unit steam systems to form nitrogen and water. 167 lb/day of hydrazine were used at the station. All the hydrazine reacts and poses in the system and very little or no hydrazine is actually discharged.
Line 329: Line 329:
......  
......  
...... -i JAN fEB MflR flPR t!ft't JUN *JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC LE8END I PREOl'fRATIOHAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
...... -i JAN fEB MflR flPR t!ft't JUN *JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC LE8END I PREOl'fRATIOHAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
* DISCHARGE 11111-111110 LOCATION I* INT+K&#xa3; PftfOPfftATIOHAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIOE ANO OOWNllTRfAM ISBI PATA Of THf MIXING ZONI:: PftfOPERATIONAL MINIMUM IRON AT LOCATION 2 .. :! .. d " .. a .... .. I ..  
* DISCHARGE 11111-111110 LOCATION I* INT+K&#xa3; PftfOPfftATIOHAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIOE ANO OOWNllTRfAM ISBI PATA Of THf MIXING ZONI:: PftfOPERATIONAL MINIMUM IRON AT LOCATION 2 .. :! .. d " .. a .... .. I ..
:I 0 .... :c D .. ..;. ..  
:I 0 .... :c D .. ..;. ..  
.....
.....

Revision as of 18:21, 25 April 2019

Annual Environ Operating Rept (Nonradiological), 1981.
ML18086B538
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 05/28/1982
From:
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML18086B537 List:
References
NUDOCS 8207010399
Download: ML18086B538 (82)
v • d • e


Text

  • " .* ... 11e Energy People 1981 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION *UNIT NOS. l & 2 Docket Nose 50-272, 50-311 Operating License Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75 l/ January 1-December 31,1981 Annual Environmental Operating Report ( Nonradiological)

May 28,1982 --

--** ... : . --.

) . " .* 1981 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT {NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

January 1 through December 31, 1981 --IE HQ FILE OOH SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ONIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311 Operating License Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey June 11 , 19 8 2 8207010399-8266.11 PDR ADOCK 05000272 R PDR M P82 83/01-cag

  • -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was prepared by Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Newark, New Jersey. Data were collected at the *salem Nuclear Generating Station and in the Delaware Estuary by the staff of Salem Station, the PSE&G Research and ing laboratory and Ichthyoloqical Associates (IA) of town, Delaware.

Data analysis and report preparation were performed by the PSE&G Licensing and Environment Department and the IA staff. M P82 83/01 ii

,.,

  • SECTION l.O l.l l.2 1.3 2.0 2.l 2.l.l 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.s 3.0 3.l 3.l.l 3.l.2 3.1.3 3.l.4 3.2 3.2.l 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.4 . -*-.---e--*-SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT (NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE GENERAL. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • 1 INTRODUCTION.
  • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  • 1 SuMMARY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  • 2 CONCLUSIONS
  • * * * * * *
  • 3 ABIOTIC MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS 4 'l'HERMA.L
  • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  • 4 Thermal Characteristics of Cooling Water 4 Discharge

................................ . Rate of Change of Discharge Temperature

    • 5 CHEMICAL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  • i 3 Chlorine *..*.......*....................**.

14 Suspended Solids *************************

14 pH ******************************

  • * * * * * * *
  • 15 River Water Survey ***************
  • ******** 15 Chemical Releases ************************

21 BIOTIC MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS ** 65 DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN NESTING STUDY *********

65 Study Area ...................*............

6 5 Materials and Methods ********************

66 Data Reduction

                                                      • 6 6 Results and Discussion
                              • .****

67 OSPREY AND BALD EAGLE SURVEY ***************

68 Study

69 Materials and Methods ********************

69 OSPREY SURVEY -1981 ***********************

Results and Discussion

69 LITERATURE CITED ............................

71 M P82 83/0 l i .j

  • ------SECTION 1.0 GENERAL

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This report is requ.ired by the Environmental Technical if ica.tions (Appendix B to Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station. It includes the results of analyses carried out under the ical environmental monitoring requirements described in the Environmental Technical Specifications

{ETS). The reportinq requirements within Appendix *B to Operatinq License DPR-70 became effective on December 11, 1976, and to Operating License DPR-75 on.August 2, 1980, when the units involved achieved initial criticality.

It is noteworthy that in 1979, the NRC issued Amendment No. 23 to Facility Operatinq License No. DPR-70, which deferred control of most environmental issues to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Station's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit. Since the Yellow Creek ruling {Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board,. Docket Nos. STN 50-566, 567, 1978), the EPA has taken responsibility for all environmental water quality monitoring requirements at the Station. This is reflected in the.existing Salem 2 operating license (No. DPR-75) ETS -sections.

Effective after the Yellow Creek Decision, the environmental technical specifications for Unit 2 defer all biotic and abiotic monitoring of effluent limitations to NPDES permit No. NJ0005622.

Similar consideration has not been provided however, by altering corresponding sections of Unit 1. Much of the equipment and resources utilized by Salem 1 is shared by Salem 2. Although distinct differences in ing requirements exist between the ETS sections for both units, we have not attempted to draw a distinction between the environmental impacts associated with each. The station is located at the southern end of Artificial land in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The island, actually a manmade peninsula, projects M P82 83/01 from the eastern shore of the Delaware River estuary which is approximately

2.0 miles

wide at this location.

The grams presented in this report cover both in-plant and veillance monitoring external to the station. Information from December 11 through December 31, 1976 is reported for all required monitoring programs in the 1976 Annual Environmental Operating Report (Non-radiological), April 1977. Results of the first four full years of Salem Unit 1 operation were reported in the 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 Annual Environmental Operating Reports cal), March 31, 1978, March 30, 1979, June 13, 1980, and June 12, 1981. This report covers essentially the same information for the period January 1, 1981 through ber 31, 1981, and incorporates information for Unit 2 as well. 1.2

SUMMARY

During 1981 Salem Unit 1 generated 6,191,299 megawatt-hours of net electrical energy. Unit 2 achieved iriitial ity on August 2, 1980, received a full power operating license on July 20, 1981 and started commercial electric production as of October 13, 1981. Unit 2 eventually generated 1,632,067 megawatt hours of net electricity.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3 of the Unit No. 2 Environmental Technical Specification (ETS), the Licensing and Environment Department evaluated 261 design change requests for potential environmental impact in 1981. None of these involved an unreviewed environmental question nor would they require a change in the ETS if implemented.

During 1981, one alteration to an existing environmental permit took place. Specifically, a revised NPDES permit became effective on July 15 (re: letter to F. J. Miraglia, USNRC from R. L. Mittl, PSE&G; August 7, 1981). The permit was revised to include, among other things, effluent tions for corrosion inhibitors, sludge disposal require-ments, and additional monitoring of chemical parameters at station discharges.

As stated in the aforementioned letter, we do not believe, nor have we thus far seen, that these permit changes have caused environmental impacts beyond those assessed by the NRC and described in the Salem Final Environmental Statement of April 1974.

The requirements for non-radiological environmental ing have been divided into two general monitoring and veillance programs:

abiotic and biotic. The abiotic gram (discussed in Section 2.0 of this report) covers field (estuary) and station monitoring efforts, including plant temperature information and plant and field chemical veys. Meteorological information for 1981 is presented in two 1981 Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports (RERR-10 and RERR-11) for Salem. The biotic studies include the terrestrial programs, the results of which are presented in Section 3.0.

1.3 CONCLUSION

S In 1981, no significant environmental impacts attributable to the operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station were observed.

Heat dissipation through the condensers was generally lated to reactor power level. The circulating water systems for Units 1 and 2 sometimes operated with fewer than six pumps each, but no thermally environmental impact was detected in the Delaware River estuary. Plant chemical discharges were made in accordance with Environmental Technical Specification and NPDES provisions, and chemical consumption was compared with predicted waste discharge concentrations.

No unusual or significant water quality impacts or chemical concentrations were noted. The required biotic monitoring, which covered diamondback terrapin and osprey studies, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ETS. No significant changes in terrestrial ecology in the vicinity of Salem Nuclear ating Station were observed.

M P82 83/01 -----I SECTION 2.0 ABIOTIC MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS 2.1 THERMAL (ETS Section 2.1) Waste heat is removed in the Salem condensers by through cooling water taken from and returned to the ware River. The thermal monitoring system utilizes probes called tor temperature detectors (RTD's). These'RTD's are faced with the station computer which records the cooling water temperature readings on an hourly basis. The data are processed to produce discharge-intake temperature difference (delta T) and maximum discharge temperature information for each shell. Delta T values and the net rate of addition of heat to the Delaware River were monitored according to the requirements of the NPDES permit. On October 13, 1981, Salem Unit 2 was declared in commercial service. Thus, 1981 saw Unit 1 and 2 in commercial tion as baseload electric generating stations.

Daily age electric production varied from O to 1105 MWe and 0 to 1148 MWe for Units 1 and 2 respectively.

The relationship of station power level to delta T is presented in Figures 2.1-1 through 2.1-6. These graphs demonstrate the close correlation between these two parameters.

The results of the temperature monitoring program are marized in Table 2.1. Presented are the average intake, discharge and delta T values for the Unit 1 and 2 sers. No data* are reported for Unit 2 from January through April as initial electric production took place in May. 2.1.1 Thermal Characteristics of Cooling Water Discharqe (ETS* Section 2.1.l) Heat rejected through the condensers varied in response to plant operating conditions and power level. *On numerous casions, portions of the circulating water system required maintenance or repair (i.e., inoperative traveling screens on circulating water intakes).

Delta T exceedances were sociated with the necessary corrective actions, which usually involved shutting down one or more circulating water pumps. M P82 83/01 In 1981, Salem Unit 1 surpassed the NPDES maximum delta T *limitation of 15.3°C (27.S°F)*

on twenty-five days spread from January through December.

Unit 2 exceeded the limits on fifty-one days from August through December.

These currences were reported in the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (copies of which were also sent to the Nuclear latory Commission).

Although single condensers exceeded the NPDES delta T requirements on these occasions, the average of the three condensers associated with each unit never exceeded 1S.3°C. The Salem NPDES permit also has a limitation on the net rate of addition of heat to the river (maximum = 4.12 x 109 k cal/hr., 16.3 x 109 BTU/hr.).

This constraint was nally set by the USEPA for the operation of Salem unit 1 alone. With Unit 2 now on line, the release of heat to the river has increased.

PSE&G has requested that the NJDEP adjust the heat release limitation to reflect the operation of both units. The station did exceed the existing maximum from August through December, but no environmental impacts related to the added heat release was This was reported in the monthly NPDES Monitoring Reports, copies of which were sent to the NRC. 2.1.2 Rate of Change of Discharge Temperature (ETS Section

  • 2 ** 3) In 1981, neither of the Salem units was shut down for fueling. Unplanned power reductions at a more rapid rate than a mal shutdown did occur because of the need to protect plant equipment or when, for certain reactor safeguard operations, the plant decreased reactor power level rapidly. No cold shock or other environmental impact attributable to shutdown was observed.
  • Each of the three condenser shells discharges to the river via a separate discharge pipe. Each pipe is regarded as a separate discharge by the NPDES permit. An excessive delta T in one discharge is considered an NPDES permit violation
  • M P82 83/01
  • e TABLE 2.1 UNIT 1 CONDENSER*

TEMPERATURES

-1981 Intake Temp. Discharge Temp. Month Average oc ( o F) Average °C ( o F) January**

o.oo (32) 13. 5 (56.3) February 1.9 (35.4) 10.0 (50.0) March 4.3 (39.7) 11

  • 3 (52.3) April 10.9 (51.6) 12.4 (54.3) May 17. 7 (63.9) 25.0 ( 77 *, 0) June 25.6 (78.1) 32.6 (90.7) July 27.0 (80.6) 35.6 (96.1) August 26.2 (79.2) 34.5 (94.1) September 23.0 (73.4) 32.8 (91.0) October 15.8 (60.4) 25.7 (78.3) November 10.9 (51.6) 19. 8 (67.6) December 4.5 ( 40. 1 ) 12.5 (54.5) *Average of Condenser Circuits 11, 12 and 13. **Temperatures calculated from available data UNIT 2 CONDENSER*

TEMPERATURES

-1981 Month January**

February**

March** April** May June July August September October November December***

Intake Temp. Average °C {°F) 19.2 (66.6) 24. 1 (75.4) 30.0 (86.0) 2 6. 1 (79.0) 23.9 (75.0) 15.1 (59.2) 10.6 (51.1) 4. 1 (39.4) Discharge Temp. Average °C (°F) 20.4 (68.7) 27.3 (81.1) 32.3 ( 90. 1 ) 35.7 (96.3) 33.0 (91.4) 23.8 (74.8) 20.3 (68.5) 15. 7 (60.3) *Average of Condenser Circuits 21, 22, ann 23 **No power generated

      • Temperatures calculated from available data M P82 79/01 6 Delta T Average oc ( o F) 13.5 (24.3) 8.2 (14.6) 7. 1 (12.6) 1.5 ( 2. 7) 7.4 (13.1) 6.9 (12.6) 8.5 (15.5) 8.3 (14.9) 9.8 (17.6) 9.9 (17.9) 9.0 ( 1 6
  • 0 ) 8.0 (14.4) Delta T Average °C (°F) 1.4 ( 2. 1 ) 3.7 ( 5
  • 7 ) 5.3 ( 4. 1 ) 9.5 (17.3) 9.0 (16.4) 8.7 (15.6) 8.9 (17.4) 11. 7 (20.9)

E i i ! 1: 1 L I ll u ll i i I *-----*-------*-

-JANUARY * "! Iv . I I ; I l i : I i \fi 1*** .. r .:; Ill MARCH .. II Cllf -8 \ ! fij. l-s . I ' ' * , I I I ..: :i I \\ I \i /v *" \:; '* .. '* ..  : : I ! i ,.. ! i J i 'i : . ' ' ' ' ,.,,.. ) i : .... t' i ** '"'&' : ! I I 1! 11 ,. Ii J /' UI t "

a I I 11 I I II I I It I I '1 I I It t I 11 I I 11 i i :: I i r I 1 i I : i: ' '. : ii ' .. :i ii :: :: u : " . i. l .i. -.: ** .. PtlBUC SERVICE a.E:CTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SAL.£M NUcu:AR GENERATING 5mT10N . I I i -F'ESRUAR'l' APRIL. Ill UNIT NO. l Daily Average Reactor u:mc -rGfllolfttTS

  • 0£1.?H T IF'l Power .. -8 "! * .. "! . .: .. Level and Condenser Delta Figure 2.1-1

! ii I MA'! ,. ,\ I\

  • I i . \ r\.../" I "i. IA IS CM II cm :Ill l.£;f.MJ A
  • 0£1.%11 ? IP'1 t. :, ii I * ' I I I \ I I \ I \ 21 31 ** Pt!BUC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SAUM NUCUAR GENERATING S'Ti\TION " "!-!Ii; .. *I! -9 !I "! * .. * ..: . ... ! ! I -"' I: I !I . --JUNE Ml IS CRY AUGUST* II Ot1Y :Ill L£mllJ . O*/GIWffm

... CIEi.tit ? 11"1 /'a / I II e t' f ! :II 31 21 UNIT NO. l !: .. 9 . ..: . .. .. .: . ... Daily Average-Reactor.Power Level and Condenser Delta Temperature Figure 2.1-2

--SEPTEMBER lLmC ! D*IGliffm . **en.IA T !Fl " ! " \ \ I I -! .. , 1"* , \, \ " ... i = r .. -:: -9 !I I . I .: * ... s* lll IS 31 ZI :a art NOVEMBER .-----1 r lll ZI PUBLIC SERVICE a.ECTRIC AND COMPANY SALEM NUcu:AR GENERATING STATION . Ii R "': _; .. .:; .:9 !I .. .: OCTOBER UJ:DCl ! a* P£;RMATTS . ** OQ.I!I T !Fl r" I k I ! . -"' ... .. .. : --r : .. : I r =s !I -.: ! L Ill IS :II ZI :a IJlr DECEMBER

.. r" Ill .. Ti Ii .. !:i !!£ .. ' wf; .. 9 l .. f = L.. . ID IS >> ZI 311 Cll'l UNIT NO. 1 Daily Average Reactor P-0wer Level and wa+, WO Figure 2.1-3

-e . ----------

JANUARY l.£QDO FEBRUARY l.LQDID a* IG'!Wffm . ! a*1£m1Wffm

! "'

  • DD.IR T !F'I rfi ** CQ.?R T !P'l !
  • I
  • I " I * !; ! !Ii; ... I: .. .. !* -s !I! -9 !I s !I i I I * * * ... !! ..
  • Ill II a a 31 Ill II :Ill 31 cm* DAY MARCH APRIL. l..EllE:NO u:G£Ml a* MeGAWATTS

.. O*IG!Wflm . !, ... OEl.IR r 1n ni ** DEi.IR T !f'l rfi Ill ! I ** I i I i I ! !lb h .. i: ... --.. I: I:. .. 1* 11 . 8 § i !I !I I ii * .: I r I * ...................

r !! .. 1 **** ' I **** :Ill :ii :Ill 0 s Ill 11 :Ill :'5 31 Ill II Ofl't OAT UNIT NO. 2 Daily Average Reactor* Power Level PUBLIC SERVICE El..ECTRIC ANO GAS COMPANY a.nd Condenser Delta Tempera.ture SAL.EM NUCLEAR GENERATIN.G STATION Figure 2.l-4

!, I I I I ! e r I . s IO IO MAY JULY U:;EMJ D* l'GNl?TS *

  • OEl.Il'I r 1n D*r£1af!m
  • -!E.IH ? IF'l ::S* P\JBUC SERVICE: ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM NUct.EAR GENERATING STATION i; ... .. a -8 !I* .. .. ... --* --***9-!i ! I j!!. 1* I . ; I 1 *( ., I* § a * * § .. " I IO I =: *: IO JUNE: AUGUST IS CAY l::=nl I ! ! . Ii = ... !I * .. ... UNIT NO. 2 Da.ily A vera.ge and Condenser Reactor Power Level Delta. . F i Q'U l" !'! ::> , -'i s Ill !! Ill SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER II* ICIWfftTS
  • A
  • OD.TR T !Fl [: r. . .: .. ..

I. A

  • CEl.?ft T !Fl !y:j i I \ A : I : ..... .: I . / I I \. .

I 1 I ! .. I I J + ' .. = \ i I I I I I I t : ! . ' r . .: L IS :D CftY* PUBLIC EL.ECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION . S* !! ' ' : I OCTOBER II Oll1' OE:CEMSER ill : ' *' I . n ' \'. '. \\i " 1 I 111 II ORY UNIT NO. 2 u:GENO

  • 6 -CD.TR r cFl ii / 9 * .. _!; .. .: * .. ... Daily Average Reactor Power Level and Condenser Delta Temperature Figure 2.1-6 e-.
  • 2.2 CHEMICAL (ETS Sections 2.2 and 3.1.1) In accordance with requirements of the ETS, ambient river water and plant discharges were*monitored to assess the chemical impact of station operation and detect changes in Delaware River water quality. Three river sampling points shown in Figure 2.2 were tored once each month. Location 1 was the circulating water system discharge at a depth of 10 feet. Location 2 was next to the Circulating Water System intake at a depth of 8 feet, and Location 3 was outside and downstream of the mixing zone at a depth of 5 feet. The placement of the third sampling station was dependant on the tidal stage and direction of flow in the vicinity of Artificial Island. On incoming and high slack tides, the sampling point was adjacent to buoy N4R, approximately

2.5 miles

north of the discharge.

On outgoing and low slack tides, the sample was obtained next to buoy RSL, about 2 miles south of the discharge. rational data were available from three sampling locations:

one near the present.intake, one opposite the location in the river channel' and one near Sunken Ship Cove (Figure 2 .2). In-plant studies included the monitoring -of well water and of discharges from the Non-radioactive Liquid Waste Basin. Since the start of the River Water Survey many alterations have been made to the monthly study including the addition and deletion of a number*of parameters.

Amendment No. 23 to Operating License DPR-70, which became effective December 13, 1979, deleted the ambient river chlorine monitoring gram from Section 3. 1

  • 1
  • 1 of the Unit 1 ETS.
  • Thus, none of the following chlorine parameters are discussed herein: Chlorine Demand, 30 Sec. Chlorine Demand, 3 Min. Chlorine Residual, Free Chlorine Residual, Combined In a similar manner, Table 3.1-1 lists total dissolved solids among river survey constituents, however ETS Section 3.1.1.3 requires that "dissolved solids shall not be tored." Therefore, TDS is not reported *
  • P82 83/01
  • *
  • 2.2.1 Chlorine (ETS Sections 2.2.1) In 1981 the chlorination system was in operation from tember through December.

A sodium hypochlorite solution was fed to the circulating and service water systems for Units 1 and 2 in order to control biofouling.

ETS Section 2.2.1 requires that the concentration of free available .chlorine ( FAC) at the circulating water discharge standpipe not exceed 0.1 mg/liter.

The NPDES permit for the six circulating water effluents limits FAC to an average of 0.2 mg/liter and a maximum of 0.5 mg/liter.

During periods of chlorination, free chlorine residuals ranged from .01 to 0.41 mg/liter, well within the NPDES quirements..

Further, because of the significant dilution from the unchlorinated condenser shells and the additional chlorine demand from* that water, the concentration of FAC discharging to the river was less than 0.1 mg/liter.

  • 2.2.2 Suspended Solids (ETS Section 2.2.2) The non-radioactive liquid waste basin treats make-up mineralizer and condensate polishing demineralizer erant wastes and steam generator blowdown, permitting solids settling before discharging to the river. In 1981, 24-hr composite samples for total suspended solids (TSS) were taken each month from basin discharge pipe and analyses were performed using the EPA's filtration/

gravimetric methodology.

Amendment No. 23 referred to above requires that the station shall* conduct monitoring for suspended solids as described by NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.

This permit limits the age and maximum daily concentration to 30 mg/liter and 100 mg/liter, respectively.

During the year, the daily average TSS emitted from the radioactive waste basin varied from 0.13 to 137.0 mq/liter, with a yearly ayerage of 30 mg/liter.

Except for December, all TSS values fell below the effluent limit set in the mit. In that case where the limitation was exceeded, the monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) reflecting*

this was submitted to the EPA. A copy was also sent to the NRC. The problem was corrected by January, 1982

  • M P82 83/01 As required by the 1981 rev1s1on to the NPDES permit, the tation started monitoring all six circulating water harges for net release of TSS. During the last three months of the year there were a number of monthly average and maximum exceedances.

However, these problems are buted to the use of a sampling point located in a dead end. A design change is under consideration which would allow sampling at a location representative of true TSS content. Monthly DMRs reported these occurrences to the EPA and NRC. Station release of suspended solids, in December as well as other months, did not appear to adversely affect the ware River levels (Figure 2.2.4-2).

Whereas preoperational data show a span of 5 to 550 mg/liter, 1981 values ated from 32 to 163 mg/liter over all three sampling tions. Discharge levels of TSS were close to the operational average throughout the year and there was no significant difference between values at Sampling Locations 1 and 2 (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, o( = O. 05). In December, the TSS at the discharge was below the tioRal average. It is apparent that the station had no fluence on Delaware River levels of suspended solids. 2.2.3 pH (ETS Section 2.2.3) TS Amendment No. 23 removed the pH monitoring requirement from the basin discharge and imposed the NPDES requirements of sampling the circulating water discharges.

During 1981 the pH of all discharges was between 6.0 and 9.0. Ecological and water quality monitoring programs of the Delaware River near the station showed that operation of the non-radioactive liquid chemical waste basin had no pact on the river (See Section 2.2.4). 2.2.4 River Water Survey (ETS Section 3.1.1.4) The Delaware River near Artificial Island exhibits tial tidal mixing. This leads to limited vertical cation of salinity and broad fluctuations in related chemical concentrations.

These changes correlate with season, fresh water flow, tidal stage and dissolved oxygen levels. As in 1980, 1981 salinity values were higher than normal (range from 16 to 7 ppt). As will be seen, many M P82 83/01

  • emical parameters followed a pattern similar to that of linity (Figure 2.2.4-1).

For each of the chemical species evaluated, station operation was not observed to cantly alter ambient levels in the Delaware River. pH of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island is well buffered due to the influence of seawater in ,the estuary. As a result, the pH has been between 6.0 and 9.0 in each of the monitoring years. pH ranged from 6.80 to 7.75 in 1981, with values spread around preoperational averages (Figure 2.2.4-3).

Discharge pH was more acidic than the intake seven months of the year but these levels all fell within regulatory lines (pH=6.5 to pH=8.5). Thus, the station is not seen to adversely affect the river system. Dissolved Oxygen Station operation did not affect dissolved oxygen tions (D.O.) in the river in 1981. Levels were usually higher than the averages of preoperational data (Figure 2.2.4-4).

The lowest value (6.51 mg/liter in June) occurred at the intake. This low exceeds the correspondinq preopera-' onal average. comparison of intake and discharge dissolved oxyqen entrations by the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test,o<. = a.as, vealed no significant difference between the sampling points.

  • The above data clearly shows the absence of station impact on D.O. levels in the Delaware.

Specific Conductance fluctuated seasonally and with river drought cond1t1ons in 1981. Values ranged from 4,12a to 20,200 micromhos (umhos), with new maximums attained on 17 occasions over all three locations (Fiqure 2.2.4-5). ductance readings in December reflect a lessening in drought severity.

Although station discharge levels exceeded intake levels seven times, good recoveries were apparent outside and stream of the mixing zone (Location 3). Additionally, ing five months, the conductivity at Location 1 was either M P82 83/01

  • ss than or equal to that of Location 2 *. With no ant difference between intake and discharqe (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test ate< = 0.05) the station did not appear to impact on the Delaware River. Turbidity is measured at Salem as nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) which " **** are considered comparable to the previously reported *** Jackson turbidity units (JTU)" (USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974), since the traditional Jackson Candle turbidimeter is cult to use at low turbidity levels. Prior to plant operation, turbidity was observed from 10 to 480 NTU (Figure 2.2.4-6).

The 1981 data for all three tions varied from 5 to 46 NTU. During the year, levels did not exceed the preoperational maximums but new minimums were established seven times. In addition, intake and discharqe values were extremely close so as to reveal no station pact on river turbidity counts (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test at o< = 0.05). Chloride (as CaC03) ranged from 3,038 to 11,985 mq/liter (Figure 2.2.4-7).

As in 1980, drought conditions kept chloride levels above the preoperational average at all ree locations throughout the year (in December results oved closer to the average).

Hiqher concentrations (at or above the preoperational maximums) occurred during the mer and fall.when reduced river flows caused the saline water to penetrate further upstream.

Intake and discharge values were comparable, so the station's release of chloride from its well system is not seen to have had any impact on levels in the Delaware River (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test at c(= 0. 0 5) * (Note: To convert chloride as CaC03 to NaCl, multiply values given by 1.17). Sulfate levels in the Delaware continued to be above averaqe in 1981, with seasonal swings and drouqht impacts apparent during summer and fall (Figure 2.2.4-8).

The range of values was from 193 to 1,407 mg/liter (as CaC03) with both

  • intake and discharge exceeding preoperational maximum eight times. Importantly, during seven months intake tions exceeded corresponding discharge values. (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, o(. = 0.05). Thus, although the station employed sulfuric acid in its operation, facility discharges are not seen as seriously impacting on river water quality. M P82 83/01 Ammonia values (as NH3) at all three locations, as in ous years of operation, were low. Compared with the operational range of approximately 0.0 to 3.8 mg/liter, 1981 results tracked from 0.04 to 1.87 mg/liter (Fiqure 2.2.4-9).

While Location 1 exceeded levels found at tion 2 seven times, all concentrations were at or below operational averages.

The only exception occurred in December when the maximum (1.87 mg/liter) was attained in the discharge.

However, concurrent intake sampling yielded high results (1.67 mg/liter).

At the same time, good covery was apparent at Location 3 ( L45 mg/liter).

The continued low NH3 levels, even with station use of ammonium hydroxide for pH control, shows the lack of terious effects on the river system. Nitrate (as N03) in 1981 consistently fell below the erational averaqe and, in many cases, was lower than erational minimum (Figure 2.2.4-10).

Prior to station operation, river nitrate levels varied from 0.05 to 22.0 mg/liter.

In 1981, the range was 1.06 to 5.85 mg/liter.

The conclusion can be drawn that the Station has had no pact on the nitrate content of the Delaware, especially in view of the similarity in intake and discharqe tions that existed (Location 1 exceeded 2 in six the* reverse was also true on six occasions).

Kjeldahl Nitrogen is a measure of free ammonia and nitrogen which is organically bound (in the trinegative state). The preoperational data are limited to the sampling location near Sunken Ship Cove. The high preoperational value during June seems exceptional should be ignored (Figure 2.2.4-11).

Normally, the range is between 0 and 10 mg/liter and the 1981 data generally fall below the average. Since the discharge concentrations are close to the intake values, and agricultural practices are dominant in influencing the Kjeldahl nitrogen in the river, the Station did not cantly affect the Kjeldahl nitrogen levels in the river. Phosphate as P04 in 1981 ranged from 0.03 to 0.38 mg/liter as compared with the preoperational span of almost 0.0 to 4.0 mg/liter (Figure 2.2.4-12).

During the year, phosphate values were at or below the corresponding preoperational average. In May, the level at Location 1 rose to 3.80 mg/liter, however recovery at Location 3 was rapid (0.03 mg/liter).

In all other months, intake and discharge tions were essentially the same. It is apparent that tion release of phosphate has had no impact on the Delaware river. M P82 83/01 (as CaC03) was analyzed at all three locations in it can be seen that the Station's effect on river levels was minimal. This year's range was from 156 to 480 mg/liter, as compared with the preoperational average of 30 to 750 mg/liter (Figure 2.2.4-13).

Each location tended to be at or above the preoperational average, however, station discharges had no influence on these levels as intake exceeded discharge concentrations six months out of the year {three months the reverse was true and three times they were equal). Magnesium concentrations, measured as CaC03 reached a mum of 82 and a maximum of 3,704 mg/liter in 1981 (Figure 2.2.4-14).

At all three sampling points, values were greater than preoperational averages (except in May). This escalation in magnesium levels can be attributed to ued drought conditions in the Delaware.

There was no significant difference between intake and discharge sium content and it is believed that the facility has had no impact on ambient Delaware River levels. Sodium and Potassium concentrations as CaC03 were measured since October 1972 only at one station, near Sunken Ship Cove, during the preoperational program. During 1981 both arameters were measured at all three locations.

Figures .2.4-15 and 2.2.4-16 show the relationship between 1981 data and operational averages.

As with many previously described parameters, potassium and sodium levels exceeded the preoperational average at all three locations during 1981. However, a comparison of take and discharge concentrations reveals that there was no significant difference (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test,()(.

= 0.05) sodium/potassium concentration at the intake versus the discharge.

Additionally, recovery of the ware is apparent in Location 3 values which are consistently lower than both intake and discharge.

These facts indicate that even with Station use of sodium hydroxide, there has been no adverse impact on the river. Iron. The range of preoperational concentrations was from "'Cf:{)"to 11.0 mg/liter, whereas 1981 results tracked from 0.16 (Intake, January) to 5.65 mg/liter (Discharge, August). There was great variability in iron levels, both spatially M P82 83/01 -l9-and temporally.

Overall, river content fell below and operational averages (Figure 2.2.4-17).

Either conditions or upstream discharges brought about a new maximum for Location 2 in August (5.0 mg/liter), ing in a high value at the discharge that month (5.65 mg/liter).

Iron concentrations in the discharge exceeded corresponding intake levels eight months out of the year. However, a month-by-month comparison of NPDES monitoring reports for iron bearing effluents revealed no correlation between high levels at Location 1 and permit excesses.

It appears that river iron values are greatly dependent on factors external to the station. The ability of the Delaware to recover from high iron concentrations, as reflected in readings at Station 3, indicates the facility had no apparent impact on river water quality. Copper levels in the Delaware River prior to plant operation varied from O.O to 6.5 mg/liter.

The 1981 data ranged from 0.009 to 0.08 mg/liter (Figure 2.2.4-18).

In general, 1981 copper values were lower than the 1977 through 1980 tional average. Intake and discharge concentrations were similar with neither location having predominantly greater levels. The copper that is discharged from the station is strictly a corrosion product, and the data clearly indicate that no impact on Delaware River levels has resulted from its release. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) data were recorded prior to 1977 only at a sampling station near sunken Ship Cove. In 1981 BOD was measured at all three locations (Figure 2.2.4-19).

Generally, BOD levels were below the tional averages and no significant difference was noted between intake and discharge concentrations.

The BODs countered typical of unpolluted water such as the lower reach of the Delaware River. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in preoperational data ranged from 0 to 650 mg/liter (Figure 2.2.4-20).

The 1981 data ranged from 5 to 374 mg/liter and three times Location 1 ceeded the preoperational monthly maximum. No significant difference between intake and discharge values was noted, and operational/preoperational averages continue to track closely, so it can be concluded that the station had no detrimental effect on COD levels. 49M P82 83/01

  • --. e* It should be noted that in saline waters with chloride centrations above 1000 mg/liter ( 1"410 mg/liter as CaC03) and COD levels below 250 mg/liter, analytical results are hiqhly questionable because of the high chloride interference.

Since most of the 1981 and preoperational data fall into this range, COD data are of limited significance.

2.2.5 Chemical

Releases (ETS Section 3.1.1.5) These estimates were drawn from inventory control forms and chemical purchases for the year. The numbers presented below are based on the assumption that all purchases were also utilized during the course of the year. Since production wells were used to supply certain systems which ultimately discharge to the river, well water chemical constituents were. taken into account in making estimates of the parameters presented in Table 2.2.s. It should be noted that most well water is processed (i.e., passes through a mixed *bed demineralizer) prior to use. The substances cumulated within the bed are eventually treated (upon wash) in the Station's low-volume water treatment system. Thus, most of quantities discharged will be much lower than* values listed herein.

  • The only source of many of the reported chemical parameters is the water withdrawn from the production wells. These parameters have been shown not to affect the river water quality. An ETS change request will be submitted to request approval to delete the reporting requirement for the ing parameters:
1. Calcium 2. *Magnesium
3. Potassium M P82 83/01 4. s. 6. Nitrate Silica Phosphate TABLE 2.2.5 CHEMICAL RELEASE ESTIMATES*

-1981 CHEMICAL CONSTITUENT Chlorine as cl 2 Calcium as Ca Magnesium as Mg Sodium as Na Potassium as K Copper as Cu Sulfate as so 4 Chloride as Cl .Nitrate as N0 3 Silica as Si0 2 Phosphate as P0 4 volatile-Amines Hydrazine Suspended Solids PREDICTED AVERAGE NET AMOUNT DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 870 135 56 600 55 1590 138 2.4 46 11 4.2 0.04 <1000 1981 ESTIMATED AVERAGE NET DISCHARGED (lbs/day) 805 1,789 (1) 634 (1) 4766 (2) 1.6 0.7 (3) 8,363 (4) 1,151 (1) 8.3 (1) 77.2 4.1 71 ( 5) 167 (6) 5 *In accordance with NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, the daily maximum and monthly average concentrations of SC-22 and BD-5 (comosion inhibitors) in the cooling system discharge were monitored and submitted on the EPA's Discharge Monitoring Report form. No environmental impacts associated with their use was noted *

  • M P82 83/01 NOTES (1) Chemical analyses of the production wells yielded higher contents of calcium, magnesium, chloride and nitrate than anticipated.

The river water survey cates no environmental impact associated.with these discharges.

(2) Most of the sodium released from-the Station is buted to sodium hydroxide's (NaOB) use in pH control and demineralizer regeneration.

Even with this greater loading, the total sodium discharged in the circulating water discharge produced an increase less than 0.2 mg/liter compared to ambient levels 104 times greater (See Figure 2.2.5-13)

'Therefore, there was no mental impact .. (3) These quantities are attributable to average copper levels in NPDES discharge t48C. This represents a charge concentration of 2 *. 65 x 10-S mg/liter, much lower than 0.082 mg/liter, which is the natural copper concentration in the river. Furtner, this level falls below the discharge limitation set by the USEPA. It is concluded that the Station did not adversely influence the ambient copper in the river. ( 4) The estimated' sulfate discharge is primarily based on station use of sulfuric acid for pa control and eralizer regeneration.

Even if the full amount of S04 utilized at the site was released, the* effluent tration would be* 0 mg/liter, much lower than ambient river levels (See Figure 2.2.5-6).

As indicated in the river water survey, the Station did not have an adverse affect on river sulfate levels. (5) Ammonium hydroxide is used for pH control in the ondary condensate feedwater system. This represents a discharge concentration of .003 mg/liter, much lower than 0.32 mg/liter which is the natural ammonia tration in the river. The river survey shows no tion-related change in river ammonia levels. It is concluded that the Station did not influence the ambient ammonia concentration in the river.

(6) Hydrazine is used for oxygen scavenging.

It reacts with dissolved oxygen in the unit steam systems to form nitrogen and water. 167 lb/day of hydrazine were used at the station. All the hydrazine reacts and poses in the system and very little or no hydrazine is actually discharged.

M P82 83/01

  • -----*--*------*----* e .. I I / I I .I I I I I I .I I
  • I I I J I I I I I I //3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /-I t I \ l l \ ' l l t l \ I I l l. t 1 l l l l \ I I t ' l '* \, '* ' ' ' ,., ' ' ' ' ' '* ' ' NO'n::

locations dencte precperaticnal sampling stations.

Station 2 did net change. Pcstcperational 3 va:ies accc:d.inq tc tide. Sae te:.ct.

SiAi'ION Hl.lc:..!AR 1 4'!. . . I ST A TI c::: 3* 1'--;....:

--* ._,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ', ' 0 1 *. llta;i: W:XriCZ JJG_ us ='Pln 111.'CU.Y mctA111CG

$tl'i.1iQt 1 *sc.Als:* ',' 3 . ' \. ',' MILES . I I I\) ()\. I * *

  • DELAWARE RIVER NEAR ARTIFICIAL ISLAND 20.0 \ \

1Q'lO 1011 . una 1o'la 1976 19'16 um 1978 1979 1080 1981 MJo:AN 81\LINI 1 r*: 'l'llE DELAWARE RIVER NEAR ARTIFICIAL ISLAND I I\) -1 I f TSS AT LOCATION 1 a--------i a d E! ..Ji ..... :co d ; i T Q f£B HAR ftPR Hfft JUN JUL ftUQ SEP OCT NOV D£C .bHEND PRfOf'fRATIOHAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DlllCHAR6f 11111-19110 DATA LOCATION a* INTAKf fRfOPfRATIONAL AVfRAOf LOCATION ll
  • OUTS ID£ AND DOWNSTREAM lllUI DATA ' Of JH£ MllUNfi ION£ PRfOPfRATIONAL MINIMUM TSS AT LOCATION 2 i--------i i i a la ; i a JllN f£8 l1AR ftPR t1fft .ll* .ll. llJQ SEP OCT OOV D£C Suspended Solids as TSS Figure 2.2.4-2 . I i e i 1 I I\) CD I t TSS AT LOCATION 3 A i a d .... M s:a Cl Jf\N fEB t1AR ft!'R tlll'r JUN JUL flUO SEP ocr NOV DEC LEGEND PREOl'EllATIONAL MAXIMUll LOCATION I
  • DISCttARGf 11111-DATA LOCATION 2* IHTAl<f PRE OPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 11181 DATA Of TllE MIKING ZONE PREOPEllATIONAL MINIMUM e* I Suspended Solids as TSS Figure 2.2.4-2 I I\) '° I I PH RT LOCATION 1 Q Ill cd Q .s Q "' Ill ul JAN f£B l1RR f!PR MAY JUN JUL ftUG SEP OCT NOV OEG LEO END PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
  • OISCllARGE 11111-11180 DATA LOCATION 2.

PRE OPERATION AL AVERAGE LOCATION OUTSIDE ANO DOWNSTREAM 1981 DATA Of Tllf MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM rH AT LOCATION 2 "' .s Q . .s "' ..: "' cd Q cd Q ul-J--..--...---.--...---.--...---...-...,....--,.---.---,r---.---f JAN f£B MAR ftPR MAY JUN JUL ftUG SEP OCT NOV DEC pH as pH Figure 2. 2. 4-3

  • I w 0 I f PH AT LOCATION 3 "' .i Cl a a "' rd Cl JAN fEB l1RR ftPft tlA't JUN JUL flUG Sf P OCT NOV D£C LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
  • DISCHARGE 11117 -IBllO DATA LOCATION It. INTAKE PRE OPERATION AL AVERAGE LOCATION S* OUTSIDE AND OOWNSTRUM IBlll DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM pH as pH Figure 2.2.4-3 I w 1--' I f DISSOLVED OXYGEN AT LOCATION 1 0 0 d 0-1-....... ....... .......

JRN fEB ftPR tlfft JUN JUL ftUG set' OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL llAXlllUll LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1917-11180 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE P.REOPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. OUT510E AND DOWN5T*REAM 1981 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PliEOPERATIONAL MINIMUM DISSOLVED AT LOCATION 2 Q :i a
  • 0

.............

....... --..--....... --..--....... --t JAN f£8 t1RR ftPR tlfft JUN JUL ftlJQ SEP OCT NOV Dissolved Oxygen as o 2 Figure 2.2.4-4 I w I\) I , i DISSOLVED OXYGEN AT LOCATION.3 Q

a Q .0 Q .c.J Q d-1---. ...... -..---. ...... --.--.-.---...----..--.-.---..---..--.-.---..--1 JftN fE8 HM ftPR Hfl't JUN JUL flUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1911-l!IUO DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PllEOPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll a OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 1981 DATA Of TllE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Dissolved Oxygen as 02 Figure 2.2.4-4 I w w I I CONDUCTANCE AT LOCATION 1 a a a D a a a Q .. Q ... Q rl Q

........

JRN fED t1ftR flPR t1flY JUN JUL HUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL UAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • OISCllARGE 11171-1980 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PRE OPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 1961 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL lllNIMUll Q :I Q .. Q cO Q ,..s a CONDUCTANCE AT LOCATION 2 a a a Q JAN fED t1flR flPR tlRY JUN JUL HUG SEP oar NOV DCC Conductance as UMHOS Figu,re 2.2.4-5 I w +:"" I t CONDUCTANCE AT LOCATION 3 D D a a a Q "' Q cO Q d'-t---,.--

.......

JflN fEB t1ftR f\PR Mfl't JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPEllATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1971-1980 DATA LOCATION 2. INTAKE PREOPfRATIDNAL AVERAGE LOCATION :s
  • OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 19111 DATA OF THE ZONE Ph£0PERATIONAL MINIMUM .e Conductance as UMHOS Figure 2.2.4-5 I w VI I f TURBIOIT¥ AT LOCATION 1 Q Q Q § Q Iii* Q JAN fEB HAR ftPR Mf\¥ JUN JUL ftUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PHEOPERATIONAL MAlCIMUM LOCATION I
  • DISCHARGE 11117 -1980 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PflEOPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. ours10E AND DOWNSTREAM lllQI DATA OF THE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM TURBIDITY AT LOCATION 2 Q Q lil Q ft Q. Q § Q JAN f£8 HAR flPR tlffl' JUN JUL ftUG SEP OCT NOV DEG Turbidity as NTU Fig1,1re 2.2.4-6 ..

I w CJ\ I TURBIDITY AT LOCATION 3 a d a rd a ft IC> d-t-_.,,._..,...__,..,_._,--.

...... --..--...... --.-..---oi/>-

...... --.-..---..---t JftN fEO tlRR ftPR MR'i JUN JUL flUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1977 -1980 DATA LOCATION z. INTAKE* PRE OPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION 5. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 19111 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PHEOPERATIONAL MINIMUM i e Turbidity as NTU Figure I w ---1 I *I .. .. Q d D .. "" ..; CHLORIDE AT LOCATION .t a µ a a a Q

..ffi f£O HM fV>R t1fft .lJN ..ll. fl.IQ S£f' OCT NOV D£C LE!END l'REOPERATIONAL IWCIMUM LOCATION I

  • DUICHAROE 11177 -11180. DATA LOCATION I* IHTAKE l'REOPERATIOHAL AVERAOE LOCATION I* OUTalDE AHO DO'lllNllTREAM IOBI DATA Of Tllf MIXINO l'RfOPERATIONAL MINIMUM .. ... a d D .. D .s -Jo.! Q d D d a CHLORIDE AT LOCATION 2 a a* D a a d
  • Chloride as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.4-7 I w ()) f CHLORIDE AT LOCATION 3 Q IJ Q .. IJ Q .; IJ IJ IJ JftN fEO NM flPR MAY JUN JUL HUG sre OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
  • DlllCHARGE 11111-11160 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKt: PRE OPERATIONAL AVERAllE LOCATION :i. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 1981 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL lllNlllUM Chloride e. B Ce.co 3 Figure 2.2.4-7 I w '° I t SULfATE AT LOCATION 1 i i i Cllg .... x: 0 a a a a a <> a Q JAN fEB l1RR flPR Hfi'I' JUN JUL. HUG Sf.r OCT NOV DEC LE!£HD fREOP£RATIONAl.

UAXIWUW LOCATION I

  • DISCHAR6t.

11111-ltlQO DATA LOCATION I* INTAKE l'REOP.fRATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIDE AND DDWHSTREAW I lllUI DATA Df TllE UllUHG ZONE l'RfOl'ERATIOllAL UIHIWUU SULfATE AT LOCATION 2 i i i ... 9 :JIJ .... x: g. d a a a D a a a a f Q .JflN fEB t1AR flPR 11R't JUN JUL HUG Sf.r OCT NOV DEC Sulfate as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.4-8 I .J:"' o* I f ! Cl SULFATE AT LOCATION 3 D D T D I Qi T I ! i I : f r t f \I I I i '. I *1 J. : ! u ¥' ; ' I + A ' l l A A l

....... ""T-_,.__.,.._

___ __,..--1 JRN f£1l MfiR APR Mffi JUN JUL tlUG S£r OCT NOV DEC LE!EHD PllfOl'fllATIONAL WAXlllUll LOCATION I

  • OllCltAllGf Hill -11110 DATA LOCATION I* IHTAKf PllfOPfllATIONAL AVEl\A9f LOCATION I* OUTBID£ AND DOWN8TRUll 111111 DATA Of Tllf MllllNQ ZONE PREOl'EllATioNAL lllHlllUll
  • Sulfate as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.4-8 I -i:-1--' I I
  • AMMONIA AT LOCATION 1 II) .. Q .. II) rl "' ..: a 0 D "' d d a a JAN l1AR flPR tlflY JUL HUG SEP OCT NOV 0£C LE§END PRfOl'fRATIOllAL MAlllUUU LOCATION I
  • DlliCHARGf 11111-111110 DATA 1.DCATIOH I* INTAKE PRfOPfRATIONAL LOCATION II* OUTillDE AND DOW NH REAU 111111 DATA Of THE; MIXING ZONE PRfOPtRATIONAL MIHIUUU AMMONIA AT LOCATION 2 II) ..s "l ... d a a JRN fEO t1AR ftPR tlAY JUN JUL ftUQ SEP ocr NOV DEC Ammonia as NH 3 ' Figure 2.2.4-9 i . I ;

I -i::-1\) I f "' "' "' d () a AMMONIA AT LOCATION 3 d a a JftN fED MM ftPR 11RY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC. LE8EHD PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM l.OCATION I

  • DIBCHARCIE 11111-11180 DATA LOCATION &* INTAKE PREOPERATIONAL AVERAClE LOCATION ll
  • OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 11181 DATA Of THE MIXINCI ZONE PRfOPERATIONAL MIHlllUM 11 Ammonia as NH 3 ' Figure 2.2.4-9 I .J=" w I t NITRATE RT LOCATION 1 Q Q R Q ul II) c.J a a Q 9 a a a a

...... JflN f£B MAR flPR t1fft JUN Jl)L ftUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1971-1980 DATA. LOCATION 2* INTAKE PRE OPERATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION J. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 1981 DATA Of Tiii; MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM NITRATE AT LOCATiON 2 Q a II) c.J a a a a a Q JAN f£B MAR APR 11fft JUN JUl. ftUG SEP OCT NOV. D£C Nitrate as No 3 Figure 2.2.4-10 I I t NITRATE AT LOCATION 3 ..

.. d..i.. ......

JRN f£B tlAR ftPR tlfrt JUN JUL ftUG SEP OCT NOV DEG LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1971-19BO DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PRE OPERATION AL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 19BI DATA Of TllE MIXING ZONE Pf<fOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Nitrate Ji'igure as N0 3 . , r I \Jl I f KJELOAHL NITROGEN AT LOCATION 1 Q Q .. LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL UAXIUUll l.OCATION I
  • DISCHARGE Hl11-1!180 DATA l.OCATION 2* INTAKE PREOPfRATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION 5. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM l!IBI DATA Of THE .. IJllNG ZONE PltlDPfRATIONAL MINIMUM KJELOAHL NITROGEN AT LOCATION 2 Q Q :i a cd **' I \ ,' \ l ' I \ f " / l """' / ', ,o' Q" ,f'i*....

,,' ', . ,,' ,'

  • a \ l t?I' 'fl "' r;* 0 0 a a \al a a d ...... --.-.......

......

..... .JAN ree l1ftR ftPR HriY JuN JUt. nus sir oci Nov nEc a ... :e I : .. Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N Figure 2.2.4-11 I -I=" 0\ I t KJELOAHL NITROGEN AT LOCATION 3 Q

"' .S* LEGEND PREOPERATIONAL MAICIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11171-11180 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PREOPEHATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTHfAM 1981 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PRfOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Kjeldahl Nitrogen Figure 2.2.4-11 aa N ! i e I + --..:i I f PHOSPHATE AT LOCATION 1 ... .J Q .J () 0 . , ... d ..

...

JAN fEB l1RR flPR Nfft JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -l£!!END PREOPEllATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 1917 -11180 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKt; PllEOPERATIOHAL AVERAGE LOCATION OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM DATA Of TllE MllUNG ioNE PRfOPERATIONAL MINIMU!il PHOSPHATE AT LOCATION 2 ... d a

...... --1 ..llN fEO ftl'R tvlY .lJH .lL ftlJa SEP OCT NOV DEC Phosphate as P04 . I Figure 2.2.4-12 I .r=-0:> I f PHOSPHATE AT LOCATION 3 ... ri D "! .. ... d ..

....... -..--.,.._--;r-""T"--.._-1 . JftN f£B tlftR ftPR l'llW JUN JLA. OOG 5£r OCT NOV DEC LEH ND PREOl't:RATIOHAL MAICIMUll LOCATION I * *DISCHARGE 11111-111&0 DATA lDCATION II* IHTAICE PRt:OPERATIOHAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll

  • OUTSIDE AND DOWHSTRUll lllBI DATA Of Tllf llllllHQ ZONE PREOPERATIONAL UINIMUll Phosphate as P04 Figure 2.2.4-12 I .{::" '° I I CALCIUM AT LOCATION 1 i----"---------

a a a te9 Cllg ..... " :c: Q ft "' § 0 a "'

JAN f£8 t1flR HPR Hft't JUN JUI. ftUQ SEP OCT NOV 0£C L!'.fEND PRt:OPt:RATIONAL UAlllMUll LOCATION I

  • Dl&CHARG£ 11171-11180 DATA LOCATION &"* IHTAK£ Pftt:OPt:RATIOHAL AVt:IUil' LOCATION I* OUTSID£ AND DOWNSTR£AM 11181 DATA Of Tllf MIXING ZOHI; PREOPt:RATIOHAL lllNIMUll CALCIUM AT LOCATION 2 a Q i D Q d Q JAN f£8 t1flR HPR Hftl .AJN JUI. fllJG SEP OCT NOV DEC Calcium as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.*i-13 I \Jl 0 I t CALCIUM AT LOCATION 3 i-----------.

a § Q d a Q JflN FEB MAR f!PR ttll'i JUN JUL flUG SEP OCT NOV DEG PftfOl'fRATIONAL MAXIM UY LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11111-11180 DATA LOCATIOH &* INTAKE PRfOPfRATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION ll. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM IDBI DATA Of THf MIXING ZONE PRfOPfftATIONAL llJNIMUM
  • Calcium Caco 3 as -* . Figure 2.2.4-13 I \Jl I-' I f MAGNESIUM AT LOCATION 1 j-...----------_, i i j. Q d a a a a 0 *a a a
  • JflN f£0 t1M flPR ttR¥ JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEIENO PREOl'IRATIONAL MAXlllUll LOCATION I
  • DlllCltARH 11111 -11110 OATA LOCATION I* INTAKI!

AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTlllDE AND DOW NIT REAU 111111 DATA .. Of lit£ llllXINi ZONE l'RfOPERATIONAL MIHlllUll MAGNESIUM AT LOCATION 2 i----------.

a ..J a a l a a Q a l d-t--.---';,;...-

.....

JflN FED tlRR flPR tlR't JUN JUL RUG S£J> OCT NOV DEC Magnesium as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.4-14 I \Jl I\) I f MAGNESIUM AT LOCATION 3 a .ll u:aEND PREOl'ERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I DISCHAR&E 11111-11180 DATA LOCATION 2* IHTAKE PRE OPERATION AL AVERAGE LOCATION :s. OUTlllOE AND 11181 DATA Of* TllE UllUNO PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Magnesium ae Caco 3 _. DOWNSTREAM ZQllE . Figure 2.2.4-14 I VJ w I t ll Q al Q ..; Q SODIUM AT LOCATION 1 0 a I l a a 0 <> a l I l a+--.---...--.---..-

......

JRN fEB l1AR APR MR'i JUN JUL flUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LE8EHD l'REOl'EftATIOHAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11117 -lllBO DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PllEOPf PATIONAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 111111 DATA Of lHE . MIKING ZONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM SODIUM AT LOCATION 2 D ll a I ca ... D e D ca " Sodium as Caco 3 Figure 2.2.4-15 lE!END I Pft£0PERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I
  • Dl&CHARGE Sodium as Caco 3 lt111 -ltl80 DATA LOCATION I* INTAKE Pft£0PfRATIONAL AV£ RAV LOCATION I* OUTSIDE AND DOWNITREAU

---18111 DATA Of TH£ MIXING ZONE PREOPfftATIONAL lllNlllUM Figure 2.2.4-15 POTASSIUM AT LOCATION 1 POTASSIUM AT LOCATION 2 Q Q Jl i ! ' ti :e Q Jl Ea p Ed Jl p D 1 D D /\ ii 111 I \JI \JI .... .... Q I ::I ::I .... .... :CA § !I D *'\ D Q Q . _ ....... d ii Q

.......

LEG£NO f PREOPt:RATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE Potassium Caco 3 as 11117 -llBO DATA LOCATIQH I* IHTAKE PllEOPERATIONAL AVERACit:

LOCATION I* OUTSIDE ANO DOWNURUM 111111 DATA Of THE UUCING ZOHf PRfOPt:RATIOHAL MINIMUM Figure 2.2.4-16 POTRSSIUM AT LOCATION 3 LE8END f PllEOf'iHATIOHAL LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11111-111110 DATA LOCATION I* INTAKE: Potassium as Caco 3 l'ftfOPt:llATIONAl AVE RAO Ii: LOCATION i* OUTSIDE: AND OOWNllTRfAM llllll DATA Of THE MIXING ZON'1 PllEOPfllATIONAL MINIMUM Figure 2.2.4-16 IRON AT LOCATION 1 .. ..;. .. .. d .. a .. Ci IL I \J1 .. -4 CD
  • I ...... :I .... :c 0 .. ..;. ..

..

......

...... -i JAN fEB MflR flPR t!ft't JUN *JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC LE8END I PREOl'fRATIOHAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11111-111110 LOCATION I* INT+K£ PftfOPfftATIOHAL AVERAGE LOCATION I* OUTSIOE ANO OOWNllTRfAM ISBI PATA Of THf MIXING ZONI:: PftfOPERATIONAL MINIMUM IRON AT LOCATION 2 .. :! .. d " .. a .... .. I ..
I 0 .... :c D .. ..;. ..

.....

JAN fEB t!ftR APR t!ft't JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Total Iron as Fe Figure 2.2.4-17 :1 -

I VI ()) I f IRON AT LOCATION 3 Q Q d Q I§ "' Cl IL CD * ........ :I 0-t :c Q Q JAN f£6 11AR APR MA'i JUN JUL RUG 5£P OCT NOV OEC LEGEND PR£0P£RATIONAL MAXIMUM* LOCATION I

  • DISCHARO£ 11171-1880 DATA LOCATION II* INTAK£ PRE OPERATION AL AVERAGE LOCATION S* OUTS ID£ .AND DOWNSTREAM 11181 DATA Of TH£ UIKINO lONE PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM e Total Iron as Fe Figure 2.2.4-17 TOTAL COPPER AT LOCATION 1 TOTAL COPPER AT LOCATION 2 ..
  • d d ID ID e d d f!

a *d I I" V1 \() ..,.d ..,.a I ::I ::I .... .... :c lC .. .. d d --d d ... .m f£D HAR llPft HftY ..w JtL ttJG sr.r 00r mv occ

........

........

....... -1 ..Rf f£0 tlM "R

  • 11ft't ..lJN JUL ftUQ Sf.r OCT NOV DfC LHEHD I PREOPEllATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I .* DISCHARGE' Total Copper as Cu 11111 -lllUO DATA LOCATIOH ll
  • INTAKE PREOPfllATIONA( AVUIAOE LOCATION I* OUTSID£1 AND DOWN:ITREAM 11181 DATA Of' Tllf* MIXING ZONE PRfOPfRATIONAL llWllllUM Figure 2. 2. li-18. '

TOTAL corPER AT LOCATION 3 .. d "' e d fj f-4 .. ...Jd !* I I °' 0 I .... ca :J .... :c ... d .. d Q d1-1-.......,....-

......

.....

........ __.:;P--t

..JlN fEU tm WR tlftY ..lJN Jll. flJG S£P OCT NOV DfC LE8END I PREOl'fRATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • DllCHARGE 11117 -11180 DATA LOCATION II* INTAKE Total Copper as Cu PREOPERATIONAL AVERAllE LOCATION I* OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 11181 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PREOPERATIOHAL MINIMUM Figure 2.2.4-18 I (}'\ I-' I f BOD AT LOCATION 1 Q

"' d Q d "' .J Q ..; "I .. Q JflN fEO HRR flPR Hfft JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ll!!.!!!l PREOPt:RATIONAL UAlllUUU LOCATION I

  • DISCHARGE 11111-11180 OATA LOCATION 2* INTAKt: PRE OPERATIONAL AVEIWiE LOCATION J. OUT51Pt: AND POWNSTRt:AN 1881 PATA Of THE IUIUNO ZONE PREOPERATIONAL lllNIUUU BOD AT LOCATION 2 Q d .., d Q d .., a Fla 12"' ... Q ::j ..S ... J:: .., .J Q .,; "I a o .. Q JflN ff 0 NflR flPR HAY JUN JUl. &IG SEP OCT NOV DEC Biological Oxygen Demand as BOD Figure 2.2.4-19 '

BOD AT LOCATION 3 Q "' ::i Q "' d .. l!o '.:1"' Ci I i:: CJ\ I\) ' CD ... Q I ::J .O ... :c "' ..;. Q ..i "l .. Q d ..... ...... .flN fEO MM APR ttft't JUN JUL flUG SEP OCT NOV OEc LEGEND f PREOPERATIONAL llAXIMUll LOCATION I

  • DISCHARG£ 11171-19UO DATA LOCATION 2* INTAK£ PREOPERATIONAL.

AVERAGE LOCATION 5* OUT51D£ AND DOWNSTREAM lllUI DATA Of THf MIXING ZON£ PREOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Biological Oxygen Demand a& BOD Figure 2. 2. ll-19 I ()'\ w I I COD AT LOCATION 1 0 a a a ..

......

JftN fEO l1AR flPR 11fft JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT flOV DEC LEGE NO PREOPERATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I a DISCHARGE UIH -1980 DATA LOCATION 2* INTAKE PREDPERATIDNAL AVERAGE LOCATION .s. OUTSIDE AND DOWNSTREAM 1981 DATA Of THE MIXING ZONE PllEDPERATIDNAL MINIMUM COO AT LOCATION 2 a 0 d Q JflN f ED 11flR flPR 11fft JUN JUL flUG SEP OC.T NOV DEC Chemical Oxygen Demand as COD Figure 2.2.4-20 ' ---l I 0\ -I='" I f COD RT-LOCATION 3 a Q d.._ .....

....... ..... ._j ........ ............

... -tlll--f ..flN f£B l1RR flPR tlfft JUN Jl.11. RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND PllfOPfllATIONAL MAXIMUM LOCATION I

  • Dl&CllAllGf Chemical Oxygen Demand as COD 11111-1&80 OATA LOCATION 2. INTAKE PRfOPfllATIONAL AVfllAGf LOCATION ll
  • OUTSIDf AND DOWNSTllfAM 11181 DATA OF TH£ Mll<ING ZONE PAEOPERATIONAL MINIMUM Figure 2.2.4-20
  • SECTION 3.0 BIOTIC MONITORING AND SUREVEILLANCE PROGRAMS DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN NESTING STUDY (ETS section 3.1.2.1.2.1)

Northern diamondback terrapin, Malaclemis terrapin terrapin, inhabit brackish water along the Atlantic coast from Cape Code to Cape Hatteras.

Nesting begins in mid-June and tinues through July. Burger and Monteveechi (1975) state that most nests occur above the high tide level in flat areas on sand dunes or beaches that have about 20 percent vegatative cover. Generally, it takes the female less than an hour to select a site, dig a flask shaped hole, lay and cover eggs, and return to the water. Hatching usually begins in mid-to late August and may continue into ber. Cold weather may cause the young to hibernate in or near the nest and emerge the following spring (Carr, 19521 Lawler and Musick, 1972). In 1981, Diamondback terrapin nesting was monitored at three beaches on the Delaware River within 4.8 km of Salem. ing was recorded from June 11 through late July. Activity, as indicated by the number of observed turtles, was greatest at the onset of nesting at Liston Point and Sunken Ship cove, while Hope Creek was most active in early July. The level of nesting activity varied greatly between sites but remained within the range recorded since 1975. Number of females estimated to utilize each beach ranged from 13 to Sunken Ship Cove to 162 at Liston Point. In 1981, 36 females were tagged7 29 at Liston Point (mean (x) carapace length of 18.5 cm and 7 at Hope Creek, (X=l8.4 cm)1 none were tagged at Sunken Ship Cove. Age ranged from 10 years to well over 20 years. No tagged turtles were captured in 1981. Track evidence indicated the same predators as recorded in previous years, i.e., racoon, Norway rat, mink, crows, gulls, and herons. 3.1.1 Study Area Monitoring in 1981 was at the same three nesting beaches as in previous years. Observations were made from June 4 through November 24, at Sunken Ship Cove and near the mouth of Hope Creek, New Jersey, and Liston Point, Delaware (Fig. 3.1-1). For a description of these locations see Volume 2 of the 1977 Annual Environmental Operating Report. M P82 84/02-cag

3.1.2 Materials

and Methods The three sites were searched during daylight hours from June through November.

Weekly searches for evidence of nesting were initiated in early June. Once nesting activity was discovered, searches for nesting females, crawl tracks, and depredated nests were conducted three times per week through the end of nesting in late July. weekly searches for depredated nests and emerging hatchlings were made in August and September, semi-monthly in October, and once in November.

Effort was made to minimize disturbance of nesting terrapins during the course of the survey. Whenever possible, females were allowed to finish nesting before being examined, since once disturbed they typically leave the area. Nesting females were caught by hand, and the length and width of the carapace and plastron were measured.

Each turtle was marked with an individual binary code which consisted of holes drilled inone or more of the 10 dorsal marginal laminae. These plates are so located to be easily drilled with little or no injury to the turtle. A pre-numbered spaghetti tag (Floy Tag Co.) was also placed in one of the binary holes to enhance the reporting rate of recaptured turtles. Tag information is used to record turtle movements and nesting beach fidelity.

For further description of the study methods see Volume 2 of the 1977 Annual Environmental Operating Report. 3.1.3 Data Reduction The following formula was developed to provide a relative estimate of the number of nesting females (N) utilizing each site: (Ts+Tr-Ts)D N-2 3V where T is the number of turtles sighted, Tr is the number of counted, D is the known number of days of nesting activity, 3 is the estimated mean number of nests laid per female during the nesting season, and V is the number of times the study area was visited over the study period. M P82 84/02-cag \

3.1.4 Results

and Discussion Nesting, as inferred from the occurrence of crawl tracks, in 1981 first occurred on June 4 at the Liston Point beach and on June 12 at the Sunken Ship Cove and Hope Creek beaches. In previous years nesting had typically begun on or about June 10. Nesting was last observed on July 6, 10, and 16 at Sunken Ship Cove, Hope Creek, and Liston Point beaches, respectively.

  • Nesting activity, also inferred from the number of crawl tracks seen at each site, varied greatly but generally was highest in mid-June (Figures 3.1-2, 3.1-3, and 3.1-4). There were subsequent surges in nesting activity at each site but of a.much lesser magnitude.

Daily and seasonal nesting activity varied greately but remained within the range recorded in previous years. The annual estimate of nesting terrapins was again highest at Liston Point with 162, followed by Hope Creek with 20 and sunken Ship Cove with 13. These estimates are, by nature of the program, conservative on the low side. The data collected on nesting activity at Sunken Ship Cove and Hope Creek and quite sparse. The beach at Sunken Ship Cove, locally a popular fishing spot, had fisherman present on over 30 percent (4 of 13 visits) of the survey dates ing the nesting season in 1981. This repeated Erosion and vegetable succession at the Hope Creek site in the past few years has substantially reduced the amount of open sand beach. The limited amount of open beach has made accurate counts of tracks and nests very difficult and has probably made the site less attractive to nesting turtles. A total of 2,894 eggs from 387 nests were recorded during 1981 (Tables 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and 3.1-3). Most were found at Liston Point with 2,656 eggs from 337 nests, followed by Hope Creek with 234 eggs from 49 nests, and sunken Ship Cove with 4 eggs from 1 nest. Of the total nests, those that were depredated (and much easier to detect than viable nests) accounted

  • for 94.9 percent at Liston Point, 90.7 cent at Hope Creek and 25.0 percent at Sunken Ship Cove.

evidence in 1981 indicated the same predators as noted in previous years. At Liston Point, racoon, Procyon lotor; red fox, vulpes fulva; Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus; and mink, Mustela vision were common. Raccoon and Norway rat were common at Hope Creek and Sunken Ship Cove. These dators also prey on hatchlings, as do gulls, Larus spp; crows, Corvus spp.; and herons, (Ardeidae).

M P82 84/02-cag e* *-------------e From September 3 through October l the remains of 124 dated turtles were found; most had recently hatched but a few were in the latter phases of embryonic development just prior to hatching.

';rhe most depredated turtles were found at the Hope Creek site with 121, while Liston Point had 3. It is highly likely, due to the nature of bite marks, .that

  • the Norway rat was .the primary predator.

A total of 36 terrapins were tagged during 1981, 29 at ton Point and 7 at Hope Creek; .none were tagged at Sunken Ship Cove. _ No tagged turtles were recaptured in 1981. Mean size of females captured at Liston Point and Hope Creek was nearly identical.

Mean carapace length and*width was 18.5 cm and 14.6 cm, respectively, at Liston Point, and 18.4 cm and 14.4 cm at Hope Creek. Mean plastron length and width was 16.6 cm and 9.4 cm, respectively, at Liston Point, and_l6.5 cm and 9.5 cm at Hope Creek. The youngest female captured on a. nesting beach was mately 10 years old; the oldest appeared well in excess of 20 years. Age determination of older specimens is difficult since the ridged annuli on the carapace scutes becomes less distinct.

with age. Eventually, the shell becomes completely smooth which may indicate age to perhaps 40+ years (Hildebrand, 1932). A of 35 sets of hatchling tracks were noted from August 17 to October 14, 8 at Sunken Ship Cove, 13 at Hope *creek, and 15 at Liston Point. Incubation period for a :marked nest at Hope-Creek was 73 days. 3.2 OSPREY AND BALD EAGLE SURVEY (ETS Section 3.1.2.1.2.2)

The study objectives are to record the occurrence of osprey and bald eagle and to monitor nesting of osprey in the vicinity of Artificial Island. The southern bald eagle, Haliaeetus 1* leucocephalus, is federally classified as 0 endangered" (USDI, 1979); and the North American osprey, Pandion haliaetus carolilnensis, was classified as 0 status undetermined" (USDI, 1973). The osprey has been deleted from the federal list bu*t is still considered endangered by the State of New Jersey (NJDEP, 1979). -Osprey were observed in the study area from March 26 through August 12. Twelve nests were occupied, 4 of which fledged 6 young. M P82 84/02-cag

. . 3.2.1 Study Area The study area (Fig. 3.1-1) extends 16.1 km north, 12.9 south, and 8.0 km east and west from Salem. The northern boundary is near Finns Point, New Jersey and the southern boundary is just north of Woodland Beach, Delaware.

The area features bay, riverine, marsh, upland field and wooded habitats.

Pilings, range towers and powerline towers are common. 3.2.2 Materials and Methods Known osprey nests were surveyed by helicopter monthly from March through August. During flights the area was surveyed for any new osprey nesting sites and bald eagle sightings.

The number of adults and young in each nest were recorded.

To avoid undue stress on the birds, the helicopter remained at a discrete distance (> SO yds) from the nest and paused only briefly to allow the nest to be viewed with binoculars.

Sightings of osprey and bald eagle were also recorded in the

  • course of other field work and are included here.
  • 3.2.3 Results and Discussion In 1981, osprey were sighted in the area from March 26 through August 12, typically on or near nesting structures.

The number of adult-sightings was greatest in May (19) and decreased through August (8). Eighteen nests were located, 12 were occupied and appeared active, while the remainder may have been constructed as housekeeping nests by sexually immature birds or as second-. ary nests by adjacent breeding adults. Of the 12 occupied nests, it is estimated that 4 were cessful and fledged 6 young. This compares with 7 fledged in 1980 and 16 fledged in 1979. Though local production appears to have declined, the number of birds and nests in the area has remained high, an indication that the tion near Salem continues to be active

  • M P82 84/02-cag
  • There was a total of 4 bald eagles sightings in 1981, all on the Delaware side of the Delaware River. The first ings were on June 12, one over the marsh south of the Appoquinimink River and two over the marsh at Peach House Ditch. The fourth sighting was on November 21 over the same marsh south of the Appoquinimink River *
  • M P82 84/02-cag I j

..

  • 3.4 LITERATURE CITED Burger, J., and w. A. Monteveechi.

1975. Nest site selection in the terrapin Malaclemys terrapin.

Copeia 1975(1) :113-119.

Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Comstock Publishing Assoc., Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. 542 pp. Hildebrand, s. F. 1932. Growth of diamondback terrapins, size attained, sex ratios, and longevity.

Zoologica . 9(15):551-563.

Lawler, A. R., and J. A. Musick. 1972. Sand beach hibernation by a northern diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin (Schoepff).

Copeia 1972 (3} :389-390.

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection).

1979. Endangered, threatened, peripheral, and undetermined wildlife species in New Jersey.

and Nongame s*pecies Project. 6pp. USDI (United States Department of Interior).

1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. Bur. Sport Wild. Resource Pub. 114. 289 pp. 1979. List of endangered and threatened wild---....,,.-...,,,....

life and plants. Federal Register 44 (12)

  • M P82 84/02-cag TABLE 3.1 Sl.UIUllary of nesting, depredation, and hatching data for diannndback terrapin on Sunken Ship Cbve Beach, New Jersey in 198.l. No. No. of Non-No. of No. of Non-No. of of depredated depredated depredated depredated Activity Date Visits Nests Nests F.ggs Eggs. Nesting Period June: 1-15 5 1 0 6 0 16-30 6 1 0 9 0 July: 1-15 7 0 1 0 4 16-31 7 0 0 0 0 I --.::i Subtotal 25 2 1 15 4 I\) I Hatching Period August: 1-15 2 0 0 0 0 16-31 2 1 0 2 0 September:

1-15 4 10 0 0 0 16-30 3 0 0 0 0 October: 3 0 0 0 0 November:

1 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 15 1 0 2 0 'l'otal 40 3 1 17 4 M P82 8.*-cag No. of No. of Turtles Tracks In area Observed 0 14 ;-0 7 0 10 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 5 e 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 39 TABLE 3.1-2

  • I " Summary of nesting, depredation, and hatchi a for diannndback terrapin on a beach near the IOOUth of Hope ere ewJersey in 1981. '&:* No. No. of Non-No. of No. of Non-No. of No. of No. of of depredated depredated depredated de predated 'l\Jrtles Tracks Activity Date Visits Nests Nests Eggs Eggs. In area Observed Nesting Period June: 1-15 5 0 0 0 0 3 8 16-30 6 2 1 13 3 3 19 July; e 1-15 6 l 11 5 70 1 15 16-31 7 0 3 0 17 0 0 I Subtotal 24 3 15 18 90 7 42 --l w I ., Hatching Period : August; 1-15 2 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 16-31 2 1 0 1 0 1 6 September:

I 1-15 4 o* *15 0 59 0 6 16-30 3 0 ! 11 0 53 0 0 :e October: 1-15 2 0 7 0 28 0 0 16-31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 November:

l 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 15 2 34 2 144 1 12 Total 39 5 49 20 234 8 54 M P82 84/02 9-cag TABLE 3.1-3 Summary of.nesting, depredation, and hatchin for diam::>ndback terrapin on a beach near the nouth of Hope Cree , ew Jersey in 1981. ._ No. No. of Non-No. of No. of Non-No. of No. of No. of of depredated depredated depredated depredated 1\lrtles Tracks Activity Date Visits Nests Nests F.ggs F.ggs. In area Observed Nesting Period June; 1-15 5 10 40 87 302 7 250 16-30 6 6 103 36 805 18 119 e July; 1-15 7 1 155 8 1,268 1 71 16-31 7 1 32 1 234 3 59 I Subtotal 25 18 330 132 -....:j 29 499 + I Hate.bing Period August: 1-15 2 o 5 0 44 o o 16-31 2 0 o 0 0 0 3 September; 1-15 4 0 2 0 3 0 8 16-30 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 October: 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 November:

1 -o 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 15 0 7 0 47 0 15 'lbtal 40 18 337 132 2,656 29 514 M P82 84/02 10-cag

, "., ;' .--------ceLAWARE N km 6-PUBLIC St&V!CZ tu:CTRIC ANl) CAS COMPJ..h"Y AB.'J:IFICIAL lSl.-\ND STUDIES t;..%_ --JERSEY Diamondback terrapin study sites, osprey nests, and bald eagle sightings

-1981. Figure 3.1-l

...

SHIP COVE \ 20 -. LEGEND .

TRACKS OBS 18 ERVED 16 l:IJ . ,.. u l2 < e-... -r:.. 10 0 o::i :::::= 8 -... :::> -:z 6 . -' . -z . ... ....... ... ** ,. ' I I I ' ' ' I I I . ' I ' . ' I ' ' I I ' ' 0 JUNE JULY 1981 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC ANO GAS COMPANY Nesting activity of diamondback terrapin at Sunken Ship Cove -1981., .a.RTIFICIAL lSLAND STUDIES Figure 3.1-2

    • -**e ... e HOPE CREEK 16 LEGEND * = NO TRACKS OBS1"'RVED 16 14 Cll u 12 < 0:: e--. .r;:. 10 0 0:: i:o ::l! 8 0 :z* 6 2 0 =ioE I s 7 i u Z325Z?i::;

1 3 s 7 i u a 23 25 Z12s; JUNE . JULY 1981 Nesting activity of diamondback UBLIC: SERVICE: CLECTRIC:

AND GAS COMPMY terrapin at Hope Creek -1981. ARTIFI:IAL ISLAND Figure 3.1-3

  • LISTON* POINT LEGEND 200 * = NO TRACKS OBSERv-rn ciJ 150 C,J <: lZ 125 r=.. 0 0:: 100 co :::2! !:::) :z. 75 *50 25 JUNE JULY 1981. Nesting activity of diamondback PUBLIC: scRv1c:: £I.f:CTRic Am> GAS coHP.a.tiY terrapin at Liston Point -1981. AJ!TIFI=IAL ISIJ.:10 STtJOif;S E'igure 3 .1-4
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18086B538&oldid=1505814"