Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 12, pp 10073–10084 | Cite as

Biomass and number of fish impinged at a nuclear power plant by the Baltic Sea

  • Andreas C. BryhnEmail author
  • Mikaela A. J. Bergenius
  • Peter H. Dimberg
  • Anders Adill


The main aim of this study was to investigate the number and biomass of impinged fish at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, located on the coast of the Baltic Sea. Of particular interest was the number of impinged individuals of the critically endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) which is regularly caught in the cooling system. Another aim was to determine the comparability of the results from Forsmark and results from impingement studies in other types of waters. Cross-systems studies make it possible to (1) estimate fish loss at plants where fish is not counted, and (2) to predict changes in fish loss from changes in electricity production or cooling water use. In 2010, 31,300,000 fish with a total biomass of 62,600 kg were impinged at Forsmark. In 2011, 27,300,000 fish weighing 38,500 kg were impinged. The maximum peak in total fish number and biomass occurred in spring. The most critical period for herring was in late summer and early autumn. Regarding eel, the largest impingement losses were recorded in November. The number of fish agreed with earlier established quantities of impinged fish in both freshwater and marine ecosystems. The study also estimated that 1,300 critically endangered eels could survive at Forsmark each year if a fish return system would be constructed to allow the passage of fish from the plant back to the Baltic Sea.


Fish Impingement Nuclear power Eel 



Comments from two anonymous reviewers have greatly improved previous versions of the manuscript. We are also thankful to the Forsmark Power Group (Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB) which has voluntarily financed the data collection and has shared these data with us.


  1. Adill, A., Mo, K., & Sevastik, A. (2011). Biological recipient control at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant. Annual report for 2010. Öregrund: Swedish Board of Fisheries (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  2. Adill, A., Landfors, F., Mo, K., & Sevastik, A. (2012). Biological recipient control at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant. Annual report for 2011. Aqua Reports 2012:7. Öregrund: Swedish Agricultural University (in Swedish with English abstract).Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, J., Cardinale, M., Fagerholm, B., Hjelm, J., & Pettersson, E. (2011). Fish losses in the cooling water intakes of the Ringhals plant. Öregrund: Swedish Board of Fisheries (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  4. Azila, A., & Chong, V. C. (2010). Multispecies impingement in a tropical power plant, Straits of Malacca. Marine Environmental Research, 70(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnthouse, L. W., Heimbuch, D. G., Anthony, V. C., Hilborn, R. W., & Myers, R. A. (2002). Indicators of AEI applied to the Delaware estuary. The Scientific World Journal, 2(S1), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonhommeau, S., Chassot, E., & Rivot, E. (2008). Fluctuations in European eel (Anguilla anguilla) recruitment resulting from environmental changes in the Sargasso Sea. Fisheries Oceanography, 17(1), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chassot, E., Mélin, F., Le Pape, O., & Gascuel, D. (2007). Bottom-up control regulates fisheries production at the scale of eco- regions in European seas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 343(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehlin, U., Lindahl S., Neuman E., & Sandström O. (2009). Environmental effects from large releases of cooling water. Elforsk Report 09:79. Stockholm: Elforsk (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  9. Ehlin, U., Borenäs, K., Neuman E., & Sandström O. (2012). Environmental effects from large releases of cooling water in a warmer climate. Elforsk Report 09:79. Stockholm: Elforsk (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  10. Ehrler, C. P., Steinbeck, J. R., Laman, E. A., Hedgepeth, J. B., Skalski, J. R., & Mayer, D. L. (2002). A process for evaluating adverse environmental impacts by cooling-water system entrainment at a California power plant. The Scientific World Journal, 2(S1), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EIFAAC & ICES. (2011). Report of the 2011 session of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels. Lisbon, Portugal: EIFAAC & ICES.Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood, M. F. D. (2008). Fish mortality by impingement on the cooling-water intake screens of Britain’s largest direct-cooled power station. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(4), 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadderingh, R. H., & Jager, Z. (2002). Comparison of fish impingement by a thermal power station with fish populations in the Ems Estuary. Journal of Fish Biology, 61(Suppl. A), 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Håkanson, L., & Boulion, V. V. (2002). The lake foodweb—modelling predation and abiotic/biotic interactions. Leiden: Backhuys.Google Scholar
  15. Heibo, E., & Karås, P. (2005). The coastal fish community in the Forsmark area SW Bothnian Sea. SKB Report P-05-148. Stockholm: SKB.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, P. A., Turnpenny, A. W. H., & Bamber, R. N. (1984). Long-term stability of a sand smelt (Atherina presbyter Cuvier) population subject to power station cropping. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, P. A., & Seaby, R. M. H. (2000). Technical evaluation of US Environmental Protection Agency proposed cooling water intake regulations for new facilities. Technical report. Lymington: Pisces Conservation.Google Scholar
  18. Houde, E. D., & Rutherford, E. S. (1993). Recent trends in estuarine fisheries: prediction of fish production and yield. Estuaries and Coasts, 16(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IAEA (2011). Operating experience with nuclear power stations in member states in 2010—Data sheets. International Atomic Energy Agency. Accessed May 16, 2013.
  20. IUCN (2012). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012.2. Accessed May 16, 2013.
  21. Iverson, R. L. (1990). Control of marine fish production. Limnology and Oceanography, 35(7), 1593–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennings, S., & Brander, K. (2010). Predicting the effects of climate change on marine communities and the consequences for fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems, 79(3–4), 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karås, P., Adill, A., Boström, M., Mo, K., & Sevastik, A. (2010). Biological investigations at the Forsmark plant 2000–2007. FINFO 2010:2. Öregrund: Swedish Board of Fisheries. in Swedish.Google Scholar
  24. Kelso, J. R. M., & Milburn, G. S. (1979). Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plants in the Great Lakes which use the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 5(2), 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, R. G., Seegert, G., Vondruska, J., Perry, E. S., & Dixon, D. A. (2010). Factors influencing impingement at 15 Ohio River power plants. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 30(5), 1149–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kullander, S. O., & Delling, B. (2012). Chordates: ray-finned fishes. Uppsala: Swedish Agricultural University (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  27. Liao, Y.-C., Chen, L.-S., Shao, K.-T., & Tu, Y.-Y. (2004). Temporal changes in fish assemblage from the impingement data at the Second Nuclear Power Plant, northern Taiwan. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(5), 411–417.Google Scholar
  28. Ljunggren, L., Sandström, A., Bergström, U., Mattila, J., Lappalainen, A., et al. (2010). Recruitment failure of coastal predatory fish in the Baltic Sea coincident with an offshore ecosystem regime shift. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67(8), 1587–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lukšiené, D., & Sandström, O. (1994). Reproductive disturbance in a roach (Rutilus rutilus) population affected by cooling water discharge. Journal of Fish Biology, 45(4), 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lukšiené, D., Sandström, O., Lounasheimo, L., & Andersson, J. (2000). The effects of thermal effluent exposure on the gametogenesis of female fish. Journal of Fish Biology, 56(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Madenjian, C. P., Jude, D. J., & Tesar, F. J. (1986). Intervention analysis of power plant impact on fish populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43(4), 819–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maes, J., Turnpenny, A. W. H., Lambert, D. R., Nedwell, J. R., Parmentier, A., & Ollevier, F. (2004). Field evaluation of a sound system to reduce estuarine fish intake rates at a power plant cooling water inlet. Journal of Fish Biology, 64(4), 938–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuman, E. (1979). Temperature impacts on fish catch outside a cooling water release site in the Baltic Sea. Swedish EPA Report 1163. Stockholm: Swedish EPA (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  34. Newbold, S. C., & Iovanna, R. (2007). Population level impacts of cooling water withdrawals on harvested fish stocks. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(7), 2108–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nixon, S. W. (1982). Nutrient dynamics, primary production and fisheries yields of lagoons. Oceanologica Acta, 4, 357–372. Suppl.Google Scholar
  36. Ringger, T. G. (2000). Investigations of impingement of aquatic organisms at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1975–1995. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(Suppl. 1), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandström, O., Abrahamsson, I., Andersson, J., & Vetemaa, M. (1997). Temperature effects on spawning and egg development in Eurasian perch. Journal of Fish Biology, 51(5), 1015–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shao, K.-T., & Kuo, S.-R. (1988). Species composition and seasonal distribution of impinged fishes at the two intakes along the northern coast of Taiwan. Acta Zoologica Taiwanica, 2, 209–227.Google Scholar
  39. Shao, K.-T., Lin, C.-P., Ho, L.-T., & Lin, P.-L. (1990). Study on the fish communities from northern and southern waters of Taiwan by analyzing the impingement data. Journal of the Fisheries Society of Taiwan, 17(2), 73–90.Google Scholar
  40. Svedäng, H. (1996). The development of the eel Anguilla anguilla L. stock in the Baltic Sea: an analysis of catch and recruitment statistics. Bulletin of the Sea Fisheries Institute, 3(96), 29–41.Google Scholar
  41. Taft, E. P. (2000). Fish protection technologies: a status report. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(Suppl. 1), 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turnpenny, A. W. H. (1981). An analysis of mesh sizes required for screening fishes at water intakes. Estuaries, 4(4), 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ware, D. M., & Thomson, R. E. (2005). Bottom-up ecosystem trophic dynamics determine fish production in the North-East Pacific. Science, 308(5726), 1280–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Westin, L., & Aneer, G. (1987). Locomotor activity patterns of nineteen fish and five crustacean species from the Baltic Sea. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 20(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiancko, P. M. (1981). Environmental design and operation of Nanticoke thermal generating station. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 7(2), 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas C. Bryhn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mikaela A. J. Bergenius
    • 1
  • Peter H. Dimberg
    • 2
  • Anders Adill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Coastal ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesÖregrundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations