ML19325C472: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
,; y m, ,7 -y; g | ,; y m, ,7 -y; g | ||
a ; | a ; | ||
Ab u . a 87C4611; ; | Ab u . a 87C4611; ; | ||
3bJ Q, . ' h' 1 * | 3bJ Q, . ' h' 1 * | ||
| Line 204: | Line 203: | ||
c. | c. | ||
O, o . Woodward-ClydeiConsultants. ~ | O, o . Woodward-ClydeiConsultants. ~ | ||
( | ( | ||
-Q ., | -Q ., | ||
| Line 219: | Line 217: | ||
,' '/ / ! I a h . J f f | ,' '/ / ! I a h . J f f | ||
;? | ;? | ||
..p. sk | ..p. sk F_ D F iUX r @9-. * | ||
F_ D F iUX r @9-. * | |||
't 4' N,7 , fR h. ' A f[t. %,v s | 't 4' N,7 , fR h. ' A f[t. %,v s | ||
5 4 v a,a'd x.- | 5 4 v a,a'd x.- | ||
| Line 234: | Line 230: | ||
'} | '} | ||
ol ? | ol ? | ||
4 . | 4 . | ||
'I l ; | 'I l ; | ||
| Line 339: | Line 334: | ||
SODIUM, CHLORIDE, PARTICULATES, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING 4 | SODIUM, CHLORIDE, PARTICULATES, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING 4 | ||
- STATION, F ALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 - | - STATION, F ALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 - | ||
'IL - MARCH 1s89 I 2-3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN MONTHLY SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO | 'IL - MARCH 1s89 I 2-3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN MONTHLY SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989) PERIOD 5, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY F 2-4~ ' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE | ||
MARCH 1989) PERIOD 5, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY F 2-4~ ' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE | |||
'E DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 - | 'E DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 - | ||
TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO 3 | TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO 3 | ||
| Line 424: | Line 417: | ||
L L OPERATIONAL PERIOD, 1984-1986 if 4 3-7 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS L5 IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING l | L L OPERATIONAL PERIOD, 1984-1986 if 4 3-7 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS L5 IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING l | ||
OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 ; | OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 ; | ||
[ | [ | ||
L 3-8 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE (Cl-) | L 3-8 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE (Cl-) | ||
| Line 446: | Line 438: | ||
LIST OF TABLES (continued) | LIST OF TABLES (continued) | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
I Number 3-18 Title 5fCNIFICANT CHLORIDE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL CHLORIDE | I Number 3-18 Title 5fCNIFICANT CHLORIDE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 1 OF HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 i r | ||
CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 1 OF HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 i r | |||
I 4-1 MINIMUM, MAX! MUM AND MEAN SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING .: | I 4-1 MINIMUM, MAX! MUM AND MEAN SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING .: | ||
i i'3 THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1987 AND i g MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1988 i 4-2 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SOIL CHLORIDE '; | i i'3 THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1987 AND i g MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1988 i 4-2 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SOIL CHLORIDE '; | ||
| Line 458: | Line 448: | ||
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW 'l JERSEY 4-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN PRE-OPERATIONAL (1985-1986) AND OPERATIONAL (1987-1988) MEAN MONTHLY SOIL 3 CHLORIDE (C1') CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUN1 Y, i 5 NEW JERSEY | HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW 'l JERSEY 4-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN PRE-OPERATIONAL (1985-1986) AND OPERATIONAL (1987-1988) MEAN MONTHLY SOIL 3 CHLORIDE (C1') CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUN1 Y, i 5 NEW JERSEY | ||
'l 4-5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, | 'l 4-5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, | ||
~ | ~ | ||
m NEW JERSEY l 4-6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL CHLORIDE 3- CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY L g- OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, | m NEW JERSEY l 4-6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL CHLORIDE 3- CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY L g- OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, | ||
| Line 493: | Line 482: | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) ! | LIST OF FIGURES (continued) ! | ||
I 1 Number Title 3-7 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA IB ) | I 1 Number Title 3-7 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA IB ) | ||
| Line 553: | Line 541: | ||
i Seasonal and spatla! trends in deposit!on were also highly variable during pre-I operational and operational periods. Cooling tower operation did not correspond | i Seasonal and spatla! trends in deposit!on were also highly variable during pre-I operational and operational periods. Cooling tower operation did not correspond | ||
! with the few significant differences which were identified. ; | ! with the few significant differences which were identified. ; | ||
i Significant positive correlations were determined between deposition rates | i Significant positive correlations were determined between deposition rates and meteorological parameters during both the pre-operational and operational j periods. The correlations most associated with cooling tower operation are those between deposition and 1) the percent of time that the wind blew from the cooling j tower to a given sample site, and 2) the power output level of HCGS. Significant positive correlations were determined for Na+, C1' and TDS deposition and wind | ||
and meteorological parameters during both the pre-operational and operational j periods. The correlations most associated with cooling tower operation are those between deposition and 1) the percent of time that the wind blew from the cooling j tower to a given sample site, and 2) the power output level of HCGS. Significant positive correlations were determined for Na+, C1' and TDS deposition and wind | |||
; from the cooling tower at Site 3. No significant correlations were determined ; | ; from the cooling tower at Site 3. No significant correlations were determined ; | ||
between salt deposition and HCGS power output levels. | between salt deposition and HCGS power output levels. | ||
| Line 573: | Line 559: | ||
;g seasonal and spatial trends, correlations with meteorological data, correlations 3 with deposition rate and correlations with power output levels. | ;g seasonal and spatial trends, correlations with meteorological data, correlations 3 with deposition rate and correlations with power output levels. | ||
Very few significant differences were found among the foliage Na+ and Cl-data from the operational period. Any correlations which were identified are be'leved to be coincidential with physiological and environmental factors and not due to operation of HCGS. | Very few significant differences were found among the foliage Na+ and Cl-data from the operational period. Any correlations which were identified are be'leved to be coincidential with physiological and environmental factors and not due to operation of HCGS. | ||
No differences in Na+ concentration were found among the species sampled. , | No differences in Na+ concentration were found among the species sampled. , | ||
As was the case in the pre-operational study, flowering dogwood contained , | As was the case in the pre-operational study, flowering dogwood contained , | ||
| Line 582: | Line 567: | ||
l The only significant difference among the sites sampled was for flowering i j3 dogwood. For this species, Na+ concentrations were significantly higher at Location 1 than at Location 2. | l The only significant difference among the sites sampled was for flowering i j3 dogwood. For this species, Na+ concentrations were significantly higher at Location 1 than at Location 2. | ||
lI l | lI l | ||
No significant increase in foliage Na+ or Cl* concentrations were found at | No significant increase in foliage Na+ or Cl* concentrations were found at locations nearest to HCGS during the operational study. In fact, significantly 4 | ||
locations nearest to HCGS during the operational study. In fact, significantly 4 | |||
~ | ~ | ||
lower concentrations of Cl* were found in black cherry, pin oak and sweetgum at locations near HCGS. The only significant increase indicated was pin oak Cl at Location 3, the Shirley control site. | lower concentrations of Cl* were found in black cherry, pin oak and sweetgum at locations near HCGS. The only significant increase indicated was pin oak Cl at Location 3, the Shirley control site. | ||
| Line 614: | Line 597: | ||
Spatial differences in soit Na+ and Cl~ were identified only for Location IB, ; | Spatial differences in soit Na+ and Cl~ were identified only for Location IB, ; | ||
where concentrations were significantly higher than at all other locations. | where concentrations were significantly higher than at all other locations. | ||
Environmental reasons for this have already been discussed above and include l proximity t'o a tidal marsh. j | Environmental reasons for this have already been discussed above and include l proximity t'o a tidal marsh. j Any correlations between soil Na+ or Cl concentrations and meteorological factors or power output at the HCGS are coincidental. Significant differences are ; | ||
Any correlations between soil Na+ or Cl concentrations and meteorological factors or power output at the HCGS are coincidental. Significant differences are ; | |||
due to variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS ( | due to variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS ( | ||
cooling tower. l l | cooling tower. l l | ||
| Line 716: | Line 697: | ||
?. ; | ?. ; | ||
* u:w,, ,:p 4,:n. . , | * u:w,, ,:p 4,:n. . , | ||
a vm, m . | a vm, m . | ||
wv my, . ,n w | wv my, . ,n w | ||
| Line 814: | Line 794: | ||
1.4.1 Analysis of Variance . | 1.4.1 Analysis of Variance . | ||
Data sets collected during the study (e.g., mean monthly salt drift deposition at a given location) were analyzed using a one-way AOV to determine if , | Data sets collected during the study (e.g., mean monthly salt drift deposition at a given location) were analyzed using a one-way AOV to determine if , | ||
differences exist among the means within the data set. An output of the one-way AOV is the F-value, a ratio of two variances defined by the formula , | differences exist among the means within the data set. An output of the one-way AOV is the F-value, a ratio of two variances defined by the formula , | ||
L ! | L ! | ||
| Line 824: | Line 803: | ||
; error mean square 1-The resulting F-value for each data set was compared to that from published 1-F-value tables for the appropriate degress of freedom at the 0.05 level of significance. Data sets with F-values exceeding the published value were noted as l' Saving individual values that were significantly different from other values contained in the set. These data sets were subjected to additional analysis to 13 lwS9-403-1 1-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | ; error mean square 1-The resulting F-value for each data set was compared to that from published 1-F-value tables for the appropriate degress of freedom at the 0.05 level of significance. Data sets with F-values exceeding the published value were noted as l' Saving individual values that were significantly different from other values contained in the set. These data sets were subjected to additional analysis to 13 lwS9-403-1 1-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
5 l l | 5 l l | ||
| Line 843: | Line 821: | ||
!wS9-403-1 1-7 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | !wS9-403-1 1-7 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | ||
The significance of the correlation coefficients determined between the various data sets was evaluated by testing the null hypothesis that the two g variables are uncorrelated (i.e., the coefficient is equal to zero). The hypothesis W is tested using a "t" test and standard tables have been developed to indicate when , | The significance of the correlation coefficients determined between the various data sets was evaluated by testing the null hypothesis that the two g variables are uncorrelated (i.e., the coefficient is equal to zero). The hypothesis W is tested using a "t" test and standard tables have been developed to indicate when , | ||
the hypothesis should be rejected (i.e., the coefficient is not equal to zero). The , | the hypothesis should be rejected (i.e., the coefficient is not equal to zero). The , | ||
| Line 913: | Line 890: | ||
y+= .. , | y+= .. , | ||
9- , | 9- , | ||
I jy % i | I jy % i f... . | ||
f... . | |||
b s C, | b s C, | ||
,= == . n .. %.e %, i * | ,= == . n .. %.e %, i * | ||
| Line 940: | Line 915: | ||
. , . , x. , . . . | . , . , x. , . . . | ||
. . . . , m . s I 4..s.,. .., | . . . . , m . s I 4..s.,. .., | ||
/ .. | / .. | ||
. . . ' '1 . y . | . . . ' '1 . y . | ||
| Line 957: | Line 931: | ||
I ,,, | I ,,, | ||
w.,, e.g .ft ... | w.,, e.g .ft ... | ||
I | I | ||
.B', , . :- | .B', , . :- | ||
| Line 971: | Line 944: | ||
)'y, | )'y, | ||
, Q. , ,. .. | , Q. , ,. .. | ||
.6.; 4;. ~ | .6.; 4;. ~ | ||
i i i s | i i i s o | ||
n... | |||
\\ : . . -: .. ,. a : | \\ : . . -: .. ,. a : | ||
\no i | \no i | ||
| Line 1,172: | Line 1,143: | ||
' amount of Na+, Cl~, total dissolved solids (TDS), and particulates which had been | ' amount of Na+, Cl~, total dissolved solids (TDS), and particulates which had been | ||
! deposited within it during'the sampling period (2). The results were then expressed as deposition rates'in units of mg/m2/ month. '{ | ! deposited within it during'the sampling period (2). The results were then expressed as deposition rates'in units of mg/m2/ month. '{ | ||
4 2.5 RESUL' | 4 2.5 RESUL' I Salt diposition data collected during the operational study are presented in ! | ||
I Salt diposition data collected during the operational study are presented in ! | |||
4 : Appendix A and are sumniarized in Table 2-2. This table shows the minimum and maximum deposition rates reported for each of-the four parameters at each of the nine sites, in addition, mean deposition rates for the operational period are also shown-in this table for each site. These values were calculated using the .two years and three months of data (1987 to 1989). Deposition rates shown in Table 2-2 for Sites 3 and 4 are averages of the two co-locateo samplers at each of these sites. | 4 : Appendix A and are sumniarized in Table 2-2. This table shows the minimum and maximum deposition rates reported for each of-the four parameters at each of the nine sites, in addition, mean deposition rates for the operational period are also shown-in this table for each site. These values were calculated using the .two years and three months of data (1987 to 1989). Deposition rates shown in Table 2-2 for Sites 3 and 4 are averages of the two co-locateo samplers at each of these sites. | ||
As indicated in Table 2-2, Na* deposition rates at the sites in the vicinity of | As indicated in Table 2-2, Na* deposition rates at the sites in the vicinity of | ||
| Line 1,191: | Line 1,160: | ||
l' TDS. deposition varied considerably throughout -the study period, ranging from 28 to 16,570 mg/m2/ month and 141 to 18,744 mg/m2 / month, respectively. With the j exception of particulates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ' | l' TDS. deposition varied considerably throughout -the study period, ranging from 28 to 16,570 mg/m2/ month and 141 to 18,744 mg/m2 / month, respectively. With the j exception of particulates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ' | ||
l nearest 'HCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site I was the highest of all the sites. None of the control site data represented the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. | l nearest 'HCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site I was the highest of all the sites. None of the control site data represented the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. | ||
l t | l t | ||
As discussed in Section 1, a variety of statistical analyses were performed on the data to evaluate seasonal trends, spatial trends, and correlations with meteorological data from the site. The results of the analyses are presented in | As discussed in Section 1, a variety of statistical analyses were performed on the data to evaluate seasonal trends, spatial trends, and correlations with meteorological data from the site. The results of the analyses are presented in | ||
| Line 1,220: | Line 1,188: | ||
underlines indicating values which are not significantly different. ! | underlines indicating values which are not significantly different. ! | ||
- As indicated in Table 2-!!, the highest deposition of Na+ at Site 1 occurred P during the month of July (138.4 mg/m2 /mo). This rate was significantly higher than deposition during January, February, March, June and October. | - As indicated in Table 2-!!, the highest deposition of Na+ at Site 1 occurred P during the month of July (138.4 mg/m2 /mo). This rate was significantly higher than deposition during January, February, March, June and October. | ||
s tw89-403-2 2-7 87C4611-4 6 31 August 1989 | s tw89-403-2 2-7 87C4611-4 6 31 August 1989 | ||
| Line 1,232: | Line 1,199: | ||
'' deposition.'was significantly higher only in July, and particulate deposition was ; | '' deposition.'was significantly higher only in July, and particulate deposition was ; | ||
significantly higher only in August. While not statistically significant, lower rates ' | significantly higher only in August. While not statistically significant, lower rates ' | ||
generally occurred in fall and winter months than during summer months. These | generally occurred in fall and winter months than during summer months. These | ||
~ data suggest that there may be a seasonal trend in salt deposition at this site, j I 2.5.3 Spatial Trends Mean monthly deposition rates at each of the sites for the 27 months of the | ~ data suggest that there may be a seasonal trend in salt deposition at this site, j I 2.5.3 Spatial Trends Mean monthly deposition rates at each of the sites for the 27 months of the | ||
| Line 1,250: | Line 1,216: | ||
, [ | , [ | ||
,j j i | ,j j i f | ||
Table 2-14 shows that TDS: deposition -during December at Site 5 was l signficantly higher only than Site 7. The deposition rate for Site 8 (the Shirley control s!te) was not found to be different from any other site.' | |||
2.5.4 . Correlations Between Deposition Rates and Meteorological Conditions In order to evaluate what effects, if any, meteorological conditions have on- , | 2.5.4 . Correlations Between Deposition Rates and Meteorological Conditions In order to evaluate what effects, if any, meteorological conditions have on- , | ||
' deposition, meteorological data for Artificial Island were compiled from the r | ' deposition, meteorological data for Artificial Island were compiled from the r | ||
| Line 1,261: | Line 1,226: | ||
'I influence deposition rates.- In evaluating wind direction during the study period, the goal was to determine if winds blowing over the brackish waters of the | 'I influence deposition rates.- In evaluating wind direction during the study period, the goal was to determine if winds blowing over the brackish waters of the | ||
~ | ~ | ||
LDelaware Bay had an effect on deposition rates at any of the site locations. Thus, a calculation was made of the percent of time each month that winds blew from | LDelaware Bay had an effect on deposition rates at any of the site locations. Thus, a calculation was made of the percent of time each month that winds blew from | ||
< .the water toward the site locations.' . This was accomplished by tabulating the 4 | < .the water toward the site locations.' . This was accomplished by tabulating the 4 | ||
| Line 1,305: | Line 1,269: | ||
' g~ . | ' g~ . | ||
m . (556), relative humidity (.401), and temperature (.596). These correlations may reflect the significantly higher August particulate deposition rate found at Site 1 (see,2.2 Seasonal Trends). | m . (556), relative humidity (.401), and temperature (.596). These correlations may reflect the significantly higher August particulate deposition rate found at Site 1 (see,2.2 Seasonal Trends). | ||
The only significant negative correlation found was that between particulate deposition at Site 1 and percent of time that the wind came from the direction of the estuary ( .390). This may reflect the proximity of this site to the estuary in lw89-403-2 2-11 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 I^ . . _ . - | The only significant negative correlation found was that between particulate deposition at Site 1 and percent of time that the wind came from the direction of the estuary ( .390). This may reflect the proximity of this site to the estuary in lw89-403-2 2-11 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 I^ . . _ . - | ||
| Line 1,313: | Line 1,276: | ||
(, | (, | ||
that winds off the_ water would carry fewer wind blown particulates than those from land areas around HCGS. | that winds off the_ water would carry fewer wind blown particulates than those from land areas around HCGS. | ||
j Total Dissolved Solids. Table 2-18 presents Pearson product moment - | j Total Dissolved Solids. Table 2-18 presents Pearson product moment - | ||
correlation coefficients between TDS deposition and Artificial Island | correlation coefficients between TDS deposition and Artificial Island | ||
| Line 1,357: | Line 1,319: | ||
y,g F. , | y,g F. , | ||
j | j | ||
: p. 3 ; , .f . | : p. 3 ; , .f . | ||
| Line 1,364: | Line 1,325: | ||
] | ] | ||
significant (C1' and TDS at Sites 3 and 5, respectively) do not indicate any definite pattern relating to cooling tower operation. | significant (C1' and TDS at Sites 3 and 5, respectively) do not indicate any definite pattern relating to cooling tower operation. | ||
12.6.3- > Correlations Significant positive correlations between deposition rates and meteorological g parameters were determined during both the preoperational ar;d operational 5.. periods. .During the preoperational study the Na+ and Cl deposition rates at most - | 12.6.3- > Correlations Significant positive correlations between deposition rates and meteorological g parameters were determined during both the preoperational ar;d operational 5.. periods. .During the preoperational study the Na+ and Cl deposition rates at most - | ||
of the: sites were positively correlated with rainfall. Only one significant | of the: sites were positively correlated with rainfall. Only one significant | ||
| Line 1,406: | Line 1,366: | ||
M | M | ||
~ | ~ | ||
- -: Q | - -: Q D | ||
D | |||
-TA8LE 2-2 MINileM, MAXileM Ale DEAN DEPOSITION RATES FOR SODitM (Na*N OE.ORl'76 (Cl"), | -TA8LE 2-2 MINileM, MAXileM Ale DEAN DEPOSITION RATES FOR SODitM (Na*N OE.ORl'76 (Cl"), | ||
PARTIQiLATES,' AfD TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 'IN THE VistNITY OF TE HOPE DEEK GENERATIIIG STATION, SALEM (XIIMTY, NEN JERSEY JANUARY 1987 - MAf06 1989 | PARTIQiLATES,' AfD TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 'IN THE VistNITY OF TE HOPE DEEK GENERATIIIG STATION, SALEM (XIIMTY, NEN JERSEY JANUARY 1987 - MAf06 1989 | ||
| Line 1,449: | Line 1,407: | ||
y;Ji d | y;Ji d | ||
_$ ta | _$ ta | ||
_- TABLE 2-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEAN CHLORIDE (C1~) DEPOSITION RATES FOR TE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEbeER 1966) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1967 TO MARCH 1969) PERIODS | _- TABLE 2-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEAN CHLORIDE (C1~) DEPOSITION RATES FOR TE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEbeER 1966) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1967 TO MARCH 1969) PERIODS | ||
| Line 1,497: | Line 1,454: | ||
54 1 | 54 1 | ||
-] | -] | ||
J TABLE 2-6 | J TABLE 2-6 ANALYSl$ OF VARI ANCE OF TCTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) , | ||
ANALYSl$ OF VARI ANCE OF TCTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) , | |||
DEPO $lTION RATES FOR PRE-CPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEMER 1986) AND 5 OPERATIONAL (JANUARY-1987 TO MAROi 1989) PERIODS | DEPO $lTION RATES FOR PRE-CPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEMER 1986) AND 5 OPERATIONAL (JANUARY-1987 TO MAROi 1989) PERIODS | ||
- HOPE OtEEK OENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I . TDS - TDS Sit:s- Pre-Operetloral Rate IIII Operational Rate III F Value I3I 17 (ag/m2 7 ,,) g,gf,2 j,,) | - HOPE OtEEK OENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I . TDS - TDS Sit:s- Pre-Operetloral Rate IIII Operational Rate III F Value I3I 17 (ag/m2 7 ,,) g,gf,2 j,,) | ||
| Line 1,532: | Line 1,487: | ||
III March 42.3 94.7 90.7 - 99.7 '36.2 :44.6 64.6 50.7- 56.0- 1.39 ApriI 51.2 85.2 93.3 77.7' .140.6- 44.8 42.1 36.5- 49.9 0.89 May 96.3 87.1 67.0 '236.1 46.8 48.4 53.5 56.0 59.8 0.75-June 21.0 36.2 54.3 34.4 48.9 33.3 87.0 53.6 50.0. 3.17 3 | III March 42.3 94.7 90.7 - 99.7 '36.2 :44.6 64.6 50.7- 56.0- 1.39 ApriI 51.2 85.2 93.3 77.7' .140.6- 44.8 42.1 36.5- 49.9 0.89 May 96.3 87.1 67.0 '236.1 46.8 48.4 53.5 56.0 59.8 0.75-June 21.0 36.2 54.3 34.4 48.9 33.3 87.0 53.6 50.0. 3.17 3 | ||
July 138.4 111.9 69.5 '59.6 -81.5 '54.5 55.0 65.1 76.4 ' O.47 - | July 138.4 111.9 69.5 '59.6 -81.5 '54.5 55.0 65.1 76.4 ' O.47 - | ||
; August 95.9 113.5 102.9 104.6 77.0 71.5 64.4 89.9 70.2 0.12" September 98.3 87.0 81.0 78.2' 98.4 74.4 66.9 81.1 142.8 'O.72 October 27.7 30.0 52.0 -28.1 39.2 20.1 39.2 79.0 43.0 0.51 52.2 87.4 82.9 46.2 63.8 November 120.5 58.7 44.6 78.7- 1.36 | ; August 95.9 113.5 102.9 104.6 77.0 71.5 64.4 89.9 70.2 0.12" September 98.3 87.0 81.0 78.2' 98.4 74.4 66.9 81.1 142.8 'O.72 October 27.7 30.0 52.0 -28.1 39.2 20.1 39.2 79.0 43.0 0.51 52.2 87.4 82.9 46.2 63.8 November 120.5 58.7 44.6 78.7- 1.36 December 64.2 69.3 260.9 81.6 75.0 56.6 39.9- 65.1 106.8 1.34 - | ||
.I Sersonal F ValueI #I 13.651 0.76 1.20 0.88 0.93 O.61 0.64 - 0.29 0.88 i | |||
December 64.2 69.3 260.9 81.6 75.0 56.6 39.9- 65.1 106.8 1.34 - | Notes: | ||
.I Sersonal F ValueI #I 13.651 0.76 1.20 0.88 0.93 O.61 0.64 - 0.29 0.88 | |||
! (1) Value based on three samples (all other months based on two samples).. | ! (1) Value based on three samples (all other months based on two samples).. | ||
(2) Means based on average of co-located samples. | (2) Means based on average of co-located samples. | ||
| Line 1,635: | Line 1,587: | ||
'(2) Underlined values are not significantly different at the 0.05 level | '(2) Underlined values are not significantly different at the 0.05 level | ||
; of significance with W0.05 = W .85. | ; of significance with W0.05 = W .85. | ||
l :7 | l :7 | ||
. 5 TABLE 2-14 TUKEY'S NULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (T.D.S.) DEPOSITION RATES, DECEleER 1987 AND 1988 | . 5 TABLE 2-14 TUKEY'S NULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (T.D.S.) DEPOSITION RATES, DECEleER 1987 AND 1988 | ||
| Line 1,650: | Line 1,601: | ||
~ of significance with WO.05 = 1878.97. | ~ of significance with WO.05 = 1878.97. | ||
WB ~IK89-40321 87C4511 31 August 1989 | WB ~IK89-40321 87C4511 31 August 1989 | ||
. - . _ . _ , . _ - _.. _ - - ._- - . . _ . __ . . -,_ m . . .. . . . , . . | . - . _ . _ , . _ - _.. _ - - ._- - . . _ . __ . . -,_ m . . .. . . . , . . | ||
| Line 1,694: | Line 1,644: | ||
fr - - | fr - - | ||
+L _ - _ | +L _ - _ | ||
~ e | ~ e TABLE 2-17 PEARSON PRODUCT N0E hr 00554ELAT10N COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN , | ||
TABLE 2-17 PEARSON PRODUCT N0E hr 00554ELAT10N COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN , | |||
PARTICULATE DEPOSITI0It RATES AIS ARTIFICIAL ISUWe IIEATER DATA HOPE OtEEK GEIGtATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, IEM JERSEY ' | PARTICULATE DEPOSITI0It RATES AIS ARTIFICIAL ISUWe IIEATER DATA HOPE OtEEK GEIGtATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, IEM JERSEY ' | ||
JANUARY 1987 TO IGRADt 1989 | JANUARY 1987 TO IGRADt 1989 | ||
| Line 1,718: | Line 1,666: | ||
) PEARSON PRODUCT N0ENT CoIWELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEN | ) PEARSON PRODUCT N0ENT CoIWELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEN | ||
' TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) DEPOSITION RATES AfD ARTIFICI AL ISUlfe WEATER DATA HOPE DIEEK GEERATIIIG STATION, SALEM COUNTY, MN JERSEY JAIMIRY 1987 TO MANDI 1989 - | ' TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) DEPOSITION RATES AfD ARTIFICI AL ISUlfe WEATER DATA HOPE DIEEK GEERATIIIG STATION, SALEM COUNTY, MN JERSEY JAIMIRY 1987 TO MANDI 1989 - | ||
5 Wind from Relative 5 Wind Speed 5 Wind From Site Over the Water -Precloitation Oew Point- Humidity. Temperature > 25 mph Cooling Tower-i k 1 -0.110 III 10.3951 -0.281 -0.018 ' 0.227 0.224 l0.358 f 2 0.332 0.293 0.059 0.150 0.144 -0.026' 10.4321 | 5 Wind from Relative 5 Wind Speed 5 Wind From Site Over the Water -Precloitation Oew Point- Humidity. Temperature > 25 mph Cooling Tower-i k 1 -0.110 III 10.3951 -0.281 -0.018 ' 0.227 0.224 l0.358 f 2 0.332 0.293 0.059 0.150 0.144 -0.026' 10.4321 l 3 0.123 0.275 I-0.4051 0.034 -0.295 0.063 0.374-4 -0.139 0.291 -0.289 0.025 0.202 0.021 :0.083 | ||
l 3 0.123 0.275 I-0.4051 0.034 -0.295 0.063 0.374-4 -0.139 0.291 -0.289 0.025 0.202 0.021 :0.083 | |||
; 5 -0.078 0.333 -0.003 0.179 0.006 0.093 -0.286 | ; 5 -0.078 0.333 -0.003 0.179 0.006 0.093 -0.286 | ||
( 6 -0.123 0.043 -0.043 -0.253 -0.146 0.006 -0.298 7 -0.176 0.132 0.119 0.191 0.225 -0.095 ' 0.352 | ( 6 -0.123 0.043 -0.043 -0.253 -0.146 0.006 -0.298 7 -0.176 0.132 0.119 0.191 0.225 -0.095 ' 0.352 | ||
| Line 1,757: | Line 1,703: | ||
I "" Ilt89-403Td 87C4611 31 August 1989 | I "" Ilt89-403Td 87C4611 31 August 1989 | ||
z- _ .. . | z- _ .. . | ||
- = - - | - = - - | ||
| Line 1,779: | Line 1,724: | ||
FOR PIE-CPERATIONAb AfD GPERAT10NAL DEPOSITlWI DATA- | FOR PIE-CPERATIONAb AfD GPERAT10NAL DEPOSITlWI DATA- | ||
~ | ~ | ||
..- HOPE. 0EEK EIERATING STATION '.: ', " | ..- HOPE. 0EEK EIERATING STATION '.: ', " | ||
' SALEM 00tsITY, IEW JERSEY ~ | ' SALEM 00tsITY, IEW JERSEY ~ | ||
| Line 1,821: | Line 1,765: | ||
? SALEN GMITY, IEW JUISEY i - | ? SALEN GMITY, IEW JUISEY i - | ||
l PWuor | l PWuor | ||
% Wind From ' 5 Wind Speed i Wind From Output Site Over the Estuary P m Ipitstie.a Dew Pb!nt Humidity Tempu stere .> 25 apsi Cooling Temer towets-l | % Wind From ' 5 Wind Speed i Wind From Output Site Over the Estuary P m Ipitstie.a Dew Pb!nt Humidity Tempu stere .> 25 apsi Cooling Temer towets-l Cl~ Pre-Operet.onal 4 | ||
Cl~ Pre-Operet.onal 4 | |||
' I + | ' I + | ||
i 2 + | i 2 + | ||
| Line 1,885: | Line 1,827: | ||
; SitetFtr4EIT TsTW_ D!SSOLVED SellGS (195) CWWELAINII CBEFFICIENf5 . | ; SitetFtr4EIT TsTW_ D!SSOLVED SellGS (195) CWWELAINII CBEFFICIENf5 . | ||
Ffe W-C!TVsTHBIRL AIN WEMTICIIAL DEPOSIT?cII BATA len OEEK GEEMTHE STAl9010 SALEN ungITY, E W JERSEY | Ffe W-C!TVsTHBIRL AIN WEMTICIIAL DEPOSIT?cII BATA len OEEK GEEMTHE STAl9010 SALEN ungITY, E W JERSEY | ||
! w | ! w | ||
$ Wind Free i Wind Speed 5 Wlad From cetput j Site Over the Water Precipiterice Deo Foint Humidity Temperatore > 25 ayer Coollag Tauer .Lowels i | $ Wind Free i Wind Speed 5 Wlad From cetput j Site Over the Water Precipiterice Deo Foint Humidity Temperatore > 25 ayer Coollag Tauer .Lowels i | ||
TDS Pre-Operational - | TDS Pre-Operational - | ||
l | l | ||
! 1 2 + + | ! 1 2 + + | ||
| Line 1,915: | Line 1,855: | ||
i , .- | i , .- | ||
l ~::*w ':,. ' W- | l ~::*w ':,. ' W- | ||
&NQl?\[~ QD 3.% \ | &NQl?\[~ QD 3.% \ | ||
T | T | ||
| Line 1,942: | Line 1,881: | ||
h | h | ||
", )@:.~ M y- f ? (f% h'khh. | ", )@:.~ M y- f ? (f% h'khh. | ||
.N O Mhk -Y~;E 'yg. [ | .N O Mhk -Y~;E 'yg. [ | ||
+ T:;. . | + T:;. . | ||
| Line 2,031: | Line 1,969: | ||
I SCA L E : 1 lb.' = 2000 FT e | I SCA L E : 1 lb.' = 2000 FT e | ||
k., .. | k., .. | ||
.:t .'+ EU | .:t .'+ EU | ||
| Line 2,070: | Line 2,007: | ||
; ? ,J, | ; ? ,J, | ||
. . M%.*?. | . . M%.*?. | ||
.- .. . ?,e.. | .- .. . ?,e.. | ||
~ | ~ | ||
| Line 2,098: | Line 2,034: | ||
. ,, ^ | . ,, ^ | ||
a | a | ||
. V:.c:g~1. . .~ - | . V:.c:g~1. . .~ - | ||
7 g 3 pL- | 7 g 3 pL- | ||
| Line 2,132: | Line 2,067: | ||
-I* | -I* | ||
) \\ | ) \\ | ||
l 4 | l 4 | ||
_3 ; . . ; , , | _3 ; . . ; , , | ||
| Line 2,145: | Line 2,079: | ||
.-ev. | .-ev. | ||
. v -,s..- . | . v -,s..- . | ||
4- .. .. | 4- .. .. | ||
-~ | -~ | ||
| Line 2,171: | Line 2,104: | ||
* 4~ g ; 4 3 /,p b::v37. g g M. .; | * 4~ g ; 4 3 /,p b::v37. g g M. .; | ||
4/y c . | 4/y c . | ||
I 'T . | I 'T . | ||
. . ' J. .cs .. . | . . ' J. .cs .. . | ||
| Line 2,234: | Line 2,166: | ||
g;- - | g;- - | ||
. %* q.' y' .q of . ., C..'''' | . %* q.' y' .q of . ., C..'''' | ||
i "8 'N N f | i "8 'N N f 3 . | ||
3 . | |||
;it ,..- p#$*p,/ .,, 3 'z%! . | ;it ,..- p#$*p,/ .,, 3 'z%! . | ||
:y~gg._ | :y~gg._ | ||
| Line 2,246: | Line 2,176: | ||
,, p | ,, p | ||
, e .[y' *t i. m. | , e .[y' *t i. m. | ||
wn"g\. j = | wn"g\. j = | ||
r.t:e | r.t:e | ||
| Line 2,295: | Line 2,224: | ||
, .< f - | , .< f - | ||
T , , I / / i lI | T , , I / / i lI | ||
' / GRANY AREA / i | ' / GRANY AREA / i I | ||
I | |||
. e l'' / | . e l'' / | ||
, n / | , n / | ||
| Line 2,324: | Line 2,251: | ||
J 1 | J 1 | ||
I.. < | I.. < | ||
l I | l I | ||
woes CONTAINMENT BUILDING I | woes CONTAINMENT BUILDING I | ||
| Line 2,342: | Line 2,268: | ||
HCOS i , l COOLING I | HCOS i , l COOLING I | ||
* TOWER g : | * TOWER g : | ||
s | s | ||
: 1. s > | : 1. s > | ||
| Line 2,373: | Line 2,298: | ||
C3.NT UILot-ENT N | C3.NT UILot-ENT N | ||
- PT NI | - PT NI | ||
, O, T | , O, T I_ ::i4i: | ||
I_ ::i4i: | |||
B I i PHRAGMITES AUSTRAlig PMRAGMITES AUSTRAll8 8 | B I i PHRAGMITES AUSTRAlig PMRAGMITES AUSTRAll8 8 | ||
l 1 | l 1 | ||
| Line 2,448: | Line 2,371: | ||
i- | i- | ||
: 1. j N | : 1. j N | ||
f TRANmelfdl0N TOWER 6/1 | f TRANmelfdl0N TOWER 6/1 2 | ||
1^^^^^- | |||
lI DITCH | lI DITCH | ||
,,,,, e | ,,,,, e | ||
| Line 2,477: | Line 2,399: | ||
I ', | I ', | ||
* / f.., | * / f.., | ||
+ c = = = , | + c = = = , | ||
e I BO FT | e I BO FT | ||
$80 FT I ,, ,, | $80 FT I ,, ,, | ||
I | I PSE&G TRANSMISSION F AND DISTRIBUTION STORAGE YARD | ||
PSE&G TRANSMISSION F AND DISTRIBUTION STORAGE YARD | |||
,, I t i | ,, I t i | ||
I l ,, ,, | I l ,, ,, | ||
| Line 2,524: | Line 2,443: | ||
; f.. - | ; f.. - | ||
1 | 1 | ||
,i t | ,i t O | ||
O | |||
. s > | . s > | ||
,,- -4 ; 3 | ,,- -4 ; 3 | ||
| Line 2,583: | Line 2,500: | ||
^ - ' | ^ - ' | ||
+,& qp | +,& qp | ||
. .c m | . .c m | ||
, on %- e. u 1 | , on %- e. u 1 | ||
| Line 2,634: | Line 2,550: | ||
.s m:s>.w,'.. | .s m:s>.w,'.. | ||
+ | + | ||
.\ n. | .\ n. | ||
No w. | No w. | ||
| Line 2,712: | Line 2,627: | ||
L Iw89-403-3 3-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | L Iw89-403-3 3-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 | ||
m i | m i | ||
The AOV on monthly Na+ concentrations indicates that spatial differences exist at the 0.05 level of significance for flowering dogwood, sassafras and sweetgum, as follows: | The AOV on monthly Na+ concentrations indicates that spatial differences exist at the 0.05 level of significance for flowering dogwood, sassafras and sweetgum, as follows: | ||
| Line 2,768: | Line 2,682: | ||
? | ? | ||
8 The relationship between the concentrations of Na+ arid C1' in foliage l | 8 The relationship between the concentrations of Na+ arid C1' in foliage l | ||
samples collected during tN operational study pened sno deposition of these utf.s i dwing the same perh;1, as r,hown h Table 2-2. txre antlymd usind tne Pet.rson Pec4uct Moment correla'.lon coefficients (Table 3-1)). | samples collected during tN operational study pened sno deposition of these utf.s i dwing the same perh;1, as r,hown h Table 2-2. txre antlymd usind tne Pet.rson Pec4uct Moment correla'.lon coefficients (Table 3-1)). | ||
a I Location 1 (deposition study s!te 6) is the only one of the three locations N which showed significant correlations between Nd corcentrations and deposition rates. Black r.herry (-0.749), pin oak (-1604) and sassafras (-0.821) Na+ | a I Location 1 (deposition study s!te 6) is the only one of the three locations N which showed significant correlations between Nd corcentrations and deposition rates. Black r.herry (-0.749), pin oak (-1604) and sassafras (-0.821) Na+ | ||
| Line 2,902: | Line 2,815: | ||
W; | W; | ||
,f r | ,f r | ||
$I TABLE 3 MINilt84, HAXIMUN AND LEAN $0DluN (Ne') CONCENTRATIONS IN : | $I TABLE 3 MINilt84, HAXIMUN AND LEAN $0DluN (Ne') CONCENTRATIONS IN : | ||
| Line 2,943: | Line 2,855: | ||
Ic89-40337 87C4611 31' August'1989 | Ic89-40337 87C4611 31' August'1989 | ||
s x | s x | ||
.+,,. . | .+,,. . | ||
| Line 3,036: | Line 2,947: | ||
I | I | ||
.I 4 | .I 4 | ||
4 | 4 87C4611 | ||
87C4611 | |||
-ItS9-40312 31 August 1989 r | -ItS9-40312 31 August 1989 r | ||
| Line 3,059: | Line 2,968: | ||
87C4611 IItB9-403?3 14 September.1989 | 87C4611 IItB9-403?3 14 September.1989 | ||
TA8LE 3-1(- | TA8LE 3-1(- | ||
PEARSON PRODUCT MONENT 00lWLATl0N 00EFFICIENTS FOR NONTHLY ! | PEARSON PRODUCT MONENT 00lWLATl0N 00EFFICIENTS FOR NONTHLY ! | ||
| Line 3,115: | Line 3,023: | ||
i 4 | i 4 | ||
b l | b l | ||
TABLE 3-16 | TABLE 3-16 | ||
* PEARSON PRIMlUCT DElpENT Cof5ELATl0N COEFFICIEffis SETifEEN Tif CONCElfTRATIONS OF $4BitSt (Ne') AfG OE_0 RIDE (Cl-) IN Fot.iAGE Ale RIMER OUTPUT LEVELS AT TIE l(IPE DEEK EIEllATIIE STATIOlf OtstIIS TIE' OPERATIONAL PERIOD, etAY TO SEPTUeER 1987 Ape 1998 6 | * PEARSON PRIMlUCT DElpENT Cof5ELATl0N COEFFICIEffis SETifEEN Tif CONCElfTRATIONS OF $4BitSt (Ne') AfG OE_0 RIDE (Cl-) IN Fot.iAGE Ale RIMER OUTPUT LEVELS AT TIE l(IPE DEEK EIEllATIIE STATIOlf OtstIIS TIE' OPERATIONAL PERIOD, etAY TO SEPTUeER 1987 Ape 1998 6 | ||
| Line 3,188: | Line 3,095: | ||
~ ~o . w-z. - | ~ ~o . w-z. - | ||
t :.2. .g. | t :.2. .g. | ||
. - q45: % ,,e , . ' L he | . - q45: % ,,e , . ' L he | ||
.: c. .y le.,,l,,a - Q h:- % '.j | .: c. .y le.,,l,,a - Q h:- % '.j | ||
| Line 3,225: | Line 3,131: | ||
:5 W- 4 | :5 W- 4 | ||
'- y | '- y | ||
.h 7_..g.> fd-W-g<.a' | .h 7_..g.> fd-W-g<.a' | ||
. ..r: . | . ..r: . | ||
| Line 3,257: | Line 3,162: | ||
L. .y >$ . Y.*n .~* ' | L. .y >$ . Y.*n .~* ' | ||
..Y 4 e s .$.Y | ..Y 4 e s .$.Y | ||
...~ ** | ...~ ** | ||
. f*- f-T ~ C.+: | . f*- f-T ~ C.+: | ||
| Line 3,272: | Line 3,176: | ||
..~ , | ..~ , | ||
-a -.'*+V. i- +. k'+.+: w.,._J 3 ,.- | -a -.'*+V. i- +. k'+.+: w.,._J 3 ,.- | ||
'-:+ ..u | '-:+ ..u 1".i, | ||
1".i, | |||
+4..,. %. . 4.c . - e+ .c-e. . . . .. ' +k.- - sw l-TOWER t ' . | +4..,. %. . 4.c . - e+ .c-e. . . . .. ' +k.- - sw l-TOWER t ' . | ||
e ; s ~ r5.'- i' 'r.+ e f .+*: .:.4.. .. . i.e.2s . . "~ . :. - | e ; s ~ r5.'- i' 'r.+ e f .+*: .:.4.. .. . i.e.2s . . "~ . :. - | ||
| Line 3,357: | Line 3,259: | ||
:m 2. > | :m 2. > | ||
's) L o,tu s t M.eadow 3; g. . . . . w+. | 's) L o,tu s t M.eadow 3; g. . . . . w+. | ||
N y , '''.'3 3 h~~ | N y , '''.'3 3 h~~ | ||
,, c-, | ,, c-, | ||
| Line 3,389: | Line 3,290: | ||
*"'' ~ * , | *"'' ~ * , | ||
e . * . * =e | e . * . * =e | ||
.v:e . ..j,. ' ; . . ,Silve r.;L h..e - ~ y; *i .- . | .v:e . ..j,. ' ; . . ,Silve r.;L h..e - ~ y; *i .- . | ||
e. | e. | ||
| Line 3,472: | Line 3,372: | ||
. -+ ;. | . -+ ;. | ||
e f.;; | e f.;; | ||
= . ! E1 s. | = . ! E1 s. | ||
.- g 6 | .- g 6 | ||
| Line 3,491: | Line 3,390: | ||
. . . .. h. (.*I | . . . .. h. (.*I | ||
. ..*I [ $: c, | . ..*I [ $: c, | ||
. i | . i a~ ~ * . . , , | ||
a~ ~ * . . , , | |||
n w .. . _ . .-; ; +:...... >:..,:. _~. | n w .. . _ . .-; ; +:...... >:..,:. _~. | ||
# ', 7 | # ', 7 | ||
| Line 3,517: | Line 3,414: | ||
3 .6 p w: g#gf .-; | 3 .6 p w: g#gf .-; | ||
%~ v - | %~ v - | ||
g. | g. | ||
/s | /s | ||
| Line 3,549: | Line 3,445: | ||
g hk'""h iP ,,f g).Im [3k,,'f( | g hk'""h iP ,,f g).Im [3k,,'f( | ||
I_ f = 4rd&"dit"L'' | I_ f = 4rd&"dit"L'' | ||
A;% | A;% | ||
} | } | ||
| Line 3,559: | Line 3,454: | ||
h, ,, , a .s m g >~ | h, ,, , a .s m g >~ | ||
v | v | ||
. 1 T,[p. \#8" # | . 1 T,[p. \#8" # | ||
w.c o. tor j | w.c o. tor j | ||
| Line 3,568: | Line 3,462: | ||
. ,4 i ..e - g m e .ys .,,4 (g;/ | . ,4 i ..e - g m e .ys .,,4 (g;/ | ||
r c .' qD=.e p, ~ y,0 .1,7., ~( g f 5 1 | r c .' qD=.e p, ~ y,0 .1,7., ~( g f 5 1 | ||
.V;Q | .V;Q | ||
> 7 , .- | > 7 , .- | ||
| Line 3,641: | Line 3,534: | ||
) | ) | ||
\ | \ | ||
xN ,k,,, , s t LS | xN ,k,,, , s t LS | ||
'N\ "# | 'N\ "# | ||
| Line 3,767: | Line 3,659: | ||
[ ., | [ ., | ||
n s(t en Q (,,e , , e ..3 --2 t'* | n s(t en Q (,,e , , e ..3 --2 t'* | ||
e5 '*Q | e5 '*Q k.' ,*.d',c 4 o*'a **U.* '.''.est.~ tb *3 O .* 6a_. th. Y0,;,ti. t | ||
k.' ,*.d',c 4 o*'a **U.* '.''.est.~ tb *3 O .* 6a_. th. Y0,;,ti. t | |||
. . 9 1, 9ev .:.. ,,. c E @a | . . 9 1, 9ev .:.. ,,. c E @a | ||
*3 | *3 | ||
| Line 3,807: | Line 3,697: | ||
.i P | .i P | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
U1 '4; i | U1 '4; i | ||
I$^ , | I$^ , | ||
| Line 3,855: | Line 3,744: | ||
oa cs < | oa cs < | ||
t 3: - | t 3: - | ||
L kj?'$o | L kj?'$o | ||
, Q,C),* ;;,'TJ | , Q,C),* ;;,'TJ | ||
'6..'9 q ',i' $,' $ | '6..'9 q ',i' $,' $ | ||
(J T} t) 's ,rs 'f,i L Cm ? '' '5,, , | (J T} t) 's ,rs 'f,i L Cm ? '' '5,, , | ||
W *, | W *, | ||
'ec,' c, CJ C4O '; *g | 'ec,' c, CJ C4O '; *g | ||
* C' 4 | * C' 4 h,''yg' 1 *h, . ?#,r ,'sTJ | ||
h,''yg' 1 *h, . ?#,r ,'sTJ | |||
- C2 g,, | - C2 g,, | ||
t 5 @> > '- . | t 5 @> > '- . | ||
| Line 3,981: | Line 3,866: | ||
- . - - .- _ . ~ | - . - - .- _ . ~ | ||
.,y 3 | .,y 3 | ||
4 ' :i . .- -i y | 4 ' :i . .- -i y | ||
1 c , | 1 c , | ||
y \ | y \ | ||
| Line 4,058: | Line 3,941: | ||
I DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA 1 A LI 4: NOT TO SCALE | I DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA 1 A LI 4: NOT TO SCALE | ||
< FIGURE 3-6 | < FIGURE 3-6 | ||
:t 3 | :t 3 | ||
| Line 4,078: | Line 3,960: | ||
- - . :_ % _ : ;~ | - - . :_ % _ : ;~ | ||
.. g.- - - | .. g.- - - | ||
s- r 7. '_._ | s- r 7. '_._ | ||
-_- _.= .c m | -_- _.= .c m | ||
. d_ _ s. :==< | . d_ _ s. :==< | ||
I y.'. | I y.'. | ||
| Line 4,130: | Line 4,010: | ||
f i i ; IYs i | f i i ; IYs i | ||
~1 | ~1 | ||
.= N | .= N | ||
{i , | {i , | ||
| Line 4,182: | Line 4,061: | ||
..,f,:$?Tkpg'r,>c,$,,$'Q~'T{Y,El'*q-g'''"I[t Rs :s s 0s.?#b c f. | ..,f,:$?Tkpg'r,>c,$,,$'Q~'T{Y,El'*q-g'''"I[t Rs :s s 0s.?#b c f. | ||
02 | 02 | ||
.L x a , y,,- | .L x a , y,,- | ||
m 's). n,7,,s.,,O p. n w' W.,,aa'o c:.,- | m 's). n,7,,s.,,O p. n w' W.,,aa'o c:.,- | ||
| Line 4,195: | Line 4,073: | ||
,f,y,.Q, .n e ',c) 4 ,'Q.. QO O,, Co . ;,.C ,r e | ,f,y,.Q, .n e ',c) 4 ,'Q.. QO O,, Co . ;,.C ,r e | ||
y A "o c' 10.%0-#4e.''r9.$'3d,'* 'Zs'oWo- cs" ; | y A "o c' 10.%0-#4e.''r9.$'3d,'* 'Zs'oWo- cs" ; | ||
L, | L, | ||
. 5 | . 5 | ||
| Line 4,201: | Line 4,078: | ||
!!f.r | !!f.r | ||
.i SC-5 LACK CHERRY BG-BLACKOUM i' DW-FLOWERING DOGWOOD PO-PINE OAK 1' sP-SASSAFRAS so-sWEEvouM DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 2 l- | .i SC-5 LACK CHERRY BG-BLACKOUM i' DW-FLOWERING DOGWOOD PO-PINE OAK 1' sP-SASSAFRAS so-sWEEvouM DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 2 l- | ||
,c | ,c l | ||
NOT TO SCALE | |||
= | = | ||
i FIGURE 3--8 y - | i FIGURE 3--8 y - | ||
| Line 4,211: | Line 4,087: | ||
1 N | 1 N | ||
I | I | ||
.1 | .1 | ||
.! r r | .! r r | ||
| Line 4,224: | Line 4,099: | ||
6:.%l: . $j$flfI e-e s..o | 6:.%l: . $j$flfI e-e s..o | ||
* o c n '. <c G v l | * o c n '. <c G v l | ||
[; ''*?.3'f'rg'.;k,.qpq. | [; ''*?.3'f'rg'.;k,.qpq. | ||
,sc lfja'*sa:i i;C | ,sc lfja'*sa:i i;C | ||
| Line 4,235: | Line 4,109: | ||
'k:c.'?s t | 'k:c.'?s t | ||
.fl.1) | .fl.1) | ||
'),, o r;, en cc*~ya c;,Qrpe e *;,h a,2 2, ,0~'. Q *- | '),, o r;, en cc*~ya c;,Qrpe e *;,h a,2 2, ,0~'. Q *- | ||
l 24 g | l 24 g | ||
| Line 4,251: | Line 4,124: | ||
' G ?o-s. | ' G ?o-s. | ||
.ggw;'?2 a;. ,?S.,,f,W@i ;W. $cw gc g.llS s g p .aP3, i d.* | .ggw;'?2 a;. ,?S.,,f,W@i ;W. $cw gc g.llS s g p .aP3, i d.* | ||
C | C | ||
;4.c,pyB s<.g.3 c.RMgeN us.?a,y y T7 o; L | ;4.c,pyB s<.g.3 c.RMgeN us.?a,y y T7 o; L | ||
| Line 4,266: | Line 4,138: | ||
l, ' t | l, ' t | ||
' 4*e . ,, *t /..C g,a. | ' 4*e . ,, *t /..C g,a. | ||
;'e;,*'C | ;'e;,*'C | ||
* *;l <*.:.<=:' 0 6 e ciQ C.:'482> *0 d/ ,J c'ie '3 Rf * | * *;l <*.:.<=:' 0 6 e ciQ C.:'482> *0 d/ ,J c'ie '3 Rf * | ||
| Line 4,281: | Line 4,152: | ||
* / .O , . ''',, ' ' | * / .O , . ''',, ' ' | ||
,, a KEY: | ,, a KEY: | ||
BC-BLACK CHERRY | BC-BLACK CHERRY | ||
[ BG-SLACKOUM | [ BG-SLACKOUM | ||
| Line 4,298: | Line 4,168: | ||
_,.f | _,.f | ||
,.t,., -.t 0 /\' 3 | ,.t,., -.t 0 /\' 3 | ||
,.p g | ,.p g | ||
'< ''e p' .+s. m''d'- .d. i1! | '< ''e p' .+s. m''d'- .d. i1! | ||
h it . | h it . | ||
4 | 4 | ||
: f. m x | : f. m x | ||
,; 1 yn u i5- 1 ;. j. il j 's | ,; 1 yn u i5- 1 ;. j. il j 's | ||
| Line 4,365: | Line 4,233: | ||
.,,, 'f '* ^' | .,,, 'f '* ^' | ||
.f k;! I | .f k;! I | ||
)[ | )[ | ||
s \ s c | s \ s c | ||
| Line 4,390: | Line 4,257: | ||
-.-4 | -.-4 | ||
>;r.:; | >;r.:; | ||
q f, s | q f, s | ||
x [ | x [ | ||
| Line 4,452: | Line 4,318: | ||
. . . qp' 1L Y+L, GFs , g | . . . qp' 1L Y+L, GFs , g | ||
~lq Qf :n -- | ~lq Qf :n -- | ||
3 . kI+ E [I n om klk i 4 | 3 . kI+ E [I n om klk i 4 | ||
.g. )z | .g. )z | ||
| Line 4,464: | Line 4,329: | ||
rt* | rt* | ||
Y q-r ,i, e4e.' s (rw*v3 ..w es ,..,wor,-,.-e.-. | Y q-r ,i, e4e.' s (rw*v3 ..w es ,..,wor,-,.-e.-. | ||
-..wa..,ae. ..m-m, . . . . - . , . | -..wa..,ae. ..m-m, . . . . - . , . | ||
| Line 4,500: | Line 4,364: | ||
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the minimum average, maximum average and i mean soll concentrations for Na+ and C1' in monthly soll samples collected during l the operational study period 1987 through 1988. In these tables, the minimum and ! | Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the minimum average, maximum average and i mean soll concentrations for Na+ and C1' in monthly soll samples collected during l the operational study period 1987 through 1988. In these tables, the minimum and ! | ||
maximum concentrations were determined by averaging the three values obtained at a given location each month. Thus, lower and higher values will be found in the data presented in Appendix C. Monthly locational averages for each sampling l location were also und for all other statistical analyses. j I Location IB had the highest monthly aserage and overall mean i | maximum concentrations were determined by averaging the three values obtained at a given location each month. Thus, lower and higher values will be found in the data presented in Appendix C. Monthly locational averages for each sampling l location were also und for all other statistical analyses. j I Location IB had the highest monthly aserage and overall mean i | ||
concentrations of both Na+ and Cl . This site is located immediately adjacent to I emergent wetlands and has an overstory of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish | concentrations of both Na+ and Cl . This site is located immediately adjacent to I emergent wetlands and has an overstory of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish water from the wetland and/or the predominance of pine litter on the soll surface may account for these higher levels. | ||
water from the wetland and/or the predominance of pine litter on the soll surface may account for these higher levels. | |||
4.4.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparisons An AOV was performed on the mean monthly Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll for Locations IA, IB, 2 and 3 to determine if there were significant I differences between pre-operational and operational concentrations. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4e3 and 4-4. As shown in these tables, solls l | 4.4.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparisons An AOV was performed on the mean monthly Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll for Locations IA, IB, 2 and 3 to determine if there were significant I differences between pre-operational and operational concentrations. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4e3 and 4-4. As shown in these tables, solls l | ||
collected during the operational period have significantly lower mean monthly Na+ ; | collected during the operational period have significantly lower mean monthly Na+ ; | ||
| Line 4,572: | Line 4,434: | ||
TABLE 4-1 MINIMLM, MAXiltti ABC EAN Soll $0DILM (Ne') j er j COMENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATS 0N, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I OURING THE OPERAT1014AL PERIOD MAY TO SEPTD81ER 1987 ABC MAY TO $EPTDGER 1988 i | TABLE 4-1 MINIMLM, MAXiltti ABC EAN Soll $0DILM (Ne') j er j COMENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATS 0N, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I OURING THE OPERAT1014AL PERIOD MAY TO SEPTD81ER 1987 ABC MAY TO $EPTDGER 1988 i | ||
j I Minimum IU Maxlaum ID Moon (2) | j I Minimum IU Maxlaum ID Moon (2) | ||
Average Average l Locatlon (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) $ | Average Average l Locatlon (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) $ | ||
,,l' 1A 2.6 6.0 3.9 , | ,,l' 1A 2.6 6.0 3.9 , | ||
| Line 4,632: | Line 4,492: | ||
,i TABLE 4-4. ANALYSl8 0F VARI ANE FOR EAN MONTHLY $0ll 04LORIDE (C1') CONMKTRATIONS (M94) DURING 1987-1948 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATION SALD: COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Spatial F IMonth Location lA Location 18 Location 18-A Location 2 Location 3 Value(II | ,i TABLE 4-4. ANALYSl8 0F VARI ANE FOR EAN MONTHLY $0ll 04LORIDE (C1') CONMKTRATIONS (M94) DURING 1987-1948 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATION SALD: COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Spatial F IMonth Location lA Location 18 Location 18-A Location 2 Location 3 Value(II | ||
} | } | ||
i | i | ||
' May 9.6 270.8 6.6 4.3 5.7 (4580.26) f Jine 8.7 354.3 3.8 8.1 6.6 (110.611 t J31y 10.1 901.5 5.1 9.6 8.5 158.42) | ' May 9.6 270.8 6.6 4.3 5.7 (4580.26) f Jine 8.7 354.3 3.8 8.1 6.6 (110.611 t J31y 10.1 901.5 5.1 9.6 8.5 158.42) | ||
| Line 4,653: | Line 4,512: | ||
! HOPE CfEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY , | ! HOPE CfEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY , | ||
!" i May June July August September I | !" i May June July August September I | ||
i Concentration (ppe) 3.3 3.0 2.8 4.9 5.4(2) ! | i Concentration (ppe) 3.3 3.0 2.8 4.9 5.4(2) ! | ||
l | l i | ||
l' I- tiotest i | |||
I- tiotest i | |||
. (1) Only months with significant F values were tested. See Table 4-5 for F values. | . (1) Only months with significant F values were tested. See Table 4-5 for F values. | ||
(2) Underlined velves are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance. . | (2) Underlined velves are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance. . | ||
| Line 4,689: | Line 4,545: | ||
l DUNCAN'$ MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATI AL ; | l DUNCAN'$ MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATI AL ; | ||
I RELATIONSHIPS IN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IN SOILS ! | I RELATIONSHIPS IN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IN SOILS ! | ||
HOPE GIEEK GENERATING $TATION, $ALEN COUNTY, NEW JER$EY l 1987 - 1988 l I g(l) | HOPE GIEEK GENERATING $TATION, $ALEN COUNTY, NEW JER$EY l 1987 - 1988 l I g(l) i ILocation: 18 1A 18.A 3 2 < | ||
i ILocation: 18 1A 18.A 3 2 < | |||
t i | t i | ||
f Concentration (ppe): 270.8 9.6 5.6 5.7 4.3(2) ; | f Concentration (ppe): 270.8 9.6 5.6 5.7 4.3(2) ; | ||
| Line 4,778: | Line 4,631: | ||
_ . _ _ _ . - _ _, _ _ _ . .- . . . _ _ . ~ _ . | _ . _ _ _ . - _ _, _ _ _ . .- . . . _ _ . ~ _ . | ||
._ _ _ .-_._--___._._ m ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . , , | ._ _ _ .-_._--___._._ m ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . , , | ||
W W | W W | ||
| Line 4,794: | Line 4,646: | ||
3 (-) (-) I 4 ; | 3 (-) (-) I 4 ; | ||
peots: | peots: | ||
j (1) Only tested for operational data. t l | j (1) Only tested for operational data. t l | ||
1 4 | 1 4 | ||
| Line 4,836: | Line 4,687: | ||
- a i | - a i | ||
f | f | ||
( , | ( , | ||
t ( | t ( | ||
| Line 4,860: | Line 4,710: | ||
.i F | .i F | ||
Fl . p: | Fl . p: | ||
I- | I- | ||
. -- U. . -1 | . -- U. . -1 | ||
| Line 4,875: | Line 4,724: | ||
. o s | . o s | ||
~ fs ,Sff' ~ . | ~ fs ,Sff' ~ . | ||
c | c | ||
',x >tu., 3 2 | ',x >tu., 3 2 | ||
| Line 4,920: | Line 4,768: | ||
k m'i) . . | k m'i) . . | ||
, , I' i | , , I' i | ||
: l. ~k ^. | : l. ~k ^. | ||
.I'' | .I'' | ||
| Line 4,984: | Line 4,831: | ||
~ - | ~ - | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
r SECTION 5 RELATED STUDIES ! | r SECTION 5 RELATED STUDIES ! | ||
I The availability of data relating to the salt drift eifects is limited. A number l | I The availability of data relating to the salt drift eifects is limited. A number l | ||
of studies have been conducted concerning the levels of salt deposition that cause l-damage to vegetation and the detection of such damage (e.g., Shipley, et al 1980: | of studies have been conducted concerning the levels of salt deposition that cause l-damage to vegetation and the detection of such damage (e.g., Shipley, et al 1980: | ||
McCune, et al 1977 Williams 19751 and Talbot 1979). Studies similar to those f J ' | McCune, et al 1977 Williams 19751 and Talbot 1979). Studies similar to those f J ' | ||
| Line 5,009: | Line 4,852: | ||
I All of the minimum and mean values presented in the Crystal River annual report are higher than the minimum values found in the vicinity of HCGS. With a I | I All of the minimum and mean values presented in the Crystal River annual report are higher than the minimum values found in the vicinity of HCGS. With a I | ||
few exceptions, the maximum values are similar. These higher values may represent differences in ambient deposition rates near the Crystal River Plant, which is located near the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the 1987-1988 Crystal River Plant report, salt deposition for the period is about 38% greater than would be expected naturally at the site with an apparent decline in salt deposition since the period 1983-1985 (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.1989). l Quarterly inspectione d native vegetation growing in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant were atso conducted during the period 1987-1988. Vegetation monitoring consisted of observations for gross physical changes in selected l | few exceptions, the maximum values are similar. These higher values may represent differences in ambient deposition rates near the Crystal River Plant, which is located near the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the 1987-1988 Crystal River Plant report, salt deposition for the period is about 38% greater than would be expected naturally at the site with an apparent decline in salt deposition since the period 1983-1985 (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.1989). l Quarterly inspectione d native vegetation growing in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant were atso conducted during the period 1987-1988. Vegetation monitoring consisted of observations for gross physical changes in selected l | ||
Individual plants of species representative of the vegetative communities in the I area. None of the leaf injury observed in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant during 1987-1988 was attributed to salt drift injury. Leaf damage resulted j | Individual plants of species representative of the vegetative communities in the I area. None of the leaf injury observed in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant during 1987-1988 was attributed to salt drift injury. Leaf damage resulted j primarily from insect chewing (KBN Engineering and Apriled Sciences, Inc.1988). | ||
primarily from insect chewing (KBN Engineering and Apriled Sciences, Inc.1988). | |||
5.2 CHALK POINT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY | 5.2 CHALK POINT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY | ||
- The Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility is located on the Patuxent River at the extreme southerly point of Prince George's County, Maryland. The facility consists of four units. Units No. I and 2 are coal-fired, straight-through cooled units of 350 MWe capacity each. Units No. 3 and No. 4 are each designed to 6 | - The Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility is located on the Patuxent River at the extreme southerly point of Prince George's County, Maryland. The facility consists of four units. Units No. I and 2 are coal-fired, straight-through cooled units of 350 MWe capacity each. Units No. 3 and No. 4 are each designed to 6 | ||
| Line 5,019: | Line 4,860: | ||
I l l i | I l l i | ||
Ll | Ll | ||
;u The Chalk Point Cooling Tower Pro}ect (CPCTP) was an experimental l' | ;u The Chalk Point Cooling Tower Pro}ect (CPCTP) was an experimental l' | ||
| Line 5,045: | Line 4,885: | ||
generally similar to those found in the vicinity of the HCGS. | generally similar to those found in the vicinity of the HCGS. | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
i I | i I | ||
, I ; | , I ; | ||
| Line 5,059: | Line 4,898: | ||
(og/m2 f,,3 g,gf,2f,o3 Open Test led 697 261 308 1,317 540 | (og/m2 f,,3 g,gf,2f,o3 Open Test led 697 261 308 1,317 540 | ||
; Open Control 70 213 124 144 427 259 | ; Open Control 70 213 124 144 427 259 | ||
'. SW Open Test 80 845 267 168 1,496 519 | '. SW Open Test 80 845 267 168 1,496 519 MW Open Test 113 292 185 220 580 358 NE Open Test 114 279 200 189 743 427 | ||
MW Open Test 113 292 185 220 580 358 NE Open Test 114 279 200 189 743 427 | |||
, W Open Pine 113 307 182 201 690 348 i | , W Open Pine 113 307 182 201 690 348 i | ||
-t. . | -t. . | ||
| Line 5,070: | Line 4,907: | ||
t fi I TABLE 5-2 NONTHLY AVERAGE 04LORIDE 00NCENTRAil0NS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF l | t fi I TABLE 5-2 NONTHLY AVERAGE 04LORIDE 00NCENTRAil0NS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF l | ||
I THE CHALK PolNT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAIO NAY-SEPTDGER 1975 f | I THE CHALK PolNT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAIO NAY-SEPTDGER 1975 f | ||
Cl* CONCENTRATION (ug/p) [ | Cl* CONCENTRATION (ug/p) [ | ||
| Line 5,096: | Line 4,932: | ||
! 1 l~ j l l t_ | ! 1 l~ j l l t_ | ||
L it | L it | ||
, X | , X | ||
' (#9M)10' ll l | ' (#9M)10' ll l | ||
| Line 5,121: | Line 4,955: | ||
[< . | [< . | ||
, ,3 | , ,3 d, - , l- i - fMWp.M.N#, M . . ix.' , , . ,- | ||
d, - , l- i - fMWp.M.N#, M . . ix.' , , . ,- | |||
I, .w 1; i- i i,4 a | I, .w 1; i- i i,4 a | ||
,t 'l'.. p,,*. . .y.. . | ,t 'l'.. p,,*. . .y.. . | ||
| Line 5,182: | Line 5,014: | ||
p'' g. | p'' g. | ||
~ ' - - - ~~ | ~ ' - - - ~~ | ||
[,A , | [,A , | ||
.g .. | .g .. | ||
| Line 5,198: | Line 5,028: | ||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
1 0 I '6.1.1 Salt Deposition r | 1 0 I '6.1.1 Salt Deposition r | ||
5 Na+ deposition rates at the sampling sites in the vicinity of HCGS ranged-from a low of 8.5 mg/m 2/ month to a high of 426.2 mg/m2 / month. Cl deposition rates ranged from 42.1 to 780.7 mg/m2/ month. Particulate and TDS deposition varied constwably' throughout the study = period, ranging - from 28 to | 5 Na+ deposition rates at the sampling sites in the vicinity of HCGS ranged-from a low of 8.5 mg/m 2/ month to a high of 426.2 mg/m2 / month. Cl deposition rates ranged from 42.1 to 780.7 mg/m2/ month. Particulate and TDS deposition varied constwably' throughout the study = period, ranging - from 28 to i 16,570 mg/rM/ month, and1141 to 18,744 mg/m 2 / month, respectively. With the 1= exception of pcr*;1calates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ns . nearest PCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site | ||
i 16,570 mg/rM/ month, and1141 to 18,744 mg/m 2 / month, respectively. With the 1= exception of pcr*;1calates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ns . nearest PCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site | |||
[" l g was the ay.ast of all the sites. In fact, none of the control site data represented l the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. | [" l g was the ay.ast of all the sites. In fact, none of the control site data represented l the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. | ||
, t f | , t f | ||
| Line 5,268: | Line 5,096: | ||
- . -. . -- ~ .-- --- - - -_ | - . -. . -- ~ .-- --- - - -_ | ||
f . | f . | ||
due to. variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS W cooling tower. - , | due to. variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS W cooling tower. - , | ||
| Line 5,287: | Line 5,114: | ||
I' g | I' g | ||
I | I Electric Generating Facility, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station). While data variability - | ||
Electric Generating Facility, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station). While data variability - | |||
exists because of differences in local climate and proximity to other salt sources, the HCGS data are generally similar to those'from other studies. | exists because of differences in local climate and proximity to other salt sources, the HCGS data are generally similar to those'from other studies. | ||
The concentrations of Na+ and Cl in foliage collected in the vicinity of | The concentrations of Na+ and Cl in foliage collected in the vicinity of | ||
| Line 5,428: | Line 5,253: | ||
{h&l | {h&l | ||
-,,.W. . | -,,.W. . | ||
1 | 1 M', | ||
M', | |||
s | s | ||
- 1 | - 1 | ||
| Line 5,466: | Line 5,289: | ||
l . , | l . , | ||
. , _. . . , s _ . .: | . , _. . . , s _ . .: | ||
.) - | .) - | ||
j_ ;__ | j_ ;__ | ||
| Line 5,571: | Line 5,393: | ||
+1 - | +1 - | ||
m | m | ||
,M-u | ,M-u TAE_E A-$ | ||
TAE_E A-$ | |||
~ 2 MGil114.Y DILORIDE (Cl ) DfMSITI0li IRTES (eg/in j,,,,,,y . | ~ 2 MGil114.Y DILORIDE (Cl ) DfMSITI0li IRTES (eg/in j,,,,,,y . | ||
DukiteG 1988 IN THE VICINITY OF 1HE HOPE GEEK GEIGRATilIS STATICII , | DukiteG 1988 IN THE VICINITY OF 1HE HOPE GEEK GEIGRATilIS STATICII , | ||
| Line 5,675: | Line 5,495: | ||
y-f; 1 | y-f; 1 | ||
1 6 | 1 6 | ||
y 4 C | y 4 C | ||
| Line 5,838: | Line 5,657: | ||
%yst;:W. | %yst;:W. | ||
7 : mci 7 4;ft y. | 7 : mci 7 4;ft y. | ||
1 | 1 r . " N; + | ||
r . " N; + | |||
t =i | t =i | ||
+ | + | ||
| Line 6,040: | Line 5,857: | ||
-, - i ?- | -, - i ?- | ||
,] | ,] | ||
( ' | ( ' | ||
..,-fj ( | ..,-fj ( | ||
TABLEB-1(continued) | TABLEB-1(continued) | ||
L. J 7 | L. J 7 U '' | ||
U '' | |||
S W 1988-h SLACK CHERRY | S W 1988-h SLACK CHERRY | ||
- Na* fope. dry basis) | - Na* fope. dry basis) | ||
| Line 6,072: | Line 5,886: | ||
3 78.0 59.0 120.0 152.0 219.0 146.0 104.0 31.8 99.6 74.9 122.0 89.1 73.1 75.0 88.6 l | 3 78.0 59.0 120.0 152.0 219.0 146.0 104.0 31.8 99.6 74.9 122.0 89.1 73.1 75.0 88.6 l | ||
4 T 88.3 172.3 78.5 95.3 78.9 I f Shirley Control /3 1 ~ -- -- -- +- | 4 T 88.3 172.3 78.5 95.3 78.9 I f Shirley Control /3 1 ~ -- -- -- +- | ||
g .. .. .. .. .. t | g .. .. .. .. .. t | ||
; 3 | ; 3 | ||
.(-) Not collected et thle location. | .(-) Not collected et thle location. | ||
l 1988 ' | l 1988 ' | ||
| Line 6,104: | Line 5,916: | ||
[ | [ | ||
t I Med Horse Creek /l 1 42.0 96.5 104.0 99.6 89.5 | t I Med Horse Creek /l 1 42.0 96.5 104.0 99.6 89.5 | ||
, 2 $6.0 50.4 101.0 78.3 97.5 3 $7.1 81.2 125.0 97.4 102.0 7 91.8 96.3 I 51.7 76.0 110.0 1 47.7 138.0 91.3 94.3 110.0 I $11ver Lake Needow/2 2 53.9 87.0 69.3 102.0 110.0 | , 2 $6.0 50.4 101.0 78.3 97.5 3 $7.1 81.2 125.0 97.4 102.0 7 91.8 96.3 I 51.7 76.0 110.0 1 47.7 138.0 91.3 94.3 110.0 I $11ver Lake Needow/2 2 53.9 87.0 69.3 102.0 110.0 | ||
'1 3 71.0 83.0 60.9 97.4 119.0 , | '1 3 71.0 83.0 60.9 97.4 119.0 , | ||
| Line 6,160: | Line 5,971: | ||
2 437.5 510.4 437.5 611.7 1114 f | 2 437.5 510.4 437.5 611.7 1114 f | ||
I 3 T | I 3 T | ||
309.1 410.9 132.4 396.6 322.2 353.6 317.5 451.7 664.9 1,052.3 | 309.1 410.9 132.4 396.6 322.2 353.6 317.5 451.7 664.9 1,052.3 Sil ver Lake Needow/2 317.3 228.7 358.5 I | ||
Sil ver Lake Needow/2 317.3 228.7 358.5 I | |||
1 226.1 1019 l 2 210.1 163.3 179.3 228.3 1250 3 326.0 307.7 292.6 237.5 586.7 : | 1 226.1 1019 l 2 210.1 163.3 179.3 228.3 1250 3 326.0 307.7 292.6 237.5 586.7 : | ||
7 256.7 262.8 233.5 274.8 951.9 I | 7 256.7 262.8 233.5 274.8 951.9 I | ||
, Shirley Control /3 1 - -- .. - - | , Shirley Control /3 1 - -- .. - - | ||
2 .. .. , | 2 .. .. , | ||
| Line 6,290: | Line 6,098: | ||
-(> . | -(> . | ||
.: t | .: t | ||
-;33%w,e w.; :. | -;33%w,e w.; :. | ||
m nf;mmn mu ' a 1:,a;a K *:;.t w A~ -:, ::,n.s 95, y5 yc ':, \n. .; | m nf;mmn mu ' a 1:,a;a K *:;.t w A~ -:, ::,n.s 95, y5 yc ':, \n. .; | ||
| Line 6,315: | Line 6,122: | ||
(;i .- | (;i .- | ||
. .e | . .e | ||
-n? , . _ , | -n? , . _ , | ||
mu. | mu. | ||
| Line 6,346: | Line 6,152: | ||
: h. yaemaa.m44,.aav _aama.m4..d h..Aue -J--" 4 we+4"WP.A E I . | : h. yaemaa.m44,.aav _aama.m4..d h..Aue -J--" 4 we+4"WP.A E I . | ||
APPENDlX C 1987 - 1988 SolLS DATA g 1 1 :, | APPENDlX C 1987 - 1988 SolLS DATA g 1 1 :, | ||
I ! | I ! | ||
1 a | 1 a | ||
| Line 6,466: | Line 6,271: | ||
., 3 | ., 3 | ||
'\ | '\ | ||
l7 APPENDIX D LABORNiORY METHODS This appendix contains a description of laboratory methods as outlined the Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drif t Monitoring Plan (WCC,1984). | l7 APPENDIX D LABORNiORY METHODS This appendix contains a description of laboratory methods as outlined the Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drif t Monitoring Plan (WCC,1984). | ||
SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES Dustfall collectors were thoroughly cleaned before being taken to the | SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES Dustfall collectors were thoroughly cleaned before being taken to the | ||
| Line 6,512: | Line 6,316: | ||
+ :' v .: | + :' v .: | ||
: '1-' | : '1-' | ||
,,e ' | ,,e ' | ||
4 i f,9lp -I q | 4 i f,9lp -I q | ||
| Line 6,519: | Line 6,322: | ||
7; jy ! | 7; jy ! | ||
7 O ' n c ,1c_ . | 7 O ' n c ,1c_ . | ||
.pj, 'i s e ~;31) - | .pj, 'i s e ~;31) - | ||
,e, * | ,e, * | ||
| Line 6,633: | Line 6,435: | ||
For the Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll samples, quality control consisted of the analysis of two replicate samples from composite samples collected and a spiked sample. The selection of samples for replicate analysis was done randomly. The months analyzed include August and September of 1987; and May, l I June, July, August and September of 1988. The results were evaluated by j calculating the relative standard deviation of the replicates and' the percent recovery of the spiked samples. The results are presented in Table E-5. | For the Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll samples, quality control consisted of the analysis of two replicate samples from composite samples collected and a spiked sample. The selection of samples for replicate analysis was done randomly. The months analyzed include August and September of 1987; and May, l I June, July, August and September of 1988. The results were evaluated by j calculating the relative standard deviation of the replicates and' the percent recovery of the spiked samples. The results are presented in Table E-5. | ||
The relative standard deviation for Na+ ranged from 1.24 percent to 99.97 ) | The relative standard deviation for Na+ ranged from 1.24 percent to 99.97 ) | ||
percent, while the percent spike recovery ranged from 75.7 to 99.9. For Cl~, the l relative standard deviation ranged from 0.925 percent to 17.8 percent, and the i percent spike recovery ranged from 68.3 to 110.0 | percent, while the percent spike recovery ranged from 75.7 to 99.9. For Cl~, the l relative standard deviation ranged from 0.925 percent to 17.8 percent, and the i percent spike recovery ranged from 68.3 to 110.0 I : | ||
I : | |||
E : | E : | ||
:g I | :g I | ||
| Line 6,652: | Line 6,452: | ||
I 3/87 4/87 5/87 106.4 34.9 5.5 77.7 17.1 40.6 0 | I 3/87 4/87 5/87 106.4 34.9 5.5 77.7 17.1 40.6 0 | ||
34.5 56.7 13.7 31.9 38.4 11.1 8.7 35.3 64.7 18.5 87.7 20.0 0 | 34.5 56.7 13.7 31.9 38.4 11.1 8.7 35.3 64.7 18.5 87.7 20.0 0 | ||
12.3 19.1 4.2 148.6 | 12.3 19.1 4.2 148.6 6/87 11.3 34.9 129.6 25.8 23.7 11.7 36.2 13.5 I 7/87 8/87 9/87 7.4 35.3 94.1 74.9 26.1 60.9 45.0 4.5 18.7 143.6 134.5 38.7 22.3 14.8 5.9 31.7 22.9 3.7 40.0 11.3 34.4 76.4 5.5 12.1 I 10/87 11/87 12/87 37.0 7.0 26.6 4.2 35.3 32.1 73.0 15.0 74.6 11.7 49.1 79.4 17.8 15.8 31.7 5.4 15.5 12.5 95.8 21.3 94.4 5.7 12.6 43.0 I | ||
6/87 11.3 34.9 129.6 25.8 23.7 11.7 36.2 13.5 I 7/87 8/87 9/87 7.4 35.3 94.1 74.9 26.1 60.9 45.0 4.5 18.7 143.6 134.5 38.7 22.3 14.8 5.9 31.7 22.9 3.7 40.0 11.3 34.4 76.4 5.5 12.1 I 10/87 11/87 12/87 37.0 7.0 26.6 4.2 35.3 32.1 73.0 15.0 74.6 11.7 49.1 79.4 17.8 15.8 31.7 5.4 15.5 12.5 95.8 21.3 94.4 5.7 12.6 43.0 I | |||
1/88 36.6 39.0 27.4 1.9 7.0 30.0 0.3 19.4 2/88 61.5 35.0 18.5 20.2 23.4 14.2 20.2 32.6 3/88 11.3 39.4 45.9 49.8 43.8 11.5 4.8 27.1 1 4/88 18.6 9.7 1.4 37.5 50.0 13.7 25.6 50.8 I 5/88 6/66 7/88 33.6 19.8 18.6 12.2 21.1 160.8 32.3 14.0 35.7 26.4 5.2 9.1 9.7 125.5 0 | 1/88 36.6 39.0 27.4 1.9 7.0 30.0 0.3 19.4 2/88 61.5 35.0 18.5 20.2 23.4 14.2 20.2 32.6 3/88 11.3 39.4 45.9 49.8 43.8 11.5 4.8 27.1 1 4/88 18.6 9.7 1.4 37.5 50.0 13.7 25.6 50.8 I 5/88 6/66 7/88 33.6 19.8 18.6 12.2 21.1 160.8 32.3 14.0 35.7 26.4 5.2 9.1 9.7 125.5 0 | ||
151.1 0 | 151.1 0 | ||
| Line 6,778: | Line 6,576: | ||
1 .3- . | 1 .3- . | ||
"l:;;;q,; s W , | "l:;;;q,; s W , | ||
ys r ,, | ys r ,, | ||
o i k | o i k | ||
| Line 6,858: | Line 6,655: | ||
w , | w , | ||
-j g ' | -j g ' | ||
j g e:1 Rg | j g e:1 Rg | ||
| Line 6,882: | Line 6,678: | ||
9 4 | 9 4 | ||
a I | a I | ||
* I | * I s | ||
I F A | |||
e wj w -*- t g- g gg e- --g--e e s e -e- =ey-, e,ev-- e.v e r e se, we-w'-,,ie = e +e e w e w eee,e -+ ewe =%,we--.-- . .- _ =a | e wj w -*- t g- g gg e- --g--e e s e -e- =ey-, e,ev-- e.v e r e se, we-w'-,,ie = e +e e w e w eee,e -+ ewe =%,we--.-- . .- _ =a | ||
,, a l | ,, a l | ||
TABLE F-1 y HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION t., IET MONTHLY POWER CUTPUT LEVELS IN TILOWATT HOURS 1 | TABLE F-1 y HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION t., IET MONTHLY POWER CUTPUT LEVELS IN TILOWATT HOURS 1 1987 (kwh) 1988 (kwh) 1989 (kwh) | ||
1987 (kwh) 1988 (kwh) 1989 (kwh) | |||
',l . January 796623l 788217 776952 | ',l . January 796623l 788217 776952 | ||
',W February 490907- 296858 440177' l March. 599546 0 596231 ApriI. 700197 347186 -- | ',W February 490907- 296858 440177' l March. 599546 0 596231 ApriI. 700197 347186 -- | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 18 February 2020
| ML19325C472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1989 |
| From: | WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C470 | List: |
| References | |
| 87C4611, NUDOCS 8910160292 | |
| Download: ML19325C472 (209) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. , _ - . - . - _ ._ , - . , _ M- aW &#m M_ , # x x_W. W_ W %_ &.a_v.m.&m. &,?4</-f* MM_]flb, o -
,.TW _?Q W,[em}t_ty3h.A f
&N' . fi ll;3 yl} ;,s @llE.W
~ pl4 "'hhl ~u* &lpa; t ,.
4 . 5
;. i j? k ~
1' Y h,' [-
, o f g ('
f j$ W. =:^:
.in, i f N
i
;(l . ,
&-_W, $-
-(
}r' h i
~ , ..
. ,'c
>,sq. ;g. w)b. n-- u* @; Qa,ev '/M+r >, f'< -
'am ;
5 ~##
; ,j,s -
r ,- f M M:o sg i ~=h ihN,6 3 . . .sm 3 %q'N. t bN.N Y
+
< =
, w ~a' ww f.pe y e,.p.43p g 327,y
',w , +
w:@w3n:s y bg.'m& 39 2 p.g'.-: x:)f,N ,* ' * ; w g , ? ' w n, g ,t )! 3 -q g , y s i,. , . g .-
;a~ ss g c s.s,3,e, " <
gw ?.Q rwm v t r . - .,
> +? 1
% kg%.'. -'s - j + ' n.M , e ' < *. '
W @
=
m
. :p'.- "a /t o?
>F . s ^
s sp i , , &
- i
.y, hs 2 f *h.
m
> I m
et a- w p ' ' " '
) .f.
0: ^ 9
&~vD,. , e . , s .c .K .n
- s ,, ' :.. t n, c > > , ~
r a ?'
*i ,@.j., *[, . '% c' $ ' 5 gg @
'} _'
s 3l ;<,y Q g. 4, , ,s A
,Q.. { t r if
- . . c. .
LdL%nlC@CJ n a , y_. ..
- x. .
t 6 $ TR Oper5tionall$ummary1ReportY .
._' ~q <
- u. (':
- + ,
.-: f /
u# ;f # \ ~~ ~
, f ?'- ) i W. '
t !
^
? Q 8
* ,t
.' %;g ' ' ' ? Y ' .
+ ,
V,? m3 - ,
&' C/,y..y* wL m
- ^
. x.
x .
. -tor :.
c'
. A
_s . . . t m. r -s.
.a
+- . ,
m, y
- i. ,
x,
~
. n,
%. w[f
. :# .'m.(,. c n ,
. ; ,
- u ,' .
s y ". .; 4 p
,s'-~f 4 4
.'?,./
* 'I .
.(. - , pQ 9' g b j}[ f f, ; d i3 y '! g - ,,
1
,i % 1 ,
- ?-
H4 O P,.. a J HopesCreek ; Generating (S' tation" '@s m - ESl alt 1DriftTMonitoringtProgra -mt M JoP"3 sw a J: NQn + - - c . , . . w c WS w i %y " x% o % . - i "JanuaryW98nto1MarcE19891 , - . m# 1 Ay u ' a t , + s , i 4
-v l+ p I -"# '. Y -. A
( b , _f ' y
,3 sQ *
k 4 t-' , I. ; jj
>)-
- 9. r . a-
,. s 3 i ' 4e ; ,!^;
7-M 1 f[ Y;M ' .' .i p,.b i- . i 7+
~
P, l s
'j: '
e ,!< t
, #[f ej f.f ' . p P ',.
Y , r
- ' ,f - -
/
w
# i wt? . 3 ui
'- > 'i (:l{
M n ,,, d .
.A .. ? a ~ ..
..7." . L '
.H '
aW MPublic; Service: Electric And GasLCompa(nyn j
~
Q p,y. g 4- W '
! Nuclear / Department ( 1
,1 o w m. .
.., =- , , y .
a , a
. c'
' i &w ' 4
. ~ . ~ P.O. Box 236 - '
-4
>< ^
Hancocks Bridge,NewJersey 00038 Q .% J ' (]y_ J -;g :. x &; ; 4. . , 4 . e A
- u
' ; y% ~ +
n ' , ip 9
's s ,. , -
g...,t <(.; . . .Q " [.['+ , 3 i( ....f. !, 1
,; y m, ,7 -y; g
a ; Ab u . a 87C4611; ; 3bJ Q, . ' h' 1 *
.j September 1989, E.. , . l, y h*h /- 3 J ,f
' .td
'.j,##'[ s > s t *'
, ,- . 2
;;r p; ;
% =: t i f, ?
t_
- h. J'
- w a- + .
$ L& < '.
- 4 a . ,
Prepared by ;
;n ,m ,
c. O, o . Woodward-ClydeiConsultants. ~ (
-Q .,
.g NI
%MM 201 Willowbrook Boulevard-WayneyewJersey07470 i
I W i 7 e q '! c - 1 \5 L i 'f '
-], ,. .q \
#:' t y 8, g. ' '
'nig i -
,' '/ / ! I a h . J f f
- ?
..p. sk F_ D F iUX r @9-. *
't 4' N,7 , fR h. ' A f[t. %,v s
5 4 v a,a'd x.-
- p. 3.
-y'M, a yW, 1.-
.<3- ,
pq M, w. e , , -.w,.,,,,,4,,,, .-,, %-,,,, ,,wemmm,,,,,mmw.mem,,,_..,,.._, _ , ,_,,.mm, , , _
m , T{ , a
'}
ol ? 4 .
'I l ;
- g.<. :
Operational Summary Report- :
-3l l
;for J
Hope Creek Generating Station 7, ,g, ! Salt Drift Monitoring-Program . Ll ' January 1987--to March.-1989 ; pg . Preparedfor , Publicl Service Electric And Gas Company: . gI: Nuclear. Department 1' P.O. Box 236 ; a: Hancocks Bridge,New Jersey 08038 ' g-Ll l 87C4611 l ' September 1989 .. l
- Prepared by l Woodward-Clyde Consultants 201 Willowbrook Boulevard Wayne,New Jersey 07470 Ll
~e'+
. . . - - . . ...._.,-.._,_....,...-........#-.e... ......w..,%.mm-c..me,...-w<,
p I, 1 r 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS l EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
- ES-1_ , f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. 1-1 1-1 3 1.1 Background Information I 1.2 1.3 1.4 Purpose Objectives and Scope - Data Analysis 1-3 1-4' 1-5 1.4.1 Analysis of Variance 1-6 1.4.2 Duncan's Multiple Range Tests and. . Tukey's Procedure 7 -
. . 1.4.3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coef ficients 1-7 2.0 SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES 2-1 Hg ; 2.1 Introduction 2 '
W. 2.2 Sampling Sites 2-1 2.3 Salt Deposition Sampler Design 2-4
=g 2.4 Data Collection 2-5~
L g. 2.5 Results - 2 ' L 2.5.1- Pre-Operational and Operational 2-6 L Comparative Analysis 2.5.2 Seasonal Trends 2-7 _ 2.5.3 Spatial Trends 2-8 L 2.5.4 Correlations Between Deposition Rates 2-9 l3 and Meteorological Conditions _g 2.5.5 Correlations Between Deposition Rates and 2-12 Power Levels at HCGS 2.6 - Summary and Conclusions 2-12 r - 2.6.1 Pre Operational / Operational Comparison 2-12 l-l 2-13 2.6.2 Seasonal and Spatial Trends 2.6.3 Correlations 2-14 ( '3.0 NATIVE VEGETATION STUDIES 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Sampling Sites 3-1 3.3 Data Collection 3-3 ', 3.4 Results 3-4 3.4.1 Pre-Operational and Operational 3-4 Comparative Analysis y 3.4.2 Species Differences 3-5 3.4.3 Seasonal Trends 3-6 3.4.4 Spatial Trends 3-6 3.4.5 Correlations Between Native Vegetation Salt 3-8 Concentrations and Meteorological Conditions
- I tw39-403-C i 87C4611
~
19 September 1989
N , 9: - I<+n>
' 'i~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
~
3.4.6 - Correlation Between Native Vegetation Na+ and Cl Concentrations and Deposition 3.4.7 Correlations Between Native Vegetation Na+ - 3-11 and Cl Concentrations and Power Output Levels at HCGS E- 3.5 : Summary and Conciusions - .3-11
!E 3.5.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparison 3-11 3.5.2 Correlations 3-12 y 4.0 SOIL STUDIES 4-1 4.1, Introduction - 4-1 ; 4.2 Sampling Sites . .4-1 4.3 Data Collection 4-1 4.4 Results 4-2 j!
g 4.4.1 Pre-Operational and Operational Comparisons 4-2 qi 3l 4.4.2 Seasonal Trends 4-2 i 4.4.3 Spatial Trends 4-3 ! 4.4.4 Correlations Between Soi! Na+ and C1~ 4-4 Concentrations and Meteorological Conditions 4.4.5 Correlations Between Soll and Vegetation 4 Na+ and Cl Concentrations 4.4.6 Correlations Between Monthly Mean Soil Na+ 4-5 i and Cl Concentrations and Total Monthly ! Power Output Levels at the HCGS 4.5 Summary and Conclusions 4-5
,I: 4.5.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparison Correlations 4-5 4-5 L 4.5.2 .
5.0 COMPARATIVE STUDIES 5-1 5.1 Crystal River Plant Salt Drift Study 5-1 j 5.2 Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility 5-2 ;
.I. 5.3 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 5-4 l 6.0 '
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 6-1 ! l- 6.1 Summary 6-1 ; 6.1.1 Salt Deposition Studies 6-1 )' 6-2
.- 6.1.2 Native Vegetation Studies 6.1.3 Soils Studies 6-3 6.2 Conclusions 6-4 i
Iw39-403-C il 87C4611 19 September 1989 l L -. -
, ;c . . Li 1 I I~ . TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) '! p
7.0 REFERENCES
( .; APPENDICES .. l J
.I - A: JANUARY 1987 - MARCH 1989 DEPOSITION DATA- ,
L. . B 1987 AND 1988 VEGETATION DATA ' d C -1987 AND 1988 SOILS DATA r I 1 -D LABORATORY METHODS r E -QUALITY ASSURANCE
- F: NET MONTHLY POWER OUTPUT LEVELS AT HCGS F.
i ..
- r. -
l LI h l s i .
- i. .
[;
- -
- E.
Iw39-403-C ill 87C4611 19 September 1989
3h 1
~
1 QI LIST OF TABLES Number _ Title i 2-1' SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITES :3 2-2 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN DEPOSITION RATES FOR - SODIUM, CHLORIDE, PARTICULATES, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING 4
- STATION, F ALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 -
'IL - MARCH 1s89 I 2-3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN MONTHLY SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989) PERIOD 5, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY F 2-4~ ' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE
'E DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 -
TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO 3 MARCH 1989) PERIODS, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
-I.
2-5 . ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY PARTICULATE DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEMBER 1986) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO
- I. MARCH 1989) PERIODS, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 2-6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS DEPOSITION RATES FOR THE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEMBER 1986) AND
'I OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989) PERIODS, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW .
JERSEY i: 2-7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE F R MEAN MONTHLY SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES (MG/M / MONTH) DURING JANUARY 1987 I TO MARCH 1989 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I 1 Iw39-403-C iv 87C4611 19 September 1989 I I
y <
- i. r . >
+ _
LIST OF TABLES (continued) -; I < I Number 2-8 Title ARKLYSIS OF VARIANCE DEPOSITION RATES (MG/M R MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE : Fp/ MONTH) DURING JANUARY 1987 ~' TO MARCH 1989 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK - GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY q
}a{
9 R MEAN MONTHLY PARTICULATE ANALYSIS DEPOSITION OF VARIANCE Fp/ MONTH) DURING JANUARY 1987 Ll RATES (MG/M ' Lu TO MARCH '989 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW'3ERSEY L 2-10' TOTAL L ANALYSIS DISSOLVED SOLIDS OF DEPOSITION VARIANCE FOR RATES MEAN MONTHL}/ MONTH (MG/M DURING JANUARY.1987 TO MARCH 1989 IN THE VICINITY OF l ' _ THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY , 2-11 TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL L . RELATIONSHIPS IN SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES AT SITE 1 HOPE l CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, j
- JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 i'
2-12 TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN PARTICULATE DEPOSITION RATES AT SITE 1, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY,3ANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 - 2-13 TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS < I- IN CHLORIDE DEPOSITION RATES, JANUARY-1987,1988 AND 1989, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, S ALEM COUNTY, ,- NEW JERSEY 2-14 TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS DEPOSITION RATES, DECEMBER . .' - 1987 AND 1988, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM
- l. COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 2-15 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS f
'I.' BETWEEN SODIUM DEPOSITION RATES AND ARTIFICIAL ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM
- COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 S 2-16 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN CHLORIDE DEPOSITION RATES AND ARTIFICIAL ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION,
,I SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 Iw89-403-C v 87C4611 19 September 1989 s
e >
'j-)<
ef'E ' i< 4 - s
' LIST OF TABLES (continued) 1 I
Number Title yI b 2-17 - PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS t BETWEEN PARTICULATE DEPOSITION RATES AND ARTIFICAL
- ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION.
n SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 3 2-18 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS DEPOSITION RATES AND ' 15 ' I ARTIFICAL ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK
-E GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY,
[g 3ANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 1 2-19 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SALT DEPOSITION PARAMETERS AND TOTAL ie MONTHLY POWER OUTPUT LEVELS AT HOPE CREEK-L GENERATING STATION FOR THE OPERATIONAL STUDY PERIOD 2-20 SIGNIFICANT SODIUM CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE- . OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL DEPOSITION DATA, MOPE I CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 2-21 SIGNIFICANT CHLORIDE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL DEPOSITION DATA, ., HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW ! 3ERSEY 2-22 SIGNIFICANT PARTICULATE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR l PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL DEPOSITION DATA, ! HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW -l 3ERSEY 2-23 SIGNIFICANT TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CORRELATION ' COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL DEPOSITION DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, l SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 5 i
-p 3-1 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN g; FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND MAY-
; SEPTEMBER 1988 I
Iw89-403-C vi 87C4611 19 Septe er 1989 m _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - ..
F [' T b
, 3
]
LIST OF TABLES (continued) l ' a I> Title ; Number
.3 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS- l
,, IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK . 'g.
~ GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING .
4 OPERA 710NAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND MAY TO :
- B SEPTEMBER 1988 j l
! 3-3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS (Na+) : IN FOLIAGE FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL (1984-1986) AND. ! OPERATIONAL (1987-1988) PERIODS AT THE HOPE CREEK
- GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS (Cl- '
,m )IN FOLIAGE FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL (1984-1986) AND . ' l5 OPERATIONAL (1987-1988) PERIODS AT THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 3-5 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 , L 3-6 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN > FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING THE PRE-l l-- L L OPERATIONAL PERIOD, 1984-1986 if 4 3-7 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS L5 IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING l OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 ; [ L 3-8 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHLORIDE (Cl-) CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE H0PE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERS 'Y l l; DURING THE PRE-OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1984-1986 L
.E -
3-9 .TUKEY~d MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR CHLORIDE
- 5. CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE SAMPLED IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, mi NEW JERSEY
!- g 3-10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MONTHLY SODIUM 7 CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 Iw89-403-C vil 87C4611 19 September 1989 l u.
q,- a .ns
- f. ;
' l LIST OF TABLES (continued Number Title 3-11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MONTHLY CHLORIDE l CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING l THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 3-12 DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SODIUM l CONCENTRATIONS IN SWEETGUM SAMPLED IN AUGUST IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, 1 1987-1988.
3-13 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR MONTHLY SODIUM (Na+) CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE, I COMPARED TO MONTHLY AVERAGE WEATHER DATA, FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988. 3-14 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR MONTHLY CHLORIDE (C1') CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIACE, COMPARED TO MONTHLY AVERAGE WEATHER DATA, FOR I HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 3-15 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE CONCENTRATIONS OF SODIUM (Na+) AND CHLORIDE (CI')IN FOLIAGE AND THE MEASURED DEPOSITION l RATES IN THE VICINITY OF HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 3-16 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE CONCENTRATIONS OF SODIUM (Na+) AND CHLORIDE (Cl')IN FOLIACE, AND POWER OUTPUT LEVELS, AT THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 3-17 SIGNIFICANT SODIUM CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 lw39-403-C vill 87C4611 19 September 1989
'I
1 I l I LIST OF TABLES (continued) I ! I Number 3-18 Title 5fCNIFICANT CHLORIDE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY 1 OF HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 i r I 4-1 MINIMUM, MAX! MUM AND MEAN SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING .: i i'3 THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1987 AND i g MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1988 i 4-2 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SOIL CHLORIDE '; CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK j GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING j THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1987 AND ; MAY TO SEPTEMBER,1988 ; i 4-3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN PRE-OPERATIONAL (1985- : a 1986) AND O?ERATIONAL (1987-1988) MEAN MONTHLY SOIL ! g SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) IN THE VICINITY OF THE - HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW 'l JERSEY 4-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN PRE-OPERATIONAL (1985-1986) AND OPERATIONAL (1987-1988) MEAN MONTHLY SOIL 3 CHLORIDE (C1') CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUN1 Y, i 5 NEW JERSEY
'l 4-5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY,
~
m NEW JERSEY l 4-6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MEAN MONTHLY SOIL CHLORIDE 3- CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) DURING 1987-1988 IN THE VICINITY L g- OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, ! NEW JERSEY m ; f 4-7 DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATION AT LOCATION 1 A, MAY-SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY IwS9-403-C lx 87C4611 19 September 1989
I ! f) LIST OF TABLES (continued) l I l i I Number Title 4-8 DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL : RELATIONSHIPS IN SODIUM CONCENTRATION IN SOILS, HOPE
- CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, I 4-9 1987-1988 DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL l
l I RELATIONSHIPS IN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IN SOILS, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, 1987-1988 4-10 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SOIL SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS AND ARTIFICIAL . l ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, , SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, MAY-SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 4-11 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS l.3 I. . , .: m BETWEEN SOIL CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND ARTIFICIAL ISLAND WEATHER DATA, HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, . SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, MAY-SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 4-12 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS EETWEEN SOIL SALT CONCENTRATIONS AND VEGETATION Na+ AND CL CONCENTRATIONS AT THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, MAY-SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 , t3 4-13 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SOIL Na+ AND Cl CONCENTRATIONS AND POWER 3 GENERATION LEVELS AT HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY-SEPTEMBER 1987 AND 1988 I 4-14 SIGNIFICANT SODIUM CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL SOILS DATA 4-15 SIGNIFICANT CHLORIDE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL SOIL DATA I I IwS9-403-C x 87C4611 19 September 1989
I : i LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1-1 SITE LOCATION MAP HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION
- t. 1-2 PREDICTED AVERAGE SALT DEPOSITION RATE HOPE CREEK !
GENERATING STATION l 2-1 SALT DEPOSITION SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1-7 AND 9 , 2-2 SALT DEPOSITION CONTROL SITE 8 2-3 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 1 2-4 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 2
~
2-5 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 3 j 2-6 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 4
- 2-7 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 3 2-8 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 6 2-9 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 7 2-10 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 8 !
2-!! SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 9 2-12 SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SYSTEM 3-1 NATIVE VEGETATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1 AND 2 , 3-2 NATIVE VEGETATION CONTROL LOCATION 3 3-3 NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 1 3-4 NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 2 3-5 NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 3 3-6 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA l A 87C4611
'E Iw39-403-C x1 W- 19 September 1989 I
I
I ! LIST OF FIGURES (continued) ! I 1 Number Title 3-7 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA IB ) 3-8 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 2 3-9 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 3 I I l I ! I I I I . E I . I I ! IwS9-403-C xil 87C4611 19 September 1989 I:
_ a t I -; EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
{ INTRODUCTION l This Operational Summary Report presents the results of Woodward-Clyde
. Consultants (WCC) investigations conducted for Public Service Electric and Gas l Company (PSE&G) over the operational period 1987-1989 under Purchase Order PI-209302. These investigations were conducted in accordance with WCC's l
proposal dated May 1987 for performing salt drift monitoring in the vicinity of
- Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) in St.lem County, New Jersey, and ,
represent a continuation of studies conducted for PSE&G by WCC under Purchase ! l'E Order PI-128433 over the pre-operational period 1984 to 1986. The results of '[ these studies were presented in a Pre-Operational Summary Report dated Aprl! I i 1987. I i HCGS is located adjacent to the Salem Generating Station on ArtificialIsland [ ' [ along the eastern shore of the Delaware River Estuary, approximately 50 miles i l northwest of the mouth of Delaware Bay and 30 miles southwest of Philadelphia. The average salinity in the Delaware River Estuary adjacent to the site ranges l from 5 to 18 ppt during periods of low freshwater flow, to 0.5 to 5 ppt at other lI times. 4 L HCGS cooling water is withdrawn from the estuary and includes that used as [ make up water in the station's hyperbolic natural draf t cooling tower. Based on 7 Information reported in the Applicants Environmental Report - Operating License L ; Stage, water loss from the tower results in the emission of salt to the atmosphere . . at a rate of 6.6 kg/hr. Drift rate from the HCGS cooling tower is 142 g/s, which equates to 0.00041 percent of the circulating water flow. t Appendix B to Facility Operating License No. NPF-50 issued for HCGS, the Environmental Protection Plan, required PSE&G to assess the impact of cooling tower salt drif t on the environment in the vicinity of HCGS. PSE&G has satisifed I Iw39-403es ES-1 87C4611-4 9 w .-a--_ _.a _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- I program requirements and the monitoring program results are presented in this report.
i ! i
= OBJECTIVES The objectives of the 1987-1988 Operational Salt Deposition Study were tot
- 1. Collect data representing operational salt deposition rates in the ,
vicinity of HCGS. !
- 2. Collect data representing the concentrations of sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl~)in foliage and soils in the vicinity of HCGS.
- 3. Evaluate the operational salt deposition rates and concentrations of Na+
and Cl* in foliage and soil relative to location, season and , meteorological parameters potentially influencing salt drif t rates. i
- 4. Compare data collected as part of the operationd study with those from the pre-operational study and other related studies.
1 SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES A year-round sampling program was conducted to determine the monthly i I~ sodium (Na+), chloride (Cl~), water insoluble particulate, and water soluble particulate (i.e., total dissolved solids) deposition rates in the vicinity of the HCGS over the period January 1987 through March 1989. A total of eight sites were initially selected for salt deposition monitoring. Locations were situated i along a transect extending east of the HCGS cooling tower to a distance of about 8 km) a transect extending northwest to a distance of about 0.5 km; and at the
- Shirley Control Site, 27 km northeast of the site. The sampling sites were selected to correspond with the areas predicted by dispersion modeling to receive the highest annual average deposition. Statistical analyses were performed on the -
data collected to evaluate differences between pre-operational and operational Iw39-403es ES-2 87C4611-4
- 1. , ,
y } , t rates, seasonal trends, spatial trends, correlations with meteorological data and j correlations with power levels at HCGS. e ! Significant increases and decreases in deposition occurred at sites near HCGS and at the Shirley control site during the operational period. With one exception,- most of the differences are not believed to be related to operation of the HCGS cooling tower. Operation of the tower may contribute to higher deposition rates i at Site 3, located approximately 0.4 km from the cooling tower on the Nuclear ( Department Administration Building, where the highest operational Na+ and Cl- j
! deposition 7ates occurred. !
i Seasonal and spatla! trends in deposit!on were also highly variable during pre-I operational and operational periods. Cooling tower operation did not correspond ! with the few significant differences which were identified. ; i Significant positive correlations were determined between deposition rates and meteorological parameters during both the pre-operational and operational j periods. The correlations most associated with cooling tower operation are those between deposition and 1) the percent of time that the wind blew from the cooling j tower to a given sample site, and 2) the power output level of HCGS. Significant positive correlations were determined for Na+, C1' and TDS deposition and wind
; from the cooling tower at Site 3. No significant correlations were determined ;
between salt deposition and HCGS power output levels. lI I L NATIVE VEGETATION STUDIES !I l A growing season (May-September) sampling program was conducted during the 1987 and 1988 operational period to determine the concentrations of Na+ and - Cl in/on the foliage of trees in the vicinity of HCGS. Foliage from a maximum [
- of six species (black cherry, blackgum, flowering dogwood, pin oak, sassafras, and sweetgum) were collected at each of the following three sampling locations
{ o I.ocation 1, Mad Horse Creek,3.4 mi east of HCGS
- o Location 2, Silver Lake Meadow,5 mi east of HCGS; and i
l IwS9-403es ES-3 87C4611-4 -
4 I o Location 3, Shirley Control,15.6 mi northeast. Statistical analyses were performed on the data to comphre pre-operational and operational foliage levels, differences in concentrations among species,
- g seasonal and spatial trends, correlations with meteorological data, correlations 3 with deposition rate and correlations with power output levels.
Very few significant differences were found among the foliage Na+ and Cl-data from the operational period. Any correlations which were identified are be'leved to be coincidential with physiological and environmental factors and not due to operation of HCGS. No differences in Na+ concentration were found among the species sampled. , As was the case in the pre-operational study, flowering dogwood contained , significantly higher concentrations of Cl* than the other species sampled at , Locations ! and 2. On the other hand, black cherry contained significantly lower concentrations of Cl than most other species at Locations 1 and 2. l While not statistically significant, seasonal increases in C1' are indicated in , blackgum, flowering dogwood, pin oak, sassafras and sweetgum. This trend was also found during the pre-operational period. l The only significant difference among the sites sampled was for flowering i j3 dogwood. For this species, Na+ concentrations were significantly higher at Location 1 than at Location 2. lI l No significant increase in foliage Na+ or Cl* concentrations were found at locations nearest to HCGS during the operational study. In fact, significantly 4
~
lower concentrations of Cl* were found in black cherry, pin oak and sweetgum at locations near HCGS. The only significant increase indicated was pin oak Cl at Location 3, the Shirley control site. lI e twS9-403es ES-4 87C4611-4
.I;
o p. - - --- SOIL STUDIES Soil sampling was conducted in conjunction with native vegetation sampling in J5 the vicinity of HCCS Moring May-September of 1987 and 1988. Surface soil l samples were collected monthly and analyzed to determine Na+ and C1' ! concentrations. Statistical analyses were performed < c vare pre-operational and operational levels, seasonal trends,' spatial '. and correlations with i i meteorological conditions, vegetation concentrations and power output levels at HCCS. ! I Soll Na+ concentrations ranged from an average 0.2 ppm at Location 2, to l 663.8 ppm at Location IB. Cl concentrations ranged from an average of 2.6 ppm I at Location IB-A to 1,534 ppm at Location IB. (Locations IA,18 and IB-A were three sampling sites at Location 1.)
. Location IB had the highest monthly average and overall mean concentrations i of both Na* and Ci~. This site is located immediately adjacent to emergent .
wetlands and has a overstory of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish water ; from the wetland and/or the predominance of pine litter on the soll surface may account for these higher levels. There was a consistent and significant downward trend in Na+ and Cl* , concentrations at all locations during the operational period. Soils collected ! during this period had significantly lower mean monthly Na+ and Cl* concentrations at all locations than were found during the pre-operational
- period. The reason for this decrease is uncertain, but may be related to the drought conditions that occurred during the summer of 1988.
Seasonal variables do not appear to have a major influence on soll Na+ and Cl concentrations. Location lA was the only location to have a significant difference for Na+ concentrations in soll. At this location, soil Na+ was significantly higher in the month of September compared to May, June or July. - l
; No significant seasonal differences in soil Cl concentrations were identified at the 0.05 level.
l: lwS9-403es ES-5 87C4611-4
i l l i Spatial differences in soit Na+ and Cl~ were identified only for Location IB, ; where concentrations were significantly higher than at all other locations. Environmental reasons for this have already been discussed above and include l proximity t'o a tidal marsh. j Any correlations between soil Na+ or Cl concentrations and meteorological factors or power output at the HCGS are coincidental. Significant differences are ; due to variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS ( cooling tower. l l CONCLUSIONS The analyses of data collected as part of the HCGS operational salt drift study indicate that only minor, localized effects of cooling tower drif t deposition are occurring. These effects include higher Na+ and Cl' deposition rates in the vicinity of the Nuclear Department Administration Building, 0.4 km east, f downwind of the cooling tower. The predicted salt deposition rate reported in [ PSE&G's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage at 0.42 km southeast of the cooling tower is 60 mg/m2/mo. The sum of the differences between the pre-operational and operational mean Na* and Cl deposition at Site 3 is I 113 mg/m 2 /mo. While this value is higher than the predicted value, it is well l below the deposition levels that have been reported to cause vegetative damage. I 2 The threshold for reduced agricultural plant productivity is 10,000 mg/m / year. . HCGS is located adjacent to the Delaware River Estuary with extensive areas of tidal wetlands to the east of the cooling tower, the direction in which the
- prevailing winds carry salt drif t. These wetlands are flooded by brackish water on each high tide. The wetland plants that occur in this area are adapted to high ,
salinity environments and should not be affected by the relatively small increase in salt deposition resulting from operation of the HCGS cooling tower. The nearest uplands to HCGS are located approximately 3 miles to the east. The predicted salt deposition rate from the HCGS cooling tower at that distance l ! Iw89-403es ES-6 87C4611-4
r , I is less than 2 mg/m2/mo. The native vegetation sampling location nearest to HCGS is located 3.4 miles east of the cooling tower. This is the nearest woodland I crea to HCGS. The data from the analyses of foliage and soll from this location and general observations of foliage through the growing season do not indicate that any significant adverse impacts are occurring as a result of cooling tower operation. The salt deposition rates in the vicinity of HCGS were compared to data collected in studies at other facilities (e.g., Crystal River Plant, Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station). While data variability exists because of differences in local climate and proximity to other salt sources, the HCGS data are generally similar to those from other studies, gg The concentrations of Na+ and Cl* in follage collected in the vicinity of HCGS are similar to those found in salt drift studies at other facilities. Species differences in Cl* concentration found in the vicinity of HCGS were also found at Chalk Point (e.g., flowering dogwood contains C1' at concentrations an order of + magnitude higher than the other species sampled). Increasing CI' concentrations were also found in several species in the vicinity of HCGS through the growing i season. This trend was found in salt drif t studies conducted at Chalk Point. I No observations of salt stress in foliage in the vicinity of HCGS were noted during the growing season. As was reported for the Crystal River Plant study, I follar damage in the vicinity of HCGS resulted primarily from insect chewing. 1 1 I IwS9-403es ES-7 87C4611-4 1
~
'F
- qi- ,
ppf(N #
< i 5 s "A ,
4 [j ,
.i
~j -n I'
'f
?
i k i i, a' gb d ' y, mm; .w.ug _, i m a e :yw +-'
~
, p-, y , ,a ,w . 3 q WMc{![{1 .( c 5tj ' ih.QIT ' .,, w, 7. .-g# 'O U Q .. , Wi i[u ..
^
. '" ( i ,hA,-
nw f,[ 8 .$ u. \.wm. gj~JdN syjj$ .p[r$sk. n' ,..g1 x um- .~
+ .. x . ,
; ~m o .s.-m.
;. o,a.n .-
o 6;. c.V.,jm.:: m, y u, r., ,is, m
%, %~~
~
MI ,.;sngp - s %, m.ts < +pc4,x; y
, ~m, ?
-,s- 8
.a.,. _1-
.r w :- ,.n-, 3 ,; ,, ~, .. , ,.w :L. -
ma. .,w.. ',, s i g - , y, x s ' e % , t.. > i ') U[j h.p-, ,.e. o . m 1 -s- m
..3 33 -
4 Q._ ,.d s ; r%p .z .4' J'
- it c- . .-
4 f ,
-f y;;my m),'(+p? a, ~ . ' l,1 -fe,(}'l(.e / gt+3w}{ , $ 4 s' oM'1 hw)iY} # M ': 1)'3
;.y1 i
- r w u m"[ M .ppp i,', -m({y4IJ ;.
u 8 hk7 f,,y , m, y,. _ .;. .;}pe,j ..; [m
- 1. . .
h E fI gg y ' :g f.,
,.5 o ys .
+
t
~
, . y a ;,.
?- 'y h f &.. k, u ,
ll$ J N.'.,,, [IIl _ UD , ,j%W
'.u mb' ,m &o N( Q mr l ~d: < $ d md _Qm.ga'h uyWm[ Y_d )s$1 -p ., opp , '@wl.Vl E -)D' m e:l h; $:SW ~e g m 44 . - ,
we . g y
- s. <
[ Q M, [ 1,' <1,'Cj f Y 'fk ' , g m( [ yM' I',he %j[ hi?- I' j h[Ff,[:'), 7_ Y mm. w a~ p.m a$I[e$, s <,y[u$ $j/g m k* M p, . e[,'%,
, O ,b
- - x
Y h L
e e+h(k! iY .i ..f F ,' E
,m :lu ; %. .I ,,- - 3 dv,q'..hr.' [ , y. y3u&,u y cm ba v/[.Mnv hw(', . 't;.t.a,,#. f.S m'$
.e,- (~3
.n'- , :f j)T.f 2 , > 6 s' fa'nn,. , , ,.g.' m ' O,
,_ .s, v.;wm,r .;1,b,'
?. ;
- u:w,, ,:p 4,:n. . ,
a vm, m . wv my, . ,n w
~
nx. 1 ,,s:v,
.a ,
,Y h Y $ s- , . t ?'$ d ' 4
- A- ' ~' ' '
(in[t (0 . .
) .
W 2 i
.1 o 4
[t[ i 1 i 1 SECTION 1 ; 'i INTRODUCTION j \ - This Operational Summary Report presents the results of Woodward-Clyde i L Consultants (WCC) investigations conducted for Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) over the operational period 1987-1989 under Purchase Order ! PI-209302. These investigations were conducted in accordance with WCC's proposal dated May 1987 for performing salt drift monitoring in the vicinity of i '. 1 Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) in Salem County New Jersey, and !' represent a continuation of studies conducted for PSE&G by WCC under Purchase
.- Order PI-128433 over the pre-operational period 1984 to 1986. The results of .
these studies were presented in a Pre-Operational Summary Report dated Aprl! i 1987.
- I l;
1.1 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION !I The use of cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from steam-electric l generating stations is a widely used technology to conserve water and minimize i thermal effects on natural water bodies. Cooling towers are most commonly 2 evaporative towers in which the circulating water is transformed into droplets, some of which become entrained in the exit air and leave the tower. The term for l these entrained droplets is drift. Drift contributes very little to the visibility of cooling tower plumes. Such plumes result primarily from condensation of a
- portion of the water which has been evaporated. The visible plume does not ;
- represent a pollutant in the commonly accepted sense.
, ' A cooling tower contributes to the pollution of the surrounding environment l only to the degree that the concentration of a constitutent in the drift exceeds that in the ambient air. If the facility uses a brackish or saltwater water supply I the drift will contain salts (primarily Nacl) and other dissolved solids. chemical composition of cooling water drif t depends largely upon the source of The , water used for the circulating water supply. A portion of this drif t will settle on M
'u Iw89-403-1 1-1 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
I ! i I ! i vegetation, structures, or ground surfaces at variable distances downwind of the cooling tower. This creates the potential for vegetation damage if the deposition j I rate due to cooling tower drif t is greater than the ambient depoiition rate. Symptoms of salt injury to vegetation include retarded growth, follar
)
browning, death of vegetative and flower buds, twig dieback and outright death of plants. Such damage ccrmally occurs along ocean shores and highways where salt i is applied during winter months (Sinclak, et ' al,1987). Natural salt drift deposition rates vary from one locality to another due to geography, local meteorology and distance from the source (e.g., ocean shore). Sea salt deposition rates near the New Jersey ocean coast were found .to be on the order of 375 lb/ acre / year, decreasing to 32 lb/ acre / year at 10 miles inland (Shofner, et al, I. 1973). HCGS is located adjacent to the Salem Generating Station on Artificial Island along the eastern shore of the Delaware River Estuary (Figure 1-1). The generating station is located approximately 50 miles northwest of the mouth of Delaware Bay and 30 miles southwest of Philadelphia. The average salinity in the ; Delaware River Estuary adjacent to the site ranges from 5 to 18 ppt during i periods of low freshwater flow, to 0.5 to 5 ppt at other times. The typical salinity ; of marine waters is about 30 ppt. Tidal flow dominates freshwater flow in the l
. estuary by a factor of 18:1.
HCGS cooling water is withdrawn from the estuary and includes that used as make up water in the station's hyperbolic natural draft cooling tower, located approximately 800 ft northeast of the turbine building. The cooling tower has the design characteristics given in Table 1-1. Water losses from the tower, resjting from evaporation and drift, have been estimated to vary between 9600 and 13,000 gallons per minute, depending upon season (highest in July). Based on information reported in the Applicants Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, this l- water loss results in the emission of salt to the atmosphere at a rate of
. 6.6 kg/hr. Modeling of the deposition of salt resulting from such emissions was '
performed by PSE&G and is summarized in Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2. Table 1-2 lw89-403-1 1-2 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
presents a comparison of peak annual and seasonal deposition rates, and Figure 1-2 Illustrates the modeled annual average salt drif t deposition isopleths. As required by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Air Pollution Control Program Certificate Number 041932, issued for the hyperbolic cooling tower, PSE&G conducted drif t emission rate testing in August 1987. The data acquired during the test Indicated that the drif t rate from the HCGS cooling tower is 142 g/s, which equates to 0.00041 percent of the f circulating water flow. I 1.2 PURPOSE The requirement for a salt drift monitoring study in the vicinity of HCGS was originally identified as condition #5 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1974 Construction Permit which stated that a pre-operational and operational monitoring program be conducted to evaluate the effects of salt deposition on terrestrial life and structures. The December 1984 NRC Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Operation of HCGS identified the deposition of cooling tower drift on follar surface and soils as the primary potential impact on terrestrial resources, but indicated that the predicted annual average deposition rate (720 mg/m2 / year) near the plant (.3 miles from the tower) I was well below the 10,000 mg/m2/ year threshold for reduced agricultural plant productivity. HCGS is surrounded by extensive salt marsh areas to the east (3.0 miles) and the Delaware River Estuary to the west. At the nearest farm (3.5 miles east) the annual average deposition rate was predicted to be 22 mg/m2 / year. Based on their modeled data, both the NRC and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP 1980) concluded that it would be unlikely that any adverse impacts on the surrounding terrestial environmental would occur. Nonetheless, the NRC requested that PSE&G conduct a salt drift monitoring program. Implementation of this program is required by the Environmental Protection Plan that is Appendix B of the Operating License. twS9-403-1 1-3 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
E l I L p. Appendix B to Facility Operating 1.lcense No. NPF-30 issued for HCGS, the Environmental Protection Plan, required PSE&G to assess the impact of cooling tower salt drift on the environment in the vicinity of HCGS. The monitoring I i program designed by PSE&G and approved by the NRC was to commence one year ! prior to the onset of commercial operation of the HCGS and include non-power i testing and operational data up to three years from receipt of license. PSE&G has : satisifed these program requirements and the monitoring program results are presented in this report. 1.3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 4 The objectives of the 1987-1988 Operational Salt Deposition Study were to: !
- 1. Collect data representing operational salt deposition rates in the vicinity of HCGS.
- 2. Collect data representing the concentrations of sodium (Na+) and chloride (C1')in foliage and soils in the vicinity of HCGS.
E 3. Evaluate the operational salt deposition rates and concentrations of Na+ l and Cl- in foliage and soll relative to location, season and I meteorological parameters potentially influencing salt drift rates.
- 4. Compare data collected as part of the operational study with those from the pre-operational study and other related studies.
I The Operational Summary Report is subdivided into seven sections as follows: Section i Introduction '
,I Section 2 Salt Deposition Studies Section 3 Native Vegetation Section 4 Soil Studies Section 5 Comparative Studies I Iw89-403-1 1-4 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
t i .I i j Section 6 Summary and Conclusions { Section 7 References ; i Specific anal >ses presented in these sections were initially defined in PSE&G's RFP and includes o a summary of all Na+, Cl*, total dissolved solids (TDS) and total l suspended solids (TSS) deposition data along with mean:, standard deviations, and percent differences; i 8 o comparisons and correlations between all measured factors and other a potentially related variables; f I l t o calculations of the salt deposition for each sampling location along with the sampling variance o a comparison of operational data for all measured factors with pre-operational data for the same factor o discussion of differences between species and locations as related to ; concentration of salt in leaves; and I o a discussion of salt drift distribution as related to vegetation in the area, literature values, results of the salt drift monitoring program, and environmental Impacts. I 1.4 DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation of data developed as part of the study involved the use of g standard statistical analyses. The primary tool used to analyze the data was the 3 software program "Minitab," a general purpose statistical system developed by Minitab, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania. Minitab was installed on an IBM I IwS9-403-1 1-5 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
n , I ! compatible 386 based computer with data storage managed by a networking 1 syrtem controlled by a Hewlett Packard Series 9000 computer. The Minitab statistical analyses selected for analysis of the operational study data were the same as those utilized for the pre-operational study. For the i pre-operational study it was assumed that all data collected were normally ; distributed and, therefore, parametric statistics were judged to be appropriate. The statistical analysis applied to these data included analysis of variance (AOV), Pearson product moment correlation, Tukey's procedure, and Duncan's multiple range test. Brief descriptions of these analyses are provided in the following sections. 1.4.1 Analysis of Variance . Data sets collected during the study (e.g., mean monthly salt drift deposition at a given location) were analyzed using a one-way AOV to determine if , differences exist among the means within the data set. An output of the one-way AOV is the F-value, a ratio of two variances defined by the formula , L ! estin. ate of variance of means ; p . . - . estimate of variance of individuals jg Minitab computes the F-value using the formula: l 5 i treatment mean square
. F= . - - . - - - -- .-.
- error mean square 1-The resulting F-value for each data set was compared to that from published 1-F-value tables for the appropriate degress of freedom at the 0.05 level of significance. Data sets with F-values exceeding the published value were noted as l' Saving individual values that were significantly different from other values contained in the set. These data sets were subjected to additional analysis to 13 lwS9-403-1 1-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
I ! 5 l l define which of the individual values were significantly different using multiple j range tests a.s described below, i 1.4.2 Duncan's Multiple Range Tests and Tukey's Procedure Two tests were used to determine which of the individual values in a given data set (e.g., monthly salt deposition at a given location) were significantly i different from one another. The tests used were Duncan's multiple range test and . Tukey's procedure. These tests exar.ilned the differences between all possible pairs of means within a given data set. Multiple range tests were employed only where the analysis of variance rejected the hypothesis of equal means (i.e., the ; F-values indicated that there was a significant difference). If a significant I difference was indicated, Duncan's test was applied first. If this test did not identify any values as significantly different Tukey's test was applied. The latter l l is more sensitive than the former, thus differences not identified by Duncan's test l may be indicated by Tukey's test.
- I 1.4.3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients !
I The calculation of Pearson product moment correlation coefficients was , used to compare two data sets (e.g., salt deposition and precipitation) to indicate I trends in data movement. The coefficients, which lie between +1 and -1, express the degree of linear relationship between two or more sets of data. As the value of the correlation coefficient approaches +1 or -1, the linear relationship between + the data becomes more perfect. At 0 there is no linear relationship between the ! data at all. Positive correlation coefficients represent a relationship where either < increasing values in one data set correspond to increasing values in the other, or decreasing values in one data set correspond to decreasing values in the other data u set. Negative correlations indicate a relationship between two data sets where one set of data has increasing values and the corresponding data has decreasing ! values. l
!wS9-403-1 1-7 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
The significance of the correlation coefficients determined between the various data sets was evaluated by testing the null hypothesis that the two g variables are uncorrelated (i.e., the coefficient is equal to zero). The hypothesis W is tested using a "t" test and standard tables have been developed to indicate when , the hypothesis should be rejected (i.e., the coefficient is not equal to zero). The , correlation coefficients determined for the various data sets were compared to table values for the appropriate number of independent variables and error degrees of freedom to establish which correlations were significant at the 0.05 levelof significance. I I : I , l I I I I I I I I Iw89-403-1 1-8 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
I ! st F &
^
a. l'Q7 C . ,' ' E r. , . . . y; , x.s - 7. , . ;..l 3, I L h*! - mb " _v , C\
' '-Q9 Q. *ec&
2 __
% ^f I w f
~
p ; N[ ,, . /' ,,,,
"f 4 :
+" i .w
{ ,
. . 1 .y.g -
7"7, t : I
. I
,w s- ,
ug 's jse > ') '
,. , ,g , :=
,L --I Q 'v, - , E. 4f' ,, W ,
.4 . .
I- t-* **1 I& M i Q/ T \T f~ l ~ , W S .'
* ' .ki?'.h.fb' kV "'
/.'
h gii,W l $ , S' h,j;gd E. 8y s - n -- -j.)LiN m i gz,W 3, ,-; , ,, .. l I 1..n. ,
~~
# c' , , __
#m.e"**e T HCGSl't %
'( * (C
,j
% l[,' e -
.s A
. .+. ., , ,
c
~.
" 9 .~
dhah[/....,/ . . , ,
,, - e ., . . ., .
/
,, -j; , -,,
si -y
,;:: -r.
t -. y+= .. , 9- , I jy % i f... . b s C,
,= == . n .. %.e %, i *
,U j
,'. * *V . .
m.. ~ -
- 4. . < . ..
( YI "' , . ,
^ ,
w y. s '.
% a K y -
. y , .. . ~
~
- c. ~, - h- _
g (E
$; A Y , 's- I SITE LOCATION MAP HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION
' E I5
"""'""'"***"'"'"*'a' WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS I 0 4 8 Mi
. DR. BY: DRS WAYNE, NEW JERSEY SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJ. NO.: 87C4611 FIG. NO.: 1-1 SCALE CK'D BY: RLH DATE: 28 JUNE 1989 1
i_.__ _ , . _ . . . . . - . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . .
I :
/ '+
. , . , x. , . . .
. . . . , m . s I 4..s.,. ..,
/ ..
. . . ' '1 . y .
. afM 7 % Nes..t...,.y .r . j%
g S:.\ '.: \ ;
- g. .
g 7: ~9 "T 3:' .yg 'g3 .
- , hgMgj'n' f
C le g#:f:.
~
I e 1 - 1 p.-g s.s' MJ
!+ 1 . .' . . . ; O ,(. . . .-
. . .I ..
M , I ,,, w.,, e.g .ft ... I
.B', , . :-
. K L. L a .
e , I , s _,d_ - . 2-
.y!N Q ,
B, -
~
Wb rf h h.[N hj
. .u .,
)'y,
, Q. , ,. ..
.6.; 4;. ~
i i i s o n...
\\ : . . -: .. ,. a :
\no i
- o. -
s _ .. s l ; V i
' O J M ,
I 4 3 x-l l l
~
st qj . N .. 1
< \s# . ,.
g C00 LNG TOWER LOCATION
.e u , . ... .
1" = 0.4 KM
'I anunct-HOPECREEKOENERATING STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, OPERATING PREDICTED ANNUAL AVERAGE SALT DEPOSITION RATE (kg-km~I-mQ ~l)
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION l WCODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS l CONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS ANo ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS WAYNE. NEW JERSEY DR. BY: DRS PROJ. NO.: 87C44tl f SCALE:AS SHOWN C co .<: - i om: .. .,uNE ,... no. No.: i-.
) g. -X ~ .; c;; ; >
;y yny xm -
t , W 5' 4t. l
. . . . . , <.t I
"y%., ' -
. - - - . kf I . ., i I,; .
, ' ++-
. l
'I
- g. .
- I .- F
=
'I f
,,g,,
'(i
. 7
- i. 4
~
. _ _ ) I
+
J
, ,nn, . . m' m..o-c,:rm.
t
,m ymc,s 4~>: ~ui+ w sV u.
J:%p
.m .ma, ('~w.
t " r ' sJt j x. - - su i t
,o m j .- . y
.e
.s ~n . .un n. ..w .v o. ;n,, ~ , ,L ,
e c. . 3- ,
.u.- -~t>-
s. O;.a V *s'L - rW
., m .3.>cles ,'44 e pe . - y. re % n+ @q J.t/ r. . ..'tMp 3 ,N *<-A y~ ' ,: ., s s3.'
c 3 5 c , .3 ',i . Lt'g y;g, v '- *
, t
, ( a, >. ,: E! Y ';; Q, : g ,'tJ,, g.Jjg:- m. , ,- 1 l M M f,y'R ,4 * . i ' e 3 Ay ,ty ,
'Q' . 4.f7.-
, f() .i , -j "l %c. c. l- :i y f,p ji .s ,
i ' 4. /, , ;: c i , j/tN6g[fg)r' A Q,!C u3 9 % N [ 4 R ! Q k[3 % ;Y Q-&piY ' ],* >.l
%d s&n#Uldf? ?MGmu, C W ,w
?l@l?Q:$y,' ,l[].(g% ' "!)Q . .
S d c tI6 n J w,fk3 :p'y ,'W
' ;Q '
- _o ,,.e. t.g c , $ :n,
#,,w3,o , 41s o ,t, m. m , m.h m, 3.:- , < m. . . m,. ,1.
nmy-9.' m--.,
...;m - . . .a .o - ,.
- a. . . .o.1 s
< :1
.ll ' 4;; l. ' . . r << g y ;diti$ 'g, [%-]y, ,z 4 m. p it p { , y g MY\p
+
5- s - i p S' / 5 g w L 4 win. p($. ::
- y.Q; ,-
;Rl)w.g' G y 2; @py 3 9t e e fj& i
- w g& ; > a+ n ., e,m - e e c,,-
, s ..
.n y+ <'9 m y h [;[4 /lar g p'%
#n va. , iv :w 0 .. .c p n , . . . .
1 % 4 Y M,h k + ' [ \ N/rM' ,N [se[p.-[/ _ F ,g
- p m[ y n' {&;f . ces ,' fNf[,g[h. .j 4jp![ ~' I , d~ [:k
>..v,uyn 9[:.fl
< .q>, ys d
my x [' p, ,1- a s . w,.
, , , . .s wz m. 3 .g x. 3 m.~..:-,w.~.,. n v,
N
>v -
1--l m(a
/
ND ,%,
, 4 c , t ,
- n , .
y k : 4 $2 N k - t '+lk I - l ::: 1.. l A 1_.: [ic
l e l I ! SECTION 2 l SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
A year-round sampling program was conducted to determine the monthly ! sodium (Na+), chloride (C1'), water insoluble particulate, and water soluble particulate (i.e., total dissolved solids) deposition rates in the vicinity of the 1 HCGS over the period January 1987 through March 1989. While there are no l recognized standard methods or procedures for determination of atmospheric salt 1 deposition rates, deposition rates of dustfall in air pollution studies have been determined for many years with the use of dustfall samplers. These samplers are static collectors which have been used as part of the Interstate Air Pollution i 4 I5 Surveillance Program Effects Network, originally operated by the U.S. I 4 Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Division of Air Pollution (Jutze i g 6,1967; Cavender y al,1971). A standard method for use of dustfall collectors, including sampling and analysis, has been adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and is designated as Method D-1739. l - This method was utilized during the pre-operational study and was continued as i part of the operational sampling program. t 2.2 SAMPLING SITES The sampling sites for salt deposition collectors were selected during the pre- i
; operational study based on a review of the results of the dispersion modeling for salt deposition rates from the HCGS cooling tower. This model utilized January ;
through December 1977 meteorology data from the site,1977 Delaware River salinity data, and HCGS cooling tower input data as described in the PSE&G I Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage for the HCGS. Additional site selection censiderations included site accessibility, site security, free exposure, and avoidance of potential local sources of sample contamination. twS9-403-2 2-1 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 ,
I A totst of eight sites were initially selected for salt deposition monitoring. The locations are generally situated along a transect extending east of the HCGS I cooling tower at approximate distances of 0.4 km,1.5 km, 4.0 km, 5.5 km, and 8 km; along a transect extending northwest from the cooling tower at approximate i distances of 0.3 km and 0.5 km; and at the Shirley Control Site, located 27 km l I northeast of the site. The sampling sites were selected to correspond with the areas predicted by dispersion modelling to receive the highest annual average deposition. For the purpose of estimating sampling variance, one co-located (replicate) collector' was also placed at each of the 0.4 km and 1.5 km locations on the eastern transect. In May of 1986, an additional collector was placed at a distance I of 0.8 km southeast of the cooling tower. This collector was installed because one of two replicate samplers gave inconsistent data, in this way, an additional j I measure of deposition in the potentially high impact area was provided. j The sampling locations are shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 (the Shirley Control l Site) and listed in Table 2-1. Detailed site descriptions are provided in the following paragraphs. Figures 2-3 to 2-11 are site diagrams indicating the approximate locations of each collector.
'I Site No.1. This site is located approximately 0.5 km from the HCGS cooling tower along a bearing of 303*(I) (Figure 2-3). The area surrounding the site is .
primarily fill material which is vegetated with various herbaceous pioneer plant L species. Dense stands of Phragmites australis occur to the north, while barren fill occurs to the south. The Delaware River Estuary lies approximately 500 f t to the west. , c3 H Site No. 2. This sample site is located approximately 0.3 km from the HCGS cooling tower along the same bearing as Site No.1,303' (Figure 2-4). The area to g 1. Bearings given in Figures 2 3 through 2-11 are from the site to the cooling tower, and thus differ from the bearings given in this section by 180'. I IwS9-403-2 2-2 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
~ -,. . - - , -,. ,- , ,n-~ --
n-- - .an. , - . . - , - - . - , . , . , . . . - - - - , ~ ~ - , , , ---,. , ,. ---e
i p s l l the north is recently deposited / graded fill material. Tne sample site occurs along the southern boundary of this area. A sedimentation pond is located immediately southeast of the site. Site No. 3. This site is located approximately 0.4 km from the HCGS cooling ! tower along a bearing of 95', which corresponds to the southwest corner of the l PSE&G Nuclear Department Administration Building roof (Figure 2-5). Two i samplers are located at this site. Site No. 4. This site is located approximately 1.5 km from the HCGS cooling tower along a bearing of 117', which corresponds to the PSE&G meteorological , tower site (Figure 2-6). Two samp:ers are located at this site. Site No. 5. This site is located near Tower 3/1 of the Salem-New Freedom transmission line, approximately 4.0 km from the HCGS cooling tower along a I bearing of 104' (Figure 2-7). The area surrounding the site is tidal wetlands, with the HCGS access road located approximately 300 f t to the south. The actual site I is in an area vegetated with Spartina patens. L I> Site No. 6. This site is located within the Mad Horse Creek Wild!!!e Management Area (WMA) approximately 5.5 km from the HCGS cooling tower along a bearing of 92* (Figure 2-8). The area surrounding the site is primarily
. open agricultural land, with mature woodlands occurring to the east.
Site No. 7. This cite is located along the Salem-New Freedom transmission line right-of-way approximately 8 km from the HCGS cooling tower along a ! bearing of 85' (Figure 2-9). The area to the west of the site is open Phragmites austrails wetlands and open waters of Silver Lake Meadow. , Site No. S. This site is located approximately 27.5 km from the HCGS along a bearing of 68* (F!gure 2-10). The site is within the PSE&G materials storage yard along the Salem-New Freedom transmission line, near tne Town of Shirley. Site No. 8 will of ten be referred to as the Shirley Control Site in this report. I Iw89-403-2 31 August 1989 2-3 87C4611-4
k' o I p I ; I Site No. 9. This site is located approximately 0.8 km from the HCGS cooling j I tower along a bearing of 137' (Figure 2-11). The area surrounding the site was previously used as a laydown area. l
. 2.3 5 ALT DEPOSITION SAMPLER DESIGN The salt deposition sampling system utilized for this study consisted of three
'- major components. The three ma}or components are the dustfall collecter, ; collector holder and bird ring assembly, and stanchion system. A diagram of this i sampling . system is presented in - Figure 2-12. Each component is discussed - separately in the following paragraphs. [ Dustfall Collector. The sampling device utilized for determination of dustfal! - lg l5 and salt deposition is a dustfall collector as described in ASTM method l D-1739-70. The collector (Bel-Art Products Stock Number H17205) is an : j open-topped cylinder with vertical sides and flat bottom. Each one-gallon ! ~ capacity removable cylinder is 61nches in diameter and 12 inches high. ASTM specified collector dimensions are based on minimizing potential for dust reentrainment associated with aerodynamic effects. The collectors are made of
- t. I polyethylene and include lids which snap on to prevent contamination af ter cleaning, as well as, during transportation to and from the laboratory.
' Collector Holder / Bird Ring Assembly. The dustfall cellector is placed in a holder (Research Appliance Company Model No.190-12) to secure in place and ensure proper positioning during sample collection. A bird ring is integrated into the holder, which is designed to minimize the effects of birds perching on the rim f of the collector while In place. The collector holder and bird ring assembly utilized are constructed of aluminum and in accordance with ASTM specifications.
Stanchion System. The stanchion system to support the collectors was developed by WCC. Supports were required which would be durable and stable for _g 3 a long period of time, and also be suitable for mounting in some of the areas with p Iw89-403-2 2-4 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
__ilf&>
, 3
-pQ ,
.J Bj p' # extremely. soft marsh ground conditions. The stanchion is con:tructed of 3/4 NPT pipe and is fastened together with various combinations of slip-on pipe fittings 4
- with ' allen- set screws.- The fittings used - are : called Kee Klamps' and are N
- j . manufactured by Kee Industrial Products, Inc. (Butialo, Nev York). f Y The stanchlons are supported by four pipes which are driven into the ground
+ . approximately 3 f t. For sites in which pipes could not be driven into the ground, a-modification is used where the stanchion is mounted on wood planks.
2.4 DATA COLLECTION [ Operation salt deposition sample collection for Sites 1 through 9 began in
' Janury 1987 and continued through March 1989. After being in the field for a ;
.one-month period, each sampler was analyzed in the laboratory to determine the -l I
' amount of Na+, Cl~, total dissolved solids (TDS), and particulates which had been
! deposited within it during'the sampling period (2). The results were then expressed as deposition rates'in units of mg/m2/ month. '{ 4 2.5 RESUL' I Salt diposition data collected during the operational study are presented in ! 4 : Appendix A and are sumniarized in Table 2-2. This table shows the minimum and maximum deposition rates reported for each of-the four parameters at each of the nine sites, in addition, mean deposition rates for the operational period are also shown-in this table for each site. These values were calculated using the .two years and three months of data (1987 to 1989). Deposition rates shown in Table 2-2 for Sites 3 and 4 are averages of the two co-locateo samplers at each of these sites. As indicated in Table 2-2, Na* deposition rates at the sites in the vicinity of
=
HCGS ranged from a low of 8.5 mg/m 2/ month to a high of 426.2 mg/m 2/ month.
; 2 Laboratory methods are provided in Appendix D.
Iw39-403-2 2-5 87C4611-4 m 31 August 1989 wo ;i'l1 q gs 4 w
qqi; .. w ** g. oh
.7 "
j }' y Cli deposition rates ranged from 42.l' to 780.7 mg/m2/ month. Particulate and i l' TDS. deposition varied considerably throughout -the study period, ranging from 28 to 16,570 mg/m2/ month and 141 to 18,744 mg/m2 / month, respectively. With the j exception of particulates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ' l nearest 'HCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site I was the highest of all the sites. None of the control site data represented the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. l t As discussed in Section 1, a variety of statistical analyses were performed on the data to evaluate seasonal trends, spatial trends, and correlations with meteorological data from the site. The results of the analyses are presented in
.the following sections.
l 2.5.1- Pre-Operational and Operational Comparative Analysis in order to evaluate deposition trends between the pre-operational and Lg LW l Loperational sampling periods, average deposition rates for each site were ll calculated for both periods. An AOV was performed on the data to determine if _ pre-operational deposition rates were significantly different trom operational 7 f _ deposition rates. The results of this evaluation are presented in Tables 2-3 thru 2-6. For Na+ no significam differences in depositions were found between the pre-operational and operational data (Table 2-3). Cl deposition varied significantly , between the pre-operational and the operational period at Sites 2, 3, 7 and the Shirley control site (Table 2-4). In each case the operational Cl deposition rate was significantly greater than the pre-operational rate.
'E '
Particulate deposition varied significantly between the two study periods only ' , at Station 3. Deposition during the operational period was less than half of the average particulate deposition at that site during the pre-operational period
, (Table 2-5).
I IwS9-403-2 2-6 87C4611-4 l
' 31 August 1989
yae q I . g. Total dissolved solids (TDS) deposition varied significantly at Sites 1,3,4 and 6 between the pre-operational and operational periods (Table 2-6). At each site, the mean operational deposition rate was significantly less than the pre-operational rate. 2.5.2 Seasonal Trends I in order to evaluate seasonal trends in deposition, average monthly deposition
- rates were calculated for each month at each site using data from the 27 months of the study. Mean monthly deposition rates for Na+, Cl , particulates, and TDS are presented in Tables 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10, respectively.
A one-way AOV was ' performed on - the data to- determine if seasonal i
- differences in monthly deposition at each site are statistically significant. The resulting " seasonal F-ratios" are shown in Tables 2-7 to 2-10. For C1', and TDS, q seasonal variations in deposition are not significant at kny of the sites. There I - were, however, significant seasonal differences in monthly deposition of Na+ and particulates at Site 1. ~ as indicated in Figure 2-1, this site is located 0.5 km northwest of the HCGS and approximately 300 ft from the Delaware River Estuary.
I Tukey's Procedure was used to group those months in which Na+ and h particulate depositions at Site I were not significantly different. The results of i these analyses are presented in Tables 2-11 and 2-12. In these tables, months are
-listed in order of increasing average Na+ and particulate deposition rates, with 9I o
underlines indicating values which are not significantly different. ! - As indicated in Table 2-!!, the highest deposition of Na+ at Site 1 occurred P during the month of July (138.4 mg/m2 /mo). This rate was significantly higher than deposition during January, February, March, June and October. s tw89-403-2 2-7 87C4611-4 6 31 August 1989
,. .c . - - . - - - - . .
F. g + m x, l The highest particulate deposition rate (1013 mg/m2 /mo) occurred at Site 1.in , m : August. . However, particulate deposition during August was significantly higher )
' only than particulate deposition during Octo'aer and February.
J I In summary,. deposition rates of Cl and TDS did not vary significantly - throughout the year at any'of the sites. Particulate and Na+ deposition rates varied significantly throughout - the year only at Site 1. At this site, Na+ deposition.'was significantly higher only in July, and particulate deposition was ; significantly higher only in August. While not statistically significant, lower rates ' generally occurred in fall and winter months than during summer months. These
~ data suggest that there may be a seasonal trend in salt deposition at this site, j I 2.5.3 Spatial Trends Mean monthly deposition rates at each of the sites for the 27 months of the
' study are presented in Tables 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10 for Na+, Cl , particulates, ,
, and TDS, respectively.
i A one-way AOV was performed on the data to determine if sites differed t , significantly in deposition rates on a monthly basis. The resulting
- l " spatial F-ratios" are shown in Tables 2-7 through 2-10. For Na+ and particulates,
- f spatial. variations in deposition are not significant in any month. However, TDS
[ deposition did vary significantly by site during the month of December, and Cl-varied significantly by site during the month of January. . l Tukey's Procedure was used to determine which sites were not significantly different with respect to TDS or Cl deposition during the above months. Tables 2-13 and 2-14 present the results of .these analyses. Table 2-13 shows that [,. Cl deposition at Site 3 was significantly higher than that at Site 2 and Site 3 during January, u ll ' tw89-403-2 2-8 87C4611-4 l . 31 August 1989
, [
,j j i f
Table 2-14 shows that TDS: deposition -during December at Site 5 was l signficantly higher only than Site 7. The deposition rate for Site 8 (the Shirley control s!te) was not found to be different from any other site.' 2.5.4 . Correlations Between Deposition Rates and Meteorological Conditions In order to evaluate what effects, if any, meteorological conditions have on- ,
' deposition, meteorological data for Artificial Island were compiled from the r
on-site meteorological tower for -the 27-month study period. Data collected included monthly joint distributions of the 300 ft wind speeds and directions, total -
- monthly
- precipitation, average monthly dew point, temperature, relativt
. humidity, and 33 f t temperature. !
-In order to evaluate correlations with wind speed, the percent of time wind speeds exceeded 25 mph each month was determined. Winds at such speeds could result in the formation of salt spray from the adjacent estuary and therefore
'I influence deposition rates.- In evaluating wind direction during the study period, the goal was to determine if winds blowing over the brackish waters of the
~
LDelaware Bay had an effect on deposition rates at any of the site locations. Thus, a calculation was made of the percent of time each month that winds blew from < .the water toward the site locations.' . This was accomplished by tabulating the 4 percent of time that the wind blew from all directions which would travel over the
. waters of the Delaware River Estuary. Winds blowing out of the north-northwest,
.- . northeast, east and east-southeast were not considered in these tabulations, in i addition, correlations were calculated using the percent of time that the wind blew from the HCGS cooling tower along a vector toward each deposition sampler.
r Each of the meteorological factors was correlated with deposition of each parameter at each of the sites to determine if any relationships existed. < Deposition rates were also correlated with the average monthly power levels of HCGS at each of the sites to determine if any correlation existed. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated and tested for IL. significance at the 0.05 level. Tables 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, and 2-18 present the lw89-403-2 2-9 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
f * ,, - , i - 4 results of this analysis for Na+, C1', particulates, and TDS, respectively. These t
, results are discussed below.-
Sodiumi Table 2-15 presents Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between Cl . deposition and Artificial Island meteorological data. I, Significant positive correlations were determined between Na+ deposition in the vicinity of _HCGS and several meteorological factors. The factor for which most I 'significant correlations were found is the percent of time that winds came from the direction of Delaware Bay._ Significant positive correlations'are indicated at Sites 3, 7. and 9. The correlation coefficients determined for these sites range t from .406 to .437. Significance between the Na+ deposition rate and wind from the direction of Delaware Bay is also indicated for the Shirley control site, with a correlation coefficient of .430. I A positive correlation between the Na+ deposition rate and the percent of time that the wind came from the direction of the HCGS cooling tower is also indicated at Sites 2 and 3 (the two sites closest to the cooling tower). The correlation coefficients for these sites are .531 and .508, respectively. Additional positive correlations are indicated between the Na+ deposition rate and dew point, relative humidity, and temperature at Site 1 - with correlation coefficients of ,468 and .312. These correlations may be for the most part coincidental and reflect the significantly higher July Na+ deposition rate
.J -
found at Site 1 (see 2.2 Seasonal Trends) and the generally higher Na+ deposition rates for other summer months at Site 1.
, I, .
Significant negative correlations were found between Na+ deposition and temperature ( .392) and dew point ( .471) at Site 3, and wind speed greater than 25 mph ( .382) at Site 1. The reasons for any inverse relationship are not apparent from the data. Chloride. Table 2-16 presents Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between Cl deposition and Artificial Island Meteorological data. IwS9-403-2 2-10 67C4611-4
' ; 31 August 1989
g . _ __ . . . N l g' Significant positive correlations were determined between C11 deposition in the vicinity of HCGS and two meteorological factors - precipitation and the percent ,
- of time that the wind came from the= direction of the cooling tower. These !
~
' correlations were found at Sites 1 (closest to the estuary) and 3 (.4 km from the cooling tower) and have coefficients of .426 and .436, respectively. As presented ,
above, Site 3 also had a positive correlation between Na+ deposition and wind j
- from the cooling tower. This site is located 0.4.km east of the cooling tower on
.E' the roof of the PSE&G Nuclear Department Administration Building.
Significant negative correlations were determined between Cl deposition in , the . vicinity of HCGS and Ltwo meteorological factors - dew point and ' temperature. These correlations were found at Site 3 and have coefficients of
.566' and .499, respectively. Negative correlations were also determined between these factors and Na* deposition at this site.
)
Particulates. Table 2-17 presents Pearson product moment correlation
- 4. ; u coefficients between particulate deposition and Artificial Island meteorological data.. Significant positive correlations were determined between particulate h . deposition in the vicinity of HCGS and several meteorological factors. The factor l1 for which most significant correlations were found is dew point. Significant 4 positive correlations are indicated at Sites 1 and 9, as well as the Shirley control site. .
l I As with Na+ deposition, the site with the most positive correlations is Site 1. At this site particulate deposition is positively correlated with dew point ' g~ . m . (556), relative humidity (.401), and temperature (.596). These correlations may reflect the significantly higher August particulate deposition rate found at Site 1 (see,2.2 Seasonal Trends). The only significant negative correlation found was that between particulate deposition at Site 1 and percent of time that the wind came from the direction of the estuary ( .390). This may reflect the proximity of this site to the estuary in lw89-403-2 2-11 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 I^ . . _ . -
q 4 i g, "
" 4 i
(, that winds off the_ water would carry fewer wind blown particulates than those from land areas around HCGS. j Total Dissolved Solids. Table 2-18 presents Pearson product moment - correlation coefficients between TDS deposition and Artificial Island
~!
L _ meteorological data. Few significant correlations were found between TDS - L- . deposition ~and meteorological conditions. Precipitation was significantly , correlated at Site 1 (.395), wind from the direction of the cooling tower at Site 2 (.432), and dew point at Site 3 ( .405). No other significant correlations were observed. 2.5.5 Correlations Between Salt Deposition Parameters and Power Levels at ! HCGS 1' l 5 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate - l~ the relationship between the mean monthly concentrations of particulates, TDS, Na+ and Cl for the 1987 to March 1989 survey period, and the power level data from HCGS for the same period. The results of these comparisons are presented . in Table 2-19. Power level data are presented in Appendix F. [ The only significant correlation coefficient found was between TDS
=
e
' deposition and power level at Site 1, which had a negative correlation coefficient pa ~ - ( .415).
pg L 2.6
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS i 2.6.1 Pre-operational / Operational Comparison The-comparison of pre-operational and operational deposition data found
- increases in Cl deposition rates at Sites 2,3,7 and the Shirley cor. trol site. The two highest average operational deposition rates (240.16 mg/m2/mo and (7 182.36 mg/m2 /mo) occur at Sites 2 and 3, located in close proximity to the cooling I .- tower and near the Delaware River Estuary. No significant differences were I twS9-403-2 2-12 87C4611-4 4 31 August 1989
p
..3e' c
a LI.. found for Na? deposition.' TDS deposition' rates at Sites 1, 3, 4 and 6 were significantly less during the operational period than during the pre-operational period.' f ! In making comparisons between the pre-operational and operational periods a number of uncontrolled variables were encountered that affect the evaluation. These include contamination of the samples by windblown dust and pollen, insect j I entrapment, algal growth, and atmospheric wash-out during rain storms. .Even with such uncontrolled variables, the analyses of salt deposition data presented in the previous section indicate that some conclusions can be made concerning the 4 rates of salt deposition from the HCGS cooling tower. Significant changes in deposition rates _(both increases and decreases) occurred during the operational p f period at sites near HCGS and at the Shirley control site. The factor (s) associated with most of these differences are not believed to be related to operation of the ; I HCGS cooling tower. It is concluded, however, that an increase in salt deposition L is indicated at Site 3 near the HCGS, where the highest operational Na+ and Cl-deposition rate occurred. 2.6.2 Seasonal and Spatial Trends L The evaluation of seasonal and spatial trends during the operational period indicates high variability similar to that observed during the pre-operational
- period, with little evidence of. significant patterns. No significant seasonal l
differences were determined for any of the deposition parameters at sites in the immediate vicinity of HCGS during the preoperational survey. During the l . operational period the deposition rate for Na+ and particulates at Site 1 (near the l- estuary) was significantly higher than other months during July and August, respectively. During the pre-operational study Na+, Cl and TDS desposition rates did not vary significantly among any of the sites. Particulate deposition was significantly higher at Site 3. Similarly, significant differeaces in particulate deposition were determined for the operational period. Those differences that were found to be i Iw89-403-2 2-13 87C%11-4 31 August 1989
y,g F. , j
- p. 3 ; , .f .
0 v I> l
]
significant (C1' and TDS at Sites 3 and 5, respectively) do not indicate any definite pattern relating to cooling tower operation. 12.6.3- > Correlations Significant positive correlations between deposition rates and meteorological g parameters were determined during both the preoperational ar;d operational 5.. periods. .During the preoperational study the Na+ and Cl deposition rates at most - of the: sites were positively correlated with rainfall. Only one significant
- correlation was determined between precipitation and deposition for the operational study. This difference may have been due to the drought that occured during 1988.
The correlation most expected to result from cooling _ tower operation is that between deposition and the percent of time that the wind blew from the cooling , tower to a given sample site. Significant positive correlations were determined
.g 5 for Na +, Cl- and TDS deposition at Site 3 on the Nuclear Department
- Administration Building. Other significant correlations are believed to be a '
; function of two independent variables having similar (or inverse) patterns (e.g.,
- seasonal . fluctuations in temperature, . dew point, and humidity coinciding with seasonal deposition patterns). Tables 2-20 through 2-23 summarize the significant correlation coefficients for the pre-operational and operational study periods.
3 . I I I lI tw89-403-2 2-14 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
- E: u
. s ; vl ,
+'
.,(,,
-5 u TA8LE 2-1 s
.c SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SIT [$ HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM (X)UNTY, NEN JERSEY JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 Sito -Distence from Direction from
- Number identification Cool.Ing Tower (km) Coaling Tower 1' Northwest 51to 0.5 northwest (303')
2 Fence Line $lte 0.3 northwest (303*) o3 Nuclear Department Administration Bulldtrg 0.4 east '(95 ) o4 -Meteorological Tower 1.5 east (117') 5 . Salt Marsh-(Transmission Tower 3/1) 4.0 east (104*) 6 - Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area east 0 5.5- (92 ) 7 SI'Iver Lake Headow 8.0 east (85') Shirley Control Site
~
8 27.5 -northeast (68*) 9 Temporary Laydown Yard. 0.8 southeast (1370) IL Not,,
'Those' sites include co-located collectors.
I I I y IaIw89-403TA B7C4611 31 August 1989
- g. i
~
M
~
- -: Q D
-TA8LE 2-2 MINileM, MAXileM Ale DEAN DEPOSITION RATES FOR SODitM (Na*N OE.ORl'76 (Cl"),
PARTIQiLATES,' AfD TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 'IN THE VistNITY OF TE HOPE DEEK GENERATIIIG STATION, SALEM (XIIMTY, NEN JERSEY JANUARY 1987 - MAf06 1989 _e Na* Deposition C1~ Deposition PartIcuiale Deposition .TDS Deposition I 2 g,9f,2f ,,3 g,gj ,2f ,,3 g,,j,2j,,3 (eg/m f,,3 III
- Site Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Mex. - Moon Min. Nex.- Moon i
a 1 17.7 186.2 62.6 61.7 369.0- 166.0 28.0 '1432.0 436.5 283.0 ;3413.0 1293.0 2 14.5 188.5 72.6 42.1 544.3 180.6 40.0 10996.0 990.0' 170.0 6672.0 1417.0 3(2) 34.6 416.0 106.9 76.4 713.1 245.5 170.0 1631.0 757.5 453.0 3101.0 1648.0 4 I2I 24.9 426.2 84.0 62.2 780.7 174.9 76.5 1989.5 408.9 365.0- ~ 6078.0 1302.0 5 8.5 237.7 61.9 60.5' 753.3 165.9 57.0 3707.0 453.0 204.0 18744.0 2014.0 ... 6 8.5 277.4 58.7 46.4 '485.0 171.3 45.0 6163.0 758.0 141.0 7131.0 1442.0 ; 7 28.6 115.6 54.8 55.5 538.6 173.8 45.0 1539.0 402.7 158.0 L3537.0 1480.0 8 I3I 16.4 147.1 65.3 61.0 394.5 165.9 68.0 16570.0 1260.0 215.0 8000.0 1672.0-9 25.0 189.6 72.4 70.7 432.9 180.4 79.0 14658.0 1055.0 340.0 6870.0 1576.0 Notes: 2 (1) Values represent mean for the January 1987 to March 1989 period. i (2) Mean deposition rates based on average of co-located samplers. - j (3) Control Site. .I i Iw89-403TB 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 4
*e
- v ' Nv^-_ 'a
-_a * --
__m__.m_u__ ._m__c___.u_.m._._._.mm .m ._
-m I q i
4 I . TABLE 2-3 _ s ANALYSIS OF YARI ANCE OF EAN $0DitM (Na*) DEPOS'ITION RATES FOR TE PRE-OPERATIONAL'(AUGUST 1964 TO DECE MER 1986) Am OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO NARCH 1989) PERIGOS HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM 00UNTY, NEW JERSE1 I, Na* Na* ISites Pre-Operational Rate III 2 Operational Rate (2) F Value("I l (og/m 7 ,,) g,gj,27,,3 I I 67.60 - 64.91 0.04 2- .54.58~ 74.10 4.01 3' 75.47 105.22 2.47 4 57.53 84.09 2.77 5 76.49 67.28 0.32 ' 0.93 I6 7 8-69.38 64.56 87.49 56.49 54.83 65.82 . 1.23 1.23 I.9(3) e , Notes: (1) Values repres6nt mean of the monthly means for the August 1984 to Decemoer 1986 period. l,(2)ValuesrepresentmeanofthemonthlymeansfortheJanuary1987toMarch1989 (3) Site 9 not compared due to lack of sufficient pre-operational data. period. R5 L(4) F values greater.than 4.30 Indicate significant dif ferences at the 0.05 level and are identified by ( 1.
!I I
g LI I
-Ic89-40323 87C4611
(_
'31 August 1989 s
.,.-.__-..-n. ,v--- -- -
y;Ji d _$ ta _- TABLE 2-4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEAN CHLORIDE (C1~) DEPOSITION RATES FOR TE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEbeER 1966) AND OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1967 TO MARCH 1969) PERIODS
. HOPE (REEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
_~ Cl* Cl" Sites Pre-Operational Rate III Operational Rate I2) F Value I4) 2
.(og/m j,,3 g,gj,2j,o) 7
.1- 125.90 167.37 3.37
-3 106.19 182.36 110.451
- 3 156.77 240.16 (5.211
~
L4 125.59 170.96 2.96 5= 134.82 174.03 1.12
- 6 133.99 170.84 2.62 7 114.71 176.16 16.061 8 125.66- 166.57 I4.79)
'9(3)- . . .
-; Notes:
- (1) Values represent mean of the monthly means for in6 August 1964 to December 1986 period.
(2) Values represent mean of the monthly means fer the January 1967 to March 1989 period.
- (3) Site 9 not compared due to lack of sufficient pre-operational data.
_ - - (4) F values greater than 4.30 Indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by i 1. 6 m O R
- Ic89-403Tl 87C4611 31 August 1989 um-i - - -i--
I I' TABLE 2-5 ANALYSl$ OF VARIANCE OF NEAN PARTICULATE DEPOSITION RATES FOR TE PRE-OPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1984 TO DECEER 1986) AM) OPERATIONAL (JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989) PER100S HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I i.- ! Particulate Particulate 1 I-Sit:s Pre-Operational Rate III 2 (mg/m 7,,) Operational Rate (2) g,gj,2 7,,) F Value(3) l j. I -2 1 578.2 928.0 456.4 1,018.0 0.00 0.04
.3 1,849.6 762.3 I27.73) 4 ~ 444.5 397.6 0.30 l' 5= 394.1 489.0 0.25 608.1 777.0 0.31 l
l I6 7 8-439.8 641.0 418.6 1,372.0 0.02 1.13 l 9(4)- ,, ,, ,, I i Not%3: '
-(1) Values represent mean of the monthly means for the August 1984 to December 1986 period.
L (2)- Values represent mean of the monthly means for the January 1987 to March 1989 period. (3) =F values greater than 4.30 Indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by 1 1. (4)- Site 9 not compared.due to lack of sufficient pr**perational data. l
- I i
I I I W ltS9-403Te 87C4611 31 August 1989-
t o , 54 1
-]
J TABLE 2-6 ANALYSl$ OF VARI ANCE OF TCTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) , DEPO $lTION RATES FOR PRE-CPERATIONAL (AUGUST 1964 TO DECEMER 1986) AND 5 OPERATIONAL (JANUARY-1987 TO MAROi 1989) PERIODS
- HOPE OtEEK OENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I . TDS - TDS Sit:s- Pre-Operetloral Rate IIII Operational Rate III F Value I3I 17 (ag/m2 7 ,,) g,gf,2 j,,)
' .1 ) 1,082.3 441.2 (4.491' 1,409.1.
2 1,761.9 1.05
- . 3 3,145.6 1,627.9 113.971 4 1,871.9 1,203.6 14.77I
. 5 1,731.0 2,095.0_ 0.23 -
6 2,364.9 1.381.5 16.521 7 1,830.9 1,474.6 1.26 g 8 1,874.2 1,688.9 0.22 9 I4) - - - II Not'ss' }
'(1) Values represent mean of the monthly means for the August 1984 to December 1986 period.
'(2) Values represent mean of the montnly means for the January 1987 to March 1989 period.
(3) FJvalues greater than 4,30 indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by i 1. (4) Site 9 not compared due to lack of sufficient pre-operational data. I !I i . I i. W lwS9-403Te 87C4611 31 August 1989
u-g-: __ wgg, , m- ::,r - 3.yy3pgg, _MfMl[M.M'LM:,M!8 -
,M: M M M 'i & ' M - M : M^Q M$8-M TABLE 2-7 "
g..w M:W D g~ ,i
~
I ' ANALYSIS OF VARI AleCE FOR DEAll' N0llD8.Y $0DilSI (lie *) DEFUSITION IIATES (eg/m2/ month) - ~
.5 L DIRING JANUARY 1987 TO MRnDI 1989 IN TIE VICINITY OF DE DEIPE (KEK IE8ERATillG STAT 60N ~
~
jp )# SALEN COUNTY, IEW JERSET u ; M ist FD) w Site 4 II Month Site 1 Site'2 Site 3 I . Site 5 Site 6 Site 7': -Valee Site 8- Site.9 Jtnuary'II 45.6 46.2 180.6 . 85.1 '52.2 59.3' 52.8: 67.2 94.6 2.09 - Ft.bruary IU 45.8 40.7 89.9 65.3 28.7 125.8 46.4- 67.0 -59.2 1.10 - III March 42.3 94.7 90.7 - 99.7 '36.2 :44.6 64.6 50.7- 56.0- 1.39 ApriI 51.2 85.2 93.3 77.7' .140.6- 44.8 42.1 36.5- 49.9 0.89 May 96.3 87.1 67.0 '236.1 46.8 48.4 53.5 56.0 59.8 0.75-June 21.0 36.2 54.3 34.4 48.9 33.3 87.0 53.6 50.0. 3.17 3 July 138.4 111.9 69.5 '59.6 -81.5 '54.5 55.0 65.1 76.4 ' O.47 -
- August 95.9 113.5 102.9 104.6 77.0 71.5 64.4 89.9 70.2 0.12" September 98.3 87.0 81.0 78.2' 98.4 74.4 66.9 81.1 142.8 'O.72 October 27.7 30.0 52.0 -28.1 39.2 20.1 39.2 79.0 43.0 0.51 52.2 87.4 82.9 46.2 63.8 November 120.5 58.7 44.6 78.7- 1.36 December 64.2 69.3 260.9 81.6 75.0 56.6 39.9- 65.1 106.8 1.34 -
.I Sersonal F ValueI #I 13.651 0.76 1.20 0.88 0.93 O.61 0.64 - 0.29 0.88 i Notes: ! (1) Value based on three samples (all other months based on two samples).. (2) Means based on average of co-located samples.
~
(3) Spatial F values for January-March greater than 2.51 and spatial F values for April-December greater than 3.23 are significant at,the 0.05' level and are identified by 1 1. j (4) Seasonal F values greater than 2.51 are significant at-the 0.05 level.and are identified by ( l. 1s89-40327 '87C4611-4.
, 31 August 1989 i
'q q -' g . q: q 'q q }q~ q g. q [q: gp q q q q-gl
- TABLE 2-4 .
~ 2 ~
' ANALYSl$ OF VARI ANCE FOR DEAff NDNTHLY OtLORIDE-(Cl ) DEPOSITION RATES te8/m /monthi h DURING JANIAARY 1987 TO MARDI 1989 IN TIE VICINITY OF 1}E HCFE GEEK GEIERATl!IG STATION ~
..J'
, SALEM C0tNITY,' IEW JERSEY
. p g,g p(3)L h
Month Site 1 Site 2 Site 3(2) $g,,4(2) Site 5- - Site 6 - Site 7 . Site 8 Site 9 volme j Jtnuary III 137.3 111.7 422.6 143.9 124.1' 157.3 149.8 180.2' 164.6- 12.581 h February III 214.0 162.7 275.3 340.9 125.0 224.3 182.2 158.8 254.3 0.46 A MarchI 'I 113.7 223.7 166.1 134.3 134.3 143.8 132.0 142.6 135.4 0.62 April 108.4 120.7 161.7 78.9 104.9 146.5 121.2 108.5- 111.7 0.33 l May 149.1 112.9 111.2 -286.0 424.2 272.2 -241.6 145.4 71.0 9.6: 100.4 129.6 -132.0 135.1 102.8 99.1 139.5 273.7 188.8 1.39 Juns _ July 227.3 16C.0 157.2 165.2 140.2 132.8 124.7 163.3 291.4 0.97 '
- f.ugust 161.5 185.1 175.3 171.7 188.1 164.5 162.4 17f.2 177.9 0.03 September 215.4 222.0 166.2 163.3 128.8' 169.4 180.8 151.3 214.6 0.09 i
October 205.1 262.4 366.1 106.7 198.1 188.0 354.8 166.6 153.5 0.64-November 240.6 349.4 389.4 192.3 170.1 190.7 170.4 200.4 183.5 1.08 December 135.6 142.1 3'.6.8 .133.5 247.8 161.5 154.5- 136.9 211.5 1.20 Seasonal F ValueI *I 0.03 0.59 1.63 0.57 0.80 0.33 0.79 ..0.47 0.78 , Notes: (1) Value based on three samples (all other months based on two samples). (2) Means based on averages of co-located sampies. ' (3) Spatial F values for Jant:ary-flerch greater than 2.51 and spatial F values for April-December greater then 3.23 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by 1 1.
.l.
(4) Seasonal F values greater than 2.51 are significant at the 0.05 level'and are identified by I' I=89-40328 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 b
. - - . e ~~~- am.-, y .,n.- r e... , ,-e+-v e_ - n .- r -+ n ,wm+wv mv- -.-~v< '_._' =~ s_-, xmma -- -_ - -
~'
D U QI W TallLE 2-0 2
' AleALYSIS OF WARI AIICE FOR IriABI t8llfile.Y PARTIQILATE DEPOSITICII IRATES (egAm 3,,,,,,, ,.
^
. DIRING JA08MftY 1987 TO 90RRUd 1999 lid M VICINITY OF M HilfT DEEK EIEHAT :19 STATICI6 ,
SALEN 00tBITY, IEW JOISEY : SpotIsl F III E I2I I2I . Site 5 LSite 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9- Vefue Honth ' Site 1 .. Site 2' Site 3 Site 4 280.7 367.7- 567.0 185.3 '258.0 358.3 0.93 Jtnuary III 305.0 335.0 655.2 205.0 662.8 830.0 225.3 866.0 362.3 341.0 239.0' ~ 1.07 February III 231.0 440.5 270.7- 403.0 277.7 505.0- 445.0 1.15 Merch III 294.3 1775.0 839.7 586.0 1180.5 522.2 502.5 648.0 299.5 694.0' '332.0 1.33 April 554.5 552.0 2094.0- 3271.0 919.0 733.0 523.0 0.65 May 767.0 784.0 822.0 369.5 377.5 597.0 646.5 1362.0 '1990.0 2.39 June 733.0 697.0 896.7 675.0 418.0 1308.0 851.0 2560.0 74)3.0 0.69 July 558.0 5777.0 971.0 324.0 340.0 552.0 467.0 8421.0 377.0 0.93 August 1013.0 58.0 949.0
-153.2 336.0 260.0 260.0 257.0 1119.0 0.63-September 339.5 532.0 572.2 124.0 216.0 107.0 333.0 248.0 0.41 October 73.5 281.0 328.5 121.7 280.5 235.5 299.0 277 5 743.0 318.0 2.06 November 356.0 422.0 606.5 195.0 577.0 337.0 370.5 - 252.0. 282.0 0.90 December 252.0 242.0 663.3 0.65 1.44 1.03 0.95 1.12 ' 3.24-Se:sonal F Value III 13.121 1.14 1.01 Notes:
(1) Value based on three samples (all other months based on 'wo samples).. (2) Means I:ssed on average of co-located samples. (3) Spatial F values for January-March greater than 2.51 and spatial F values for April-December greater then 3.23 are significant at 'the 0.05 level and are identified by i 1. 1.: (4) Seasonal F values greater than 2.51 are significant at the 0.05 levet and are Identified by i
'87C46ll-4 Iw89-40329 31 August 1989
3
~ "
' TABLE 2 80: : -
Na -
/
' h. , _
AllALYSIS OF' VARI AflE FOR tlEAll leDNTHLY TOTAL CISSOLVE3 SOLIOS (TDS) BEMISITieII MTES (aD s AssetM .l _ OtstilGG JAfluARY 1987 To teAftDE 1989 III THE VIClellTY OF TIE MIIPE DEEK GEBERATildB STATides - SALEN 00tstTY, IIEW JEftSEY Spetlal F III Site 2 Site'3(2)' gg,,4(2) gg,,3 gg,,'6 [ Site 7 Site 8 ' Site 9 .Weise Month Site 1~ 1624.0 585.0' 878.0 -991.0 779.0 1.07 Jcnuary III 1234.0 754.0 1516.5 739.0 1335.0 '3626.0 1413.0 ~ 1432.0 1213.0 0.73 February IU 1460.0 1130.0 2099.0 2073.0 1748.0 1573.0 2283.0 2181.0 - 2403.0 O.16 March IU 2171.0 2551.0 1809.0 1556.0
;1612.8 1913.0 2558.0 1896.0. 2524.0 3319.0 0.90 April 1598.5 1335.0 1842.2 2026.0 1104.0 1203.0 0.,82 '
1616.0 1154.0 1592.0 1422.0 % 58.0 1279.0 Mar 533.0 '1251.0 1913.0 942.0 1661.0 1.94 June 727.0 671.0 -1096.7 960.8 735.0 1579.0 1120.0 1630.0 3713.0 0.48 July 1052.0 3559.0 1288.0 942.0 1573.0 834.0 2454.0 4112.0 1259.0 0.51 . August 1013.0 1211.0 1668.0 1190.0 784.0 1130.0 1186.0 648.0 1400.0 . 0.34 - September 1008.5 1225.0 1351.5 976.2 1024.0 -650.0 939.5 1420.0 1602.0 1.37-October 707.5 454.0 1213.0 1011.8 1869.0 938.0 1315.0 2341.0 1935.0 1.34 November 1587.5 2238.0 2250.7 1095.0 578.0 271.5 942.0 595.0 13.911 853.0 627.0 1808.0 864.5 2349.0 December I 0.56 1.01 1.09 1.17 0.70 0.76 Sessonal F Value *I 0.71 0.78 0.38 Notes: (1) Value based on three samples (all other months ~ based on two samples).
- 12) Means based on average of co-located samples (3) Spatial F values for January-44 arch greater than 2.51 and spatial F values for April-December greater than 3.23 are significant at 'the' O and are identified by 1 1.
Seasonal F values greater than 2.51 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by I 'I. (4) 87C4611 1s89-40320 31 August 1989 _.___m,_
(N '
~.
i , I : I TABLE 2-11
-TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SODIUM (Na*) DEPOSITION RATES AT SITE 1 HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JER$EY i JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 June Oct Mar -Jan Feb Apr Nov Dec- Aug May Sept' July '
j
.! d
' Deposition 21.0 27.7 42.3 45.6 45.8 51.2 52.2 64.2 95.5 96.3 98.3 138.4 Rate ----~~------------------------------------------
.'(ag/m2/mo) (1)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I e.e. Underlined values are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance with Wo.05
- 91.64
. I.(1) -
IL TABLE 2-12
. TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN PARTICULATE DEPOSITION RATES AT SITE 1 HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1969 Oct Feb Dec Mar Jan Sept Nov Apr July June May Aug I:
Deposition 252 294.3 305 339.5 356 554.5 558 733 767 1013 73.5 231 Rate - ----------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IJ(eg/mj,,3 2 (j3,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, _ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, N... (1) Underlined values are not significantly dif ferent at the 0.05 level of significance with Wo.05 = 9. 6. 87C4611 It89-40321-31 August 1989
0 "
~
TABLE 2-13 I' - TUKEY'S MULTIPLE RANGE YEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN (NLORIDE (C1') DEPOSITION RATES, JANUARY 1987, 1988 Ale 1989 HOPE GIEEK OENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Site Numbers (Mean Monthly Deposition Rate in og/m2/mo) I 2(111.7)(II 5(124.1) 1(137.3) 4(143.9) 7(149.8) 6(157.3) 9(164.6) 8(180.2) 3(422.6) i (2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 I .a, (1)I Site numbers given in bold print followed by deposition in parenthesis.
'(2) Underlined values are not significantly different at the 0.05 level
; of significance with W0.05 = W .85.
l :7
. 5 TABLE 2-14 TUKEY'S NULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (T.D.S.) DEPOSITION RATES, DECEleER 1987 AND 1988
~
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY s 2 Site Numbers (Mean Monthly Deposition Rate in og/m /mo)
,,,,,.,,(,, 8(,,8, ,(,9,) 2(e2,) , (8,m . . , 8(,42, ,(,8 8) ,( m 9)
( 2 ) --- ---------- - ---- -- - ------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1' t.s. >g l , .(1)
. - . Site numbers given in bold print followed by deposition in parenthesis.
- l. -(2) Underlined values are not significantly different at the 0.05 level
~ of significance with WO.05 = 1878.97.
WB ~IK89-40321 87C4511 31 August 1989
. - . _ . _ , . _ - _.. _ - - ._- - . . _ . __ . . -,_ m . . .. . . . , . .
g l@ -
.M~.M'JM'W'@'E -
E . E: E .,' E s E E E E E E E b 3
- + -
-m
_y
..g.
TABLE 2-15 l'EARSON PRODUCT MOEN! Cuf54ELAT10N 00EFFICIENTS BETWEEN
$0Dil81 (18A*) DEPOSITION RATES AfD ARTIFICI AL ISUwe WEATER DATA HOPE DIEEK GEE RATitIG STATION, SALEM COUNTY [ K w JERSEY -
l : JANUARY 1987.TO MARDI 1999 i i i Wind from ReIative i Wind Speed i Wind ,From SIto Over the Estuery ProcIpltatlon Dew Polnt Humidity Temperature > 25 mph -CuolIng Tower . 1 0.012 III 0.139 10.468I I0.4921 10.5121 1-0.3821 0.246-2 0.125 0.182 0.268 -O.266 0.296 0.065 (0.5311 ' 1 3 10.4061 -0.070 t-0.4711 -0.288 t-0.3921 0.023. 10.5081-4 -0.072 0.259 0.019 0.167 ,-C.033 0.051 -0.065 5 0.133 -0.125 0.071 -0.008 0.133 0.189 -0.234 6 0.057 0.048 0.019 -0.180 -0.146- -0.034 -0.218-7 10.4371 0.038 0.151 -0.068 0.301 -0.151 ' -0.193 ,
-I2I 8 10.4301 0.299 0.039 0.108 0.100 0.063-9 10.4041 0.117 -0.063 0.065 0.006 -0.267 0.250-Notes:
(1) Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than 0.381 are significant at the 0.05 level and are Identified by I 1. (2) No correlation coefficient determined for Control Site 8. i s Ir89-40325 _87C4611' 31 August 1989
- ng a v*grre-w'*
._ 4 ey-% - e n,.--4e r+ i #'rP~ *M.1 e. q %- r rr- M'" ^ g .**he rCUen e-W'E e y y %-%saq d-- g
e- . - - . - ,. . . - , . . . . - . - _ - . _ . , - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _
. +v 4
TABLE 2-16' PEARSON PRODUCT NOMENT 00f5tELATl0N COEFFICIENTS SETE EN CHLORIDE:(C1 ) DEPOSIT!ON RATES AIG ARTIFICIAL ISUN) WEATER DATA
~~
HOPE CE EK GE E RATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, E W JOISEY JAleJARY 1987 TO MARDI 1989
% Wind from Relative $ Wind Speed- $ Wind from Site Over the Estuary Precipitation Dew Point Humidity Temperature > 25 mph Cooling Tower' 1 -0.071 III 10.4261 0.008 0.358 0.060 -0.155 0.001 2 -0.061 0.151 0.005 0.112 0.020 0.214 0.007 3 0.267 0.052- I-0.5661 -0.194 1-0.4991 -0.078 10.4 MI 4 -0.125 0.311 -0.154 0.152 -0.:00 -0.194 -0.123
} 5 -0.105 0.340 0.052 0.317 0.052 -0.017 -0.141 6 -0.098 0.379 -0.174 0.196 -0.135 -0.107 -0.340 , 7 -0.062 0.379 -0.040 0.214 0.005 -0.106 -0.046 l 8 0.226 0.143 -0.031 0.038 0.104 -0.206 -(2) i 9 0.298 0.265 0.016 0.107 0.056 -0.256 0.064 Notes: (1) Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than 0.381 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by I 1. (2) No correlation coefficient determined for Control Site 8. It89-40326 .87C461I. 31 August 1989
2 G - 3;. y M IM M: ~M E . M1 -M : s. M , E -; ; MM ,M
~
M M ,M g; W 'r i
'?
~_~ .
fr - -
+L _ - _
~ e TABLE 2-17 PEARSON PRODUCT N0E hr 00554ELAT10N COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN ,
PARTICULATE DEPOSITI0It RATES AIS ARTIFICIAL ISUWe IIEATER DATA HOPE OtEEK GEIGtATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, IEM JERSEY ' JANUARY 1987 TO IGRADt 1989
% Wind from Relative $ Wind Speed 5 Wind From Site Over the Estuary Precipitation Dew Point Humidity . Temperature > 25 mph.. Cooling Tower 1 I-0.390I IU -0.207 10.5561 10.401I I0.5961 -0.352- 0.146 2 0.344 0.122 0.283 0.168 0.318 0.160 0.226 3 -0.237 0.207 0.275 0.274 0.274 0.152 -0.331 4 -0.172 0.157 -0.083 0.on -0.037 'O.003 -0.116 5 -0.159 0.244 0.116 0.238 0.113 -0.012 -0.248-
~
6 -0.029 0.285 0.147 0.206 0.160 -0.091 1-0.4331~ 7 0.150 0.250 0.334 0.337 10.3921 -0.213 .-0.197; 8 0.250 0.165 10.4121 0.323 0.422 -0.171. -(2)
~
9 0.308 0.138 10.3881- 0.261 10.4001- .' 0.266
-4.147 Notes:
(1) Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than 0.381 are significant at.the 0.05 level and are Identified by i 1. (2) No correlation coefficient determined for Control Site 8. tw89-403Tb '87C4611 31 August 1989
- m. .m.m. _m.,._ .L.m. . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . , m._ .or___..__..s.- ._._..m.
= . g g :- g ~ g il g .g ' g}
g g yg g g g g [g g' g
,m w
TABLE 2-18
) PEARSON PRODUCT N0ENT CoIWELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEN
' TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) DEPOSITION RATES AfD ARTIFICI AL ISUlfe WEATER DATA HOPE DIEEK GEERATIIIG STATION, SALEM COUNTY, MN JERSEY JAIMIRY 1987 TO MANDI 1989 -
5 Wind from Relative 5 Wind Speed 5 Wind From Site Over the Water -Precloitation Oew Point- Humidity. Temperature > 25 mph Cooling Tower-i k 1 -0.110 III 10.3951 -0.281 -0.018 ' 0.227 0.224 l0.358 f 2 0.332 0.293 0.059 0.150 0.144 -0.026' 10.4321 l 3 0.123 0.275 I-0.4051 0.034 -0.295 0.063 0.374-4 -0.139 0.291 -0.289 0.025 0.202 0.021 :0.083
- 5 -0.078 0.333 -0.003 0.179 0.006 0.093 -0.286
( 6 -0.123 0.043 -0.043 -0.253 -0.146 0.006 -0.298 7 -0.176 0.132 0.119 0.191 0.225 -0.095 ' 0.352 ! 8 0.211 0.246 0.098 0.136 0.157 0.099 I2I . 9 0.366 0.252 0.176 0.194 0.271 -0.120' O.089 i j tbtas: ? j (1) Correlation coefficients, with an absolute value greater than .381 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by I 1. I (2) No correlation coefilcient determined for Control Site 8. I i l ? 1
- It89-403Tc 87C4611-31 August 1989
I c I , [ TABLE 2-19 ' l1 PEARSON PRODUCT 14.'4ENT C005tELATl0N COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SALT DEP06tTiON PARANETERS AlO TOTAL NONTHLY POWER OUTPUT LEVELS AT 'I [ n j HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION FOR THE OPERATIONAL STUDY PERIOD 1987-1988 Particulate Total Dissolved p Sito Deposiflon Sollds Na* Cl" 1~ 0.232(II l-0.4151- 0.164- -0.278
.2 -0.052 -0.237 0.070 -0.266
g
- -3 0.142 -0.122 0.197 0.064 lf g 4 L-0.043' .-0.313 0.114 -0.060 j- 5 0.150 0.008 -0.077 0.000
', 0.115' -0.211 -0.055 -0,121
.67 0.169 -0.298 -0.145 -0.351
- 8 0.076 -0.217 -0.268 -0.054
! .. 9 0.150. -0.227- 0.232 0.025
- I i--
l Note: il (1) - Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than 0.381 are significant at the 0.05 level and [ are lesntified by ( ). ,W ' i I
- I z
"I j' I "" Ilt89-403Td 87C4611 31 August 1989
z- _ .. .
- = - -
. ,,7 , , g 7pg ; -
-g, .g.
7: . . M ; M , M / ; M i:2ML ~ M; M
.M- %MLM~M. .~. <- .
M _ M M
. .g
-,_m M-y-M&MN y c.
_;;; . =
.m
,= i z y uu.;;
TAlkE 2-20 : '
~
~
~
; c
. SIGNIFICANT-S(DitM (Me,) 0015ELAT10ll COEFFICIENTS _
FOR PIE-CPERATIONAb AfD GPERAT10NAL DEPOSITlWI DATA-
~
..- HOPE. 0EEK EIERATING STATION '.: ', "
' SALEM 00tsITY, IEW JERSEY ~
. ~ -.;.. Pouer 5 Wind From ~
$ Wind Speed $ wind Fros' Output- -
, Site- Over the Estuary Precipitation .Dow Point' Humidity. Temperature'. > 25 apte. Cooling Tower Levels t-1 + Na* Pre-Operational 1 i 2 + . _ 4 + 5 + + -* 6 + (1)- -(111 a 8 + Na* Operational s 1 + + + - 2 + i
- 3 + - -
+.
8 5 , 6
- 1 8
9 1
-1 Note:
(1) Not tested for pre-operational data.
- a q
l iw89-403Tm 87C4611-1 _, , , - -.g., .m--. 3 c.~~ 3 ~, .,~-.c - ,- r, ,..e.~ s + r = . - . * . --_-me-
- m =- - ---s--c-- -m--==--
- ,_ -s . .c. ..
- s.. , . . , y- .
; m. c ~
, a. .wc.- . _. -s -
~
EJ -"
~
~" neLE 2-21 .-
15!alFICA30T Otelt00E (CI') CWWELATim CBEFFICIEIRS N,m ,
- f. Em f9E-41PHulTicisms. AIB SPER4TicIIAL BEFOSITieII BRTA KPE DEEK EIEmiteE STATIM
? SALEN GMITY, IEW JUISEY i - l PWuor
% Wind From ' 5 Wind Speed i Wind From Output Site Over the Estuary P m Ipitstie.a Dew Pb!nt Humidity Tempu stere .> 25 apsi Cooling Temer towets-l Cl~ Pre-Operet.onal 4
' I + i 2 + 3 + 4 4 + i 5 + (1) (1) j 6 + j 7 *
+
[ 8 c
- Cl- Operationat '
, 1 + 2 i.
- 3 . - +
4
- 5 6
! 7 i 8 8 9 i 1 I l j 900t3: j (1) Not tested for pre-operational data. 1 i l
~
j 1 IwS9-403Tf 8704688-e i 4 e ~-- # . . ++ ..r..- . . . - - - - --+ , ,..- - --o--..+.. -,<,-.s#-+ -....-v._.- ,v.--,w - --r - --m...- .-..-_--<-.--.-_..-.w~,mv... _
r gzy 3 - - - - W W - m' W W W W W W W W W W W W W W MS
- TNILE 2-22 S 900Firuser PetTIGEATE GBUELATIGI COEFFIClBES FtR PIE-GMT8 SIAL JWB WUWITlWWIL EPOSITISI DATA j M DEEK EIEfunTitG STATiel -
sates cessffY, IEW JEftKY 3 wind From 5 wind speed 3teled From evtput Site Over the water Precipitet!oe Dew fe:nt Neidity Temperature > 25 apet Coollag Tomer Levels
^
a Particulate Pre-Operational 1 + 2
- 3 - -
2 4 + 5 + + (1) (1)
- 6 i 7 i
8 + 1 Po7ticulate Operational i 1 4 4 + + '. I 3 1 4
- 5
? 6 . 7 - j 8
- j 9 e +
l l 900te: j (t) Not tested for pre w ational dets. I f
- =89-403Tg SK4611
_ . . - - , . . . _ . . - - . . - ,...__,.._,___...-.__...-...-,_-_-._.~.;_..__._---.~
' - ~ -
. ,' . .: ' =:p :- v- -
M: M M S ~M M M S S S S S ' S S _
- TABLE 2-23 ; SitetFtr4EIT TsTW_ D!SSOLVED SellGS (195) CWWELAINII CBEFFICIENf5 .
Ffe W-C!TVsTHBIRL AIN WEMTICIIAL DEPOSIT?cII BATA len OEEK GEEMTHE STAl9010 SALEN ungITY, E W JERSEY
! w
$ Wind Free i Wind Speed 5 Wlad From cetput j Site Over the Water Precipiterice Deo Foint Humidity Temperatore > 25 ayer Coollag Tauer .Lowels i
TDS Pre-Operational - l ! 1 2 + + s 3 4 + (1) (l's 5 1 1 6 i 7 + i 8 i TDS Operational
- 1 + (3) l 2 +
i i 3 - r 4 5 1 ,' 6 i 7 8 9 i g a ) 860te : i s , (1) Not tested for pre-operational data. I i ( 1we9-403Th SM4611 4 _ _ s . < m e nv.,- e .. . ,.,<....--w3.iv.++
-- wwww-, eiw -&we----- --c-e,n,.,,<,. - , .,,,,-,+.-,w.m w-* ..-~+--.,-..w-e-.-,-y,% ew,-.e--e.
i , .- l ~::*w ':,. ' W-
&NQl?\[~ QD 3.% \
T
- h. g .- ~ ~ Q Qp .h.u; Q _,Q:y. ' ... \}
. y f T;:,)
-w. . - . .
e-yky)) v~pq c.: . . . a y. s 3-$. r.wcr& :: %.7 ky$.p.4 C._7-
*;pG :'-L....*g
.,4, , , .-
. .a w .2
+ q.y s
) -
g.- -
,g A :. ..
. , - M .. * .. *
&T .
isn : ~_ . ,9)'/g l - j i i
-*.h,.,
g ,y, c,. + ,9 . s%n3. s 9B.,;-
.j 3
N f. . h- * - h
", )@:.~ M y- f ? (f% h'khh.
.N O Mhk -Y~;E 'yg. [
+ T:;. .
. M }. ;
[ . hk. h.i 9.. g.
~
d E .C k:,r.t ,
+.3. $; . p,
,.t h.i ~i
,fs\
.i i.
o gh*i: -
\ .\ *:,%- .W. : . f,.^
fk i
.- W..cw- -L.f 2 ^ ~-+ %.,
i
~.
- - ,e i -
TN, P*. n :s, ^bMm %4 g k<V - .W J. . _
~
/ , T ._; -
- w. fy j$ \-~8h, . ,,f 0..
~
}k .':h -. A q.;Y $ g h. %
, Tp.[;....,. k)a -.
-h: c4.; k - - N .
L. : . i. :- . i- -e 3 u-1
&,: - c.t. -+ 4f... . . -.z .3 4 .
z-v- !+e- . _- - 1 t. ,1 -
?- n m- m. R A.. . .+ ,.w. r
^
HCGS 4 . -
-'c h. . f$
2A= COOLING ~ T-
' 6'7*MN 'N * ' W; '
f'ua~' , aTOWER -
- Y' *'h*_2-g .' :d+- <
i -
-[f 1 N,1.f.
\ ,
g g%: (.~ , .f.
~ -
zg *',. 5 A .?? ~, g h,.';,t p\g . Mg p -. 1 M
~
~ l , * , i g v*' A3 t?9fle i f: g[e: !T1 N,- g~. M*GM.V -4 0.
s
\
4
\ $ _. m\A,i" -
h+
..j.j,-p , g , ki . 4*
~ Y"/gM'!9 Q;[g i
C.E'k- 4 6 , fh
, 3, -
4 A ,*,..
%. .-... -).s .p2.vt%, .~.;os.-
yy .f
,t
, yJ .>
- . .. .1 ; .Q ~;f .
- .* - . - f ,'k%g* ;,
- , A . Z-? .
. )59
~~R _.'~5.,[. g g'Jy[,.'
'scN.g. Q . };,,j. 'L: f'ty*% g
, ry .. w 4 . u . .
s, a on m P-*~' x
' ;,,Vg g r e _ h"w ,
wwg..g,7
'-;y f.ga.
xv;.+ -
#a . . ,. J,..w. . .
.v . ,/ g. .f.. .. .
+
Q', MAP SOURCE : Sl 'i
~h USGS 7%" OUADR ANGLE S. T AYLOH's BRIDGE. APERTURE d > s t , h; t$.5 - 7, &
CARD . :ey' .: S DELAW ARE-NEW M RSE Y. CANTON. NEW M RSE Y- g . s DE L AWARE g - 4 (3 -cis f ,j
*^ 4 , y: f' o p Also Avaltable On f , ._ A.y A perture Card V. -
I SCA L E : 1 lb.' = 2000 FT e
k., ..
.:t .'+ EU
_ M' l'. t *
'2.t:.
. L
' ' [QQ w
Y.9., '
* .- . Y' *
\gT p>'
*'f s ?
m .- *. 'W. ., .%.
.m1.0Cp5% .. . e, . .
.f,
% . .x x e ,
,.v cw
,g
~ (,,
'w",. / .
8 N e edOW 4
~
.n' k */ . 'd ..5~ ~ ' . . ( ,>
Q. L:J .:.. -.-~ .s-m s s _,,; ;e. + v/
' - c d." ..
gy..e -n y g . . . 5 "i M, .g ~-y: 5-5 ?. ' .. b. ' 3 13s y' K + . :q !. te
.d
,g- r. _.
-c c. st , y-
. :.w .:. ..,.. . - B,s' I
. ;; _.- a . . ..r - . . _ .
~-
, P'~ . 9. _v ~:~~ :-i.~:
; ? ,J,
. . M%.*?.
.- .. . ?,e..
~
, ~. .. cv
, .- . -* ..4 .._
. : . :. %. f.... i- . .. .
u f Mead
. .. w. .+
~- . p:(p ~- ~ rs.)
- e. . -y . h._-=. '.. . - ' - )
.. /
s s
%.; o %4. ,,,
- .y ~.- a. . s_.$,.<....s b s, :,
s
+ -.
' f~
+ .s
\
; :; Ay .. ~ _. -
~. .
e J. a. i 5 .T, \y'h.-p24- _+ m. A
? . % 'g. ; *., \^.h r "~\s
*s- ,: N~ . . -
O.QL-h;;.3 2 ~'J v
.g -f4 , }_4~.
. ,, ^
a
. V:.c:g~1. . .~ -
7 g 3 pL- _p'f'f,,....- %
..~.- '.~ . ::~,2~;a ~ '
.c 1
. . ... . : , :;. .- l.:-
\ /,-
~
}* -
~
N \~ca. -
,~ ~ ' $5.* L* - I' ~*g. j %
A
*[h h,{~h .C., ~* 4'.,; '_". b .E .J * - .*.~. -
,: e' w*,pr .,
n{ r .a.,
,.) .c . ,. 5 -
~.7_ . ..~._ c y &.,p n
1
's ~- -f.;
}i[2.. . . ,. b ..
4'*- b,. *.
-.*.(. .-%.; 6. m . ... ,/. . .v..r,.,,
. n . . . ,; . . ...
9g
. ',...,
- a ' h' ,*,
.g, g*,.
.s. .- ,.
-I*
) \\
l 4 _3 ; . . ; , ,
.*,. [* ,[ * ' ~ g. * *i. * * *
. 7)" *
.s ,
,. f . .
x4 s g .. - s. . ..a . * -.... -- . . e:*. .% ..
,@e. 3, p .:,.
- 4. .
*',,.(-gen....m
.-ev.
. v -,s..- .
4- .. ..
-~
\
g.
~ .
- 4. .w**Nes,4, p... <f . I.,
,S
<-...e.... .* 4+, .. . ~. \~
Q.- .~.. i.;4g:K. 'r ? = :-: e * - 1 s : 'p:::: ;
%' y r~.$. l f6
.. +. - -
.. -q: .
L nJ. , e .,W ....^'..A
')A;. *49 . WJ y' *%,., . . r.. t..Ny' e !
.. .< L,..)*. .;J - . .yj .Q
,g . ; ;
... -._ , ._ ,3,, . .;, . . ;w. _ +
... f + .. .,... 4
.; - +,. .y 1:9 .- ; ^\j .
.c .- .. . , . . g- 5kp];g 3 $e4 q ,. s : . g . ., ' s,.',.c. y . . g , } l- : * . n.*w, , , . . %*;. ..
x, -
'.;. A zg. -
[/.:. *
- 4~ g ; 4 3 /,p b::v37. g g M. .;
4/y c . I 'T .
. . ' J. .cs .. .
MQ.c 4 .'f .'Q. r IV. h + ,N '
., r .~ p- M
..n.~~ , _ '- ?,,2 k .; . ;r. ..; -.
,. Q %g.-
&q %g ' g -
aJ - '
.w .. . M % . - ?. .
l
.g.
~
p,-
. ~7h,,;,j y .Y r
~~
, j. N s'* f [gj.(7g N.)-=. ,..,. f 7g l'yt h h- W .
.h gn
'N : h- '
,l .~ { ;
x r -
.: e- 4e bs e.tN*i .- _..
r pE_ g.pq .a . 4 4 i. , gg! q" p p,g f. ( , Q % -
,N p97'h .
- gJ4 y W M
~
. SALT DEPC3tTION
~: -
% *D MI . f'b SAMPLING LOCA'.'.ONS 1-7 AND 9 M* ~
A r 6 $ $'J %* ? h$bX r2.r. . FIGURE 2-1
~
i gng'v 4 ' \( ~ y. . Y- y ,9 y ~ r " ,e p.,,,
^ yqqgs, d y
j
$ f' r .
N.cy,,, MSN a 6p]' , h*g;*,' ' wh E.M Q ' ll g,D'l *%A ~,
- b. M f.'.
f
'[,
S[o&fh's["' .n[.3-f,..Y.,,,*h
, . j ' '1'*- \
;'$ls cne,- f' L hr p/. ysh ms s,
*y -
e rec eviewe-4 N l e'm t - C $TL~ .. dyk>e
- n. epo s..,\ ,% ".$ l i j# y ,/ g..'+/ ""' .-
Q *enen 89*to' p ,,r, f "*g f 4g,, ,
, pff g** ,
g ,0 re;. C.!S;'[/f d 'r.- ,,r.-
~#
- cr .'.L. O.t""L gi ,
,l V p y"a 1, g;- -
. %* q.' y' .q of . ., C..'
i "8 'N N f 3 .
- it ,..- p#$*p,/ .,, 3 'z%! .
- y~gg._
,,,,, g b 'y ,,,, .l g g
./b -
-/
G e =- , b. .,d fn ,
- i -
,, p
, e .[y' *t i. m.
wn"g\. j = r.t:e
/
k , 'l,,'
,i ~
y%,',**s"-% . t (a" Y.,s y
.. .....n. a41 .g ' ,-.,
,,,4./ ....~ g.,
, t Q,. F N, na l
c
, , M h y* i
. .n yl,, g tn N*. ] % v ,
'a h i' c ~ ~n
)l f \ X j(:
?
\
h, l
" "' . ., .c, id ? y' y;r ,. b HC05
, g, sg ' g ,' { .f n\
noudy,, \ 6ta
\ COOLING
~" d i Canon
;,,oe yy ' h 'y )
.l .l
\\
x% N5 //s a ... We .. M 3
.....s t
vs .e NEW v>S C'eeneo -(-
, 48 CASTLE
# ** c e N -
WW dM
$I "s*Is.
\\ b SALT g
DEPOSITION CONTROL SITE 8 APPROX. SCA L E: 1 IN.
- SKm I _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ , . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . , _ . . , .
FIGURE 2-2
l I'Yf , : 7 / l l
> s .'. r l
- PHRAGMITES AUBTRAllt
/ i
, .< f -
T , , I / / i lI
' / GRANY AREA / i I
. e l /
, n /
) u cfon @ / l l :4 l '/ l!
l / ;} l l
/ %- :
l } : /
./
~
i I E > j . FILL AREA d i ,
- i. >
MCGS
< l COOLING l [
- t. . TOWEP !
l~ E ' ! l (., m l t i 1
- i i
; t: <
J 1 I.. < l I woes CONTAINMENT BUILDING I [
^
c NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-3
.. ...~ ._ - -._ ..- ......_ ,... -._- .. . -.--. ..._-_....-. .- ..---, .. -.~,. .. ._ _ _ __. ...~.-_. .. ._.... - -__J
f I l PlLL AREA , N +
- 35 FT - % % % %
I T ff .f g R
- MDIMEW1 AT60N PONO I = = = '
i l i i HCOS i , l COOLING I
- TOWER g :
s
- 1. s >
. g i s N0TE : W M2ASURED Ol8TANCES ARE APPROXIMATE i l 4 a I
- I
. HCOS !' i CONTAINMENT l SulLDit$G i i
'i NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-4
w i e: 4 l ROOF OF NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION SUILDING I l I ROOP VENT 2.5 FT HIGH) e n . ." HCOS _ 20 FT N I COOLING d TOWER , i US' NW ,
....) .
t / 2 [ SOUTHWEST CORNER NCOS i CONTAINMENT j suitoiNo NOTES
- 1. TWO SAMPLERS LOCATED AT THIS SITE
- 2. MEASURED DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 3 N7;T TO SCALE i FIGURE 2-5
g 4 y', htETEOROLOGICAL HOSS TOWER. l cooLe ENCLOSURE g 'l n C3.NT UILot-ENT N
- PT NI
, O, T I_ ::i4i:
B I i PHRAGMITES AUSTRAlig PMRAGMITES AUSTRAll8 8 l 1 NOTES:
- 1. TWO SAMPLB AS LOCATSO AT THIS SITS
- 2. MEASURED DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATS SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 4 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-6
I 70 0 7
!!$l l
I E CONCRETE P00TINOS C TR ANSMIS$10N TOWER 3/1 I TID AL WETLANDS G{ TlDAL WETLANDS l J] ORAS$YAREA ORAS$Y AREA 4 TO HCOS ACCESSROAD
/
I , NOTE: MEASURED DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE i I SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 5 i l NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-7
+, I-9
'%. Q E* $.
t., y 1- (
- 5 g .. i d' d c'r 5.fE..h t $e su l ,\a
$4 . 'l */
- c. .
b'
.s 8
*e -
f4g&?Als3\Ei43.. h 4 P. . p, E
.; 1.. m '.
.3 0, (16-39 FT) {'f., ' Ie.c # '
. Mfl$.h
^
s- $ 5
. aI. '[,Th4.gE,4 e
g k p TO HCOS .
, COOLING TOWER .T
, 272* ..
h
!) g] - 100 FT - h.
, %4, CONTAINMENT .. @
suiLDiNo .f.4 l tsp4 M g Q' 4*3U.~@,h'"M. -
?',76 ..,=
B Ig pj - ..
.di
?. pc n.f. i*
j hA t *8 y I;.t ( i . I' ~F' 8 G4 4 s ', 1lQ TREES (20-35 FT)
<- iv;. Sa
- S .'g c F.fo
/ f.M ),'.C.
# #; :g s!
l '
'k'd.747si'5.DED.$%$f.*.D$
' i,. C b.
E,d Ma*v n e.e. Aa n r_ 4 a v. ,m u. .= , v . . v A * $ ORAVELROAD I NOTE: MEASURED DISTANCES ARE APPROXtMATE i e i NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-8 ,
i-
- 1. j N
f TRANmelfdl0N TOWER 6/1 2 1^^^^^- lI DITCH
,,,,, e ' af*5
- l /
M.. l l 1 u 5,A,SS i
, To MCoS co0Liwo TOWE# f nA .,
=:e.ec
's,7;
' ; m a a ^"""
,u 4 f he eMRA0 MITES AUSTRAll8 I I f ORAVEL ROAD TO SILVER LAKE ROAD
/
l ,
/
.A6*'
y 49.a I - i '( j.
, TREES S' (30-3 PT) h \ ' *[g a
N gg,e h N I usw N N utASuREo oiSTAucES ARE Aper 0ximATE N I
.e.,1,. cmec1. .,1. ... ,
g <1 NOT TO SCALE 8 FIGURE 2-9
I ',
* / f..,
+ c = = = , e I BO FT
$80 FT I ,, ,,
I PSE&G TRANSMISSION F AND DISTRIBUTION STORAGE YARD
,, I t i
I l ,, ,, GATES g e x : x > DARETOWN-DEERFIELD ROAD SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR SITE NUMBER 8 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2-10
i L y D'
+
NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATION BUILDING l-I _ _ 1 i .y I 5
~
t Access noAo
+
I l COOLING TOWER l 9
, HCGS y CONTAINMEN BUILDING Y k TRANSMIS$lON LINE TOWERS
. f" "
....._m - . 3%. =. . c..m..,
SCALE SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTOR NUMBER 9 FIGURE 2-11
4 . esa am,-w g L. StaD R4880 i SUBTFALL OOLLOCTOR : r - glRO meses Asso coLLgCTOR SUPPORT h_ ) : wy N SM IIL t#7 000stetCTOR I l IRl I - 1 t 7 Kat ELAasPS I, 1 O SUPPORT P@SS O I PIPE L (;> 5M4 e :) g- - - _ -
- =
.R.U .UR, A -
e B SALT DEPOSITION COLLECTION SYSTEM FIGURE 2-12
- 4i
; f.. -
1
,i t O
. s >
,,- -4 ; 3
., E : 1
> \.# 4 l 5 '
- y =- ., "w g .
Y
. ]
y-J I I l l B ' I s I . b i k N Y$' f .( 7 ~ f[{-[ PMW .},) 9S711 f?Q gQQ }Xphi(t!4ffp - V ) sl% i ]'{ yG o , ," v! 7 !'
'J.-
*f e?$ , '
i
;f -
m,... m m
,, y .o . "w'h .Y
. . , .m_ , .
4. 4 1 ,s ,
.-',,,.' '* ' o . e
.o. o.>'o. . . . , ,
p-1L'
~.O 1
- S' -.f'4
- e'
'I- '
;& f 9' g t .!' i ppgG Lt7;p' .i " j . ( N' 'U g 91p x ff g'4. i <* '
. ,yy s'v a s3 -;: p j,;
s
..m. 3 ,. + i s f]:
m <
>'l '-~. , .l l : i';
3 m, y j sn [ %1[~jh yv .: ; z' y pn; a.
. %, q., ' Y3
- L, 3W .- , ,
9: w"f .w,j ug i c <~
- 3 s m
pg
< :j;; . &etop- -
e-qq,; 7, , ' m; < < , , ap, , i s .';- - ' .
, :.g a ,
$_(9~ o , . Un '
- s. ;3id < .;c c 5? P s 2 3. , v. . 1
. e_ c ,#s, ,
. ". #a 4 .m . , .-
. m.
y' .
};
^ - '
+,& qp
. .c m
, on %- e. u 1
- - +s s .*
, u, - ; s
's , 1'
,f[iN, $m ( ,m;<[s m'jU""4 f
44', ~
. , #[r s',. eb (u'ti
.k0 7 +;
s% 'm b ',','~ -'{- ~--~ t 'n. 5 8 3 tj . , p f,s-pA +3, cw . s, z w'wo #0 , :g . c *r)-> e'; e; Wit -[ o
, i'. . , , ,.,.:4,-
+
. 4 r ( s u-p m s.
..' ' .s i 4
v" , a
- M.
s
) ^
- i' ", '; h I' 4 - - , , (m:. *
.i y; .,
.. .--m ~m ,> t < - -
- <r -
% . . .. y m~ ' {e: w.c).gn; .c , y.. 1;M c ,. :. -: e 8 , s mt 'y
- ly\ -; , ? s
-w:n :.n,. .m; !;.;vmy cyc n :f 9: ' l O, 4 - ,
+ y.:._
,a ,.
~: -
~y.
9, ,
[n:; g s
w y*p. ' LYL n s ~ > Q.
. v- , , >
' b, yx v , .,
'v
.v ny s
- y..c 4-;4 : ;- . + , , 'aJm -d- > ,m
. k , <: n n :: . > .u + ,
--y'.<,
#%" ky:.,ih < s.e p A,u%r., ' xowJa.o:A' .n4:a-. + ,
<*u -e s 4,N n a?
.s m:s>.w,'..
+
.\ n.
No w. 4 J u.z n,arwh'
. w u. wa-.s .me w e nm L.9 mw .e a.;te u + m a u-wN e
s t.w . ~ww w s w . o:, T t l I
t l i_- l SECTION 3 NATIVE YEGETATION STUDIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A growing season (May-September) sampling program was conducted during the 1987 and 1988 operational period to determine the concentrations of Na+ and Cl in/on the foliage of trees in the vicinity of HCGS. This study titilized the procedures developed for the pre-operational (1984 to 1986) native vegetation study in order to produce a basis for comparative analysis of foliage salt content between the two study periods. Observations of vegetation damage and stress - were also made and recorded on fleid data forms. Selective photographs were taken to document these cbservations. 3.2 SAMPLING SITES Foliage from a rnaximum of six species were collected at each of three sampling locations. The three locations were selected based upon the distribution of woodland areas east of HCGS the availability of suitable tree species in these areas and accessibility. We sampling location clotest to HCGS is located
- 3.4 miles east of the site and represents the closest woodland area to the site.
Extensive areas of tidal ralt marsh occur between liCGS and this location. The sampling locations in the vicinity of HCGS and the control location near the town of Shirley, New Jersey are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, and listed below: Distance / Direction Location Number Location Name From HCGS I Mad Horse Creek 3.4 miles east 2 Silver Lake Meadow 5 miles east 3 Shirley Control 15.6 miles northeast Mad Horae Creek Location. The Mad Horse Creek location, which corresponds to deposition sampling Site 6, is situated within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management lw89-403-3 3-1 87C4611-4 l 31 August 1989 l m uliniusmumi min iu mma i ii n ll lll in i inim i a
( [ , 1 Area (WMA). This WMA contains the largest block of woodlands occurring in the immediate HCGS area (i.e., within 8 km). A variety of woody species occur in these woodlands with the following being components over much of the area Overstory Understory Pin Oak (I) American Holly White Oak Dangleberry Sweetgum Southern Arrowwood Blackgum Sassafras Black Cherry Flowering Dogwood Red Maple Black Cherry L Two sample collection sites (!A and IB) were established at this location. Location lA is situated along the northern boundary of the WMA within a portion of the woodland dominated by deciduous trees (Figure 3-3). Location IB is within a stand of conifers which occurs approximately I km to the south-southwest. Silver _ Lake Meadow Location. The Silver Lake Mehdow location, which I corresponds to deposition sampling Site 7, is situned along the southern edge of
' " the Salem /New Freedom transmission line right-of-way, approximately 8 km from HCGS. To the wett, the site adjoins Silver Lake Meadow - a Phrapinites austrails l dominated wetland /open water area which is separated from the adjointrig salt marsh areas by a dike system and has been managed for many years as muskrat g
B habitat. A wooded strip extends along the southern edge of the right-of-way. Like the Mad Horse Creek location, a variety of woody species occurs in this woodland, including the following: Overstory Understory Pin Oak Flowering Dogwood Sweetgum Sassafras Blackgum Black Cherry Southern Arrowwood Dangleberry (1) Common names of trees and shrubs are as listed by the Society of American Foresters (1980). Iw&9-403-3 3-2 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 I
/ , The actual sample site is located near the exposed westernmost portion of the strip (Figure 3-4). Shirley Control Location. The Shirley control location, which corresponds to the air sampling control Site 8, is located adjacent of PSE&G's materials storage yard near the Town of Shirley, approximately 27.3 km northeast of HCGS. A wooded block extends from the south edge of the storage area on the Daretown-Deerfield Road toward New Jersey Route 77. This woodland is wetter than the sampling sites in the vicinity of HCGS and supports a less diverse assemblage of trees and shrubs. Those present include the following: Overstory Understory Sweetgum Dangleberry Pin Oak Southern Arrowwood Blackgum Black Cherry The rampling site is located along the northern portion of this woodland (Figure 3-5). 3.3 DATA COLLECTION Follsge sampbs were collected during the five months of May, June, July, August, ano September of 1987 and 1988. Six different species of trees were sampled at Location i and Location 2. These include: o Black Cherry o Blackgum o Flowering Dogwood o Pin Oak o Sassafras o Sweetgum Flowering dogwood and sassafras were not present at the Shirley control location (Location 3). IwS9-403-3 3-3 87C4611-4 ! 31 August 1989
t Follage from three trees of each species was sampled at each location each month to provide a measure of species variability. Each sample was analyzed in
- the laboratory to determine the concentrations of Na+ and Cl present. These data are presented in Appendix B. Loblolly pine was collected at Site IB during the operational study. However, the samples for May-September 1989 were lost in transit to the laboratory. Therefore, no data are presented for this species in 1988.
3.4 RESULTS
-- Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show the minimum average and rnaximum average and
= overall mean values for concentrations of Na* and Cl in foliage over the 1987 through 1988 study period by species and location. The minimum and maximum
, concentrations represent average concentrations for the three trees of each species sampled at each location. The mean values, therefore, represent a total [ of 30 fo!! age comptes collected at each location (3 replicate samples, collected each of 3 months in bcth 1987 and 1988),
-i q 3.4.1 F_re-Operational and Operational Corartrative Analy.sij i
The .nean Na+ and Cl concentrattom, for each species at each sampling J location were anhlyzed for a significant variance between pre-operational and i operational periods at the HCGS using a ere way AOV. Tabla 3-3 ed 3-4 present the results, of this test for Na+ and Cl concentrations, respecthely. Based on these analyses, the only Na+ concentration found to be significantly different was that for flowering dogwood, which was different only
- at Location 1. Na+ content in flowering dogwood at Location I was greater during the operational period than during the pre-operational period. C1' concentrations were found to be significantly different for black cherry at Location 1 and Location 3, and pin oak at Location 2.
4 twS9-403-3 3-4 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 _mm
------memmisisi ii-. - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
a l-For comparative review, operational and pre-operational minimum, maximum and mean Na+ and Cl* concentrations.are presented in Tables 3-5,3-6, 3-7, and 3-8. These data show that the C1' content of foliage of these species i was lower during the operational period than during the pre-operational study period. 3.4.2 Species Differences Tukey's procedure was applied to the mean concentration data to evaluate significant differences of mean Na+ and mean C1' concentrations among species i at individual sampling locations (Table 3-9). Based on Tukey's Procedure there were no significant differences in mean Na+ concentrations among species at any location. Tukey's Procedure identified significant differences in the mean concentrations for C1' in foliage found at Location 1 and Location 2 during the I operational period as listed belows o Ci' concer,trations were significantly higher in flowering dogwoc4 foliage than all other specien at Locations 1 and 2. Flowering dogwood displayed of this same trend '.n tne pre-eperational r.tudy. Flowering i- dogwuod was not sampled at Location 3. o At Location 2, Cl concentrations in blackgum were significantly h!gher than in pin oak or black cherry. In addit!on, C1' concentratbns in sassafras and sweetgum foliage were found to be significantly higher than concentrations in black cherry. o No significant dif ferences in mean C1' concentrations were determir.2d among species at Location 3. l twS9-403-3 3-5 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 i
( F, \ I: 3.4.3 hammal Trends I' The mean monthly concentrations of Na+ and Cl in foliage collected at the three sampling locations for the 1987-1988 operational period are tabulated by species in Tables 3-10 and 3-11, respectively. A seasonal AOV was performed on these data and is represented by the " Seasonal F Ratio" for each species and
; location presented in the tables. The AOV test Indicated that no significant seasonal differences exist between Na+ or C1' concentrations at the 0.03 level.
While no significant seasonal trend was detected in Na+ or C1' concentrations for the operational study period, a general trend of increasing C1' concentrations in foliage from the beginning of the growing season to the end is evident. This trend was also found in the pre-operational study. The reason why the trend was not Indicated as being significant is likely due to the fact that concentrations of chloride in foliage collected during 1988 were generally lower than in 1987, resulting in a large pooled standard deviation, l 3.4.4 S;mtM_ Trends This section presents an analysis of spatla! differer,ces between sites b relation to Na+ and Cl concentrations in foliage from the six species sampled.
- i. Discussinns of these differences are presented in the following rections.
The mean mothly concentrations of Na+ and CL~ in foliage cctbeted at the three sampling locations during the operational period 1987 through 1988 are tabulated by species in Tables 3-10 and 3-11, respect!vely. One-way AOVs were performed on these data, results of which are presented in the tables as the
" Spatial F Ratio."
L Iw89-403-3 3-6 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
m i The AOV on monthly Na+ concentrations indicates that spatial differences exist at the 0.05 level of significance for flowering dogwood, sassafras and sweetgum, as follows: a o Flowering dogwood exhibits significant spatial differences in mean Na+ concentration during June and July. The June Locat;on 2 Na+ concentration (159.92 ppm) is significantly higher than the Location I concentration (!!3.92); and the July Location 1 Na+ concentration (109.07) is significantly higher than the concentration at Location 2 (71.77 ppm). m o Sassafras exhibits significant spatial trends for mean Na+ concentrations in the month of June. The June Location 1 Na+ concentration for Sassafras (217.20 ppm) is significantly higher than the concentration at Location 2 (116.45 ppm). o Sweetgum exhibits significant spatial differences during the month of N August. Duncan's Multiple - Range Test was applied to the August data and Ir.dicates that Na* concentrations in tweetgum were significantly different between Location 2 (157,97 ppm) and Location 3 (62.27 ppm). 3 The results of this test are presenwd in Table 3-12. N Band on the AOV of monthly Cl concentrations, no significant spatial 8 difference exists for a given species during any given month at the 0.05 level of ol6nifcance. This ind', cates that the location of a species had no signif tcant ef fect
~
i' on the Cl~ concentrations in the foliage. 3
=
s~ twS9-403-3 3-7 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 a
3.4.5 Correlations Between Native Yeaetation Salt Concentrations and Meteoroloalcal Conditions
.- The relationship between the mean concentrations of Na+ and Cl In foliage samples collected during the operational study period and meteorological factors for that period were evaluated by calculating Pearson product moment correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were calculated between the 1987 and 1988 -~
Na+ and C1' concentrations in foliage collected at the three sample locations and
; Artificial Island meteorological data summaries for the months of May to September of each year. The meteorological factors evaluated were similar to those used in the salt deposition study and includes o percent of time at which wind was from Delaware Bay (135' through 160'):
o total precipitation for the month; o monthly average dew point: o monthly average relative humidity;
/ o monthly average temperature 3 o percent of time at which w!nd speed exceeded 25 mph; and f o percent of time at which the wind was from the cooling tower.
3i E The results of these analysas ne presented in Table 3-13 for Na+ concentrations and Tabic 3-14 for Cl concentrations and discussed below. 3 i Several correlations were found to be signifi: ant at 15e 0.05 leve' for Na', as described below.
; Location 1 o Blackgum was negatively correlated with dew point (-0.678) and relative i humidity (-0.825);
o Flowering dogwood was positively correlated with wind speeds greater than 25 mph (0.606);
=
t twS9-403-3 3-8 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
)
o - Sassafras was negatively correlated with precipitation and relative humidity (-0.761). Location 2 o Black cherry was negatively correlated with precipitation (-0.622) and relative humidity (-0.729). Location 3 o Blackgum was negatively correlated with relative humidity (-0.651). No significant correlations were found with sweetgum or pin oak. In addition, monthly wind frequency from the Delaware River Estuary, temperature and monthly frequency of wind from the cooling tower had no significant correlations with Na+ concentrations. Correlations were found to be significant for Cl" at the 0.05 level, as described below. Location l_ c Blackgum was negatively corretr.teo in 1 elation to tiie fregt;ency of wind itom the Delaware Bay (-0.703) and We frequency of wind speed greater than 73 mph (-C.M,2). Location 2 o Black cherry has a significant negative correlation in relation to frequency of wind from the Delaware Bay (-0.636) and frequency of wind from the cooling tower (-0.742); tw89-403-3 3-9 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 ,
o Blackgum and flowering dogwood also have significant negative correlation in relation to frequency of wind from the cooling tower (-0.625, -0.611). Location 3 o Black cherry, blackgum and pin oak have significant negative correlations in relation to frequency of wind from the cooling tower (-0.684, -0.639, -0.655). Pin oak alto has a significant negative correlation to percent of time wind came from over the water (-0.609).
, No significant correlations were found for meteorological data and Cl*
concentrations in sweetgum and sassafras. Precipitation, dew point, relative humidity, and temperature hcve no significant correlations with C1' concentrations in the foliage surveyed. 3.4.6 Correlations Between Native Vestetation Na+ and Cl* Concentrations and Deposition
?
8 The relationship between the concentrations of Na+ arid C1' in foliage l samples collected during tN operational study pened sno deposition of these utf.s i dwing the same perh;1, as r,hown h Table 2-2. txre antlymd usind tne Pet.rson Pec4uct Moment correla'.lon coefficients (Table 3-1)). a I Location 1 (deposition study s!te 6) is the only one of the three locations N which showed significant correlations between Nd corcentrations and deposition rates. Black r.herry (-0.749), pin oak (-1604) and sassafras (-0.821) Na+ concentrations had significant negative conelations in relation to deposition rates at this site.
'There were no significant correlations between Cl concentrations and deposition in the foliage sampled for any of the three sample locations.
IwS9-403-3 3-10 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 1
- s. .
! 3.4.7 Correlation Between Native Venetation Na+ and Cl Concentrations and Power Output Levels at HCGS Pearson's product moment correlation coefficients were determined to evaluate the relationship between the mean monthly Na+ and Cl* concentrations in foliage during the operational period and power output data from HCGS for the
~
same period. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3-16. Power level data are presented in Appendix F.
. Based on these analyses, all Na+ correlation coef fielents are positive, and all Cl* coefficients are negative. The only significant positive correlations were for black cherry and sweetgum at Location 1. Significant negative correlations were determined at each location, including the Shirley Control. The reasons for this are not certain.
3.3
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 3.3.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparison The comparative analysis between the pre-operational and operational y studies showed the only significant variance found for Na' to be at Location 1 in flowerlag dogwood. Fcur other spec!es sampled at Location I had 4 rise in mean 5' Na* concentrations from the pre-operational to operational studies, but these were not statistically significant. At Locatica 2, three of the six species sampied i bad a rise in mean Na* concentretion, but once agia the in: teases were not statistically signifiera 3 -
- Mean Ci' concentrations in foliage declined from the pre-operational to the
; operational nody in all the specier, sample; at all of the locations, but only three decreases were stat!stically significant. Black cherry had a significaatly lower mean Cl* concentration for the operational study at Locations 1 and 3. Pin oak
[ had a significantly lower concentration at Location 2. twS9-403-3 3-11 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
- a. g <
t 4
?
v} Thei comparison between the pre-operational and operational study; data Wi < c shows: that the. cooling tower may have had some influence over the. Nat jpy concentrations in foliage at Location 1 (closest of the three sites sampled to the - [ - tower). - However, such conclusions become questionable in light of the corresponding decrease in'.Cl concentrations location as well as near HCGS
- (Location 2) and therefore they are believed to be coincidental.
_ , 3.5.2 ' Correlations
- A summary of the significant Na+ correlation coefficients for pre-operational and operational native vegetation data is provided in Table 3-17. With two
_ exceptions, all of the operational correlations are negative (i.e., one data set has rising values cad the corresponding data set has falling values). The negative correlations include those between the Na+ concentration in black cherry, pin oak
. and sassafras at Location 1 and the monthly Na+ deposition rate at the Mad Horse WMA salt deposition site (Site No. 6). Months having higher Na+ deposition at this site were found to have lower concentrations of Na+ in the foliage of these
[ species.' This is the only location where this relationship was significant. The reason for this relationship is believed to be coincidental. O l An additional correlation relating to HCGS operation is that between HCGS
; power output level and Na+ in black cherry foliage at Location 1. A significant (y positive correlation was found between these data for the operational period. This relationship is also believed to be coincidental.
Negative correlations were also determined for Cl~ concentration and the
. percent of time the wind was from the direction of the HCGS cooling tower. As
~
for power output levels, correlations were found at the Shirley control location as
~
well as near HCGS (Location 2). Therefore, they are believed to be coincidental. = _ Based on the distribution of significant negative correlations in Cl-concentrations and the uniform decrease in C1' concentrations from the pre-operational to the operational study period, there seems to be some unidentified regional environmental factor influencing the Cl concentrations in foliage in a
= similar manner at all three sites sampled.
tw89-403-3 3-12 87C4611-4 I L31 August 1989
4 ( 4 TABLE 3-1 NINittat, HAXINUN M EAN SODIUM (Ne') CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLI AGE IN THE VICINITY OF TE HOPE (MEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, OURING OPERATIONA! PERIOD MAY TO SEPTDGER 1987, ADO MAY TO SEPTEleER 1988. - Ne* (ppe. dry basis)
- Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
- Species Nin.u a Men. MeanL#3 Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Black Cherry 12.2 139,3 90.8 26.0 165.7 83.2 61.5 247.9 103.7 Blackgue- 75.7 230.3 133.6 54.1 169.3 105.7 -56.8 211.4 115.6 108.0 I3)
-Flowerine Dogwood 52.3- 198.3: 108.0 57.0 207.3 - - -
Pin ook 46.8 147.2 106.9 50.5 218.9 111.6 53.1 189.0 81.8 Seesefres 39.3 246.3 127.0 47.5 202.4 106.2 - - - Sweetgue~ 20.4 126.7 79.4 33.9 179.8 97.8 23.9 170.0 64.2-s TNotes: _ '(1)$ Minimum and maximum concentrations represent everage concentrations for three repilcete trees of each species et each sempling location. 1 (2)~ _ Moon concentrations are based on 30 follege semples. (-) Not collected at this location. i "t
- r Ic69-403To 87C4611 14 September 1989 H
h -------s----n --i-m
4- _= ^ TABLE 3-2 MINit4DI, MAXiltat AND NEAN DiLORINE (C1') CONCENTRATIONS
- IN FOLI AGE IN T)E VICINITY OF 1NE HOPE GEEK ENERATING STATION, SALEM 00UhTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING OPERATIONAL Petl0D MAY TO SEPTE681ER,1987 tJe MAY TO SEPTD81ER,1988
-2 Cl* (ppe. dry basis) d Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
-- -~. _
Species Min. W Man. Moon"I Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
- L8teck Cherry 17.5 171 0 89.4 19.4 196.2 75.2 18.3 187.0 58.9
~
- Blackgue 21.5 665.8 228.9 26.6 854.6 284.1 14.3 392.4 132.0 2034.0 I3I -
, Flowering Dogwood 103.0 6347.0 2130.7- 106.0 6113.0 - -
Pin ook. 42.2 730.7 234.6 28.0 420.9 159.5 27.8 240.6 108.8 : S:ssafras 89.1 1052.3 348.0 52.4 951.9 251.7 -
- Sweetgue 19.5 471.0 200.5 29.0 456.3 223.1- 19.2 197.2 108.9 tiotes:
-( 1 ) -Minimum and s.eximum concentrations represent everage concentrations for three replicate trees of each
' species at each sampling location.
>(2) Mean concentrations are based on 30 follege samples.
(3) Not collected 41 this locallon. i-- n. e tws9-403Tn 87C4611 f '14 Septaber 1989 8 i
M D UaU'
.2 _ - - . - TalEE 3-3 ... , .
~ .
O j-Q AltKYSIS OF VAftIABIE ODI SODetes rearmVIIAT60NS (50e ) ~ 1. les FCLI AGE Feft 19E-4FEftAT1010AL- (1984-1995)@ AIS 4FEIRAT10 DIAL (1987-1998) . - -
- PERIGIS AT TIE 140PE GEEK E9EIRATIIS STATHNIg SALEN 00088TY, IEW JEftEEY _
94e* pga. dry basis - Blackgue - Flowering Dogmood Black Cherry
- Location 2- : Location 3' . Location 1" Location 2;' "Locafica 3 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location't 111.48 128.47' 133.82 65.47 91.08 -
PRE-OPERATIONAL: 102.26 119.56 118.02 105.71 115.56 107.96 :107.96 .- 90.83 83.30 803.73 133.55 OPERATIONAL: 1.57 0.98 14.851 0.54 ^ - 0.21 5.10 0.29 1.18 .
,. yg g(2):
Ma# ppe, dry basis Sweetgue Pin Oak Sassafras Location 2 Locatirm '3 Location 1 Location 2~ Location 3 Location I Location 2 Location 3 Location I 65.46- 61.39 '53.34 109.30 95.02 106.90 122.86 - PRE-CPERATIONAL: 93.79
'79.42 93.29 64.22 ?
111.64 -81.80 126.97 106.23 - OPERATIONAL: 105.12 1.72 3.92 0.22 - 0.01 0.44 0.35 .. 0.32 - p yg g(2): 0.28 Notes: (-) Not collected at this location. (1) Only the months of August and September were sampled for 1934. 1. (2) F values greater than 4.41 indicate significant differences at the 0.05 fevet and are indicated by i 97C4611 Iw89-40333 31 August 1989
~
TABLE 3-4':
- f. ,
2 AftALYSis GF #RI AllCE SI 08.WtitE CIBEBelATISIS (Cl-) -
~
' tes FOLIAGE FGt PIRE-4IPHIATIGIRL (1984-1986)III Age WHIRTieIAL (1987-1988)-
..PHttGIS AT THE HINE GEEK ECEft4TIMG STAilGI, SALB0 00tBITY, NEtt JetEEY C1~ ppe.' dry basis Blackgus Flowering h Black Cherry Location 2 Location 3' Loceflon 1 Location 2 'Lacetion'3 ~
location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 1 455.8- 269.4 3756 3098 - 177.06 134.40 124.28 405.4 PRE-OPERATIONAL: 132.0 2131 ~2934 89.34 75.22 58.85 228.9 '284.1 ' OPERAT1000AL: 1 2.10 2.67 1.35 ~2.54 16.691 5.10 17.601 1.50 F VALUEI2I:
~
C1 ppe. dry basis Sesetgue Pin Oak Sassafras Location 2 'Locgtfon 3 Location 1 Location 2- Location 3 Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
- 440,2 479.8- 145.10 356.9 66.6 877.8 592.3 FRE -OPERATIONAL: 388.7 200.5 -210.0 :108.93 159.5 107.9 ~348.0 251.7 -
GPERATIONAL: 172.6
-2.70 16.731 0.00 16.62) (11.421 4.25- 2.53 -
F VALUE(2): 114.51 Notes: (-) Not collected at this location. (1) Only the months of August and September were sampled for 1984 -1. (2) F values greater than 4.41 ind!cate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by 1 87C4611I ~[ Ic89-40334 31 August 1989
W;
,f r
$I TABLE 3 MINilt84, HAXIMUN AND LEAN $0DluN (Ne') CONCENTRATIONS IN :
' FOLI AGE IN THE VICINITY OF INE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATION,
~ SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988 OPERATIONAL PERIOD Na* (ppe. dry basis) location 1 Location 2 Lncation 3 Species Min. .Mex. Mean- Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Stack Cherry- 12.2 '139.3 90.8 26.0 165.7 83.2 61.5 247.9- 103.7 Blackgue. 75.7 -230.3. 133.6 54.1 169.3 105.7 56.8 211.4 115.6 Flowering Dogwood 52.3 198.3 108.0 57.0 i 1. 3
. 108.0 - -
' Pin ook 46.8 147.2 105.1 50.5 218.9 111.6 53.1- 189.C- 81.8
?Sassefres. 39.31 -246.3 127.0 47.5 202.4 106.2 - -
Sweetgue: 20.4 126.7 79.4' 33.9 179.8 93.3 ,23.9 170.0 64.2
' NOTE =
.(*)Not collected at this location.
TABLE 3-6 MININLBI, MAXIMUM AND MEAN SODIUM (Na') CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLI AGE IN TIE VICINITY OF THE HOPE C14EEK GENERATING STATION, SALEW COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DURING THE PRE-OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1984-1986 PRE-0PERATIONAL PERIOD Na* (ppe. dry basis) Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Species Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean T1
' Black Cherry 26.6 291.9 102.26 29.3 229.6 119.56 50.1 324.2 118.02 Blackgue 37.9 210.6 111.48 73.1 224.4 129.38 68.0 302.0 133.82
' Flowering Dogwood 20.9 204.8 60.36 40.4 229.8 91.08 - - -
Pin Oak- 32.7 244.5 93.00 68.8 167.2 109.30 46.7 181.3 95.02 Sessafras 36.9- 250.9 106.9 36.8 344.0 122.86 - - - Sweetgue 20.2 124.8 65.46 12.6 130.2 64.46 11.7 158.2 53.34 NOTE
.(-) Not collected at this location.
twS9-40335 87C4f11 I31 August 1989
Nfp , 1 u e > TABLE 3-7 [' MINIM, MAXIM A2'EAN CHLORIDE (C1~) CONCENTRATIONS !H FOLINIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE GtEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSFY, DURING CPERATIONAL PERIOD 1987-1988
- _ .M 4
0PERATt0NAL P.E R I O D r C1~ (pre, dry basis) Locatirn 1 Location 2 Location 3-LSpecICs'. Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Black Cherry. 17.5 171.3 89.4 19.4 196.2 75.2 18.3 187.0. 58.9
..Blackgue 21.5' 665.8 228.9 26.6 854.6 284.1 14.3 392.4 132.0 Flowering Dogwood 103.0 6387.0 2009.0 106.0 6113.0 2034.0 - -
Pin Osk 42.2 401.1 172.6 28.0 410.9 159.5 18.7 240.6 107.9 iSessafras 89.1 1052.3- 348.0 52.4 951.9 251.7 - -
- Sweetgue' 19.5 471.0 200.5 29.0 456.3 210.5 19.2 194.6 91.2 NOTE'
(-)Not collected at this location. TABLE 3-8 ~ MINIM, MAXIMUM A2 MAN CHLORIDE (CL ) (2NCENTRATl0NS IN FOLIAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE UtE ' GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JEREEY DURING TE PEE-0Pt DNAL PER100 1984-1986 PRE-OPERATIONAL PERIOD C1" (ppe, dry basis) Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Species- Min. Max. Mean Min.- Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Black Cherry 87.8 349.3 177.6 50.2 270.9 134.4 39.6 298.0 124.28
.Blackgue 121.2 976.0 405.4 105.7 865.0 413.2 74.6 641.5 269.40 Flowering Dogwood 623.7 11751.0 3756.0 710.1 9180.0 3892.0 - - -
-Pla Oak 219.5 611.3 361.9 204.8 850.7 356.9 80.7 532.0 236.12 See:ofres 373.2 2111.0 877.8 219.7 1900.0 592.3 - - -
Sweetgue- :17.6 1094.0 440.2 117.8 1019.0 395.0 28.2 342.7 145.10 NOTE (-) Not collected at this location. Ic89-40337 87C4611 31' August'1989
s x
.+,,. .
m
'TillEY'S IGJLTIPLE RAellE TEST FGt OE01 TIDE b1 CDIIENTRATlWB IN '
FOLI AGE SdWIPLED led THE VICINITY OF TIE HIFE f3EEK GOER *.TIIIB STATl000 , SALEBI CDistTY, BEM JEftSEY Cl- (ppo; dry t> asis) - Pin Oak BI'ackgwe ' Sweetgum. IBlack Cherry Flowering Dogwood Sassafrass
-348.0 234.6 , 228.9 200.5 .89.4 Location 1: 2130.7 (1)
Sesetgue Pin Oak- Black Cherry Flouering Dogwood Blackgue Sassafrass --
.251.7 223.1 159.5 75.2 Location 2: 2034.0 284.1..
Sweetgue Pin Oak Black Cherry Blacitgue ' 132.0 108.9 108.8 58.9 Ltcation 3(2): peotes (1) Underlined values are not tignificantly different from one another at the 0.05 fevel of significance. Location 1 WO.05 " 'II" Location 2 WO.05 " II9*3 Location 3 Wo.05
- 93I*9 (2) No flowering dogwood was collected at Location 3.
en:esi! Iw89-40339 31 August 1989
y-- p y _ y w ' TABLE } l3 L . J ' ~ Ale 4 LYSIS OF.VAftlABI(E FOR OWm8LY SIDit80 (he') sianuwasIIIATIGS ' y_ - Ih FOLIAGE COLLECTED 13 7HE VICCITY OF MIPE GEEK GE9ERATilE STAT 10ll, SALEDI CllI88TY6 IElf Jell 5EY - _ Dt8t10lS TIE (FEft4TIGIAL PERitB 1987/1988. Black Cherry 81ackgue ' Flowerinq h w '
-Spotfal- Spetiet,
. Spatial-Na* (ppe, dry basis)IU F Na* (ppe, dry basis)IU F He* (ppo, dry besis)IU F. -
Value I2I . Loc. 3-Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. 3 'Value . Loc. 1 ' Loc. 2.. Value - Month Loc. I Loc. 2 Loc. 3' , 160.25' 124.85 -134.10. 0.14 145.77 147.80 0.00 0.29 -May 128.97 106.17 163.37 183.80 '95.55 153.17 1.07 113.92 '159.92 - 13.52-June 113.72 117.32 121.95 0.02 80.95 73.23- .83.10 0.15 109.07~ 71.77 - (30.071. July 81.65 ti9.03 71.30 0.31 127.27 ~118.10 99.00 1.05 100.62. 92.37 --- 0.10 August 76.43 - 84.68 87.42 0.11-115.53 116.82 108.43' O.01 70.53 - 67.93L - :0.08 September 53.38 38.75 74.62' 0.49 Seasonal -: 1.99 0.51 0.40 0.96 2.41
- Vclue 1.56 1.14 0.98.
Sassairass Sweetque Pin Oak Sp6tial Spetfel Spatial Na* (ppe, dry basis)IU F Ne* (pse dry basis)IU - F, Na* (rps, dry basis)IU F Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Value Loc. 1 - Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Velmo Month Loc. I Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Value Loc. I 154.38 0.59 78.60 118.65 109.67 0.16. May 137.68 168.43 121.22 0.24 118.10 - 116.45 9.32 64.87 85.45 73.13 0.52 June 132.02 144,10 83.48 1.63 217.10 - 88.37 0.01 86.03 53.90 ~ 33.87 1.94 July 93.33 73.72 73.15 0.51 93.80 - 79.73 0.45 109.25 127.93- 62.27 8.60 August 102.85 80.60 61.95 1.28 121.60 - 91.15 92.05 - 0.00 58.33 80.50 42.17 0.44 1 September 59.72 93.33 69.22 2.21 Sessoast 1.10 0.46 1.51 0.75 - 0.63 0.71, F Value 2.12 2.19 Notes: (1) Values are means for all samples of a glwen species collected at each site during the sonths listed. 1. (2) Seasonal F values greater than 5.19 indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by i (3) Spatial F values for black cherry, blackgue, pin oak, and sweetgue greater than 9.55 and spatial F values for flowering dogwood and sessefrass greater-18.51 indicate signifIcant differences at the 0.05 level and are identifled by I 1. (-) Not collected at this location. t=89-40330 14 September 1989
"E ' 'M uman ummer v mv v w-1^
~
, TMLE 3 ~
. .d ~
AIIALYSl$ OF WARIABE FOR ellBfD8.Y OILERl8E (CL ) OIMElfRIATtGI5" lit FOLIAGE ODLLECTED ID INE VIClOITY OF lillPE DEEK GBEstRTilm STATiel, SAL 30 C8188TY,9 Elf JENBEY -
. DilR10E 1E (NTitRT40 BIAL PBtlE) 1997/1988 ,
Blackgue Flowering nnmanad Black Cherry SpotleIc Spetfel
.J Spotlel . ~
(ppe.' dry basis)I U F' CI~ (ppe, dry basis)III 'CI,~ (ppe, dry basis)III F . Cl F_ I I Loc. 2 Loc.' 3 ~ Value - Loc. I Loc. 2 - Loc. 3 - Vales - Month Loc.-1 Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Voice Loc. I
~
0.04' 303.60- 419.70 -- 0.16 57.03 52.80 0.19 70.65 69.23 55.03 May 94.38 893.00 1332.00 - 0.16 ~ 0.18 127.90 120.70' 61.77 - 0.2ft - June 61.02 53.77 37.03 2008.00 - 0.20-259.00 261.90- 105.30- 0. *,9 3223.00 July 82.05 55.25 39.30 0.37 0.02, 233.80 432.40 186.60- r.50 e 2467.00 ' 2822.00 - August 95.70 122.07 109.20 0.04 0.00 536.30 251.20' O.39 .3767.00 3587.00 - September 113.62 88.00 55.93 0.49 453.40' Sessonal 0.80 0.54 - 0.51 1.27 0.89 0.88 F Value 0.15 0439 Sweetque Pin Oak Sassafrass Spetist - Spetial Spatial F' 05
~
(ppe, dry basis)IU F Cl - (ppe, dry basis)IU . { (ppe dry basis)IU F Loc. 3 Value Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. 3- Value Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Velme Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Month Lee. I 0.22 57.20 67.57- 55.08 0.03 89.40 64.07 0.09 250.00 163.10 - May 102.63 0.28 142.30 '113.25 - 59.68 0.07 88.13 67.53 0.08 252.60 157.60 - Jono 89.20 217.00 223.70 14.55 - 1.53 0.41 250.60 150.40 - 0.57 July 193.80 246.60 91.42 244.20 299.40 ,125.82 2.85 O.64 172.40 147.32 1.91 316.10 186.40 - August 196.00 341.80 358.65 140.88 1.51 0.39 670.50 601.10 - 0.02 September 281.60 201.00 168.33 Seasonst 1.30 1.89 0.66 0.51 0.60 0.75 1.22 - F Value 0.77 Notes (1) Values are means for all samples of a given species collected at each site during the months listed. 1. (2) Spatial F values greater than 5.19 indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by ( f ater (3) Spstial F values for black cherry, blackgue, pin oak, and sweetgue greater than 9.55 and spatial F values for flowering dogwood and sesse rers gre 1. then 18.51 Indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by ( (-) leot collected at this location. Iu89-40311 14 September 1989
l . l l-i TABLE 3-12 I DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR 500luN (Na') CONCElmtATIONS IN - SWEET 9tm SAIPLED IN AUGUST IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIFEK GENERATING STATION SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY DIRING TE OPERATIONAL PERIOD 1967 1986 h: I Na* (ppe, dry basis)
.t Location 2 Location 1 Location 3 157.97 109.25 62.27 I
I (1). ... .._.. .. ..... ........ I ! 1 I !- l Nott: ! 1
.(1)- Underlined values are not significantly different from one another at j
I the 0.05.lovel of significance with W0.05 = 82.9, i i 1 l.' I I 1 I I .I 4 4 87C4611
-ItS9-40312 31 August 1989 r
TABLE 3-13 PENISON PRODUCT MOE NT 00fWtELAT10N 00EFFICIENTS FOR NONTHLY Q .900lWN (Na') CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE, 00 WARED TO NONTHLY AVERAGE WEATER DATA FOR HOPE OtEEK GENERATING j STATION DURING OPERATIONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTENBER 1967 AND 1968 l :. Med Horse Creek (Location 1) 5 Wind 5 Wind 5 Wind From From Over Relative Speed Cooling i SpecI:s- the Estuary ProcIp. Dew Point Humidity; Temp > 25 mph Tower (247.5'-292.5') Black Cherry -0.140(II -0.538 -0.531 -0.597 -0.385 0.131 0.227
-0.056 -0.479 (-0.678) (-0.8251 -0.460 0.168 0,533 Flowering Dogwood -0.042 -0.110 -0.316 -0.197 -0.273 (0.6061 -0.085 IlBlackgum Fin Oak- -0.257 -0.451 -0.322 -0.295 -0.246 0.007 -0.143 Sessafras -0.169 (-0.8741 -0.244 (-0.7611 -0.025 0.061 0.189 S weetgue 0.233 -0.422 0.172 -0.117 0.209 -0.213 -0.123 I
I 1 Wind From Over Silver Lake Meadow (Location 2) Relative 5 Wind Speed 5 Wind From Cooling the Eastuary Precip. Dew Point Humidity Temp > 25 mph Tower 1Specl0s (247.5'-292.5') Black Cherry -0.151 1-0.6221 -0.353 1-0.7291 -0.150 0.120 0.392 Blechgum -0.123 -0.208 -0.460 -0.294 -0.409- 0.002 0.134 Flowering Dogwood -0.202 -0.340 -0.493 -0.528 -0.349 -0.224 0.417 j Pin ook. -0.474 -0.018 -0.565 -0.132 -0.551
-0.480
-0.331
-0.246 0.135 0.101 g Sassafras -0.364 -0.224 -0.509 -0.219 Sweelgum -0.301 -0.362 -0.324 -0.191 -0.294 -0.377 -0.107 8
Shirley Control (Location 3) 5 Wind 5 Wind 5 Wind From 1 From Over Relative Speed
> 25 mph Cooling Species the Estuary Precip. Dew Point Humidity Temp Tower (225'-270')
Black Cherry -0.443 -0.222 -0.536 -0.309 -0.476 -0.325 0.324 Blackgue -0.300 -0.507 -0.504 t-0.6511 -0.341 -0.270 0.356 Flowering Dogwood - - - - - - - Pin Oak. -0.455 -0.100 -0.328 0.038 -0.365 (-0.5811 0.236 Sassafras - - - - - - - Sweetgue -0.364 -0.093 -0.511 -0.238 -0.467 -0.291 0.339 Not*st (1) Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than 0.602 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by [ 1. (-) Not collected at this location. 87C4611 IItB9-403?3 14 September.1989
TA8LE 3-1(- PEARSON PRODUCT MONENT 00lWLATl0N 00EFFICIENTS FOR NONTHLY ! CHLORIDE (Cl") CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE, 000 FARED TO N00m EY I AVERAGE WEATHER DATA FOR HOPE 04EEK QENERATING STATION DLNtlNG OPERAT!ONAL PERIOD, MAY TO SEPTD8tER 1987 AIO 1988 j I 5 Wind Med Horse Creek (Location 1) 5 Wind 5 Wind From-i From Over Relative Speed Cooling ISpecies the Estuary Precip. Dow Point Humidity Temp > 25 mph Tower (247.5'-292.5') Black Cherry -0.371(I) 0.173 0.304 0.473 0.163 -0.372 -0.508 . Blackgue 1-0.7031 -0.023 0.048 0.420 -0.095 (-0.582] -0.421 I: Flowering Dogwood Pin Oak-S=sefres
-0.512
-0.530
-0.590 0.018 0.038 0.267 0.231 0.268 0.024 0.389 0.475 0.465 0.110 0.118
-0.128
-0.310
-0.439
-0.549
-0.547
-0.565
-0.377 i
-0.303 0.044 0.422 0.478 0.290- -0.439 -0.533 I-Sweetgue Silver Lake Meadow (Location 2) ;
5 Wind 5 Wind 5 Wind From W From Over Relative ~ Speed Cooling ; _ Species the Estuary Precip. f Point Humidity Temp > 25 mph Tower (247.5'-292.5*) Black Cherry (-0.6361 -0.216 0.196 0.371 0.081 -0.514 (-0.7421 ' I'Blackgue
- -0.490 -0.030 0.274 0.417 0.145 -0.353 I-0.6251
. Flowering Dogwood -0.490 -0.066 0.302 0.397 0.185 -0.377 I-0.6111 Pin Oak -0.390 -0.177 0.415- 0.357 0.309 -0.315 -0.533 lW 5:ssafras -0.545 0.357 -0.038 0.446 -0.137 -0.456 -0.293 Sweetgue -0.333 -0.051 0.391 0.431 0.264 -0.371 -0.591 +
Shirley Control (location 3) 5 Wind 5 Wind 5 Wind From From Over Relative Speed Cooling ISpeclef, the Estuary Precip. Dew Point Hueldity Temp > 25 mph Tower (225'-270')
- Black Cherry -0.598 -0.368 0.121 0.245 0.036 -0.447 t-0.6841 Blackgue -0.554 0.026 0.196 0.437 0.056 -0.428 l-0.639) ,
7 Flowering Dogwood - - - - - - - Pin Oak l-0.6091 -0.0?! 0.240 0.401 0.073 -0.533 (-0.6551 Sus **as - - - - - - - Sweetgue -0.572 -0.085 -0.291 -0.449 0.077 -0.555 -0.258 I Nof .e I(1)Correlationcoefficientswithanabsolutevaluegreaterthan0.602aresignific are identified by ( ). (-) Not collected at this location. Itr89-40314 8704611 14 September 1989
E. E-E E E E E E E E E E E E E _ E E E
~
k a i i TAal.E 3-15 , i PEARSON PRODUCT leENT C018tELAT10lt COEFFICIENTS ' d SETWEEN TE CONCENTRATIONS OF.SG)l180 (les*) AfD
~
CHLORIDE (CI ) IN FOLIAGE Als TE EASUIED DEPOSITION RATES IN THE VICINITY OF MPE DEEK GEIERATils STATION DistilIG TE-OPERATIONAL PERIOD, leAY TO SEPTBSER 1987 Als 1988 i i Na* Cl~ Species Location I location 2 Location 3 Location 1 - Location 2. Location 3 Black Cherry 1-0.7491 0.029 -0.402 -0.385 -0.091 -0.292 , l l Blackgue -0.443 -0.103 -0.442 -0.067 0.056 -0.138 j ..J Flowering Dogwood -0.196 0.016 - 0.016 0.047 - 5 Pin Oak [-0.6471 -0.273 -0.498 -0.133 -0.219 -0.270. i Sassafrass I-0.8211 -0.472 -
-0.051 0.183 -
I sweetgue -0.204 :-0.307 -0.167 -0.161 -0.108 0.311 ! 4 l Notes: (1) Correlation coef ficients with an absolute value greater than 0.602 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified t>y 1 1. (-) Not collected at this location. lu89-40315 87C4611. 31 August 1989
~ . . , _ . .. .. a.,_ ._.._,_.-_;.___. ,.
i 4 b l TABLE 3-16
- PEARSON PRIMlUCT DElpENT Cof5ELATl0N COEFFICIEffis SETifEEN Tif CONCElfTRATIONS OF $4BitSt (Ne') AfG OE_0 RIDE (Cl-) IN Fot.iAGE Ale RIMER OUTPUT LEVELS AT TIE l(IPE DEEK EIEllATIIE STATIOlf OtstIIS TIE' OPERATIONAL PERIOD, etAY TO SEPTUeER 1987 Ape 1998 6
Na* C1~ l Species Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 i , Black Cherry 10.707) 0.446 0.266 -0.511 -0.574 -0.302- ,. Blackgum 0.455 0.357 0.194 I-0.8271 I-0.7841 I-0.8181 l Flowering Dogwood 0.431 0.383 - I-0.8481 1-0.7781 -- l Pin Oak O.458 0.126 0.203 -0.758 -0.460 'I-0.7101 Sassafrass 0.244 0.397 - I-0.0921 1-0.9181 - Sweetgum 10.6231 0.297 0.259 l-0.7491 1-0.647! I-0.4861 Notes: (1) Correlation coefficients with an absolute value greater than O.602 are significent at the 0.'05 level and are identified by i I. (-) Not collected at this location. ! Iw89-40316 87C4611 31 August 1989 i 1 a* * *Wf aanesm'_ ___e_s-_-'.:__ m- ____.--._u' -_.
g gg g g g:_g g' g g g g ,
, - . TABLE 3-17 :
.SIGNIFICAlfT $0Dit90 ClKELAT10N COEFFICIENTS :
, FCft PRE-OPERATIONAL AIS (FEltATIONAL $0Ditte (90e*) O(BEENHRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN TIE VICINITY OF TIE HOPE (3EEK GEletATRIS STATION -
, 80AY TO SEMEleER 1987 afb 1988 y.
Power 5 Wind From ~$ Nind Speed i Mind From : Output Sodium Species Over the Estuary Prec!pitation Dem Point Humidity . Temperature > 25 mph Cooling Tower III Levels III Deposition Na* Location 1 l Black Cherry +(o) . . -(o) '- ! Blackgum -(o) -(o) Flowering Dogwood -(p) +(o)
- Pin Oak .
-(o) l Sassafrass .-(o) .
j Sweetgue +(p) Na* Location 2 i i Black Cherry -(o) -(o) Blackgue Flowering Dogwood +(p)~ ' Pin Oak Sessafras l Swestgue +(p) N3* tocation 3 B;cek Cherry , Bleckgue -(o) Flowering Dogwood i 4 Pin Oak +(p) +(p) -(o) SEssafrass l Sweetgue NOTES j o = operational data p = pre-operational data (1) only tested for onerational data
+ = significant positive correlation
- = significant negative correlation Iw89-40317 87C4611'
, ..- , . . . . . . .,-,e.. .- . , . ; .. , .
_., '::m TABLE 3-18' 5" S!GeliFICAffT DILORIDE COIWELATION COEFFICIENTS L ,"
~
~#'
FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL. AfD GPERATIONAL,OILORIDE (Cl ) (IIN(lENTRAT10NS' IN FOLIAGE (XILLECTED IN TIE VICINITY OF Tif HOPE'UEEK EIERATilIB STATION NRY TO SEPTEleER 1987 AfD 1988 Power J Wind From 5 Wind Speed i Wind From . Output Chloride: Species Over the water Precipitation Dow Point Humidity Temperature :> 25 mph Cooling Tower IU Lowels III Deposities Cl- Location 1 Black Cherry -(p) . Blackgue -(p)/(o) (-) Flowering Ocguood -(p) - (-) Pin Oak Sessafress -(p) -(p)- .(-) Sweetgue -(p) (-) Cl~ Location 2 Black Cherry -(o) (-) Bicckgue -(p) (-) (-) Fic.ering Dogwood -(p) -(p) (-) ~(-)- Pin Oak Sassafrass -(p) -(p) (-) Sweetgum -(p) (-) Cl- Location 3 Black Cherry -(p) (-) Blackgue (-). (-)- Flowering Dogwood Pin Oak Sassairess (-) (-)- Sweetgue (-) NOTES o = operational data p = pre-operational data . _ . (1) only tested for operational data
+ = significant positive correlation
- = significant negative correlation Iw89-40318 87C4611.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ ___ - -- . . . . - - - . _ . - . - _ . _ - ~ _ ~ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ .-m__ __ -
R..-m-
.s i ffj ,
~ ,.r.w x % . '
-.- -o .-
h_ .. p
~ .y
' \ \-
n C , ,_ . . . 3_% :F.( .. r Y.C; ; * ?v
~ ~o . w-z. -
t :.2. .g.
. - q45: % ,,e , . ' L he
.: c. .y le.,,l,,a - Q h:- % '.j
; . .. IM.Y..f'~h..y;*%.\5$$-
e.
-f,..
g h;... M.:) *\T
~ ,
.*-- ..a. ,. - - .
3-: .
.:- .-q.g*.: . :. - .
.' 3y 9. .
*..2 . .e - .- . . . . <. ; - .~ -
.t . =. . . J. .:. '.
- y. ;.;.% . ' yS.'a-Q
. g :- [._.. %
"'-}
\ -.
Y* 3
@ h ,* lk.). . & '
$ ';:.* 'Cf -
aa :
.5y*~ .m ;:: e .%.k ls= &+vm,,.I nV > .. x . #
c %- 4 .s. D Q,W.. . ,jt? =.. ' .~... . .$ ? 5'*.;- Q .*.. .*^ .e j p. i.% 2, '~ . '
- I 4 !
F*;- - a ;.VC SY- '+i
.W dw.. :?
- i ~. '. . */ .'\. - O f Q[' f 2 i. -
/
n yM
- 5 W- 4
'- y
.h 7_..g.> fd-W-g<.a'
. ..r: .
P .s.mu
- e. .-
. **- R,Wg.".. fT 1.
M 'c ,
.' . +
<, * * : ^
^W
)
. ?-l~ IW 4 -t &:'* k. . 4%
1 Cs'.$. n- *
.. :,V.T_
. . + . .~ ~ -
s
.~
+ .;"' '
r
> %.s
+
.+ . _4fs .-.
./
,+ -
- _. -? . . , .
m, u - q. A u [. ' ,,
~ ~. b ;_ ,
) :
. .2 . ..h. i T? .l ' ? .
L. .y >$ . Y.*n .~* '
..Y 4 e s .$.Y
...~ **
. f*- f-T ~ C.+:
. 5
- l?. k i-$5 -hk',k '~-;5
" .%.'}~{.T. s.-
.~.~
'. ~*" ' ~N %-; ~< %.
I N. Q'.Yb hf.*[~-='E f-}. :& :. *+ ; ;.f', . *
- 4 % y Q y ;.: ? :.z+f. :f.r.g. ( k.
,s i:. WM
- w-:2 c;3 3
-- -r- g COOLING HCGS + v. . . * -%nk$
..~ ,
-a -.'*+V. i- +. k'+.+: w.,._J 3 ,.-
'-:+ ..u 1".i,
+4..,. %. . 4.c . - e+ .c-e. . . . .. ' +k.- - sw l-TOWER t ' .
e ; s ~ r5.'- i' 'r.+ e f .+*: .:.4.. .. . i.e.2s . . "~ . :. -
+"
- T,
; ..,s: ( y.[(*. .Tt .<i+. %[.v. . y.. >.
~2 *.
-:,r}.,
,. . * *p g
'-f A,]. ~
Y u ' -M * -
%:,;;j{f: ;
~
,.-M ..
so f .i j: a +, (p 9(ff f.%ex W(~~ gP
- d. \ -:- -
. .% -J-Tr~{_.~\ & :. 5. . 3
,i S
{ ** POWEEPLANT ' *~O
~
~~
E -
/q#.d \. . .
. . v .*
1 . .:
- .Y.2 :: ::-J. u / wW- f $
. . . :- - L - z.
\ypE.g., '.; z.;n. . '
' : f.* '-17 . . . $.@. . .(on + .
r *
-u ..- _ ~ ~- .+
. 9-S ;ny Poinf
.._..(-. A f e.,.- ..,,; -.'w g.,3 % .,.
f
, ,' ' .3 'Cf W. ,,7,,} ',. .., .A J !
, t b A : ";.*, . Y e' ;'
[L - (,'\-h . e; p- w[Y .g. * .: . . . . -
.,. .I " .* 9; C..-
p ~ ~T- - .. .+- * . . ;.
~.
- y. h V
.Q y , . -
1L ' ' G jf T - *. MAP SOURCE: USGS 7%" OU ADR ANG LES. T AY LOR'S BRIDG E. APERTURE. r,*
*( . Wl I.
A,-
.' .+4.V w.
-.'. -1b,.[S
~*fr
(=, i DE LAWARE-NEW JERSE Y. CANTON, NEW JERSEY-DE LAW ARE QQQ {. , ,, g - A
- l. ,";, ,. p' '
f J.. -j Also Available On Aperture Card j f i f *- N
..i,
. SC ALE : 1 IN. = 2000 F .'
f
.= w 1
NL. . ;.T.+ . *f ' l'l f * ' i '** - {- %Q tlA g -+ ja.[s.
*. . . . . sso [. 4 -
<r . ' L.M:. m. m nn w in.K:
+*
. 5 . ,' ', g, . ','b '
. v., . .
- 4 L Q .' .
s \.
, . /. ~
9,**.',/{*s;+* *
, js ,
f - f ,,'- ? i L'> .;q~ .
. ,':(l, , . .' '
, n.-
-'+ , ' .
*+
- m 2. >
's) L o,tu s t M.eadow 3; g. . . . . w+.
N y , .'3 3 h~~
,, c-,
r '. m., ~ f.
.s . . -. , - - .
/
t y p 'i
, . ,,i
....-+%. ~ 'h,r'.~ . ,
)t
+V - . y #. - . :
(:E-lJ.1-
^ * * ' ~
. ** ~. % ' -
v ,. ... . j
- u. .4-f,
~,,,.** c. .I
. .. , , -l'.
(
<. f y .' ~+ .. As , .{ *- ef*- '*' '
'~^\p' s . -
~.:t :~- ~N. . .[. .
e
. .s. .:.e . . .: . . :, , ,.
.;,e:. :.3 ~~ ...~- ~
~ o
.*.en .". .; . .
.o
*" ~ * ,
e . * . * =e
.v:e . ..j,. ' ; . . ,Silve r.;L h..e - ~ y; *i .- .
e.
- y. .,
. + .: *. .,, . -
- .. ~..,- me .
. :. :- ~.7. -
/ (s s '. . ' %
._ :: h . .-..:..*:.,.. p - '
, . A,;.
~*',p ,*,'N # f. i Mead O m f . ~.'.~,p,E,~.;:?.
--+t' ,;t
~
+~.'.,,-v: h.. 4)
*')*E q' .,-- '-
I5 x S
-}h* La
- e.
'f'e.s ..f.
% .n
,A \,
. a,. - *-.
+a . , :.s... .
y.. ..
., , {~i*Ib~*_
- w . .,. . .. . .,
~n.N
- f. ~ p
- . . r. . .. .
s . . , +
~*
. . . .s
** <- ' 4 4 .' 't. rk [ . ,
I* '
. * ~ , ,.
~
l * . ,
~*
f ~ Nm
^
'i),t k.%.'; f %oT .
~- i
' ' ' ~.~~[
_~$$$h)\~~ g
. # pr 4 f -
i,
.hO .: - '.. .;-
p, _~+ e
-1
\
- .,, 7;* - -
-..~;~~- _
'w--
~
5.-[.'. .~. Y, s. . Tv .. : . 9,... l?. +- '.c w .fk ' ^
*B2 N: bEbt.M*
^
* $ N *e..e.
%g'g. 3R
* . b*.C ;.
. .4 ,i.b.
k
. # ;_** 'l-e-
. b .f~.I' "W
.. N**'; ."* *: . . . . .N%~.
,\
g .( Q. . lUK,- Q(*i .( :- g g .$
- ;_ o.
' WQ;+ .
,=~ .
R ;Q: w
. b ,... .x=.~. : f. - w. :& .... . :,4~. S'* ?.: ...
e-
- .. + .
s
. -+ ;.
e f.;;
= . ! E1 s.
.- g 6
+ . uk.C~ Y:~ + s T v. . .e..;
-T .
p =, j
% ~T
\
;..- %, . M[ q ? 4.t.y.
-i . ; - +:- -g.l
+ #y;. x h'd L " M.@e, - l .W W::M... C..
= . m: ~ . 3 a :.. ? ' - -
. q. .y{,. g?- .
^
*; W ; ... . . ' , A ..e :
..,# ;.,.*.* Q* C ~.*K. ;4 ;
. . . .. h. (.*I
. ..*I [ $: c,
. i a~ ~ * . . , ,
n w .. . _ . .-; ; +:...... >:..,:. _~.
# ', 7
- g' . pn-* .
;h\,, \,g.f*._ ,
.' .gt
'h *#
#'. g*;.
. g. a . /. - *; .
. ,. , - . * 'as ""4- % , . .~*b , *7 *" . *.';. ..f*- ,.'g
, . 4 '* y - r ,. .. ..T.
f;. . *
~.
. .y, y, ,-v [*;, , *3 .. . o..c -[4,4. **-. . , ,g['f.,.
- 7. v.
i l. g. h @. v~h .%. i @% &.p- a .M. .dl # m,- Mpp$.y@&.' . df
? -
gy%4f..%'. Q. e) =~ '. .: Q p" q.x
. Q , p . ,'t;. W m,z.f*qQ *d g . p.e
., . , a p f.e W qQgh.$,.
J. . ;- > 3 .6 p w: g#gf .-;
%~ v -
g.
/s
&W' 0 s %5 .NI ' .' R ~.jy y
. : 6 @e&QQe:.&e,y,
... 4..c.. p&
&..m#
- .. M-M.s g
-~
( :~1 v
\ yA-4.9
- c. W. x . n %yJ. +s' . p -<w,.
T,3. -t 1
.,.s e r s
e.
- a. .. % --
m v.pm v ; y .o x.py, .3 C = ':."g.s -. p@. ' ' .,.:I AZQ fy l Y(* s. )c:-3 .pL -. .
~
<W.; O, m'. - 1 ~ . Q, .,tf..?*. ..R..s ..{.w.. Q/. . h.X. . ^
d . J. .\ y . _' ..m; Yp k.%. h, W s
'f M d .' W;[ /, r7 tk'
" "' ^ ""^" '
. f
- FIGURE 3-1 P I D 3 b p k o 'J.s y
3. l )
, i f W 4 y ~Q ';.sw L,cggggg .
)
g hk'""h iP ,,f g).Im [3k,,'f( I_ f = 4rd&"dit"L A;%
}
t}*~~.L +f'f 8
)
l c,,,2!., M '~ ' < d -
!.l,2 ' ,,
h, ,, , a .s m g >~ v
. 1 T,[p. \#8" #
w.c o. tor j I ,\ '2
' '[
'magiep[ T '
j' a
. ,4 i ..e - g m e .ys .,,4 (g;/
r c .' qD=.e p, ~ y,0 .1,7., ~( g f 5 1
.V;Q
> 7 , .-
[a \
. ..n p%%*yQ ,p' d,,.., v;-y%
l iQ' "#/m [1L,'q, D
- M, t.b'f,,..,y .' .
wg.;-
,_ Q y i ., M', casa'a s ' Qp;:,)
L .a : ,. 4 v...n i#b c: J i
// "= >
;xnm .&s
.i.
'E . l
/g:p - ,
Q ,h; y /
*/
'"~'"-
~... . j,,,h .
./.9 s',s. eim,,n. * .. s u,,
% y:g . _> 6 .,, %',: .
.u e .- s y ,. u.+ ,,\ ,
u.no..
- g. ,':y s 1... g
,l V
$?
h g i f..,,, ,/ -- y$ ?w f N""~ 2 28 y g,. i ' *,*
- k. . . Q.. ,,%p ,%.. , '
N. too, i N. N't g - e.../.. l , i; e
.,1 gg n
y
,s L
.,8 p(.,,.g 44
-m CONTROL SITE l y Q '
p, '888
.%~ ...
N, C .,, .4.N 4 ,
+
g ;; , A. / { y. s e aj,
~
\ LP' \.\
%.g,/p \.,\a 4.)h')y,g4 t'"to" guo
. . .7 %
g i p s
**""' W ' % ha,$1.
-',, nov,,,
- ,,z, s - J \
l-
,,,m
- W' ; ~ 1 Mt ,5\ '
y*'*
- dQ
*oo. *Ee C" \, ) ( swe, pe:f 9
I p ends * (o \ f i- .
,,,r, y .
.. / ,,7,,,, j .
HCos ,
, \ (
; Ceton j S' 8 ge,py,,
CoOUNO f meno .\ sta
- o[n g ,gno,,
\ TOWER e
)
\
xN ,k,,, , s t LS
'N\ "#
cd s 1.f'E ,,,_
} rp c,n o.,,o .
N
~
or.= eg 'f,
\ '/
4 Ns 9' C- NATIVE VEGETATION CONTROL LOCATION 3 APPROX. SCALE 2 I IN. = 6Km FIGURE 3-2
1 .. ; 4.' a -'
' ' # "sj,' ".C -
K k'{.i , R'iff ).,N*, **.'g- .L. '-
.. $g, a .L.
A
.L
[, c ' 'C"
- Y, c'r ni." i,e,.c.:. [ .;.o a .a a .. .o? "'
1,%,. ,, W- */ ;?s. n.: . .L o.,
- .- ~
t
,k 'y ,
rE*,* ., .
- y. .p 3f .. ,!
,o . h ,, .
'y lf C , V,%C.s O*'
i i
- l
) ;. y- ' J/'u *. f.1;, d t,*E *aO C .*'** <> :,, ,fi ,,, e, *e 30, a v
-.4gf.,. .;*.* i,' **Jj,s',f,,G. 0 t,,ef l
. .*:. g'. - 0.J .;' .e .,o c . <Q*O., < ,3. O , - **
,j +.04y.a o r.7,.M t^C- *'J r*J SAMPLE SITE.g .'g/& Q' r , 43.'s;i ,,,g '*s
1 i
I.- 4.
.,c37gwOMA;y6*t.7',',*,!.,Y'? 'f *(;n*r y%o,h
.s
.s9! . o,-e. 9 Xc: .e
,3 r'a. s?e:. >
' 'G *c'f,o. s'#e ,, ,:'li.*c,a 0 co o'o'<'>t A. A ,j a., fa"o- 5u , f r.
,.Ln
.. . ,t. s '!u'3,.
cO4. c =- t * , C 4* a , c.a. o
!a'g 33 sgo, g e,0O t*t c 4:g.u.,,,9 t' 6*s, L{[d t g a ,,,*p* EU, 4 %*
*** NC C 'O sy v J 5,;,r f d
- 52 G $ t. d l
. .4_ to G)Q. p' *
,.Y.'.%%.:
*?
1#Uod't g,gd*$'h ,4
*t ;.A
o' WO ' O*b**r" # . % $l<
g i
.*$h ,
t
',* O ,"/'
ll t.I ,y*
- 0
'L'&
e ah;.U,* N..hC****N Y* O 4'U* 8'"' t >"
,, Q *
;9w ha 7v jg i
.g[ : ~.t .
- ~,
1 . . . a. .. - ., I U , ,p < 2 GRayp[ , . i .'n. ,ge (; c. C , . .. <Y ' . <u'Q p,$ , _ Q ,. , j . Y..a;g;
"q:@:. ' . .?g.'c ech'.ht.[t0 ga 1
c;
* 'U *E'3 s *, U ;,L'
@ C d*,$, ,4'Q '. td' 8 8 04 C .. t?'0 *,* t .O ,c.*l'J c'j"#a* $ s*J #, t
- L,p sc y'
?
MC Dai #'*G'D 3
),,
p r;- Q,.3.* o Q *? e '..D ,,4 i. fiJ, .e;'g c 5 *, gr,'{.j '/j es 6
.'t e 5 eg e ,it-
, e:d . Y ..t' t'i.', ,# '
.I.
Q g,) c s'*h.,;g r,:,,.: e,3 *O
*3,.C .3 w,~.
e
*b.'if o9r '<s to <*t o , 'b o. : ist'c,..,.
,ra.:: ae/o gL. '$J
&rz.i, ,.P.'ca*
s ., c,c. 0 J
~ 0..'c.3.0,ey, c.:*.,,- na,;. s. ,;'
c C en c s- - et/>f% v' t ,- E s: v.: g .99
?,.'f*
la o S i Q.fr.>h. fa -
*'<250p,c;)iQ,.'5.fl,.
*- O,<.:o a 5
9 :' *;*'a a e a S'< $-Rl?.lN.h,.*
'q,su w a :.';;*)ya[<
c2
- ).c y?c <
%. >G.. c 'J,, . .'o&h Q,.e.s n
- r,~ -
---- .ty C.p.
y y ,. *3,
', *'q,y *o '<D .
g ,, cM,,. Q ,* . ' ep i <,5 c -- ' . o~ ovQ w.. s E. t 1ya. g
- .D .S.e <[* $-,,j 19 e * *v' s
[ ., n s(t en Q (,,e , , e ..3 --2 t'* e5 '*Q k.' ,*.d',c 4 o*'a **U.* '..est.~ tb *3 O .* 6a_. th. Y0,;,ti. t
. . 9 1, 9ev .:.. ,,. c E @a
*3
. Oh . eg*7,;'3 . n g a:'D .f .;:,u '1
*.. 6 .DJ:y.,,* N';Q 0,N e
..],,
l - {3 i y*J ' Q e.,,gi . - . i* 9 .:iD r3f2 73 " ts C) p92*CQ M.d. ) - 1
*s 8 l
'.'f) -l :)iep4 ,,
"'C';fe(3ifg'JS'(,.. G'D[O t'2 l~g. g- t' ! , . yf-Q D ..
.3?s.$yGr.o'i,G,'tE,Dw:.Q,h t
Q- . . c.c.ex..
,9 L l
.,0fd' ch'sh I
.:.a .u
&*. .d %
~-
- ,,s.
i
.Sc.* e @,y c N' 4 ,
~
- C)
Q 1.,3 -
*k 1 b *
.L .I Y*
$4'$). '*
og C2 4 . '*C)Q Yf 'S l ~. SAMPLE SITE -** c e oQ'.- 1B 4
.L t: . NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 1 l
scAte, i m. . .oo n L L I. riouRE 3-3
.i P
I ! U1 '4; i I$^ ,
.c l .
1-t 1 3_
'd
;I .)
'L TRANSMIS$40N LINE
.4.,
lm 'l .
'L .js c1 J.k tagtROAD -
1 u .>' t. . . c L 4. ' rs, . , .:, .ROAD _
,o
. . .T. r,1,, 1 *g[gi7,[,.*
i
-gl c; ~ g "t
,, i '#
L .e "'c', SAMPLE SITE. , *aL e ~ ;
- Q,3 , }'U/ c-.a e us'
- :WETLANOS
. <,, a
,C'8#.p' ,',,e CJCSQj '
i~ '
= 0,1,1'
,. ', d ,3 .g
'.
- i OJ , e 43 ' '*y () '
.*D G1,, ,
j~ . L '
'[e.'bb',,, C5 C4 0's ,.
- fi., ,,
- of O' , .; g,9 D *,
~
- ,g,, - , 'c p ,g , J, d-
'o c: c, .c,;, a o ,,. a rgp'rn ',, _, , '1- ,
.; g; L p.:.p y,g,:,. c a sA:,c- e4,*+ ) g) . 2
; E'
- . L .:
; 3,':fM>h *c>?.#.'.br>J>.' 9' ,t
,To.*,*o*e.
' c.'
,'k-
S L' 'I$'.C'f, ? oa cs < t 3: - L kj?'$o
, Q,C),* ;;,'TJ
'6..'9 q ',i' $,' $
(J T} t) 's ,rs 'f,i L Cm ? '5,, , W *,
'ec,' c, CJ C4O '; *g
- C' 4 h,yg' 1 *h, . ?#,r ,'sTJ
- C2 g,,
t 5 @> > '- . ry A
- C1 g *** O C' '
,: q L ,1I,*)n,,,'," j- e'> *e," Q
- J3 O.') c, ,
'C';Cf> Cb C rs ,,G"* .~
- t, r
&s Is 9s
* ., n !.
' C'e'l#,,
I,eJ.C8
- E.
l 4 <,. l I-NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 2 I SCALEt 1 IN.
- 600 FT
(-
' FIGURE 3-4
bw . i LI 2%E[/.50 04:'ifu;},*,o'ci' 5lg[ . t
-' , ooNe, otc},)iid
- u, .w, . e.91/.6:'~,0$. . e,o .
y t4.* .
- egv..'g2 f .<,t) t? C r v ets o
u s si'3 0 .ep ;. g L c: 4 #,'?.*.c,tr.'.i {.c .s, en c i s L. appp f:, ec 4*e[ C c+'qcy ,'. 4 .4 c's :t 4 g
. , s 0: t,g Ju g
, , ca cy
\ kC*' ,0
'$'?$t, C* s's1 Y$
e O c. ' c,3 l-v e,;0'.
+. S+
8'c,c .' O ci o er"O huis"'q(g 20 p*C:c,! c:.'il e.C
*c t L
- ,c w, C e oj' 'ca .nr3,q. e g , ts.t
- 6,a.s 1
, c,c: c o+.;..see.ep J
l 1
)0 u 0'G+ti;,,c.,0
- a. s g.- ,#y. ',$,4. 0 tp,Oof'c'. 48 6 *,G*a
,e :
1 6si c% 0. .o 04 c:in . 9 c,, er , 3 64'o f, b>gG'
*,.o .#. ,5fc:86iop i
?
'c '+
pr't U L h,,Q L.' 36G ,,Dt* *e'g
- oeg;pva,a,,c
- 46,c g dd O', .(*.% l4 -
i
*fe:I) * ,[ 3 '
*
- f#'k .
or, 7 p .7
+
C fytb,dCQ'bhC:f.>.0,g,G,p. l-' t *c 2 i g+ciy o-e o e,Q .w3-te . * ' tt., G c.p; as *(,ne r. c,0), cQ ,,c N .0 r.i I- c, l 2 c f' ' , L i
*w Y,t3's]**: e)O,'.o
)[ I.,Y C."f/
e
, C: O
[g . PSE&G STORAGE YARD O (. C;9
- I' .f#')I." - a 2..
- t SHIRLEY, NEW JERSEY l1g *i
.a O k h~
hU O'. '([ % .:e c.e M o . lLi G + Q,n .M;
?a ? *sU I
t: E t 6.* SJ, e , : ,2,* *: I'g[D0% t, fJ 0 , O.'S' *i!t?
- I:'(a ,'s $ 4'J:
bl
G$'s% v $'Y$
pp')$?[f' 'lIlyf. in
~
,.ciq?'p(
- ry,t lE 1 6 y ,
- 0,#*>kP< a' 0 gi* O 6
-()b,42*;S
~ s' g g%rQng.Q
' , s T Cr i G
., I',,* h ,,0
.s c, y ,cfg,V. .g7e .t .m a ' 5J o t
5O.i* O 0
,i (. > + p-Q, g3 6 GATES 4; .c Cs( P g s -O *.,n'C'i e g',(; oa C 'O .
$og.b ' ',C0* y*b bD"(.*h. i??
t V Y . 8'LC Aca 3 ^( i
'7
#ng ;
blloId:35LE*kh'j !} ' 2
^ f i i t DARETOWN-DEERFIELD ROAD 1
g NATIVE VEGETATION COLLECTION LOCATION NUMBER 3 I. FIGURE 3-5
- . - - .- _ . ~
.,y 3
4 ' :i . .- -i y 1 c , y \ t i i
' ' o' R
d.%S fes**; . v
. a 9. ,C ,:
t J,i O.0
. CC 0,'
c - r
- 7. ' ' O t.*
.N.Q C:o .c
~ AGRICULTURAL FIELD - *c, 'Jl.*j g 'J*f i tj [s . *
L.- ly,vg
's s's Q}'j T
', ,var ** > *. (.si
.IJ,,f)*U?s
'f) 4 SC ,1,-3
.r.e.$.l?. :*
~
- _ J[Ih G* '
. ,M,ec-y;, h ,.
-- . a. ,.
> . .3.:tu2..<. a ,, ,,* : .. .p, f '-
O [.0 '2f ,f,,)<;, o.a,,3h h... **f;- g
- k. Sr) .
so-i-i aC-i-i [* h,, ,[#d.: ,Y*(1
. a.:. .'[.'.y,i '
( . m.G
^a o . ,-, &a ,. . .c
?l; w., . .n o s NN'ik$h.
p'y4 h"FO Y ', '...> .o ' v.8
@o 'dI.O?$h '$-1$f't.f*
G~ t 5!$O C'r'.?J
$thb.S$; h,'?<jh0 $'[N.0
i Is ,w* *em8 .* t.
~ O 'y*E..c;e D n.mm@I'58Nd
.l* t
<S
- 4 ea::s.e <7,C k m;p't,,*s?,t,*t i@s t.
- e 4,.Oc.* n. ** U*
9,, f'
+
?n<<%,*:.$*;.p*,7f/a.4.,*oy.W. n@
2 ad*."J~',0 *' ei DECIDUOUS WOODLANDS
****3* s t/ ca.
's
,oQ.. .'.O . , e;C J ~3 s. -
!s . - *
*e2 * 'e s * . "c.
* ,, ca? r;.*jf'y ,*lQW('C scC',e
, l' o A r . r.
*'9 ., ,4, '*gi.%'"
- ss a;> W h . '. ay;gj"
'l y,0
%,a '<;;..?ss'f'DW-1-1$'*1.'
dbS:
- n. .*> e. 9 'O O 's. s. .Tc C .* ev *
- s s= c c . t'. O e - .. t3 l * * '
4 ,. *
. e.! . r .. . .. . ,,. * .
. .....t KEY:
SC-SLACK CHERRY BG-bLACKOUM i I DW-FLOWERING DOGWOOD FO-PINE OAK sF-sAssAF RAS
, SG-BWEETOUM t
I DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA 1 A LI 4: NOT TO SCALE < FIGURE 3-6
- t 3
6 i I 'l A
'; 'b_m _m___
f i Ys'_ *C' 8E-- - e __,.m_ m: ==4.= _._ _ _J.=: _ es:-m m _. ~= q s T _88.~aur}.g -
,: '.. magm
. =mc:- *_c. .s m _
j 3 :=.^ mc---.m
=~ w_ ec_=J Q_5_ ~_= __=_ s
__::._:=_:n
-w
- - . :_ % _ : ;~
.. g.- - -
s- r 7. '_._
-_- _.= .c m
. d_ _ s. :==<
I y.'. I P_g:- as:
- g= ^CiE .:.2 A-.e-:
sw. c. e m_,_.:,,: ._ a . __= __ h =. e - - :
- m.:- '
_ ?:
-- J-i -*-
_m
._ _: a _
.. =_-g-I _::__
m _ . C- - a.='
' : i.:=_~__:.m ._ _ _ _- a_J _,g __
_-e _.
. A- m=- .=.c - . _.. m RAVEL ,,,_
g_- __- ,-- _.. m 4% ::._ s : m. : 9 .JE" - .,; mE: _ ; : - . I O
-i:~EB s- 4 s.._^:7 -O
- i. E - A :25~'5 _^: )
as:::._ = :: = _ :-'uc _ _.. .= :x: a-__ ._ l -_=.=:._.=-.m.-- ac X l s Lp.j_g. C ,- .=_- _ m " _.mc.- -- -_ a . LP-1-2* -_- P ,QQ] LP.1 3*w .-.g.;r - - NOTE: l.: , _ J - -- l- ' INDICATES TREES SAMPLED IN 1986 .
-"'h: _" ' g. _ k_-wu= ::=E:",",_._-]
p- ' , c_=n.r., _ s_- .. -y C KEY: i ge J, LP-LOSLOLLY PINE
.- u,_,_1 M LP-1-3 LP-1-2 9
t I 1 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE AREA 1 B f NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3-7 1 , _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ . . - . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _
_ . .e . - - .- (y)- - f i i ; IYs i
~1
.= N
{i , h
; y
=,
[ 1 i- . I ' i 1 TRANSMitslON LHIE
- j.
4 l $ :- 80AT LAUNCH AREA g GPO-2-3 d 5 -
. .PO-a- .) -
e PO-a.1,, sc-a-1
.v ,. - w M.-2-1,3 m , ,,,, u,,., g. g; g; , v e no-2-3 8' 6" W "g******y 0* i
^
s
.. . .s ,';"e..F-3-1,-2.
25,0-2-1 9
).o j. , e o .3) , e e 0,, p
,u'I O ,'
t C an O f , ,.,,.t,i
'.O p .,O**, '
c.' s'C'
- c. O' $'
< .s - Q O c.. . . . o a, y~ ,.>, r > U. 'o, c., ,y, ; .
e,e' , w,.., u -M ry n 4'ci*c,.s + f>.c. .?>'c'r'".P,133' W* c, ;, . g, 1:s E
' Y. ' t'; o-a-ag(g,hhcs.y q'l,,A.k'.?5 hf'**-*~*ih+..?$hq,ci,?..
.Y"0.E5,'kh, 9 *i> 0 o 'tf 'th
- d $ 3,,y ,,,f$.Yk g>u3 t
.' T: ' s , i I ' E'
=
. N .,
c,;'2,o% ,,->
, n ,.:p- o .,3atisa.c,-s-a D
'c)',o ,a e c s01:.>, c.c.D,g V"c. .' cn. c> e. ', cs l.+..>.,',e,,ic>
C','~., v u > . cs 0 C C'.' 'c,*s .O
,1- .c,,>7.cn.;p;,,> p,g, >
- cs c 2,
f C)"oc h* a *, oi f
,a, ffi,', '.r,,,,h,,,$5g
, 0.3$.'r' ,c.f. Uoor r
,y y ,:,
,f,
~ I-. 4 '
,e, .: 3 . m o
..,f,:$?Tkpg'r,>c,$,,$'Q~'T{Y,El'*q-g"I[t Rs :s s 0s.?#b c f.
02
.L x a , y,,-
m 's). n,7,,s.,,O p. n w' W.,,aa'o c:.,- j On c i
,C 9,9,c.N,#.'e ue
- .0'.
c [c,'. c, v C. j l .L. 4 .,.C*ft;,09['L cs } gC,G' * - g.'r>]0q,
,f,y,.Q, .n e ',c) 4 ,'Q.. QO O,, Co . ;,.C ,r e
y A "o c' 10.%0-#4e.r9.$'3d,'* 'Zs'oWo- cs" ; L,
. 5
- l. .
!!f.r .i SC-5 LACK CHERRY BG-BLACKOUM i' DW-FLOWERING DOGWOOD PO-PINE OAK 1' sP-SASSAFRAS so-sWEEvouM DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 2 l-
,c l NOT TO SCALE
=
i FIGURE 3--8 y -
----,-+---e .p,g--u.-, , - . , , >,.g ,m,.m, , - , - g-.ee-- ---e-new- +v- wv-$-cu-+yv'- we9
n - 1 N I
.1
.! r r l l
- e. l SHIRLEY STORAGE YARDE t
- : : : : : : : : : : : : : r : r : , y L -
t!
'I k ,
')
..- N h'h??f,c4.<a>.;%
;'r(so-s-s2;:%':n:'e .g.. ;., e a g, c
6:.%l: . $j$flfI e-e s..o
- o c n '. <c G v l
[; *?.3'f'rg'.;k,.qpq.
,sc lfja'*sa:i i;C
.Lc Q.,
o *,o.; ca.}.e, e
,*,h::&@c[.PlS n sa , c.n; 93'*s.v e fqj c;gigh':h,.la;9f;*y
? ,.
ri:
'k:c.'?s t
.fl.1)
'),, o r;, en cc*~ya c;,Qrpe e *;,h a,2 2, ,0~'. Q *-
l 24 g
/ n 'd O 2ea,. 0/c3 v4, c;i c Q ;;c' C,,
3 c g
.a ,. ... t,? s, sa ' D ' , C ','
/lG'@M,*' '-
- ,aw.c.cGee
.0-3-3
,0- _,
- f. Dig n
*81$'jI$Ics$ji3h,?S
*wa.2a% a..*%nchoulbw%.'l). f.9{,a a ;f %2 n : .aM.'A:.::.o..eq.,j<,Sa ';a >a. ae'K
' G ?o-s.
.ggw;'?2 a;. ,?S.,,f,W@i ;W. $cw gc g.llS s g p .aP3, i d.*
C
;4.c,pyB s<.g.3 c.RMgeN us.?a,y y T7 o; L
o
$th,aa?O.'*',,fU w o e.. qe e. . o.b $i.*!We '.;N,o'e:.; :. <r.
N
- c.. g <
E d
?.3 ".! 0..t'$e*e~a e N s'),,*ej?s
- ho,.<>Y. ..-:n w!";i '*-s. 0'?!).'o ,c.'esU s.;'g?c+ v .c*l,f,gp l; h 5 '! Wl a0 *<,0 O~h*J '
I' a a . cae. a *v. ? ,
'O 3 0 <e *
,. , ~
l, ' t
' 4*e . ,, *t /..C g,a.
;'e;,*'C
* *;l <*.:.<=:' 0 6 e ciQ C.:'482> *0 d/ ,J c'ie '3 Rf *
"'t3 i OO ..O . ' c *. c ,;
5'*(S*, ,,,.?0r2 'Q ,','. G < s, ,' f,', ,,. B.C.
. p 3 e (d :*, PP * ' g C , *
" - t, C *', ,0 af , rs G ,,c*j . r)
. t. i t . 'J' '. 82, ,,
s
, , e y rst " *o
. . r nd 3 sc /*
, ; ; ,. . *')*** ,,
* / .O , . ,, ' '
,, a KEY:
BC-BLACK CHERRY [ BG-SLACKOUM
PO-PINE OAK
' SG-SWEETOUM
? 2 1 4 :-, , DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE TREES AT SAMPLING SITE 3 I NOT TO SCALE l -, . I .. FIGURE 3-9
-= . - - . _-. .. - . ., - . - -. , , . - , . . .. , .
j ;.,y a'.. ....mp< +
, u s y '.. a ..,..e-o. = .n.n..w. ,,n,.,s.--.n .. , , - ,,
_,.f
,.t,., -.t 0 /\' 3
,.p g
'< e p' .+s. md'- .d. i1!
h it . 4
- f. m x
,; 1 yn u i5- 1 ;. j. il j 's
,E 'S 1
, . u o ,. m .m + s .y ,
Ni 2#^ ' df '; . 4 ,', 2-g g, N, . o. m%
. !'.i ..
A' , N. .o n..-..-Q: # s , I I Y. 0 -
,7
,kJ. L 1 6 5
, [,hi .
l l) y JM i l3 '
m i w, ,cy, , ~
,i 4
i-y,J w>
'5
?
L 7 4l f ,tl* t < . 'i ?. .,. . .a s- .i." :/ 0
.;. r 1; , ._G,, .
~
' :4 ': l 3 f 4 ,
\ n~ > . ~ . ' . t
. h (T y
l[}, . . , . . ~ *pI
, e't t !
)
t I4.- 4 e
, .-s
-[ I f, f )
i ,[ ,) . ,' e 4 E l L f rI A I ' t,'_q )? f, E '}' l .' 3. a , 17, i
. . g o')
,V , 1ll; I f...v L -
I
-\*,,'- .sc q .
2 I g '( . c, _f,'. ..}'. l I#;i ' 1 ,7 a :' < 74 h :.I
-s y jj \
trs... i , (\ n 1 .t. , ' s , .h. y' .
'$: l, n
.,,, 'f '* ^'
.f k;! I
)[
s \ s c
.j l4 I a-q - .
! t [
10
' ?
i u , r o
+
3 -. t k % , . . , , T [ s: - s y
' i
,.j ' i ? s ' .i . . i l - (,, . i, p=- i e
--?
re v . L 19 . I ( fk
-.-4
>;r.:; q f, s x [ c -[ 7 ; y -e
'2 n ~ , ,. }
.'t -es
- ?
/,. ua. #
4 ' , *[ fiMY.9 d$@E fiM ae %N.% r w, mw; o n<w a.ffM-[;U sM@?@WWo{@mm i no w~, .4 xw us % .-
- $73%%9$$D@w[{$$)[$,d%f &a p
W u d G &qpW+MWa,+s, kN % Y*M [$ %
- g. . $ e. n i ay8, e..k,{U)$[hf@[([m'[
f s . t up .w..pg a < , w-mn_w: gm-Co% )e$n_p]u% v . m% a ; a" 4 w a C+w$. e aQ% Q &e u% dW#YW W .,Wwe% m. g t y y- c a s W OU.a wW %ew.sNOh$d up s mWH ,$. y J~%. . e, 2 mgm p$ 1 $a3%g$uwlW%m1
- $- u%R.# rW p
% a s 7
%a %w . .-
@y ~.
@ % :m.td f<sd.h m, y
.g &w, c iQa
- d. m ,4 h,s$g
. M. - h g @
n' kN nQ _.J;wl. LQ Y w) A Mya? an]W 1, f n%
. .6 ,.
- $(yl d.NG M ~"( a*
f y A Lf;f . e g pp 1 ,nln
'f
& ,n
.. n U $: ^'"g%y? %%hil y y 'W W 5)gMyl L M
M.Q m w< ,& " Spr;? woe:.q My~g@:;y%.
, s g%,., .y yy; y.%: f %,
.9 a.g w $ '
%, , #, ~
'Y uap$h $
m.m:n Y +%hlp f m,h M . m t m .s:s. bf
# QfYhQ Y;Q'fG:n A% . g.gu m h ^U.
MM y,0 k-y.gegg
- q e ; . ,m h A p
,, g a.n a
~0.
- ~ . ;
%y: .n
'Mf,hl We .c .p. g a m op
,ih o m(mllliM&g% 1?M=Q -
L - -
>-,f.-
@e s,W. .ih- %n 1 % ,<"6 .e ,;Q ; < ;X ~ OQM 4
n - ; h., 'p ,A We ~ wNl.e n:l1 p- % i M_ jMs w%-
. . . qp' 1L Y+L, GFs , g
~lq Qf :n --
3 . kI+ E [I n om klk i 4
.g. )z
- 4-c; [' -
d' . i
- r e
i
?
t$ rt* Y q-r ,i, e4e.' s (rw*v3 ..w es ,..,wor,-,.-e.-.
-..wa..,ae. ..m-m, . . . . - . , .
7:n ! i j u ! E SECTION 4 l SOIL STUDIES i 1 ('
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A soll sampling study was conducted in conjunction with native vegetation : samp!!ng (Section 3), in the vicinity of HCGS, during May-September of 1987 and ! 1988. Surface soll samples were collected monthly and analyzed to determine Na+ l and C1' concentrations. 4.2 SAMPLING SITES i Suricce soils were sampled at three locations (1, 2 and 3) corresponding to L vegetation sampling locations 1, 2 and 3, respectively (see Section 3.1). At Location 1, three sampling sites were evaluated separately (IA, IB and IB-A). l Site lA is located in the immediate vicinity of Vegetation Sampling Location 1 ; within a hardwcod forest area in the Mad Horse Creek WMA. Site IB is located l l along the fringe of the tidal wettends area south of the Mad Horse Creek WMA. Site IB-A is located adjacent to a dike that adjoins the WMA. t 4.3 DATA COLLECTION , I Surface soils were collected at each location on a monthly basis during the periods of May through September of each year. Three replicate soll samples t were collected at each of the five sites to provide a measure of sample variability. Samples were collected concurrently with tollage samples. El l Samples were analyzed in the laboratory for Na+ and Cl reported as parts , per million (ppm) dry weight. The results are presented in Appendix C. , l-l Appendix D provides detalis of laboratory methods used in this study. I I tws9-403-4 4-1 87C4611
. 31 August 1989
i e I
,(
i r [ I ! 4.4 RESULTS i Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the minimum average, maximum average and i mean soll concentrations for Na+ and C1' in monthly soll samples collected during l the operational study period 1987 through 1988. In these tables, the minimum and ! maximum concentrations were determined by averaging the three values obtained at a given location each month. Thus, lower and higher values will be found in the data presented in Appendix C. Monthly locational averages for each sampling l location were also und for all other statistical analyses. j I Location IB had the highest monthly aserage and overall mean i concentrations of both Na+ and Cl . This site is located immediately adjacent to I emergent wetlands and has an overstory of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish water from the wetland and/or the predominance of pine litter on the soll surface may account for these higher levels. 4.4.1 Pre-Operational / Operational Comparisons An AOV was performed on the mean monthly Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll for Locations IA, IB, 2 and 3 to determine if there were significant I differences between pre-operational and operational concentrations. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4e3 and 4-4. As shown in these tables, solls l collected during the operational period have significantly lower mean monthly Na+ ; and Cl concentrations at all locations than were found during the pre-operational period. The reason for this decrease is uncertain, but may be related to the '~ drought conditions that occurred during the summer of 1988. - 4.4.2 hananal Trends In order to evaluate seasonal trends in soll Na+ and Cl concentrations, mean I monthly concentrations were calculated for each sampling location. An AOV was I tw89-403-4 31 August 1989 4-2 87C4611
g
' I L
performed on these data to identify significant differences among the months ; (Tables 4-5 and 4-6). [ I Location IA was the only location to have a significant difference for Na+ concentrations in soll. No significant differences in soll Cl concentrations were I identified at the 0.05 level. l Duncan's Multiple Range Test was performed to identify the specific months l where differences occur in soll Na+. Table 4-7 Illustrates the results of this test. l Based on this test, Na+ concentrations in September were significantly higher at h the 0.05 level than soll concentrations in the months of May, June or July. 1 4.4.3 Sostial Trends An AOV was performed to identify spatial differences among sampling locations and the mean monthly soll Na+ and Cl concentrations (Tables 4-5 and ; 4-6). The "$patialF" values shown on these tables indicate that significant i differences in surface soll concentrations of both Na+ or Cl* were found between sampling locations at the ,05 level of significance. I Duncan's multiple range test was used to determine which locations were not l signif!aantly different. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4-8 li and 4-9. As shown in these diagrams, only samples from location IB were found to contain concentrations of Na+ and Cl that were significantly different (higher) I than the other location. Soll Na+ and Cl concentrations at Location IB were more than 100 times as high as concentrations at all other locations. This location I is adjacent to a tidal marsh area and supports a stand of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish water from the adjacent marsh is believed to be the source of the elevated soll Na+ and Cl concentrations at Location IB. No significant differences exist among the other locations. s i I-I tw39-403-4 4-3 87C4611
- 31 August 1989 ,
l
b ti ? 4.4.4 Correlations Between Soll Na+ and C1' Concentrations and j Meteorological Conditions 1 The relationship between concentrations of Na+ and C1' in surface soll samples collected during the operational study period and meteorological factors -I measured at the Artificial Island meteorologic station, were evaluated by calculating Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for the data. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 for Na+ and C1', respectively. The meteorological factors evaluated were the same as those evaluated for the salt deposition and native vegetation studies (Sections 2.4 and 3.3, respectively). Based on these data Locations IB-A and 3 (Shirley control) soil Na+ concentrations are negatively correlated to the frequency of wind from the 1 direction of the cooling tower (-0.659 and -0.663, ".: spectively). Na+ concentrations in surface soll samples from Location IB-A, 2 and 3, are also correlated to wind frequency from the direction of Delaware River Estuary. At Location IB-A and 2 the correlation is negative (-0.669 and -0.812, respectively) while at Location 3 it is positive (0.703). Two significant correlations were identified for Cl concentrations. Locations 2 and 3 C1'soit concentrations were positively correlated (0.871 and 0.664, respectively) to the frequency of wind from the direction of Delaware Bay. 4.4.3 Correlations Between Soll and Vegetation Na+ and Cl Concentrations Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated for each species to determine if cny relationship exists between follar and surface soll Na+ and CL~ concentrations. The results of this analyses are presented in Table 4-12. No significant correlations are indicated. IwS9-403-4 4-4 87C4611 31 August 1989
I I i al 4.4.6 Correlations Between Monthly Mean Soll Na+ c Concentrations and Total Monthly Power Output Levels at the h pe Creek Generatiru Station Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to I evaluate relationships between power output level: at the HCGS and surface soll Na* and C1' concentrations. The results of these analyses are presented in Table l 4-13. , 1 Na+ concentrations in soils at Locations IA, 2 and 3 are negatively ' correlated (-0.636, -0.732 and -0.666) with total monthly power levels at the , 5 HCGS. There are no significant correlations between C1' concentrations and total monthly power levels. 4.5 5UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.5.1 Pre operational / Operational Comparison There was a consistent and significant downward trend in Na+ and Cl* 1 concentrations in soll at all locations during the operational period. The reason (s) - for this decline are not known. One factor may be the drought conditions that 4 existed during the summer of 1988. There is no reason to believe that operation , of the HCGS cooling tower affected the decline in soll Na+ and C1' ; concentrations. I 4.5.2 Correlations Tables 4-14 and 4-15 summarize the significant pre-operational and operational correlation coefficients determined between soll Na+ and C1' concentrations in soils and various meteorologic and HCGS operational data. I All of the significant Na+ correlations during the operational period were negative. Na+ concentration was negatively correlated with the percent of time I' that the wind came form the direction of Delaware River Estuary at Locations twS9-403-4 4-5 87C4611 31 August 1989
I ! i I i IB-A,2, and 3 (the control): with the percent of time that the wind came from the direction of the cooling tower at Locat:on IB-Al and vcith HCGS power output j levels at Locations IA,2 and 3 (the contral). During the pre-operational period I Na+ concentration was negatively correlatest with precipitation at Location 3 and f winds greater than 25 mph at Location !B. j I Only two significant correlations were found between C1' concentrations in { soils during the operational period and various meteorologic and HCGS power i output data. At Locations 2 and 3, C1' concentrations were positively correlated . with the percent of time wind came from the direction of Delaware River j Estuary. There were no significant correlations between C1' concentrations and l meteorologic data during the pre-operational period. Based on conflicting correlations (e.g., negative correlations between Na* , concentration and wind direction from Delaware Bay and positive correlation for : Cl* and wind direction from Delaware Bay at Locations 2 and 3) and the fact that ; significant correlations were found near the site as well as at the control location, these results are judged to be based on coincidental variability of the data sets l rather than impacts resulting from operation of the HCGS cooling tower. I t I i I . I I - I l I IwS9403-4 31 August 1989 4-6 87C4611
I I ' I J
~
TABLE 4-1 MINIMLM, MAXiltti ABC EAN Soll $0DILM (Ne') j er j COMENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATS 0N, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY I OURING THE OPERAT1014AL PERIOD MAY TO SEPTD81ER 1987 ABC MAY TO $EPTDGER 1988 i j I Minimum IU Maxlaum ID Moon (2) Average Average l Locatlon (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) $ ,,l' 1A 2.6 6.0 3.9 , W 18 124.0 663.8 337.5 - IB A 1.2 7.9 3.5 7.0 2.9 I 2 0.2 3 1.0 7.8 4.4 , z-Notes
- 1) Minimum and maximum concentrations represent everage concentrations for three replicate seccles per each ;
location. I((2) Mean concentrations are based on 30 semples. ! I T W E 4-2. MINIMUM, MAXIMUN AND MEAN SOIL DILORIDE (C1~) CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE CREEK OENERATlWG STATION, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY t DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD MAY TO SEPTDGER 1987 AND MAY TO SEPTDGER 1968 I Locetion Minimum Average (ppm) IU Maximum Average (ppm) IU Mean III (ppm) e p 1A 4.4 21.1 10.4 18 270.0 1.534.0 700.0 18-A 2.6 10.1 5.8 2 4.0 13.3 7.0 3 2.9 17.3 7.2 I , N.,.s, 3 (1) Minimur, and maximum concente etions represent average concentrations for three replicate samples per each location. I(2) Mean concentrations are based on 30 semples. Iw89-40341 87C46112 15 September 1989
r. j d', A ; I I TABLE 4-3 ANALYSl8 0F VARI ANCE KTWEEN f9tE-0 PEW 10NAL (1985-1906) Als OPERATIONAL (1907-1908) EAN 90lt SODluN 4Ne') CONCENTRATION $ Ippe) I IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEFst GENERATING STATION SALEN 00UNTY, NEW JERSEY Location lA Location 1B Location 2 Location 3. . Pre-Operational 19.3 617.8 40.2 20.6 Operational 3.9 337.5 2.9 4.4
.F-Velve III' (127.511. 15.561 2.30 (40.461 g
M8 j (1) F values greater then 4.41 in41cate significant differences at the 0.05 level and are cled by 1 1. { I ; I TABLE 4-4 I ANALY$l$ OF VVtl ANCE KTREN PRE-OPERATIONAL (1985-1986) AND OPERATIONAL (1967-1968) MEAN Sell CHLORIDE (CI') 00NCENTRAil0NS (ppe) ! I IN THE VICINITY OF TE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION SALEN 00VWTY, NEW JERSEY , I Location 1A Location IB Location 2 Location 3 I PrC-Operational 18.1 1311.9 15.0 13.3 Operational 10.4 700.0 7.0 7.2 F-Velue (5.961 (5.161 16.391 14.62) i N.te, (1) F values greater than 4.Al Indicate s1pnificant differences at the 0.05 level and are identified by 1 1. IwS9-40343 87C46112 31 August 1989
I :,r i i I 1 TABLE 4-5. ANALY$l$ OF VARIANCE FOR NEAN NONTHLY $0ll $00ltat l (Ne') CONCENTRATION $ (PPW) DURING 1987-1908 IN TE VICINITY OF THE HOPE (5tEEK OENERATING $1ATICN l I II I SALEN COUNTY, NEtt JUISEY
?
i t ' Spotlet F f teonth Location IA Location 10 Location it-A Location 2 Location 3 Value ! Ney 3.3 246.3 3.4 3.1 4.2 3.94 J6ne 3.0 246.2 2.9 2.0 2.9 112.84) IJ01y 2.8- 372.4 3.3 1.7 4.1 115.971 L i I Au9ust' 4.9 451.0 5.0 3.1 5.6 4.40 ,- Septeseer- 5.4 371.4 2.8 4.5 5.3 4.82 ! Wl Seasonal F Value UI (5.72) 0.39 0.24 0.28 0.31 i ( I i N o. : cg t (1) F values grooter then 5.19 Indicate significant dif ferences et the 0.05 level and ere identified by I 1. i t I I
- I I
- I Iw89-40345 87C46112 I
31 August.1989
f t I i t
,i TABLE 4-4. ANALYSl8 0F VARI ANE FOR EAN MONTHLY $0ll 04LORIDE (C1') CONMKTRATIONS (M94) DURING 1987-1948 IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATION SALD: COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Spatial F IMonth Location lA Location 18 Location 18-A Location 2 Location 3 Value(II
}
i
' May 9.6 270.8 6.6 4.3 5.7 (4580.26) f Jine 8.7 354.3 3.8 8.1 6.6 (110.611 t J31y 10.1 901.5 5.1 9.6 8.5 158.42)
' August 14.3 1,248.8 8.8 7.4 10.4 (18.851 -
September 9.3 723.5 4.7 5.6 4.7 (23,0001 , i Seasonal F ' Value UI 0.28 (8.411 1.15 1.03 0.35 I , t Notd: T (1) F values greater then 5.19 Indicate significant dif ferences at the 0.05 level and are Identitled by i 1. I I I : I I I 1:09-40346 87C46112 31 August 1989 I
4 f TABLE 4-7 OUNCAN'S Itt'.TIPLE 8tANGE TEST FOR SEASONAL [ .g IELATIONSHIPS IN Soll 9001191 CONCElmtATION AT LOCATION 1AIII, [ .g I et4Y-SEPTitSER 1987 AM) 1984 l ! HOPE CfEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY , !" i May June July August September I i Concentration (ppe) 3.3 3.0 2.8 4.9 5.4(2) ! l i l' I- tiotest i
. (1) Only months with significant F values were tested. See Table 4-5 for F values.
(2) Underlined velves are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance. . I .
- I t
l~ oI LI . g
-I It99-40347- 87C46112 31 August 1989
l
-. i
)
I l TABLE 4 4 DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATI AL I RELATIONSHIPS IN $00ltM CDNCENTRATION IN S0ILS HOPE DEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEM 00UNTY, IEW JERSET 1987 1988 { l I ,.n. Location: IB 1A 18.A 3 2 Concentration (ppe): 246.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.0 III t I ! 1 I July i Location: 18 3 IB-A 1A 2 III (. Concentration (ppe): 372.4 4.1 3.3 2.8 1.7 Notes: (1) Only months with significant F values were tested. See Table 4-5 for F Values. (2) (!nderlined values cre not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance. I I
;I I
gitB9-403Tl 87C46112
.31 August 1989
F~ I, TABLE 4-9 " l DUNCAN'$ MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR SPATI AL ; I RELATIONSHIPS IN CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IN SOILS ! HOPE GIEEK GENERATING $TATION, $ALEN COUNTY, NEW JER$EY l 1987 - 1988 l I g(l) i ILocation: 18 1A 18.A 3 2 < t i f Concentration (ppe): 270.8 9.6 5.6 5.7 4.3(2) ; June f Location: IB 1A 2 3 18-A -f I Concentration (ppe): 354.3 8.7 8.1 6.6 3.8(2) t l t July } Location: IB 1A 2 3 18-A \. Concentration (ppe): 901.5 10.1 9.6 8.5 5.1(2) t !. September l ( L' . Location: IB 1A 2 3 IB.A l l . Concentration (ppe): 723.5 9.3 5.6 4.7 4.7(2)
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . - . .
l. I Notes (1) Only months with significant F values were tested. See Table 4-6 for F Values. l (2) Under1ined values are not signlfIcontly differont at the 0.05 level of signifIconce. I g~ 3 l l~
- I It89-403Tk 87C46112 I.31 August 1989
*
- e r sw mevw yew'-e _-m--. -.__. _ . _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ . , , _ _ _
4 . 4 TABLE 4-10. PEJutSON PRil0UCT IEBENT CluuELATICII DIEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SO4L 35 Hist (No') COIIENTitATICIIS AfD JWCTIFICIAL ISLAIS WEAIDER DATA HOPE DEEK GE9EMRTIIIS STATION, SALEM COUNTY, IEW JEftSEY ImY-SEPTE9EIER 1987 AIG 1988 l Percent Wind 5 Wind from 5 Wind from i from Over Relative 5 Wied Spese Cooling Tauer Cooling Tauer the Estuary Precipitation Dew Point Humidity Temperature > 25 mph (247.5*-292.5*) (225*-270*) i i ! tocation 1A -0.404 0.070 -0.057 0.227 -0.146 -0.332 -0.324 - ' i tocation IB -0.517 -0.225 0.376 0.405 0.257 -0.517 l-0.704I - Location 18-A I-0.669I -0.460 0.120 0.109 0.076 -0.210 1-0.6591 - ! Location 2 I-0.812I 0.038 -0.100 0.413 0.248 -0.505 -0.616 - Locetion 3 10.705I 0.034 0.187 0.593 0.001 0.531 -
-0.e63 III i
plota: I (1) Correlation coef ficients with absolute values greater than 0.632 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified try ( I. t 6 1
- Iwe9-40348 87C46112 l 31 August 1989
4
; TABLE 4-11. PEARSON PRODUCT 9WENT ODf5ELAT10N CDEFFICIENTS ETWEEN S0tt DeAtt0E (Ct")
CONCENTHATIONS AfD NtilFICI AL ISLAfD WEATEN DATA HIFE DEEK GEsemTIIIS STATION, SALEN COUNTY, EN JERSEY teRY-SEN 1987 AfD 1988 7 Percect Wind 5 Wind from 5 Wind tree i from Over ikIative i Wind Speed Cooling Touer Cooling Tower the Estuary Precipitatfor. Dew Point Humidity Temperature > 25 mph (247.5*-292.5*) (225*-270*) 4 Location IA O.623 0.306 0.237 0.078 0.244 0.267 0.220 - 1 3 i
- Location 18 -0.166 -0.208 10.6951 0.363 0.614 -0.171- -0.605 -
[ i Locstion IB-A O.146 0.087 0.101 0.210 0.043 0.593 -0.441 - I l i I.ocation 2 10.8711 -0.120 0.480 -0.292 0.613 0.160 -0.511 - f i Location 3 [0.664I 0.227 0.440 0.118 0.451 0.052 - 0.468 ! l seota: i t (1) Correlation coefficients with absolute values greater than 0.632 are significant at the 0.05 level and are identified by i I. i l i tw89-40349 87C46112 l 31 August 1989 l i
- + - . . . . ., . , . - , , ~ , - . . . - - ,.. -- ,---, _ . . , , ~ - - . - - _ _ _. _ ,. - .-=. - ._._____-- - - - .-__ - _---,.
k I :' h l l TABLE 4-12. PEARSON PRODUCT NONENT 000ft[LAT10N COEFFICIENT BETWEEN SOIL 06e* AND Cl* CONCENTRATIONS AND VEGETAil0N Ne* AND Cl* !' 00NENTRAT10NS AT TE HOPE DIEEK GENERATING STATION, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY , MAY-$EPTEleER 1987 AM) 190s
$pecies- Ne* Cl* .
t Black Cherry 0,0e7 0.369
? ,
Blackone 0.068 -0.342 Flomering Dogwood -0.234 -0.478 f Pin Ook f 0.00 0.138 Sestafras 0,021 0,373 Sweetgue 0.025 -0.266 I s N I.t., No significant difference et the 0605 level alth r = 0.632. i I, I . r 1 I .I I Iw89-40340 87C46112 31 August 1989
1 I 1 I I l l TABLE 4-13 PEARSON PRODUCT MONENT 00fulELATl0N I COEFFICIENTS SETWEEN Soll $00luN (He') AND CHLORIDE (Cl*) CONCENTRATIONS A80 RMER GENERATION LEVELS AT HOPE OfEEK GENERATileG STATION MAY-$EPTDGER 1987 AND 1908 Ne* C1" { Locatlon IA (-0.6361 0.325 LocetIon 18 -0.542 -0.124 Location 18-A -0.360 0.233 Location 2 1-0.7321 0.447 Location 3 (-0.6661 0.354
.ete, I(1) Correlation:oefficientswithanabsolutevaluegreaterthenL.632aresignificantetthe0.05levelan 16entifled by i 1. .s I .
!I I I: 1 89-403T4 31 August 1989 87C46112
, _ _ _ . . . . . . . . - . . _ , _ . ~ . . . . _ _ _ . . - . . .. _ . . . _ . . , . . . - - _ .
_ . _ _ _ . - _ _, _ _ _ . .- . . . _ _ . ~ _ .
._ _ _ .-_._--___._._ m ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . , ,
W W
.E~ E-1E.. '
W W W W W W W p- . Ms 4 4 'i % TABLE 4-14 SIGIFICAlfT SWitSI C155ELATHBI CREFFICIENTS Felt FIE-41PEIIATicIIAL Ale (FEMATICIML SEHLS DATA Power 5 Wind From 5 Wind Speed K Wind Free. Output vegetetten Site Over the Estuary Pracipitation Dow Pbint Humidity Temperature > 25 mph CoeIIng Temer Lowels Sedlee Na* lie-Operationet j IA 18 (-) i 2 (1) (1)
! 3 (-)
i Na Operational i IA (-) 18 (-) j 18-A (-) (-) 2 (-) < 3 (-) (-) I 4 ; peots: j (1) Only tested for operational data. t l 1 4 l I IwS9-40342 87C4411
- 2!
. - , - . . . . . _ _ . - - -- . _ - . . , . . . _ . _ _ , _ - . , . , . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . . . . . _ - _ . . . ~ . _ _ _ , - - . . . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
E E E2 E E E E E E E-E TMILE 4-15 SIGIIIFICMIT Otelt10E CINUELAilWI COEFFICIEIRS F0ft ME-CPEMTICIIRL AfD GPEMTICIIAL SOIL DATA . Power 5 Wind Speed 5 Wind From Output wegetetten i 5 tfind From Over the Estuary Precipitation Dew Point Humidity Temperature > 25 spei CootIng Tower. Levels Delories ! Site Cl- Pre-Operational I' i ! 1A i 18 (1) (1) a
- 2 i . 3 1
i i l Cl ~ Operational I3I 4 , IA IB + 18-A 2 +
' +
i 3 1 i i i j flotcs: j (1) Only tested for operational date. I (2) No significent correletion coeffIclents. 1 i i i l=69-403T3 SMll s 4
, . . . . -. . . . , . , . . - . . _ . . . . - - .- . - . , _ _ - . . _. ..... _ .- . _-_ ~ . . . - . _ - , ~ . _ . . ~ . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ . ~ - . . _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ -
& Jap 4.M.h ua 4 .J.-m'.AFeJM+L
- e e G m.5'M.=4d.M.+e C4 .% 1p.e.'.344--e4 -.e.W+s d '
, $ h (
. y r . i s t 9
F ' h k i > I< t .
< s 4
L j
- e. q
)
- a i
f ( , t ( t
'q I t i l a- ,
5
& i i
-% .. p
.I f
l .h 1 1 , s . e
-)
I
.- i f
' 4 I
t
?
b , i s l
.i F
Fl . p: I-
. -- U. . -1
[ .. i t, l> 0 e '? f m* ww nw-W #wdwm w ?am 4 emapmMar" var'p. ' +mm c N <W ;p >w> r.',m4p9- mW UCRr n
,x s Q,% pp i ,.= l %
W ' ~
- 1. w ,
,
- lj.g p- "%
o .f. 1
. o s
~ fs ,Sff' ~ .
c
',x >tu., 3 2
y r , -;a- sit <9:. m m,
, : 3 4, . O g - ,s, A p [< o, 09- -
N, ,f< ;.g u. .e ,g, 7,i ;,1-0 . . , -t ,,.v > - . .gw, _ v , r,i.
- i . =a' 7 1
o 4
,s F
.r .. :: -
o... r3; 3 .b
,-,'3- 4 ,
<3 i ~
'- . ....g
,').' 1-i .y i p- e-v4 .,[ ..p s
V s>
, t ,
;-[ - .Ii i; /sd ,-
o'.ts t'g ' 4 g
.[...
' t' ,
y4,4 y' ' a- p,p - 3 c t, h; q -& ,. ? I
, h.'v. } }. .,..,i e s_.p r " ". 4 p- -* .,, _i '?, p .6 3
.; [ ],yn,,
\ 4 i' g $'
i, -, g , L, , p ., \ .n .. ; s <.,>. 4 - y 6 7- 4 v.- Q .,-,,y,y r, i ]', p .[
, i o i- 2 +
to,..,..-, . t m.1,. , , 4
^3'
- v. .q . 3 ,,a, Atme, q .t > A , .l .;39. 34 4 3 ;c . %. p g *;/i:i?*2, ,
, cf;;, , s,. .
.f
.p 3 ij. :: r4 b; a
( m s , , . s ."1 ;4 t ,. y .4 , . , , k m'i) . .
, , I' i
- l. ~k ^.
.I
-Q V'j y g i $ d'. .s{ 'M + ji,4, \ ). , .< ,I ' ' .-
_I
; g 7'
@ '3, ,' %'...%
,, r i+- i 1s. i
.' m ny . vi: 4,.g- >
<-.a -- u f . m' 7y.
. 4, J ,i a, : ,
, 1
, f y .i 9 ,
)' ~ f, ) % g
'y' t .NM.1 aq~ ?. . $ t 6 .*> +~<t '
1,
". ,LS 5
-0 -
P ;'
,r -
+ , <...
l jf s ?{&,' $~: ' r- l& l? s .3 0
-Q. LU,T kD x 5 : . ,~ ui *y lQlo...
J j;O ; f ly ,*T. vf: . - ^ f .r,. .c w e .:,a . 1 1 a
. i.sn Uw +s
- Y f .; , %, a i - -: ,
f;T i d ', *
.>m. 1,? +.: h.a;d.4J _, s ! j' s , 3 ..-
m n. d.:N un dr , . . y, ".O.
- s 4
<4 e-m. .,. ; e.
3
,4 n ,
, ,, - .,g. g - , e
,m, . v .// ,'
_..,,'ga - , . <-f'f,.:: :-. ,Wc ,
._-6
- 1. .
4-
- j. ,
s
% r s . s an gp; d . ; g . ; r i,y '.(1.- ,7 j [?-3 a yz
> ; s s, s j 7_' .,.< 1 t
,a' ;; u .y,.i ew m
.* j ,i, ,
g,
- v : ,
I, oy .? Ni tydW W,5<NNED t .: N
.g, , s.
$i& ^O$, $ N bN L ' i % *1N
- v s + iS N i"
.- , ., 4 N"*
r s
* / , "** M $ i
- i 1
l I 4 a...%..a.m., , ,v,.w.ww,*w,,,,-_ .-,.-w,___m_.,--m._,.
~ -
I ! r SECTION 5 RELATED STUDIES ! I The availability of data relating to the salt drift eifects is limited. A number l of studies have been conducted concerning the levels of salt deposition that cause l-damage to vegetation and the detection of such damage (e.g., Shipley, et al 1980: McCune, et al 1977 Williams 19751 and Talbot 1979). Studies similar to those f J ' conducted at HCGS have also been conducted at several other generating stations, L including the following o Crystal River Plant (Florida Power Corporation) , o Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Mississippi Power and Light Company) o Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility (Potomic Electric Power y l Company); and , l A summary comparison of data from these studies as they relate to the HCGS i l study are provided in the following sections. 5.1 CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT SALT DRIFT STUDY A salt drift study has been conducted at Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Plant since 1981. Located on the Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida, two of the five units that comprise the plant (four coal-fired units and one nuclear ; unit) utilize hyperbolle natural draf t cooling towers for condenser cooling. The c water supply for the cooling towers is saltwater. Data presented in the Crystal River Salt Drif t Deposition Monitoring Annual I Report 1987 - 1988 were reviewed. This report covers the sixth and fourth years operational data for Units 4 and 3, respectively . Table 5-1 presents the Lf I IwS9-403-5 5-1 87C4611-4 I I /
)
I ; i minimum, maximum and yearly averas;e Na+ and Cl deposition rates for the period September 1987 through July 1988. I All of the minimum and mean values presented in the Crystal River annual report are higher than the minimum values found in the vicinity of HCGS. With a I few exceptions, the maximum values are similar. These higher values may represent differences in ambient deposition rates near the Crystal River Plant, which is located near the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the 1987-1988 Crystal River Plant report, salt deposition for the period is about 38% greater than would be expected naturally at the site with an apparent decline in salt deposition since the period 1983-1985 (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.1989). l Quarterly inspectione d native vegetation growing in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant were atso conducted during the period 1987-1988. Vegetation monitoring consisted of observations for gross physical changes in selected l Individual plants of species representative of the vegetative communities in the I area. None of the leaf injury observed in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant during 1987-1988 was attributed to salt drift injury. Leaf damage resulted j primarily from insect chewing (KBN Engineering and Apriled Sciences, Inc.1988). 5.2 CHALK POINT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY - The Chalk Point Electric Generating Facility is located on the Patuxent River at the extreme southerly point of Prince George's County, Maryland. The facility consists of four units. Units No. I and 2 are coal-fired, straight-through cooled units of 350 MWe capacity each. Units No. 3 and No. 4 are each designed to 6 . deliver 600 MWe. They are oil-fired cycling units and each utilizes a 700 foot stack for emission of combustion gases and a 400 foot natural draf t cooling tower as a part of its closed circuit cooling system. The cooling towers and cross flow , towers are constructed as parts of Units No. 3 and No. 4 of the plant. Make up I- ' water for the cooling tower and for the particulate scrubber in the stack is brackish, tw89-403-5 5-2 87C4611-4 I.
I l l i Ll
;u The Chalk Point Cooling Tower Pro}ect (CPCTP) was an experimental l'
l program designed to study emissions and establish the effects of these emissions (salt and water vapor) on the crops, soils, and native vegetation surrounding the : natural draft cooling tower at Chalk Point. The results of these studies are ; summarized in a number of reports prepared for the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program by the >hns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (Moon ) 1979a; and Davis 1979). ! i As part of the CPCTP measurements of salt deposition rates were made over ; I- all seasons at various distances from the plant. Based on information presented by Davis (1979), sodium deposition rates did not increase significantly orze the plant : became operational. l Analyses of foliage frora native vegetation in the vicinity of Chalk Point was also included in the CPCTP. Curtis, et al (1976) reported on the results of the i analysis of foliage for Cl from May 1975 to September 1975. The species sampled included flowering dogwood and sassafras. A summary of the average concentrations found in the foliage of these species is presented in Table 5-2. I While these data have not been compared statistically to those from the HCGS study, there are similarities in the data. A seasonal trend common to both data e sets is that C1' concentrations in flowering dogwood tend to increase over the , growing season. High concentrations of Cl- (3436 ppm) were also found in l flowering dogwood at Chalk Point in 1972, prior to cooling tower operation (Curtis, et al 1976). . u The analysis of soll samples collected from monitoring sites near Chalk Point have not revealed significant changes in key parameters, including extractable g. W sodium and chloride (Davis 1979). 1 I IwS9-403-5 5-3 87C4611-4 I . _. ._ _ . - - - - -
I ! l 5 3.3 GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION Grand Gulf Nuclear station is located in Clairborne County, Mississippi on the i I bluffs along the Mississippi River. Units 1 and 2 of the station are served by a hyperbolic natural draft cooling tower. A salt drif t deposition study was initiated at the site in 1983. Data presented in Mississippi Power and Light Company's 1983 l 2 Annual Report indicate Na+ deposition rates on the order of 100 mg/m / month , and C1' deposition rates on the order of ISO mg/m2/ month. While these data have f not been statistically compared to deposition data from HCGS, the rates are ; generally similar to those found in the vicinity of the HCGS. I ! i I , I ; 1l I I 5-4 87C4611-4 twS9-403-5 L /I , _ . . , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . ~ . . , - . .
( I I i I TABLE 5-1 M00mt.Y MINil4M, MAX 1MLM ADO TEARLY EAN $0DlLM ABC CHLORIDE DEPO $lil0N RATES IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLAIG I, SEPTEleIER 1987 - AUGUST 1988 g Ne' Deposition Renee CI*I Deposition Range
.W (ag/m#/mo) ag/m#/mo)
Cl* Yearly Mean I Min. Men. Ne' Yearly Mean Min. Mem. (og/m2 f,,3 g,gf,2f,o3 Open Test led 697 261 308 1,317 540
- Open Control 70 213 124 144 427 259
'. SW Open Test 80 845 267 168 1,496 519 MW Open Test 113 292 185 220 580 358 NE Open Test 114 279 200 189 743 427 , W Open Pine 113 307 182 201 690 348 i
-t. .
Data compiled from Crystal River Salt Drift Deposition Monitoring Annual Report 1987-1968. e I [
. Iw89-40351 87C4611-4 31 August 1989
t fi I TABLE 5-2 NONTHLY AVERAGE 04LORIDE 00NCENTRAil0NS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF l I THE CHALK PolNT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAIO NAY-SEPTDGER 1975 f Cl* CONCENTRATION (ug/p) [ Site Species Ney June July August Septeeer 1 Flowering Dogwood. 621.8 1,210.9 2,006.8 3.204.9 3,595.7 ' 1 Sossefres 139.1 123.4 109.3 114.3 141.7 c 2 Sessefres 164.4 119.6 114.3 129.9 188.3 , l 3l 4 Sassefres 283.0 222.4 217.7 262.6 583.5
.te ,
s Data complied from Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project Field Research on Nettve Vegetstion ' Final Report FY76. 1 I ; I ! l=89-40352 87C4611-4 31 August 1989 4 4
% -~- , , , - - + , , , , - m.m...w.. - _ - * ,
_-. - . ~ . - -...~.-._s . .._..s_ .. . . , ~ . . . , ~ . . . - . . - . ~ . _ _ , ~ - . . -.
%)
I. ~N l I l I I I I l l I, _ , esaETvm000uNS. Spy safMCs comp. I '- -
~ ~ ~ " -
j
- I ,. . _ ,
! 1 l~ j l l t_ L it , X
' (#9M)10' ll l
3 ., -
?
[ l
- 6 --
4 6 [. W 4 - I
- i.
2 - e. i e I ' ' I ' 0 ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 3.2 6.4 9.7 12.9 16.1 19.3 22.6 26.7 28.9
~
DISTANCE FROM SHORE (MILES / KILOMETERS) AMBIENT (SEA SALT) AIRBORNE SALT CONCENTRATION (X) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM SHORE FIGURE 5-1
[< .
, ,3 d, - , l- i - fMWp.M.N#, M . . ix.' , , . ,-
I, .w 1; i- i i,4 a
,t 'l'.. p,,*. . .y.. .
i ; g' p .. < t- . ;) s ,h m!- ., , 4'g.a;.
g 3 ,
$ .7 *4
',t) A.5')-
1
-g y c i- [~j s>
',m{W - ~.
g? s ,7]g
#~ *
, (. %: 4*4- ,
p i ,' ; i
. )
"i\l t ' _
j\ g i
' =
{{ t . { l
. it.
b* s; , y w f' ,('; .~
,1,- ? l; ; l4 l" t-1; y& 2D?
A'} x 4 {l 3- i 1 1 j S 1,1-
- .k, g i m 3_
y l lTa'% j.Ar{y_" gjM@-@l$@_@s?.v$Qae;yN_;x[Wf[+. d hq M hy[d%Rh~l/g~j_yfihf(IM:j;$$_,Y" 1 i%m'
',Ihh D-@) P n
n'@ MQ d' #4?./R rD Mo,]
. ~
' vk thheM:
4- J. 4ffS;{FT%$,nk tQ',\ fif- MM Ye Vf@ U. J
. n%W. y$pf@,bdn5%@_lMlN&i%l0Qu$Hskh%QA),7@ht%%RDRM n a[
h
. u.f a h ah A
1 '&
- _.. E
- ~MLL%kg Yg w .
dlKQ;d&h,uum%n&&M;M_uMandsGMick~db;;&a&d: e D
-, -n W u dC% !LL M J 2in k t W L % u w
- g. ..
b _s!-
* ,I t ') j IA ;.
p g.
~ ' - - - ~~
[,A ,
.g ..
1 l SECTION 6 [o - l _
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS ! o . . > b'- . 6.1 :
SUMMARY
1 0 I '6.1.1 Salt Deposition r 5 Na+ deposition rates at the sampling sites in the vicinity of HCGS ranged-from a low of 8.5 mg/m 2/ month to a high of 426.2 mg/m2 / month. Cl deposition rates ranged from 42.1 to 780.7 mg/m2/ month. Particulate and TDS deposition varied constwably' throughout the study = period, ranging - from 28 to i 16,570 mg/rM/ month, and1141 to 18,744 mg/m 2 / month, respectively. With the 1= exception of pcr*;1calates, the maximum and minimum values occurred at sites ns . nearest PCGS. The mean particulate deposition rate at the Shirley control site [" l g was the ay.ast of all the sites. In fact, none of the control site data represented l the minimum value for any of the measured parameters. , t f [; ( p Significant increases and decreases in deposition occurred at sites near HCGS i f Land;at the Shirley control site during both the pre-operational ar.d operational ; periods._ .With one exception, most of the differences which occurred during the p ' operational period are not believed to be related to operation of the HCGS cooling tower. Operation of the tower may contribute to higher deposition rates at Site 3,
' located .4km from the tower on the Nuclear Department Administration Building, where the highest operational Na+ and Cl deposition rates occurred. .
' ~
a Seasonal and spatial trends in deposition were also highly variable during pre-
. operational and operational periods. Cooling tower operation did not correspond with the few significant differences which were identified. *
+
Significant positive correlations were determined between deposition rates and. meteorological parameters during both the pre-operational and operational I- periods. The correlation most expected to result from cooling tower operation is that between deposition and the percent of time that the wind blew from the
!, ,' tw39-403-6 6-1 87C4611 Y _ __ .._ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . ____ _ _ . _ _ . ._.
y m;n , , I
, u ,
G ,~ . i cooling tower to 'a given sample; site. Significant positive correlations were I determined for Na+, C1' and TDS deposition at Site 3. 1
, 6.1.2 - NATIVE VEGETATION STUDIES -
' Follage Na+ concentrations ranged from an average minimum of 12.2 ppm for black cherry at Location 1, to an average maximum of 247.9 ppm for black cherry
' at Location 3. Cl concentrations ranged from an average minimum of 17.5 ppm for black cherry, to an average maximum of 6,387.0 for flowering dogwood, both ;
at Location 1. - ;
'Very few significant differences were found among the foliage Na+ and Cl-f data from' the operational period. Any correlations which were identified are j believed to be coincidential with physiological and environmental factors and not L:
. due to operation of HCGS.
L , No differences in Na+ concentration were found among the species sampled. l l , :As was lthe case in the pre-operational study, flowering dogwood contained significantly higher concentrations of C1' than. the other species sampled at : Locations 1 and 2. On the other hand, black cherry contained significantly lower ' concentrations of C1' than most othe species at Locations 1 and 2. While not statistically significant, seasonal increases in Cl are indicated in
" i
. blackgum, flowering dogwood, pin cak, sassafras and sweetgum. This trend was
' also found during the pre-operational period.
The only.significant difference among the sites sampled was for flowering i dogwood.- For this species, Na+ concentrations we.re significantly higher at Location I than at Location 2. No significant increase in foliage Na+ or CI' concentrations were found at locations- nearest to HCGS during the operational study. The only significant in~ ease Indicated was pin oak Cl at Location 3, the Shirley control site.
' Significantly lower concentrations of Cl were found in black cherry, pin oak and sweetgum at locations near HCGS.
. Iw89-403-6 6-2 87C4611
l I . I+ , 6.1.3 - SOtt STUDIES . Soll Na+ concentrations ranged from an average 0.2 ppm at Location 2, to *
- 663.8 ppm at Location IB. Cl* concentrations ranged from an average of 2.6 ppm II at Location IB-A to 1,534 ppm at Location IB.
' Location _lB had the highest monthly average and overall mean concentrations ,'
of both Na+ and Cl'. This site-is located immediately adjacent to emergent wetlands and has a overstory of loblolly pine. The intrusion of brackish water from the wetland and/or the predominance of pine litter on the soll surface may . account for these higher levels. g There was a consistent and significant downward trend in Na+ and C1' E concentrations at all locations during the aperational period. Solls collected [ . during this period had significantly lower mean monthly Na+ and Cl-
- concentrations at all locations than were . found during the pre-operational. ,
period. - The reason for this decrease is uncertain, but may be related to the ! drought conditions that occurred during the summer of 1988.
; 7
, ( Seasonal _ variables do not appear to have a major influence on soll Na+ and { ' Cl concentrations. Location IA was the only location to have a significant , ,; 7 difference for Na+ concentrations in soll. At this location, soll Na+ was significantly higher in the month of September compared to May, June or July. No'significant seasonal differences in soil Cl concentrations were identified at [ l the 0.05 level. Spatial differences in soll Na+ and C1' were identified only for Location IB, where concentrations were significantly higher than at all other locations. ,J . Environmental reasons for this have already been discussed above and include proximity to a tidal marsh. Any correlations between soil Na+ or Cl concentrations and meteorological ~ factors or power output at the HCGS are coincidental. Significant differences are i s 1i IwS9-403-6 6-3 87C4611 m . . . , . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ ._. -
- . -. . -- ~ .-- --- - - -_
f . due to. variability in other related data sets rather than operation of the HCGS W cooling tower. - , i
6.2 CONCLUSION
S f The analyses of data collected as part of the HCGS operational salt drift : I study indicate that only minor, localized effects of cooling tower drift deposition are occurring. - These effects include higher Na+ and Cl deposition ratos in the ; vicinity of the Nuclear Department Administration Building, 0.4 km east, -! downwind of the cooling tower. The predicted salt deposition rate reported in PSE&G's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage at 0.42 km southeast of the cooling tower is 60 mg/m2/mo. The sum of the differences between the pre-operational _ and operational mean Na+ and Cl deposition at Site 3 is 113 mg/m 2 /mo. .While this value is higher than the predicted value, it is well below the deposition levels that have been repcrted to cause vegetative damage. 2 The threshold for reduced agricultural plant productivity is 10,000 mg/m / year. p HCGS is located adjacent to the Delaware River Estuary with extensive areas of tidal wetlands to the east of the cooling tower, the direction in which the prevailing winds carry salt drift. These wetlands are flooded by brackish water on L L each high tide. The wetland plants that occur in this area are adapted to high salinity environments and should not be affected by the relatively small increase In salt deposition resulting from operation of the HCGS cooling tower. The nearest uplands to HCGS em located approximately 3 miles to the east. The predicted salt deposition rate from the HCGS cooling tower at that distance is less than 2 mg/m2/mo. The native vegetation sampling location nearest to HCGS is located 3.4 miles east of the cooling tower. This is the nearest woodland [ area to HCGS. The data from the analyses of foliage and soll from this location o and general observations of foliage through the growing season do not indicate that any'significant adverse impacts are occurring as a result of cooling tower operation. The salt deposition rates in the vicinity of HCGS were compared to data collected in studies at other facilities (e.g., Crystal River Plant, Chalk Point tw89-403-6 6-4 87C4611
I' g I Electric Generating Facility, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station). While data variability - exists because of differences in local climate and proximity to other salt sources, the HCGS data are generally similar to those'from other studies. The concentrations of Na+ and Cl in foliage collected in the vicinity of
-HCGS are similar to those found in salt drift studies at other facilities. Species :
differences in Cl concentration found in the vicinity of HCGS were also found at Chalk Point (e.g., flowering dogwood contains Cl at concentrations an order of-magnitude higher than the other species sampled). Increasing Cl concentrations ,
' vere also found in several species in the vicinity of HCGS_through the growing season. This trend was found in salt drift studies conducted at Chalk Point.
No observations of salt stress in foliage in the vicinity of HCGS were noted
'during the growing seasor..- As was reported for the Crystal River Plant study, follar damage in the vicinity of HCGS resulted primarily from insect chewing, a
I LI L < p l lI I' l IwS9-403-6 6-3 87C4611 3
$ hf ' Y{ '. y : e
@ukg: RAW)5 AQ!n , ,
r 5
; 9 5Any y(n it. . P:-7. *.
i og, .
.8 J g = q' * ?-
k.l ~., y -
;f ;_31j g
M' ~, '!yfg Tt;/j?O-:- f gyp ij'<g k ,\. .
,g g . 4 s , ~ ..'gF% .5 , f~. ~ - ; 5 j.W } 'fy'j '
yM.[(4 >4 , i- ._4 eg. .y t k;klN ~ h ,
,; ;3 cj
- 0
_ I g aw,
) i.-. i[ m
~,+ ::; ,
lN{2 (p.T.'
-=
lr1. I 1.s . g 1
.? . 'N: -
Sq: ; > a
- J
?'
.wp Z
I he d' k.
. - -.. : (l
; i
}
--E f -*
+gghe gpewg4%n w ms a pwabeM n n% w$ u ea m m a t
^eme n\gypwegeefumsadu m, U @
. it n: g@e dhih edlE Ia m 8dg wan h)eLp m h _gy sNw;w ' $:$c q _w p _a m _Meagwuntucuv1xit
$dI@li d hl
~
-.1. M
" 1:
T E
' } y k
.j;
- t SECTION 7 REFERENCES-American Society for_ Testing & Materials. 1970. Standard Methods for Collection and Analysis of Dustfall (Settleable Particulates). Designation D-1739-70.
3' Cavender,3. E., et al.1971. " Interstate Surveillance Project: Measurement of Air Pollution Using Static Monitors." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Office.- 5x
~
Curtis,'C. R., T. L. Lauver, and B. A. Francis. 1976. Field Research on Native Vegetation. PPSP-CPCTP-14. Water Resources Research Center, Special
- Report No. 4. University of Maryland. p.121.
Davis, E.A.1979. Environmental Assessment of Chalk Point Cooling Tower Drif t and Vapor Emissions. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory. 3HV PPSP-CPCTP-28. Jutze, G. A., R. L. Harris, and M. Georgevich. 1967. "The Interstate Air s Pollution: Surveillance Program Effects Networks." Air Pollution Control Association Journal. 17(5). _KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. 1989. Crystal River Salt Drift Deposition Monitoring Annual Report 1987-1988. - Prepared for Florida Power = Corporation. " McCune, D.C., D.H. Silbermr.n, R.H. Mandle, L.H. Weinstein, P.F. Freudenthal, _and P.A. Glardina.1977. Studies on the Effects of Saline Aerosols of Cooling Tower Origin on Plants. Journal Air Pollution Control Association. 27(4): 319-324. Moon, M.L. 1979. Overview of the Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project m 1972-1979. The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory. 3HV PPSP-CPCTP-27. -
~ . New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.1980. Final Report on Salt i Deposition from the Hope Creek Cooling Towers and the Potential Effect of the Salt on Crops and Livestock. Division of Environmental Quality.19 pp.
i Sinclair, W.A., H.H. Lyon and W.T. 3c,hnson. 1987. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University Press. 374 pp. _f Shipley, B.L., S.B. Pahwa, M.D. Thompson, and R.B. Lantz. 1980. Remote Sensing
-i, for Detection and Monitoring of Salt Stress on Vegetation: Evaluation and
_J Guidelines. NUREG/CR-1231. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 92 pp. IwS9-403-R 7-1 87C4611
b l$ $ Shofnu, : F., . J.D. Warmack,- and K.R. Welher. 1973. Ambient Sea Salt z Measurements in - the Forked River, New Jersey Environs, July - m 1972-August 1973. Draf t Report, Environmental- Systems Corporation,
- Knoxville, TN. Not- Seen. - As Reported in: New Jersey Department of
- Environmental Protection 1980. Final Report on Salt Deposition from the Hope Creek Cooling Towers and the PotentLal Effect of the Salt on Crops and
- . Livestock. Division of Environmental Quality.19 pp.
Society of American Foresters. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States
, - and Canada. SAF, Washington, D.C. p.148.
1 - Steel, R.' G. and 3. H. Torrie. 1%0. Princiales and Procedures of Statistics.
- McGraw-Hill Brook Company, New York, b ew York.
Talbot, 3.3. '1979,1 A Review of Potential Biological Impacts of Cooling Tower
. Salt Drif t.' . Atmospheric Environment. 13: 395-405.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1984.- Draft Environmental Statement
. -- Related to the Operation of Hope Creek Generating Station. NUREG-1074.
Docket No. 50-334.
-Williams, D.J.1975. Critical Level of Airborne Sea Salt Inducing Follar Injury to Bean. Hortscience. 10(6): = 615-616.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants.1987. " Pre-Operational Summary Report for Hope Creek Generating- Station Salt Drif t Monitoring Program, August 1984-1 December t 1986." Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company
' Nuclear Department, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1974. " Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drift
' Monitoring Plan." Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas, Newark, New Jersey December 12,1984.
STATISTICAL SOFTWARE I The statistical analysis for the Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drift Monitoring Program was performed using the MINITAB Statistical Software, Release 6.1 using an IBM 386 Compatable Computer. This software is a general purpose data analysis system produced by Minitab, Inc., of State College, Pennsylvarila.
' 7-2 IwS9-403-R 87C4611
w _ 8 -' y ii. d ! , -- i M3;?We M ' V ..i pr 1 ms l;VS@g%a;; ddfdd o r# "t,p,4-a. = . ,o -- f' ^$( ,f
- 5 ;,
g:,pp;; m -l4 _^,
" '15-1 :?,
g..l , (y + 5 h,8h -W.l > d.h ] j
- was .
emp[fy:Qlh?^
]?flt f .
9:p $ ? Sy!!L.t;;' I _ - g,.., y e ,
. i e
Qfv . . i-
-- v,Qcyl'9{ rc -<-
i ':R by .,,)o 7, , e C
.. -( i '!-'
fip g , s;):
%s.? ,
'I /
;: ; 'l>g \
aF;3 ^ 3;;ty ;,;
'I
{h&l
-,,.W. .
1 M', s - 1 _ -f:
- l :r ,Ai- ;
i ( ~- '
- t
. .a o Of)$k' s [-
- j;;,
,w.
-'3 ++-.
+
$ ? x
^
_u s M_Muumanas une_wauarn_amaa~awnaamu_mer>~w~uw m
^~
----------um - umi- um-am ---- e e. - - e e i
1
- APPENDIX A V' - 1987 - MARCH 1989 DEPOSITION DATA; I
gi I I B. I I l' I I I. 4 I I .
'F 8,w i
g y 5 l . ,
. , _. . . , s _ . .:
.) -
j_ ;__
- w. . .
'V TABLE A-1 2
MDem LY $0Dit91 (les*) DEPOSITl418 HATES (egAm / month)
.Di9tlNG 1987 IN THE V!CINITY W TE HOPE GEEK GEIEftATies STATicit SALEN COtsfiY, IEW JERSEY III III- -Site'6 Site 7. Site 8 Site 9 Month Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 . Site'5
~
30.3 12.5 35.7 53.7 52.9 January 33.3 - 100.2 '45.0 53.4 25.0 277.4 32.3 31.6 27.3 29.0 68.3 35.9 february
'34.3 44.7 36.6- 44.1 44.3 168.7 77.2 82.5 34.3 March 43.4 23.7- 42.6 47.0 43.5 56.8 corsI 53.2 80.4' 55.3 36.2 25.0 46.0 27.3 20.9 31.2-Me 107.1 4I.7 34.6 67.1 35.9 36.0 33.8 67.5 .50.0 17.7 31.7 43.1 21r.4 June 39.6 26.4 35.8 23.1 186.2 42.6 40.0 36.6
- a. y 36.6 38.7 32.6 41.9 38.5 37.9 37.1 39.0 august 61.1 68.1 79.6 . 96.0 -
71.1 86.3 39.9 91.1 September 89.6 99.8 141.5 36.2-31.3 69.9 31.7 28.6 October 30.4 35.0 38.8 53.5 75.2 40.0 34.7 99.6 38.8 84.2 67.8 43.2 th enber 63.9 30.5 '64.5 48.9 55.9 105.7 56.0 100.8 December 45.8 _ (1) Means based on average of co-located samples.
'87C4611-Iw89-403aa 20 June 1989
ww w. - w; s W
- .e 7
-:p n
' s:
. 4g .
TABLE A-2
.s..
2 MONilt.Y SODILBt (Ile*) DEF051Ti(Bt itATES (agAm Amonth)
~ OtstileG 1988 let Tif VIClellTY OF llE HOPE GEEK EIEllATIIIG STATICII SALE 90 COUIETY, IEtt JEftSEY -
-Site 7- Site 8 Site 9 -
Month Site i Site 2 Site 3 III -
' Site 4 III Site 5 Site 6-35.9* 91.3 48.6 57.3 54.4-29.5 50.1 133.5 119.9 Janutry 35.9* 58.0 56.5 110.6 65.3 Februsry St.1 57.3 121.2 75.6 49.2 115.6 73.6 65.6 .-
73.6 94.3 69.6' 49.2 March 49.2 40.7 49.2 -57.2 131.3 61.4 237.7 32.8 April 49.2 90.0 75.8- 94.5' 426.2 66.2 75.8 75.8 %y 85.5 132.4 99.3 32.8 61.78 32.8 -106.4 57.2 24.3 40.7 65.4 32.8 123.4 June 61.7* 82.6 74.1- 107.0 July 90.5 181.1 99.0 '82.6 98.5 114.9 106.4 90.0 147.1 130.7 188.5 167.8 172.0 August 65.6 '82.6 189.6 90.8 69.8 156.8 57.7 September 107.0 74.1 16.4 49.8 24.9 8.5 8.5 49.8 Ntober 24.9 24.9 65.9 74.1-90.5 49.2 ~ 57.7- 57.7-65.6 90.5 173.2 74.1 November '49.2 65.6 164.7 416.0 107.2 49.2 49.2 December 82.6 82.6 (1) Means based on average of co-located sampfes. ' Sampler lef t in field for two months, value is the average for a two month collection.. 87C4611 Iw89-403bb 20 June 1989
. i l k
a em' 1 1 6 4 C 7 8 9 693 t e 288 _'t' 7 55 iS 1 e 8 599 e t 081 i 954 S 7 1 4 4 e t 4 03 i 7 53 S i l G I T A T S 6 1 94 a i t e 4 1 0 l i 7 4 5 T S A R E N NE O I T K E Y 5 . I SI E ES 5 5 5 n e 22 o M DIO I t 0 i E i 955 t O PEJ S 22 c e 3 ) eWE l l A
'eNE l I
o c E ( I T Y h t l T t 9 I' n A T eF iOI M t I - o D YC D I m O 4 S T 33 4 o I M e w t 04 4 t Y. INL E i 985 a ECA S DIV S r o N E D I f T e g N . a r I U e 9 I v 8 3 a 9 21 5 1 e e t 800 h G i 08 0 .t N S 3 1 s l t les i iu p D me a u sl a d v 2 e , 1 4 9 t e a s ch t 4 01 i 7 54 lotn S
- o om c
o f w ot i er go 1 94 af e r t 4 83 ed i 7 53 vl S a e i nf o n di e st af 9 b e 8 l c9 r s c1 y e r r n r 3 y r b r e e a e 0 e r a t m ebb el M p 4 n
- u h a uh i s eb mm t u r ci y ut oee m 9 J a
M n o nb r r y n a ea p a u e lu u ec o e g pt v c J F M A M J J A S OND
)
1 S (
- 3 Iw0 2
}}~&'&-Q M lM#
+ .
TABLE A ~ 2 MOBITHLY DILORIDE (C1 ) DEPOSIT 10065tATES (egAm j,,,,g3
- l DURileG 1987 IN Tlf VICilllTY OF THE HOPE DEEK GEIEHATiles STATICII
' SALEM 006SITY, IEW JERSEY Site 3 III Site 4 NI S;te 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8- Site 9 Month Site 1 Site 2 115.8 112.0 46.4 -153.9 '113.2 156.1 Jtnutry -103.6 - 213.0 60.5 173.7 83.5 61.0 - 151.2 Febru ry 79.2 84.1 145.8 76.4 88.3 102.0 91.0- 108.7 '.l 134.4 March 87.2 352.5 145.7 129.6 134.0 233.0 186.9. 145.7 131.1 April 127.4 131.0 133.3 85.6 95.1 59.4 99.0 95.6 71.3 ,
May 158.8 96.2 106.1 396.2 124.5 87.2 145.4 ~.152.8 130.2 Juns 106.9 109.2 112.6 109.3 118.5 318.5 120.4 139.8 155.4 July 262.2 111.3 112.0 167.9-129.5 137.1 144.7 156.7 117.5 130.5 96.3 108.1 119.2 Auguet 225.0 '345.0' 256.0 255.5 192.0 255.0 262.0 September 369.0 384.0 136.2-151.2 315.8 258.2 538.6 2e2.1 October 326.5 444.4 407.3 155.6 155.0- 134.1 122.9 132.1 November 257.8 544.3 464.0 188.4 350.1 143.7 172.7 130.6 144.0. Oscember 103.1 132.1 204.5 90.2 (1) Means based on average of co-located samples.
. 87C4611' tw89-403dd 20 June 1989
~. - M M m w'W W~ 'W
~
y;.
- s. -
~
, [9 _
+1 -
m
,M-u TAE_E A-$
~ 2 MGil114.Y DILORIDE (Cl ) DfMSITI0li IRTES (eg/in j,,,,,,y .
DukiteG 1988 IN THE VICINITY OF 1HE HOPE GEEK GEIGRATilIS STATICII , SALEN 03tsfTY, IOf JEftSEY Site-1 Site 2 Site 3 III Site 4 III . Site 5 Site 6 Site 7.. -- Si te 8 Site 9 Month w. 80.3* 254.7 13*.9- 259.9 147.1-Janurry 148.6 116.5 341.8 171.1 165.5 80.3e 129.7' 158.0'- 144.3- I78.9 - Februrry 200.1 224.7 293.6 66.8 80.4 - 125.6 112.1' 139.2 ' 101.9 March 75.8 - 129.0 94.0 72.2- 75.8 60.0 55.5 7I.3 92.2 ApriI 89.4 - 110.4 199.2 753.3 485.0 384.2 '195.2 70.7 : May 139.8 129.6 116.3 175.7 160.8- 81.0* - 110.9 133.6 394.5 247.3 June 93.9 150.0 151.4 162.4 81.0* 147.1 129.0 180.8 427.3-July 192.4 220.7 202.3 224.1 246.7 191.9 180.0 185.6 238.3 August 192.4 273.9 242.5 71.1 65.6 83.8 99.6 77.5 84.3 September 61.7 60.0 76.4 80.4 117.7 170.9 91.1 170.9-October 83.8 80.4 324.9 62.2 196.1- 184.5 226.4 206.6 277.9 234.9 Nov e r 223.5 154.5 314.7 176.8 145.4 179.4 - 136.4 -143.2 279.0 December 168.1 152.2 513.1 (1) Means based on average of co-located samples.
' Sampler left in field for two nonths, value is the average for a two month collection.
87C4611 Iw89-403ee 20 June 1989
, l l l 44 v '~ ,
~
1 1 6 f.. 4 C 7 8
- q. '
9_. 798 e t 029 936 ua,.^- i S 1 4 1 v_- 8 t i S e 51 0 7 1 1 67 1 2 8 r u u m 7 653 t e 33 1 09 W i S 6 1 N O I T W A T S 8 6 e 967 8 9 t. 093 1 t 7 60 T S 1 32 A _ M' ll I G I T 0E 1 I K S EY 5 n OEE S e 0. *3 3 o PDI O E t i 0 04 4 i t D PEJ S 5 33 22 c
)
O N le 4- 'l HE8 l A C o ( E c E H , h L E T TY t B A DFN I I n o T R OUO O Y C I I m 4 L 4 T 97 6 o I e w OIND I L t i 4 06 4 80 t Y CAS L I S 1 7 2 a H V r T N o O E f MI T g e N a I I r I e 9 I v 8 3 a 9 1 67 1 e e t 3 6 8 h G i 1 8 5 .t N S 7 32 s I R les p i U
' D me a u sl a
d v 2 e , 63 6 t e a s ch t 61 9 i 7 28 lotn S 1 21
- o om c
o f w ot er go 1 683 af e r ed t 92 8 i 5 67 vl S 1 31 a ie nf o n d i e st af 9 b 8 f 9 r sn le f 1 y e r r r 3 y r b r e e a e 0 e r a t meb b el M p 4 n
- u _
h a uh ! s eb mm 9 J _ t u r ci e y ut oe e m _ n nb r r y nl g pt v c ) a 8 - o a ea p a u u u ec o e 1 S w0 - M J F M A M J J A S OND (
- I 2 l*
- .f "- I1 Tn8LE A-1 2
MOBITNI.Y PARTICULATE DEPOSITim IRATES (egAm Amonth)
- DURING 1987 IN THE VICilIITY OF TE HIFE DIEEK GEMEft4TildB STATION - --
SALEN CERNITY, IEW JEftBEY Site 3 III Site 4 II site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Month Site i Site 2 226 107 125 '164 265-192 - 686 133 Janucry 792 45 303 226 -
'169 414 178 226 February 125 169- 571
-415 194 611 1,048 710 311 March 571 259 .374 374 1,631 807 530- 655 April 617 815 390 '390 481 379 317 945 1,115 617 320 - 1,643 -
May 373 323 -455 2,209 6% 493 851 227 June 300 164 ~115 3?S 606 544 73 July 5% 558 272~ .357-272 220 374 1,432 594 531 345 August 345 2,125.- 848 6tal 230 298 231 446} September 57I 135 593 417 487 167 191 386 October 119 528 274 114 213 176 976 305 262 698 230 Nowember 435 566. 299- 287 276 857 212 990 December 300 (1) Means based on average of co-located samples. 87C4611 sw89-403gg 20 June 1989
3
- "x ;
j
%, -; e - z
- 7. ,.
TA81.E A-8 -- 2 NONTHl.Y PARTICULATE DEP05til0N MATES (egAm j,,,43' DistlNG 1988 IN TIE VICINITY OF TIE lePE 3EEK EDEftRTING STATICII SALEtt ODUNTY,' IIEW JERSEY Site 8 . Site 9, Site 2 Site 3 IU Site 4 III Site 5 . Site 6' . Site 7 Month Site I
~
305 132- 243 236 225 524 202.5 136* January 242 385 192: 322.5 136* 147 272 Februery 183 105 792.5 456 187 357 243 917 187 4.375 749.5 373.5 March 640 340 1,013 : '289 35' 730 237.5 475 1.priI 492 - 1,52? - 1,075- 656' 1,027.5 784 3,707 6,163 May 589 453 , 515 .- 2,337~ 512 3828 872 838 770 900 942.5 14,658 Jun2 806 382* 2,315 1,539 .5,003 521 10,996 1,335.5 July 303 407 883 360 f16,570 396 August 594 555 1,417.5 113z 374 289 175- 68 108 215 438.5 76.5 Sestember 45. 79 74 79 40 170 76.5 57 October 28 509 362 331 357 385 379 November 407 583 515 238- 175 204 277~ 469.5 178 164 December 204 209 (1) Means based on average of co-located sampfes. d$ ampler left in field for two months, value is the average for a two month collection. 87C4611 Iw89-403hh 20 June 1989
y-f; 1 1 6 y 4 C 7 9
- m. ^
9-e-. 306 7 00 633 c.- it. S. N m 8 7 4 0
- te. 033 4 34 i
, S.
N 7
~_ 7 06 e 1 7 9 t
i 37 3 S l I C I T A T
^
S 6
) 1 86 hG l e 7 5 3 t l t 1, 6, 4 ni i oT S 1 1 m A AM 2 E
/s 8E I e
( K EY 5 .
~
SEE 2 8 3 n E S e 044 o T GIO ' t.. 7 1 1 i MEJ i S 33 t c e 9- 4 Ff l I l 0HE 1 E lo A I c E TEI , I L ST Y l h l l A 4 F s f I , t n T UOt D 0 I I o m Y0 4 ET 0 55 8 o T l B e. 3 w A hE t 692 t Ll L i 0 8 UCA S. 5 9, a CI S I V 1 r T o RE f A H e PT g Y N a L I r H U e T 9 I v I I 8 3 a D9 51 5 M1 e 8 h e t 5 7 1 G i 5 2 . t I l S 7 7 s i t es i s lp i D me a u sl a d v 2 e , t e %2 6 4 3 4 04 t a s ch i S lotn
- o om c
o f w ot
- 1 er go 1 5 5 af e 88 2 r t 4 31 ed vl iS ae i r, f o
n d i e st af 9 b 8 I 9 y r e r r s le n r I 3 1 y r b r e e a e 0 e r a t meb b el M p 4 n
- u h
t a uh u r ci 1 s eb mm ey ut oe e m 9J n n eab pr aru y n lu u g pt v c ) a 8 o a e 1 S Iw0 M J F MA M J J A eceD S Ot (
- 2
w - - - - -- < j
~ '
; -. .+ -
y:
;, 3
- ::7
_. 2 A3-s.
-TABLE A-10. _.
2 , MONTHLY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) DEPOSITION ftATES (egAm j,,,,,,3 DURING 1987 IN THE VICINITY OF TNE HDN GEEK GBEllATING STATION SALEN ODUNTY, IEW JEftSEY ' Month Site i Site 2 Site 3 III - Site 4 III Site 5 Site 6- Site'7'. ' Site 8 - Site 9 505 -858- 2,954~ '141 -1,087 1,285 500 - tgnurry 1,856 - 487' 300 7,131 -685- 794. 340 February 872 521 1,206 365 204 272" 707 215 - 555 - March 385 481 543 2,004 1,777 781 2,309 1,743 1,811 '1,426 April 1,358 1,154 1,709 572 1,698 2,326 1,104 ' 1,154 _ _ May 1,930 ~ 1,075 2,219 702 436 883 1,766 713 1,896 Juns 283 170 660 883 209 277 419 . 798 555 July 1,154 445 453
'214 3,537 217 1,058 August 747 866 764 E3 945 1,330 958 1,722 1,817' 509 .1,539 September 1,434 1,809 1,786 1,155 1,387 '331 374- 1,713 1,699:
October 815 411 748
'1,062 705 610 2,191 1,766 November 1,256 1,613 2,184 829-3,261 336 385 781 7398 December 857 417 1,828 877 (1) Means based on average of co-located samples.
87C4611 Iw89-403JJ 31 August 1989
S;U f A , ;7-- 1 TABLE A-11' 2
~
99filt Y TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIOS,(TDS) DEP051T1018 HATES (m8/nm Amonth) IR6titeG 1998 IN THE VICINITY OF Tif HIFE DEEK GE8ERATisS STATiele _ SALEM ClluliTY,DIEW JOISEY Site 3 ID Site 4 III Site 5 Site'6 ' site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Month Site 1 Site 2-887 2,007 960 1,075.5* 990 879 380 . 586-Jsnutry 686 577 1,989 1,542.5 1,075.5* 934 1,041 951 ' I,263 February 767 4,992 2,394 1,944 2,411 1,845 3,509 3,713~ 4,403 March 3,413 1,680.5 1,448.5 3,045 2,807 -2,049 3,237 1,211 April 1,839 1,517 1,135 18,744 860 2,026 1,104 '1,251 May 1,302 1,234 565 1,533.5- 1,219.5 631.0* 1,619 2,090 1,171 1,426 June 1,171 1,171 6,672 2,122 1,001.5 631.0* 2,881 1,822 . 2,462 6,870' July 951 2,572 1,514 2,201 1,454 1,370 8,008 1,460 August 1,279 1,556 917 622.5 611 538 555 787 1,262 September 583 640 1,678 868.5 662 968 1,505 1,126 1,505-October 600 498 1,361 2,677 1,171 2,020 2,490 2,105 November 1,919 2,864 2,317.5 1,788 852 1,437 821- 158 1,104 792 December 849 838 (1) Means based on average of co-located samples. 0 Sampler left in field for two months, value is the average for a two month collection. 87C4611-Iw89-403kk 20 June 1989
q 1 1 6 T 4 C 7
; 8 9
~ I 7 2 e 1 3 5.
t i 2, 0, 2, S 8 22 q n. 8 7 25 e 05 1 t i 35,6, S f 22 7 832 e 61 3 t 6 5,6, i S 22 l l ei T A T S 6 . 333-8 GI e 2 1 0 WI l R t 6 8,6, T iS 22-T I t A S f OEI P E EG (
) K .
S E Y 5 n DEE S e 3 4 5' 5 io T ( DRE t i 8 . 8 8 t S PEJ S 2? c 2 OOW I 6, 6, le 1
- L HE O I 22-lo A SE} ,
c E DT YT h L t B A EV F s L Ot t I n o T 0 'I m O S Y0 4 980 o S I T I 8 B e 97 6 w D NEL I t i 3 0,3, t
'L CA S 62 a A I S V r T
O o TE f
.^ I e
Y. T g a G
) I N I r T
N 9 e O 8 'I v M 3 a 9 1 0 1 t e 509 7 1, 4, h e G i 3 .t N S 0,3 2 s e s IR 2 lp i U D me a u sl a d v 2 e , 5 29 t e 1 57 a s t 1, 51, ch i S 1 22 lotn
- o om c
o f w ot I ero g 01 6 af e 601 r i t 1, 8, 7, ed vl S 1 22 a e i nf o n d i e st a f 9 - b e 8 l 1 9 r s 1 1 y e r r n r 3 r r a b r ee a e 0 e t meb b e lp 4 n . h uh , s eb mm M - u t t r c, ey ut oe e m 9J n b r , Y n l gpt v c ) a 8 a ea a u u u ec o e 1 S w0 J f M M J J AS OND ( ' I 2 2
3t ww. 9 w 4.w-m . e . m w > sw , . ,. o-M .w'<
% @c; Gy,g , p sE , r
,'W;?f$ Ad;Y}l;'l@ l 'i %.l, 6 *' > q_ . , * , .,
- 1 Af'h ,'
':Nk$;0d,*
l nb Wd
%yst;:W.
7 : mci 7 4;ft y. 1 r . " N; + t =i
+
; + ';M ; t,1; W, . y, .
.. . , gs . -.gc o-. Lt? y y, o~ i?L , i , ; 9j i i U ps]. Y' if'g o*[ c, 3 - i s .I :yp-,,v. 5 p;e $-;f,n-
.- , d" f ' *g b 5';. ,
my s..
,5
, i 4 i k i
>,.,:' ? = t g ':7#ft ':? r
+ --
,a<#
, n ,
,, g
( .., , I
> s J ,n-# < 3....
+ > 1 g ". a c
..g
<je - r ;
p,;.g t
, J "T V r a 4
-' .? ' b y : Y
II I'
'1 r 5-l,(r'.' f k ' t 3,
.I u l: j. .j' !
j j. n' kh <
..o-g l' _
- .' ,' . ,, . t-o
'v. . 1 i U,$[. 4
%4 L y j. l
~u 1's. * '[V '
.s.. i#
r,il. ^ f 'b,, .. _ **, W
*,., p s;
'^
[ . ( j ,- i$ [ t . j y .tg.- t y' . ' s
'-t
~,
%g s-j.G,:.(; . s, 7 'd I
4 t. Y I I
'- ,_ y f;'] g .i-'
g.,;t. ' s 1t h;!,$, .
+
- ,. dl s; h,-
e; 's* ' ' s&: 5.
- Y
~ A i 9 .,,
,' f / J (- (
;, ' 5
'?\I.
I $1
-' \
5i 6
- s 1
. . . 'e > ,d ,' .
Qfi', . if: I&'Q <
^
s i .m. 's
" ' ! '{k' s
, h ,
m.m mma, 0 _og.w> p 94py oy c tyn m wem e
.nn Eki%p % @hkJbEb;2.
gwn pAf>: .p yta-w me w e
?4;,;nm;MN.
7e nkm pmghwc o,m.niy s Mq n_wp W pypr. p:_an{6p _w % ,A u _pmwp e;f7As+ @vn OSO NAMO a e w_ee _n gB e~S %qm n_nw
./
< s n,t~jw y ma%~n s em:
sik if*$ wVck % k$0 % % N;u? +lA U4 A!b 5 N a S Ui h* N h ANbMg 5Ad$ MWW"N
, 2y n g M:
~
' d&hY
..3 , ,
% m:
;-N 1
6 h - + 1 4 1 j '. -
.s?
q fj[,} &T' .. I,j,il"- . g gp ,_1 r i r 4dg ,
3,;. , . <. . 4! , , .
'? ,
.3 F... 3 tr ..... .
, i g; ' 's .} > 4
. y;;g; > > g v ..s77
;4 g;N4
,1
~
j . , 1 APPENDlX B ~,' o- .
' 1987 - 1988' VEGETATION DATA-I .l*
}[' ' ' 9f 2
',i f .s 5
)
4) T i L
.l.
[..
,. s' l
{
/
I
'i TABLE S-1 lih* '
90DluN (Ne') CONCENTRATIONS IN FOLIAGE COLLECTED DIRIN8 TE OPENATIN8 PERIOD (NAY-SEf'TEleER) 1987-1988 > IN TE VICINITY OF TE HIMS, SALEN COUNTY, NEW JER$EY g; 1987
. BLACK CHERRY-I ,
Tree Ne*'(ppe, dry basis) l Location Name/ Site Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 ' 9/87 l 62.2- 11.8 !
-1 114.2 83.8 34.0 5MedHorseCrook/1 2 88.8 92.5 132.2 108.0 101.5 150.0 12.7 12.0 3 215.8 116.6 T 139.3 97.6 91.4 104.6 12.2 I Sliver Lake Needow/2 ' '1 114.2 92.5 64.8 51.8 13.0
- 2 215.8 50.8 94.0 145.4 51.8 l 3 101.5 63.5 95.8 79.3 13.2 ,
WP T 143.8 68.9 84,9 92.2 26.0 1 248.9 62.2 70.5 103.6 81.0 IShirleyControl/3 2 253.8 116.6 64.8 103.6 54.0 3 241.1 135.0 108.0 63.5 52.9 T 247.9 .104.6 81.1 90.2' 62.6 i I , I_ .
- 1987 8LACKGUN ,
Tree Ne* (ppe. dry basis) ,
. Location Nemo/ Site Number.
Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 ; 1 190.4 116.6 138.0 71.8 64.8 203.1 139.6 76.1 305.1 79.3 I Ned Horse Creek /1 2 , 3 136.9 155.7 13.0 26.4 87.1 7 176.8 137.3 75.7 134.4 77.1 152.3 129.5 90.7 88.8 12.2 15Ilver Lake Needow/2 1 2 88.8 74.7 62.2 90.7 79.3 3 215.8 25.9 124.2 132.2 101.5 7 76.7 92.4 103.9 64.3 I 152.3
- ' Shirley Control /3 1 181.3 74.7 168.4 97.6 71.8
- 2 199.I 77.7 52.9 99.5 79.3
}
i "' 4 3 253.8 139.6 66.1 155.5 138.0 x 211.4 97.3 95.8 117.5 %.4 5
'It89 403TC- Page 1 of 6 87C4611
- 31 August-.1989
Op _g 4 r y ,
~
TABLE B-1 (continued) [ $ 1987 FLOWEstiNG DOGWOOD 4 Tree- Ne* (ppe. dry basis)- Number 5/87- 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87_ l Location Nemo/ Site Number k
-Med Horse Creek /1 1 25.9 143.7 152.8 77.7 51.8
-2 88.8 116.6 52.9 238.0 55.2 3 165.0 76.1 124.4 64.8- 49.8 7 93.2 112.1 110.0 126.8 52.3 215.8 116.6 92.5 79.3 24.4
_.Silv:r Lake Needow/2 1 2- 165.0 199.1 50.8 108.0 54.0 3 241.1 126.9 51.8 81.0 92.5 Y- 267.3 147.5 65.0 89.4 57.0 Shirley Control /3 1 -- -- -- -- -- 2 3 - I ~(-) Not collected at this ' location. 1987 PIN OAK 1ree Ne* (ppe, dry basis) ILocQtionNemo/SiteNumber
- Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 8-MedHorseCreek/1
+ 2 1 114.2 114.2 135.0 145.4 63.5 103.6 85.4 132.2 51.8 49.8 3' 177.7 158.6 105.8 224.0 38.9 I .- Silver Lake Meadow /2 7
-1 135.4 259.0 146.3 142.5 91.0 69.0 147.2 69.2 46.8 77.7 2- 190.A 207.2 66.1 71.8 139.6 8 3 207.2 177.7 143.7 74.7 52.9 7 218.9- 175.8 92.9 71.9 90.1 Shirley' Control /3 1 126.9 62.2 101.5 90.7 62.2 2 241.1 177.7 82.3 71.8 26.4 3 199.1 80.8 95.8 37.3 77.7 7 189.0 109.6 93.2 66.6 55.4 5
g ItS9-403TC Page 2 of 6 87C4611
'31 Au'ust g 1989
-i.- - - - - , .u.. ,, ,,
'Jij
',3s
- q 3 4 ll
/ TABLE B-1 (continued)'
H 1987 [? 5ASSAFRA$
. Tree Na* (ppe. dry basis)
' Loc; tion Name/ Site Number' . Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87
- Med Horse Creek /1 1 114.2 357.0 116.6 74.7 77.7 -
2- 103.6 90.7 224.7 225.6 87.1 3 203.1 116.6 103.6 251.4 48.8 7 140.3 - 188.1 148.3 183.9 71.2 511verl Lake,Moedow/2 I 266.5 211.5' 199.8 121.5 -56.7
'2- 99.5 158.6 61.0 63.5 13.5 4
3- 241.1 25.9 126.9 55.2 77.7: O' T 202.4 132.0 129.2 80.1 49.3 Shirloy Control /3- 1 -- -- -- -- -- 2 .. 3 --
~
- (-) Not' collected at this location.-
1987 SWEETGUM Tree Na (ppe, dry basts) Locgtlon Name/ Site Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 Med Horse Creek /1' 1 203.1 63.5 82.3 119.7 12.7
-2 37.3 25.9 46.2 150.0 34.6
. 3 76.1 71.8 57.7 110.4 13.8 7 105.5 53.7 62.1 126.7 20.4
$11vir Lake Moedow/2 1 211.5 88.8 11.8 109.8 13.2 2 228.4 39.7 51.8 132.2 83.8
- 3 99.5 76.1 38.1 231.9 47.0 7 179.8 68.2 33.9 158.0 48.0
-Shirley Control /3 2
1 273.7 63.5 47.0 57.7 46.2 2 174.2 50.8 12.4 51.8 46.2 3 62.2 63.5 12.4 52.9 12.7 7 170.0 59.3 23.9 54.1 35.0 IK89-403TC Page 3 of 6 87C4611 31 August 1989
-, - i ?- ,]
( '
..,-fj (
TABLEB-1(continued) L. J 7 U S W 1988-h SLACK CHERRY
- Na* fope. dry basis)
Tree
" Location Name/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 I!edHorseCreek)1 M 1 1 61.9 '84.3 82.7 50.4 87.0 77.8 2 72.8 133.0 47.1 48.7 3 -221.0 172.0 86.0 -45.7 119.0 5 . ,- 7 143.7 230.3 86.2 120.1 154.0-f 1- 71.0 244.0 53.5 81.2 -45.7 59.6 71.3 53.5 I$11vrLakeMeadow/2 -2 3
70.4 64.2 139.0 114.0 46.6 79.0 55.2
~T 68.5 165.7- 53.2 77.2 51.5 JShirley Control /3 1 -- 91.0 139.0- 52.2 119.0 87.7-2 48.5 133.0 59.2 68.5 87.7 3 97.0 146.0- 73.1 66.4 84.4 I 7 78.8 139.3 61.5 01.6 86.6 I
I 1988 BLACKGUM Tree- Na* (ppe. dry bests) location Name/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 E. Med Horse Creek /1 1 153.0 263.0 89.5 97.4 153.0 2 146.0 266.0 73.1 138.0 156.0 93.3 125.0 153.0 8 Y 3 132.0 118.6 162.0 129.8 71.9 48.3 94.6 1 121.0 133.0 47.6 169.0 116.0 I<;SilverLakeMeadow/2 2 107.0 122.0 47.1 113.0 229.0 3 64.2 88.2 67.7 115.0 163.0 T' 97.4 114.4 54.1 132.3 169.3 I : Shirley Control /3 1 52.0 292.0 88.6 63.5 64.5 2 68.2 152.0 63.5 82.7 142.0 3 50.2 183.0 59.2 95.3 155.0 I 7 56.8 209.0 70.4 60.5 120.5 I Iw89-403TC' Page 4 of 6 87C4611 31 August 1989
IIf whD a i W m [.m
.i
+ i(f;i c , j TABLE 9-1 (continued) 1
' i. p -
1 1988 Vi FLOWLRING D0GWOOD- ) i Ne' (ppe, dry basis)
. Tree
, Location No.4,% te Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 !
r.
~Ned Horse Creek /1 1 t??.0 110.0 91.3 86.0 99.7 l 2 173.0 100.0 104.0 66.4 $7.7 )'
I 3 T 230.0 198.3 13?.0 115.7 129.0 108.1 70.7 74.4 109.0 88.8 I liver Leke Meeeow/2 1 2 3 78.0 59.0 120.0 152.0 219.0 146.0 104.0 31.8 99.6 74.9 122.0 89.1 73.1 75.0 88.6 l 4 T 88.3 172.3 78.5 95.3 78.9 I f Shirley Control /3 1 ~ -- -- -- +- g .. .. .. .. .. t
- 3
.(-) Not collected et thle location.
l 1988 ' fin OAK 8" Tree Na* (ppe, dry basis) location Nemo/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/08 ' I Med %rse Creek /1 t 1 118.0 166.0 104.0 49.8 81.2 , 2 211.0 114.0 73.1 60.9 63.6 R 3 91.0 73.1 110.0 64.9 73.1 7 140.0 117.7 95.7 58.5 72.6 1 117.0 131.0 49.5 99.6 157.0 8 Silver Lake Meeuw/2
- 2 121.0 115.0 $1.0 103.0 91.4 3 116.0 91.3 21;0 65.2 91.4 T 118.0 112.4 K.i 89.3 96.6 i b ,
U r.hlriey control /3 1 34.7 53.5 66.4 53.5 86.0 71.? I 2 47.5 57.7 50.4 53.5 3 78.0 60.9 42.4 64.3 91.4 7 53.4 57.4 53.1 57.3 83.0
. - It99-403TC Page 5 of 6 87C4611
' 31 August 1989-c -
l' TABLE b l (continued)
~~
I , 988
$A$$AFRA$
Tree Ne' (ppe, dry basis) Location Nemo/$lte Number Number 5/08 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/08 I I 6 Med Norse Crook /1 1 70.0 399.0 34.8 59.2 122.0 2 59.6 183.0 49.3 52.2 117.0 } I 3 T 112.0 81.9 157.0 246.3 33.2 39.3 66.4 54.3 94.3 111.1 1 76.6 133.0 53.5 73.1 146.0 l ISilverLakeNeedow/2 2 3 182.0 60.6 107.0 62.6 59.2 29.8 86.0 79.0 163.0 95.4 7 106.4 100.9 47.5 79.4 134.8 l
-l Shirley Control /3 1 -. .. .. .. j g .. .. .. ..
S I ~-(-) tot collected et this location. i i i I , 988 !
$WEETGUM I loc;tlon Nemo/$lte Number Tree Number 5/88 6/88 Ne* (ppe, dry besla) 7/88 8/88 9/88
[ t I Med Horse Creek /l 1 42.0 96.5 104.0 99.6 89.5 , 2 $6.0 50.4 101.0 78.3 97.5 3 $7.1 81.2 125.0 97.4 102.0 7 91.8 96.3 I 51.7 76.0 110.0 1 47.7 138.0 91.3 94.3 110.0 I $11ver Lake Needow/2 2 53.9 87.0 69.3 102.0 110.0 '1 3 71.0 83.0 60.9 97.4 119.0 , T 57.5 102.7 73.9 97.9 113.0 l Shirley Control /3 1 24.3 88.2 49.8 73.1 56.2 , 2 78.0 87.7 37.8 83.0 40.6 ^ ,I ' 3 T 45.5 49.3 85.0 87.0 43.8 43.8 55.1 70.4
$1.0 49.3 'I IwS9-403TC Page 6 of 6 87C4611 31 August 1989 7 gr- er - w- w- --.-- e-,=--- +v - -- ,----- - - - ~ - --
's
+ , TABLE S-2 CONCfWTMil0N8 0F CHLORIDE (Cl") IN FOLI AGE 00LLTCT'io OL8tlN8 TE OPERATIONAL PERICE (te4Y-SEPTEleER) 1987-1988
,987 1 S t. A C K CHERRY Tree Cl* (pse. dry bests)
Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/$7 I'LosetlonNemo/51teNumber 1 104.7 54.7 104.5 107.1 160.7 IteedNereeCrook/1 2 125.0 84.2 109.4 187.5 150.5 119.8 89.3 213.6 3 284.1 154.0 7 171.3 97.6 133.9 125.8 154.5 96.4 102.3 66.2 340.0 101.4 Sliver Leke Moedow/2 1 i 2 80.1 96.6 105.8 102.9 227.7 3 "9.5 50.5 70.7 145.8 100.5 7 94.7 83.1 80.9 196.2 143.2 shirloy control /3 1 100.5 67.7 61.2 345.7 56.4 2 93.8 55.7 55.9 117.5 82.6 3 65.2 43.3 63.8 97.8 90.4 7 86.5 55.6 60.3 187.0 76.5 1987 8LACKGUN Tree Cl* (ppe. dry desis) location Wese/$lte Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 Med Horse Creek /l 1 127.6 192.7 400.0 268.2 497.4 2 130.7 254.7 500.0 288.5 800.0 3 101.1 190.1 375.0 306.1 700.0 7 119.8 212.5 425.0 287.6 665.8 Silv0r Lake Meadow /2 1 90.1 260.9 293.5 420.2 377.7 2 120.5 165.2 437.5 869.6 1054 3 125.0 158.9 568.2 885.4 1132 7 111.9 195.0 433.1 725.1 854.6 Shirley Control /3 1 86.7 84.3 134.8 317.7 335.1 2 85.2 76.5 202.1 303.2 418.5 3 115.4 136.6 179.3 289.2 423.5 7 95.8 99.1 172.1 303.4 392.4 { IwS9-e03TD Page 1 of 6 87C4611 I 31 August 1989
l 1
]
l TABLE 8 2 (continued) E 1987 FLOWERING D0GWOOD
' Tree Cl* (ppe. dry bests)
. Location Nees/$lte Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 j I Med Horse Creek /1 1 2
466.7 482.$ 1442 1386 2625 3400 4840 2933 6275 5637 j i I 3 7
$62.5 503.9 1406 1,411.3 3565 3,223.3 4837 4,203.3 7250 6,387.3 1
1 l 1 479.2 1225 2830 4804 6250 6633 ISilverLakeNeedom/2 2 3 1204 417.0 2553 3113 4667 3200 6250 3698 3455 7 733.4 2,297.0 3,565.7 4,917.3 6,112.7
'thirley Control /3 1 .. -- - -
2 3 1 i I , ' (-) Not collected at thle location. , i I _ . 1987 I Tree PtN OAK Cl* (ppe, dry basis) Location Nees/ Site Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 1 141.8 90.4 212.5 209.2 334.8 274.5 212.0 292.5 IMedHorseCreek/1 2 3 194.4 144.0 158.7 146.3 427.3 423.1 585.1 7 163.1 131.8 304.7 281.4 404.1 I $11 ver Lake Needos/2 2 1 144.0 154.0 139.9 184.8 566.0 259.1 201.9 240.2 389.4 240.6
'v I 7 3 154.4 150.8 77.8 134.2 437.5 420.9 305.9 249.3 205.9 278.6
$ hlrley Cc..itrol/3 87.8 171.6 200.5 263.6 I
1 127.6 2 88.9 77.8 109.7 223.0 203.1 3 115.4 156.2 155.6 264.2 255.0
- T 110.6 107.3 145.6 229.2 240.6 il -
'twS9 1403TD Page 2 of 6 87C4611
!lW 31 August 1989
- - _. ~ , _ . . _ _
- o. .
l TAALE S-2 (continued) l 1 l987
$A$$AFRA$
Tree C1' (ppe. dry basis) Location Name/$lte Number Number $/07 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 I Med Horse Creek /1 1 486.1 546.9 301.0 425.9 1378 ! 2 437.5 510.4 437.5 611.7 1114 f I 3 T 309.1 410.9 132.4 396.6 322.2 353.6 317.5 451.7 664.9 1,052.3 Sil ver Lake Needow/2 317.3 228.7 358.5 I 1 226.1 1019 l 2 210.1 163.3 179.3 228.3 1250 3 326.0 307.7 292.6 237.5 586.7 : 7 256.7 262.8 233.5 274.8 951.9 I
, Shirley Control /3 1 - -- .. - -
2 .. .. , 3 ll ' I(-)Notcollectedetthltlocation. P I -.
. I 5
1987
$WEETGUM '
Tree Cl" (ppe. dry bests) i Location Name/ Site Number Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 9/87 , Med Horto Creek /1 1 117.2 157.9 235.0 203.1 375.0 2 72.0 176.0 331.5 303.9 459.2 I 3 7 95.5 94.9 384.6 239.5 425.5 331.2 406.3 304.4 478.7 471.0 1 105.1 207.6 477.3 404.3 350.0 ISliv:rLakeMoedow/2 2 127.7 140.0 298.9 406.9 603.8 3 85.6 152.8 273.6 ..'.9 415.1 7 106.1 166.8 349.9 ' 9* .0 456.3 Shirley Control /3 1 88.9 79.5 122.4 n6.6 186.2 2 97.8 158.3 106.8 176.9 157.5 I 3 7 86.2 91.0 66.2 99.7 117.6 115.6 170.2 191.2 240.0 194.6
'ege 3 of 6 87C4611 I -.1:49-403TD .
31 August 1989-t _ e----- - . . - ,,c - . ,. - _ , . . .
- + , . . . . - - - __-_.
Ik
-\f TABLE B-2 (continued)
I 1988 BLACK CHERRY Tree Cl* (ppe. dry basis) I Location Name/81te Number Nus' 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/t8 i I Med Horse Creek /1 2 1 16.2 17.8 19.7 25.0 24.5 22.2 41.2 78.7 66.3 50.9 l l I 3 7 18.5 17.5 28.5 24.4 44.1 30.3 76.5 65.6 101.0 72.7 j I l l 15.5 20.6 20.6 34.0 38.5 J I I Silver Lake Moedow/2 2 3 23.9 18.8 31.9 20.8 46.9 21.4 80.0 29,8 30.0 N.8 I T 19.4 24.4 29.6 47.9 32.8 I S hirley Con +rol/3 2 1 20.1 20.4 19.8 17.8 14.2 19.8 21.8 33.3 22.4 43.4 i l 3 16.7 17.9 21.0 39.2 40.4 19.1 18.5 18.3 31.4 35.4
~
I I ,988 8LACKGUM Tree Cl* (ppe dry bests) location Name/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 I Me4 Horse Creek /1 1 18.0 44.1 78.1 128.0 178.0 !g 2 27.1 50.0 121.0 210.0 300.0 g 7 3 19.5 21.5 35.8 43.3 80.0 93.0 202.0 180.0 245.0 241.0 1 21.3 38.5 55.3 89.3 134.0 I$11verLakeMeadow/2 2 29.1 58.8 96.9 163.0 246.0 3 29.4 42.0 120.0 167.0 274.0 7 26.6 46.4 90.7 139.8 218.0 Shirley Control /3 1 15.1 21.4 34.7 51.1 90.4 2 12.7 22.6 35.8 63.7 112.0 3 15.1 29.3 45.0 95.0 128.0 7 14.3 24.4 38.5 69.9 110.1 I Iw89-403TD Page 4 of 6 87C4611 I/ ; 31 August 1989
, 4 4
I - TABLE 5-2 (continued) I ,,88 FLOWERING DOSWOOD Tree Cl* (ppe. dry basis) ILocQtionName/$lteN-aber Number S/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 IMedHorseCreek/1 1 87.0 428.0 -- 592.0 1060.0 2 115.0 362.0 -- 860.0 1156.0 I ' Silver Lake Moedow/2 7 3 100.0
-103.3 332.0 374.0 740.0 730.7 1225.0 1,147.0 1 174.0 404.0 522.0 828.0 I
1137.0 2 67.7 366.0 358.0 817.0 1098.0 3 76.4 333.0 473.0 537.0 947.0 T 106.0 367.7 451.0 727.3 1,060.7 Shirley Control /3 1 -. - .. .. .. 2 .. .. .. 3 - -- -- -- -
),
I, 1988 P1N OAK Tree Cl" (ppe. dry basi.s) I_LocationName/$lteNumber Number- 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 Med Horse Creek /1 1 46.2 35.4 61.3 104.0 173.0 2 39.4 46.4 91.8 100.0 179.0
-3 41.1 57.7 95.5 128.0 125.0 7 42.2 46.5 82.9 110.6 159.0 Silver Loko Moedow/2 1 23.5 45.5 66.3 91.8 132.0 I 7 2
3 27.6 33.0 28.0 39.0 41.8 42.1 71.1 79.8 72.4 111.0 83.3 95.4 114.0 123.0 123.3 IShirleyControl/3 1 18.8 31.3 45.7 75.0 107.0 2 17.2 26.1 31.5 55.0 77.3 3 20.2 26.0 34.4 66.3 104.0 7 18.7 27.8 37.2 65.4 96.10 lI Page 5 of 6 _ lwS9-403fD 8704611 ;
-L31 Au8ust 1989 '
b
i - 1
> t l
TABLE S-2 (continued) i I~ ,988
$ASSAFRAS l Tree Cl* (ppe. dry bests)
Location Name/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 , 1 I-MedHorseCrook/1 1- 93.1 60.0 151.0 200.0 333.0 ) 2 93.8 151.0 201.0 260.0 332.0 . 3 80.4 115.0 85.0 81.6 201.0 ! l g I 89.1 108.7 147.7 160.5 288.7 i '. Silver Lake Moedow/2 1 65.8 52.2 57.3 113.0 246.0 ; 2 68.4 50.0 45.1 107.0 300.0 l L 3 73.9 55.0 99.1 74.1 205.0 ' l T 69.4 52.4 67.2 98.0 250.3 i Shirley Control /3 1 .. .. ..
.. .. \
l 2 .. .. 3 l. L (.) Not collected at this location. I. I988
- $WEETOUM i Tree Cl* (ppe, dry bests) '
Location Name/ Site Number Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 LI .had Horse Creek /1 1 23.6 46.9 71.4 181.0 196.0 i- 2 18.1 37.8 95.6 157.0 192.0 l 3 16.8 50.5 141.0 214.0 250.0 T 19.5 45.1 102.7 184.0 212.7
, .$11ver Lau Meadow /2 1 21.4 63.8 120.0 204.0 283.0 2 41.5 67.3 76.5 196.0 240.0 .
3 24.1 48.0 95.7 190.0 260.0 , T 261.0 ; I 29.0 59.7 97.4 196.7 i Shirley Control /3 1 19.4 16.4 39.0 67.7 81.6 2 21.5 21.7 33.2 52.1 102.0 I 3 7 16.8-19.2 21.2 19.7 28.4 33.5 61.4 60.4 18.1 87.2 ; I U I IwS9-403TD 31' August 1989 Page 6 of 6 87C4611
': n,
. ?
- AW*fSW4 u1-a
)f'$' y ,
[1 ?
. /.
s . ! / c 4
..l
, :s , *
. j lIs n
o le[ 'L;'s-. l ; f*, b, g t
..1' 1
I (i Ii. , I ~ I g. r 1 S. i i I' .x 3 h l 5h* h b
\ ~\ ' ,
i h e
') 7 t
; gc Jl c
l U
, n,,
n,,a ~'- } NIW w ~ .n' ba;*x.s4s
., . c;.
m' v
.?m??$_g$$ .YN$mumynaven wsW?l?T e- ,1,,
y; y :9 p ..; .y ve gg M,t.;g.' gg. m N YhNkb g g a ~4 x ?..s.-4g , ;[wm'; W, gn46 . a'?;-;w h ll5$ pg-). 'y , e.c
^ ?lh --
q.Q..'* ggy < ?hY
-y ;g l -.i '
> ?- Y
- gr1 g -o +N$,h y ;n,ph e p ;p p
-(> .
.: t
-;33%w,e w.; :.
m nf;mmn mu ' a 1:,a;a K *:;.t w A~ -:, ::,n.s 95, y5 yc ':, \n. .; P: -*, ;L i.. ,. :; 4~4 ..y-. c,. ~ n w
)' ~ l, .
y, ~,v h, + y a p; &, e.,;,
;i. 4p: > -
u e .8 ya o n.
; & :, y ,? ,
s gyn >w' .- a 8, p l
,(,. s .w.,y [ , , , [ \ '
(*,
?. ,. .e
'"?.t x e .-
.,;x;plJh3
. , ,.-gt;W;
< N ,' 5Sj r c. .
.Tyr.
a.. p:-%+e.<p.., a, u ~g. ;,,, ,.rqs a,y, 4,. . . v. o s -a. p . " g.,u.nup-s: . V (;i .-
. .e
-n? , . _ ,
mu. i, gtN j e%g/ .. 6- ~ 9.
~ sn, t : .. gm, . t % ~.m ,r +
' Ay:
..4,'5
- f.,4.M'/;d;qi& %f 6-
@/p;i y p'h >flyi4:1 TW;d . d oy --* Q : . .1.. ; s.
ec ? ot 'u x 5 t' s { ')w, r i i i M. s 6 .-,m.
.y; W"d% 2 ggpW 09V',W,,,:cl' T(& W.z, nlP a M .J P.W% Q ij& $; MMl{g yO M L. &Jfwth; phf '
- l *l
- f,e ;s5% ,y s;:
,'j
. ' (;* r 5 ., 1
- j t,
MjdA$$ildbiiUOMdd;p&; *DyC5*K;h;;y'li3'[t-
; y p D Mt b "
% % #,# 2 . :M i M
.. ;> ,.l;V
, . V6 2. OKe
. - M J' ):whMdbaniaGMA M;'M.i'!!3 !E ag'"c.Ew !
w. bMM'Q"::MT # "' * ~' " * ' " 4 l4 r
- l:
P '
- h. yaemaa.m44,.aav _aama.m4..d h..Aue -J--" 4 we+4"WP.A E I .
APPENDlX C 1987 - 1988 SolLS DATA g 1 1 :, I ! 1 a
)
- -i
- f lI 1
.I 1 l ~ } -
}
[ ' $ lI i e il t c l 'W2 i I: . . . . ....,_...._,.a . _ , . , , _ _ . . _ .. , _ . , . . - . ,,, . , ,
g g 'g g g' ~ g. .g . g g g.(g 'g g g g M g@ @ TMt.E C-1
~
teRY - SEPTDGER 1987 $0D1491 (He*) Als Ot0 RIDE (C1 ) CONTUff 0F SDtt. IN THE VICINITY OF THE HOPE GIEEK GUIEltRTitIC STATIGIl SALEM CDl88TY, 8EW J[ftSEY Ne* (ppe, dry basis) C1~ (ppe, ery basis) Sample Number 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/87 -9/87 5/87 6/87 7/87 8/07 9/87 IA-l* 4.1 2.9 5.2 5.2 6.2 7.8 7.6 2.2 - 7.0 4.3 l 1A-2 3.3 1.8 1.8 4.9 7.9 12.6 6.0 4.6 8.7 8.2 1A-3 4.6 3.0 1.7 5.7 3.8 5.4 8.8 6.3 6.7 6.5 l 7 4.0 2.6 2.9 5.3 6.0 8.6 7.5 4.4 7.5 6.3 l 1 18-1 221.3 272.0 366.2 72ts.9 528.7 221.0 368.0 789.9 1487.0 836.0 { 18-2 542.2 338.8 482.3 647.8 567.2 294.9 303.6 863.4 1583.0 679.9 I ID-3 342.0 331.6 545.8 614.8 519.3 398.3 490.1 701.5 1534.0 661.4 7 368.5 314.1 464.8 663.8 538.4 271.4 387.2 784.9 1534.0 725.8 IB-1A 1.8 1.7 6.3 7.2 5.1 2.6 3.9 3.9 9.1 2.0 i 13-2A 5.1 5.0 3.7 9.6 3.1 4.1 4.9 5.2 9.7 2.7 i IB-3A 6.3 f.6 6.3 6.9 5.1 2.8 3.9 6.9 6.0 3.0 7 4.4 2.8 5.4 7.9 4.4 3.2 4.2 5.3 8.3 2.6 l , 2-1 4.6 4.3 4.0 5.7 8.2 4.9 4.3 5.4 4.3 5.7 l 2-2 5.1 4.1 3.5 7.7 8.2 4.0 3.3 6.5 7.1 4.2 2-3 3.3 1.7 1.9 4.9 5.4 3.1 10.6 6.1 5.8 3.8 7 4.3 3.4 3.1 6.1 7.3 4.0 6.1 6.0 5.7 4.6 j 3-1 4.5 4.5 6.7 6.5 7.3 6.5 10.4 3.0 2.4 2.8 l 3-2 7.2 6.5 5.6 8.5 8.3 8.1 5.8 3.9 3.3 3.7 , , 3-3 5.0 3.4 4.4 8.3 7.5 6.4 4.3 3.5 5.0 2.3 ! T 5.6 4.8 5.6 7.8 7.7 7.0 6.8 3.5 3.6 2.9 b - ! *second digit (i .e., -1, -2, -3) represents rep? icate number of sampling location (i.e. 1 A, IB, 2, 3). I. i Iw89-403mm i I i 4 4
, .-,s. , y ..~. , - , . . . . . _ , , , , , , , , , , . , , , - . ._..w,_ ,...,......-..w - - . , ,,...~,,.......e_..._,._....
TABLE C-2
~
letY - SEPTEMBER 1988 S0E71480 (IIe*) AIS) 08.8R10E (C1 ) 08NTENT OF Sell IR - TDC VICIR11Y OF 1HE HOPE DIEEK GE8EftRTitIB STATicII SALD8 ODI88TY, OEW JERSEY Ma* (ppe. dry t>asist C1 - (pos, dry Iposis) 9/88 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 9/88 Sampie Number 5/88 6/88 7/88 8/88 11.2 - 9.17 12.4 22.4 14.3 IA-1* 3.39 2.68 3.37 3.56 5.41 13.6 13.0 18.0 23.0 12.5 1A-2 1.57 2.26 2.75 4.97 5.11 7.18 7.5 23.8 24.0 10.0 1 f.-3 2.75 5.60 2.28 4.74 4.09 10.7 9.9 15.7 21.1 - 12.3 7 2.6 3.5 2.8 4.4 4.9 261.0 324.0 958.0 851.0 433.0 18-1 109.0 186.0 301.0 198.0 139.0 283.0 295.0 322.0 997.0 871.0 838.0 18-2 141.0 182.0 285.0 231.0 255.0 318.0 1099.0 t169.0 900.0 122.0 167.0 254.0 286.0 191.0 18-3 1018.0 963.7 721.3 280.0 283.3 204.3 270.3 321.3 7 124.0 178.3 1.40 4.12 3.65 3.91 12.8 9.22 IB-IA 1.92 4.37 0.80 4.16 1.51 2.52 2.18 5.94 5.24 6.29 18-2A 2.53 1.87 1.42 0.3 1.09 23.5 4.36 4.95 10.2 5.13 IB-3A 2.75 2.88 1.36 1.81 1.3 10.1 3.4 4.9 9.4 6.9 7 2.4 3.0 1.2 2.1 5.85 11.6 22.2 9.81 7.68 2.98 :.28 0.75 0.23 1.61 2-1 10.5 8.58 7.96 5.54 0.16 0.17 0.08 1.69 3.44 2-2 1.37 9.4f 6.21 1.80 4.90 8.53 9.18 2-3 1.48 0.15 0.09 0.44 4.7 10.2 13.3 9.1 6.5 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 f.7 li 4.98 6.07 5.74 28.9 9.83 2.16 f.18 f.65 3.14 3.44 3-1 6.68 21.4 9.8 6.83 0.79 3.30 3.10 3.24 4.37 3 -2 3.20 13.4 83.1 2.77 2.75 3.78 2.42 3.54 6.18 3-3 3.37 1.13 17.3 6.5 3.3 3.0 4.3 6.3 13.5 li 2.9 f.0 2.6 05econd digit (i.e., -1, -2, -3) represents replicate number of sampling location (i.e.. IA, IB, 2, 3). IwS9-403nn
-==-==--m - iii . .
- f. qt. . - - i j t p y Js b 3
-w. ,,,
y,l. s W..- v. t : Iir 5 E
.(
[6' (' "n y
'b ,
.s.
y , Y g'
,=^ $
If.fy '+t
,.k k;;
;g-1 f,' <
s
..s.
*lll .
\{'
fM k E C4:' s i' g 8.
' .x y I:
I. I f f I. IE
- duo.,' m D,,'" n" *, ' M; " Mf% J 3cis a,C bial -n,wA 'nVMW-a d-(jh.YMA -,, n M --
3 ,: y3-g ' suuue#.mpNp,hC9v:AM 6 w ms: QA 2Mya: Q iWc.,n_.' g: m;S m. 3!ww wswv' in.p'4u7-sy iv-."!.e: n;' s T ' c-Wo"e; fu1. %y?;;;m. c . + ke: u s
)o a! s W-i Y .' i.y:
Nlq g h:., '\ w;.f, g;&
;bl f$(?jv'$}
9 r.:w%n y Ql .1 m:w/Wl;R'y'rl[ifl%[Qgf.
,Q s T \:_.a ': y. R
. y, l ^n i ' , f y d%[w%e'ee.ktfdij{[s jf '< dd]ikm;g w;,, 1,..
im$gdj s s ef h..Vg S h';6 l}g%}')f ury
'lh ]U.*j "y'+
<p,g%ehfe[QY.!'f ro h,p {,.dw e. m; 1
% ; Mp p% we e v4 .w
= _,-n ih ]Aqh w h:
a$siac d w_h $MYI _?a9/P(?ft mfpie N N0
. J-@l h i:
hh ? p$ fw~n%Sk$y.f h;.
~
.. - _4
; -4
,w#,0 W_% :s
- Gb .Y, ./p
_'~'
,'40_%
' [l' %# M &ildb .YMOLifu d)
$d!MN fM.$ s yid $f/N 9N
% 2iW M&2haiW M[[$ iqs
&%ukG6: 6 k u[MkhlNh)/IP['M w ait aia h x u a W C'Nf C > ,
d%W klS h n i, B. I' - ___ m_.. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
w
- ~~} ')
5 i. 5 l t:. APPENDlX D b LABORATORY METHODS
-.'j. -_
t e I
., 3
'\
l7 APPENDIX D LABORNiORY METHODS This appendix contains a description of laboratory methods as outlined the Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drif t Monitoring Plan (WCC,1984). SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES Dustfall collectors were thoroughly cleaned before being taken to the
' collection stations. Clerning consisted of washing with Alconox soap, followed by rinsing with hot tap water, a rinse with- 10 percent HNO3 , and rinsing with distilled delonized water. - A conductivity measurement was made of the final rinse water. Rinsing continued until a reading equivalent to the distilled deionized water was obtained.
After one month, the dust buckets were tightly capped and returned to the laboratory for analysis. The liquid (if any) in the buckets was removed and the buckets rinsed to remove any residual material for analysis. Particulate Analysis The contents of each collector was filtered through both a 1 mm screen and pre-weighed Whatman Number 41 filter paper. The screen removed larger solids (e.g., insects) which may have accumulated in the bucket. The filter (which contained water insoluble material less than 1 mm in size) was dried in a forced-air oven at 70'C overnight and then reweighed. The difference in weights represents the insoluble fraction and was expressed as grams of mass per bucket per month. GF89-299D D-1 87C4611 20 June 1989
9 TDS Analysis l A 30 ml allquot of the solute from the collector (which passed thorugh the j filter paper) was pipetted into a clean, dry, and pre-weighed 100 mi teflon evaporating dish. The evaporating dish wks placed in a Convection oven overnight
] . at 180'C. Upon removal from the oven, the dish was placed in a desiccator, cooled, and a final weight obtained. The difference in dish weight divided by the I volume of solute determines the concentration of dissolved solids in the solute in unhs of milligrams per liter. The total mass of dissolved solids deposited in the collector during the month was calculated using the measured volume of water in the bucket.
I Sodium Analysis An allquot of the solute was analyzed by direct aspiration using an g Instrumentation Laboratory Model 151 atomic absorption spectrophotometer and B sodlum lamp. A standard curve was generated through regression analysis.
, Results were reported as the mass of Na+ deposited in the collector during the month.
Chloride Analysis An allquot of the solute was titrated with AgNO3 using a dichromate indicator solution to determine the end point of the titration. The amount of Cl~ l in the sample was determined by the volume and normality of the AgNO3 required for titration. NATIVE VEGETATION STUDIES Follage collected for laboratory analysis was dried in a forced-draf t oven for 48 hours at 95'C. The collected leaves were not washed prior to drying. Curtis, et al. (1976) found no difference in the results of C1' analyses from washed and unwashed flowering dogwood leaves. The dried leaves were ground in a laboratory GF89-299D D-2 87C4611 l 20 June 1989
H. { grinder, passed through a 20-mesh screen and analyzed for Na+ and Cl* concentration. Sodium Analysis A 0.50 g leaf sample was weighed into a teflon copped pyrex tube. Three ml of distilled and delonized H O and 3 ml of concentrated HNO3(metals grade) was 2 added to the tube. The tubes were capped and heated in a Technicon Model BD-40 block digester for 2 hours at 150*C. The digested samples were then cooled, B washed through Whatman Number 40 ashless filter paper and the filtrate illuted to 100 ml with distilled water. Na+ concentrations in the resulting solution were determined using an instrumentation Laboratory Model 151 atomic absorption spectrophotometer and sodium lamp. A standard curve was generated through regression analysis. The Na+ concentration was reported as ppm Na+. Chloride Analysis A 0.50 gram leaf sample was shaken in 23.75 ml of distilled and delonized water for 5 minutes. Then,1.25 mis of dilute (1:9) HNO3 and 0.5 ml of ionic strength adjuster (>M NANO3 ) were added and mixed. Cl concentrations in leaf tissues were determined using an Orion chloride ion electrode and double junction reference electrode used in combination with an Orion Model 701A digital pH meter. The ion electrode was inserted in the solution and the potential in mV recorded. The chloride concentration of the solution was obtained from a calibration curve constructed by plotting the potential of chloride standards versus concentration on semi-logarithmic paper. The C1' concentration was expressed as ppm Cl'. Soll STUDIES Soll samples were analyzed in the laboratory to determine the concentrations of water soluble Na+ and Cl present. Soluble Na+ and CI' were
. removed from each sample by leaching with distilled and deionized water. The B
l GF89-299D D-3 87C%11 20 June 1939
{< , l' n(. s . l leaching process consisted of the mixing of the soll sample and water at a 1:4 l ratio followed by continuous agitation (i.e., shaking) over a period of l 18
- 2 hours. Af ter shaking was completed, the suspended soil was allowed to settle for 1 hour before the aqueous phase was decanted and filtered through Whatman Number 41 paper. The solute was then analyzed for Na+ and Cl using atomic absorption and AgNO3 titration techniques, respectively (as described for dustfall bucket samples).
I i I j I . I I I I I I r I I GF89-299D D-4 87C4611 20 June 1989
=-.i.u.m.- .
.;a. .- , {'
- r. .
A l , '} .y _ h
' '- i._ l
+ :' v .:
- '1-'
,,e '
4 i f,9lp -I q g .N{l'
- Q ; ; \y '
7; jy ! 7 O ' n c ,1c_ .
.pj, 'i s e ~;31) -
,e, *
'-s WL 3O ' '
4i,l .x
,er. lQf. <;h p* m. -
14
/ .~ ._ ,,. 7 j
_ e.;.
\..' y--a {
i J f'.. x.\ 4
,, -u icg +w~ i 1 .-_ui b 5, 6 d' ' .
1 lk J,
. 4!-e'g h
( s. 4t. t l,< it
'hI '
t
; s I> V'( t
, '^eg s
4 i h
?
nh p' . . .I. S h
^
p p r
,).i
(
';';...' rt . q
( 4
,3 (
'S' O5, f.
n a' q smahm' eppv,.um: w' nkw w' Y w w%m9 %'x" a' ikkp$$nh $fj$!idfffNNkINMNf0@w m n, H Q & y; Q ,&.Xt,h en CdO @ vids g( $ nb@m ' a%n" M M *m a% flc QMQfBik'!% - mS:m) M*[ % %,)3:; n% Qn k :ik,'a a Tv W n D,1
%n2, yNMrl3)t wl{a s wl:' W
- %nn am%nf S T 7 n-@N 1 ,W an Wp@ n l $e$hd munn @ N[h jghj@n M EQ)@n@a
. . n l d M _$ AOypu w v.
-b sww I' Nh. hid N kdk NUJ [g *P .l .
'? ig v$ f g -f 0 gha%m[$j%_h a %g:y m%$$a, e %m&# NN,k@y o mess w' NLMN %W%w%a$ammam[
mm w a* c . 1 4 m j I c-(
-- __x. .
__ __,x_ _ , . _ _ _ _ ,
_i.4a,m 4.- _ I l
. I APPENDIX E l QUALITY ASSURANCE
/
I 1 c I i e b I ,
+
5 ! s I ! 6 f . 1 l ,I e i s A I e I .
- I
l l H, l l APPENDIX E QUALITY ASSURANCE i i SALT DEPOSITION STUDIES I Quality control measures for each of the four parameters were developed. f For particulates, quality control consisted of calculation of percent differences of i the co-located samplers. For TDS, in addition to calculation of percent l differences of co-located samplers, one sample per month was analyzed in ; triplicate, and the precision of analysis expressed in terms of its relative standard l' deviation. Na+ and Cl quality control measures included calculation of percent differences of co located samplers, a triplicate analysis which was evaluated using i the relative standard deviation, and a percent recovery analysis of two spiked ; samples (one Na+ and one Cl-) per month. ; The percent difference of co-located samplers is given by: I Percent D = X-C O.5 (X + C) x 100 Where - Percent D = Percent difference of field sampler data and co-located sampler data for same given time period. ; X = Individual results of a given sample from field : sampler. C = Individual results of a given sample from ; corresponding co-located sampler. l The percent difference is expected to be within 16 percent based on co!!aborative , testing (ASTM DS-55-54). Tentative control limits are :,uggested at 12 percent and 16 percent, respectively, for warning and control limits. I The precision of the triplicate analyses is shown in terms of its relative standard deviation. By this system, the standard deviation of the analysis is I GF89-299A E-1 87C4611 I . ._. - . - - _ ._
.) W m expressed as a percentage of the mean. Higher values are indicative of greater variation or lower quality control. l The results of quality control analyses for each of the four parameters is
, presented below.
Particulates. Table E-1 shows the percent differences of co-located I samplers 3/3R and 4/4R for particulates. The values for particulates ranged from 0.0 percent to 160.8 percent with a combined average precision of 40 percent. Co-located sampler 3/3R ws vilthin the 16 percent control limit 37 percent of the time (10 of 27 months). Co-located sampler 4/4R was within the control limit 14 percent of the time. TDS. Table E-1 shows the percent differences of co-located samplers 3/3R and 4/4R for TDS. The values for TDS ranged from 0 percent to 143.6 percent with a combined average precision of 43 percent. Co-located sampler 3/3R w.m I. within the 16 percent control limit 37 percent of the time while co-located sampler 4/4R was within the controllimit 22 percent of the time. Table E-2 presents the relative standard deviation for the replicate samples ic TDS. As indicated in this table, the relative standard deviation ranged from 0 percent to 42.1 percent. I Sodlum. Table E-1 shows the percent differences of co-located samplers 3/3R and 4/4R for Na+. The values for Na+ ranged from 0.0 percent to 125.3 percent, with a combined average precision of 23.5 percent. Co-located sampler 3/3R was within the 16 percent control limit 48 percent of the time, while co-located sampler 4/4R was within the control limit 63 percent of the time. Table E-2 presents the relative standard deviations for the replicate samples for Na*. As indicated in this table, the relative standard deviation ranged from 0.0 percent to 46.9 percent. GF89-299A E-2 87C4611
I I Table E-3 presents the percent spike recovery results. Percent spike recovery ranged from 63.7 to 104.7. Chloride. Table E-1 shows the percent differences of co-located samplers 3/3R and 4/4R for Cl'. The values for Cl* ranged from 0.0 percent to 160.3 percent with a combined average precision of 29 percent. Co-located I sampler 3/3R was within the 16 percent control limit 37 percent of the time, while co-located sampler 4/4R was within the control limit $1 percent of the time. Table E-2 presents the relative standard deviation for the replicate samples for Cl~. As indicated in this table, the relative standard deviation ranged from 0.0 percent to 18.4 percent. I Table E-3 presents the percent spike recovery results. Percent spike recovery ranged from 80.1 to 115.8. NATIVE YEGETATION STUDIES For the Na+ and C1' concentrations in leaf samples, quality control consisted of two replicates of a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) leaf sample which were digested prior to the running of a batch of samples. The NBS samples were analyzed for Na+ and Cl concentrations and the relative standard deviation was calculated. The percent accuracy relative to the standard was then determined. These quality assurance tests were run in December 1987 and January 1989. The results are presented in Table E-4. For Na+, the relative standard deviation ranged from 3.7 percent to 3.8 percent while the percent accuracy ranged from 99.0 to 103.7. For Cl , the
- , relative standard deviation ranged from 3.7 percent to 7.8 percent, and the percent accuracy ranged from 86 to 93.
- I I
GF89-299A E-3 87C4611 1
l SOIL STUDIES I For the Na+ and Cl concentrations in soll samples, quality control consisted of the analysis of two replicate samples from composite samples collected and a spiked sample. The selection of samples for replicate analysis was done randomly. The months analyzed include August and September of 1987; and May, l I June, July, August and September of 1988. The results were evaluated by j calculating the relative standard deviation of the replicates and' the percent recovery of the spiked samples. The results are presented in Table E-5. The relative standard deviation for Na+ ranged from 1.24 percent to 99.97 ) percent, while the percent spike recovery ranged from 75.7 to 99.9. For Cl~, the l relative standard deviation ranged from 0.925 percent to 17.8 percent, and the i percent spike recovery ranged from 68.3 to 110.0 I : E :
- g I
I I
;I !I E-4 GF89-299A 87C4611
v - ;
)
I ;
]
I ', l TABLE E-1 PElttWT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 00-LOCATED $W'LERS I 3/3R Ale 4/4R FC1R TE PERl00 JANUARY 1987 TO MAROI 1989 + Particulates Total Dissolved Sclids Sodium Chloride Date 3/3R 4/4R 3/3R 4/4R 3/3R 4/4R 3/3R 4/4R , I 1/87 2/87 11.0 8.9 47.6 3.4 85.0 68.6 110.2 60.4 9.7 12.6 4.2 18.1 18.3 11.5 0.6 20.2 j I 3/87 4/87 5/87 106.4 34.9 5.5 77.7 17.1 40.6 0 34.5 56.7 13.7 31.9 38.4 11.1 8.7 35.3 64.7 18.5 87.7 20.0 0 12.3 19.1 4.2 148.6 6/87 11.3 34.9 129.6 25.8 23.7 11.7 36.2 13.5 I 7/87 8/87 9/87 7.4 35.3 94.1 74.9 26.1 60.9 45.0 4.5 18.7 143.6 134.5 38.7 22.3 14.8 5.9 31.7 22.9 3.7 40.0 11.3 34.4 76.4 5.5 12.1 I 10/87 11/87 12/87 37.0 7.0 26.6 4.2 35.3 32.1 73.0 15.0 74.6 11.7 49.1 79.4 17.8 15.8 31.7 5.4 15.5 12.5 95.8 21.3 94.4 5.7 12.6 43.0 I 1/88 36.6 39.0 27.4 1.9 7.0 30.0 0.3 19.4 2/88 61.5 35.0 18.5 20.2 23.4 14.2 20.2 32.6 3/88 11.3 39.4 45.9 49.8 43.8 11.5 4.8 27.1 1 4/88 18.6 9.7 1.4 37.5 50.0 13.7 25.6 50.8 I 5/88 6/66 7/88 33.6 19.8 18.6 12.2 21.1 160.8 32.3 14.0 35.7 26.4 5.2 9.1 9.7 125.5 0 151.1 0 0 17.0 23.5 18.2 54.4 13.4 23.7 I 8/88 13.2 87.8 11.2 16.1 5.0 57.2 11.5 50.0 9/88 78.4 126.8 7.4 40.0 18.1 8.0 14.9 7.2 10/88 20.0 22.2 10.5 9.8 24.9 0 160.3 7.2
- 11/88 41.9 18.7 9.5 125.9 0 0 14.4 3.8
] 12/88 12.1 22.5 31.7 65.7 49.5 15.3 43.1 13.7 1/89 14.2 50.3 22.2 29.6 34.7 18.2 14.6 0.8 2/89 57.9 152.8 4.4 129.1 10.6 0 30.8 83.7 ' 3/89 40.1 100.0 22.7 26.9 50.0 14.5 30.2 0.5 Av:rege 5 32.0 48.9 35.0 51.3 23.7 23.4 30.7 27.8 I I lI I 'GF89-299Ty 87C4611 20 June 1980
s 1 1 4 i TABLE E-2 ELATIVE STANDARD DEVI ATION OF EPLICATE SALT DEPOSITION
$ArLES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1987 TO MARCH 1989 i
TO$ Ne' C1' f 8 Date (5) (1) (!) - 1/87 7.2 7.9 12.3 2/07 4.5 0 9.2 l i 3/87 10.2 5.2 0 4/871 4.5 0 10.9 i I $/87 3.1 0 8.6 6/87 4.9 0 - I 7/87 8/87 9/87 7.1 11.9 0 6.5 9 0 4.3 0 0 I 10/87 14.5 2.7 12.1 i 11/87 20.4 7.7 18 4 12/87 10.7 3.4 9.1 ; 1/88 42.1 46.9 11.5 ! I 2/88 3/88 4/88 4.7 1.5 4.4 0.1 0 0 0 12.5 0 I 5/88 6/88 7/88 3.4 5.9 0 6.4 0 0 13.3 9.4 7.2 1 0 15.8 I 8/88 0 , 9/88 6.4 6.4 13.2 10/88 7.7 0 3.4 i
- 11/88 5.3 0 3.2 :
~ 12/88 10.0 0 6.6 I,
-W 1/89 24.2 4.7 5.6 -
2/89 16.5 0 4.6 I 3/8a 6.2 0 4.9 I : I ; I F 87C4611 OF89-299T: , ) I20 June 1989
+ .w - -r- e,--- , - , .--we ,---.--,<------m, . . - - - - -. . - - - - - . ----,..e - - . - . . - r . -
;d m.
N, i P TABLE E-3 1 PERCENT SPIKE RE00VERY FOR SALT DE598tTl0N
$4PLES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1987 TO MARDI 1989 Ne* C1*
Date (3) (g) 1/87 96.6 110 {- 2/87 3/87 100 95.1 84.2 108 4/87 100 117 5/87 100 102 6/87 98.3 . 7/87 95.4 105 8/87 100 95.8 9/87 95.3 96 10/87 83.4, 80.1 11/87 95.6 99.2 12/87 104.7 99.2 1/88 63.7 97.2 2/88 100 87.4 3/88 100 93.3 4/88 100 97 5/88 100 102.9 6/88 100 92.8 7/88 101 90.7 8/80 100 97.8 9/88 97.9 115.8' 10/88 97 107 11/88 84.3 90.2 12/88 100 100.2 1/89 85.6 92.9 2/89 84.5 103.6 3/89 93.7 104.6
'0F89-299tA 87C4611 20 June 1989
, l i ..
I TABLE E-4 RELATIVE STANDMO DEVI Ail 0N (RS0) 0F NBS REPLICATE ! VEGETATION SMPLES AND PERCENT A(X:URACY I Na' Cl* Date I RSD I Accuracy 5 RSD 1 Accuracy 1 12/87 3.7 103.7 7.8 86.0
.1/89 $.8 99.0 3.7 93.0 i
I I ; I ! I .I I ' I I I . I-0F89 299tD 8704611 20 June 1989
.- ' ,1 r k.I
. , l
- . !) i
.a.
[,j" "I i s ::[e
*I... . "l il.r': TABLE E-5 RELATIVE STAWARD ELEVATION DEVIATION (RSD) AND PERCENT -
SPlKE RECOVERY FOR $0ll SAWLES COLLECTED DURING 1987-1988
,e Ne* Cl*
UI<s ! Spike ! Spike
,Date 5 R$D' Recovery i RSD Recovery I
8/87' - 1.64 81.4 [ L
, '9/87 5/88 l'.30
.1.24 -
99.9 - - 94.1 17.8 77.8 C/88- 13.27 82.0 13.26 78.1 f
,7/88; 99.91 75.7 5.99 110.0 r
8/88' 12.77 84.0 11.48 95.9-9/88- 12.15- 86.0 0.925 68.3 ! l c.: e3 l g. I. I g
- GF89-2% 'd / 87C4611
;20-June 1989-W m*._A+ -tu--__ __. - _A.- -__m _ - -y-_-- _ w w- m -- ---.m- _t- w 1 y
a n jq iT OTlFFW L Mm%Q; ,
+%
i
% ,' g 2 h it.KG;-. pQn,l*'s@Q ::Q' ' . , * ;'%
':Wfy#'
g l' '
' '* 's -a. . +
m _
- -Wr t M 't L 3
' 'M
, Hy [h'}f[' ' ' _ hh '! <.h ' L;J ,
, Q.
, . O; :n;p : .n:
?
f ,s J.'~ ' Mn. . . . 59 Y 1.3U(y)!b: jij.'h. 'yW , y < ;!I ,
., p % 2 . .
; 6%/ t
.J,, , i yl[;cJR ' ,
P: ,- 6 ha '
, t.
r}3
? ;% , , 3 , .g..
a i, n 2- , f. ' t
- 4. + M,'..}- i- 9; <
* ~'t,.,
1 .3- .
"l:;;;q,; s W ,
ys r ,, o i k
/'4 2 s.
- (:n ' s
, y s';}?v ' , 8 e . 'D ..
p a .f p5h
,, ; o it:J.
t% , ' # ft i . , ,?:f '; j';. k3 ) C].; , i
.\'i ~ ? '
h$ d!y pll N g.c m a,
-m
; M f4 4
, , 5- g . ,-..
'; g; ;
* +
, a 1
U s
,gg?
} i, y:.L ,
.'gg 7 , - it '
s
'i
. ; ', 1 0 5h y , ~ ~ <
& <{p
,a. # ,
q ,, ' e >
g .
'--'\ '
fy Qe-L
- n > ,
- ; 1 f' ' t'i,9j 4.k ('i( J U-J )' t e i
,s @'; . . .
j
, - ?'m '
J J g ;
'[ , '; ';
si H, 1'y J
.[%). ,V[;
e g ..*k.
- s' ,5 3
E' . ffI [ f Q.,g ii F .
, .7' i
. [ f . f f ,-N 18 l , (:y l'. $k? Q , ;?
f ' ' " , ,, 'rb -
, ;lt. ; 'j-' , , U. !
! -s - ..
, .}. ?ib' *
}%;;l s._g:+ l t
) '.\.,'* Ajg
^
[ 5 l' q <j f _ l; \
) ,'h! \
d i t f 3 N a bi ' d h e t s* e n s t g e g w w % p g.bhe g.ge g m p y ,g $ g t } a n% g g g g g f p g g g g g g hhhhk hk hh hi B u. pn _rm,- : F h IJ.. p, .?
?
S fi /
'i .; , 1 k
4 Yh a.w ( wy e, ,
..a y "' !' *a. ', q-26-y , bk', .G?
5 >
-* 4 g ;--
V: 2 t ,l - , i s
w ,
-j g '
j g e:1 Rg
+
- - 1. ;
j f I,, ,
-1
-1 q
l?'
...l .
W. . APPENDIX F ~ a l ..* NET MONTHLY POWER OUTPUT LEVELS AT HCGS
,I s a 1,
es . (v 4 , e, - s.
- g, .
k I i
'e l
g 9 9 4 a I
- I s
I F A e wj w -*- t g- g gg e- --g--e e s e -e- =ey-, e,ev-- e.v e r e se, we-w'-,,ie = e +e e w e w eee,e -+ ewe =%,we--.-- . .- _ =a
,, a l
TABLE F-1 y HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION t., IET MONTHLY POWER CUTPUT LEVELS IN TILOWATT HOURS 1 1987 (kwh) 1988 (kwh) 1989 (kwh)
',l . January 796623l 788217 776952
',W February 490907- 296858 440177' l March. 599546 0 596231 ApriI. 700197 347186 -- May 705208 683964 -- June 694764 731890 -- JuIy 677207' 759077 -- August 650948 - 660565 -- September 389142 739669 -- . October' 86230 697022 -- Novembeh 753289 522578 -- l 766426 3 December 739066 -- f 2 e I
- g :
[I . P' GF89-299tG 07040 ' 30 June 1989
._ - - .- - . - -.}}