ML101440277
| ML101440277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2010 |
| From: | ARCADIS G&M |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| LR-N10-0152, NP000571.0003 | |
| Download: ML101440277 (455) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey March 2004 PREPARED FOR PSEG Services Corporation 80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 ARCADIS Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Staff Scientist Prepared for.PSEG Services Corporation 80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 Prepared by: ARCADIS G&M, Inc.6 Terry Drive, Suite 300 Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940 Tel 267.685.1800 Fax 267.685.1801 Our Ref.NP000571.0003 Date: March 2004 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Background .1 1.2 Investigation Objectives 3 1.3 Report Organization
4.2 History
of Station Operations 6 2.1 Operating History 6 2.1.1 Area of Concern 6.2.1.2 Historical Spills and Releases 7 2.1.3 Constituents of Concern 72.2 Regulatory Review 8 3 Station Setting 10 3.1 Land Use 10 3.2 Estuarine Location* 10 3.3 Topography and Station Drainage 10 3.4 Climate and Precipitation* 11 3.5 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 11 3.5.1 Hydraulic Fill. 12 3.5.2 Riverbed Deposits 12 3.5.3 Kirkwood Formation 12 3.5.4 Vincentown Formation 13 3.5.5 Hornerstown-Navesink Aquitard 13 3.5.6 Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer 13 3.5.7 Matawan Aquitard 14 3.5.8 Magothy Aquifer 14 3.5.9 Raritan Confining Unit 14 3.5.10 Raritan Formation 15* 3.5.11 Potomac Group 15 Table of Contents 3.5.12 Wissahickon Formation 15 4 Facility Construction and Local Geology 16 4.1 Pre-Facility Construction 16 4.2 Facility Construction 16 4.2:1 Construction of the Cofferdam 17 4.2.1.1 Construction Within the Cofferdam 18 4.2.1.1.1 Lean Concrete 18 4.2.1.1.2 Structural Concrete 19 4.2.1.1.3 Structural Fill 20 4.2.2 Construction of the Service Water Intake Structure 20 4.2.3 Construction of the Service Water Pipes 21 4.2.4 Construction of the Circulating Water Intake Structure 21 4.2.5 Construction of the Circulating Water Pipes 21 4.2.6 Sheet Pile -Circulating Water Intake Structure to the Service Water Intake Structure 22 4.3 Local Geology 22 5 Initial Station Investigation Activities 24 5.1 Phase 1 25 5.2 Phase II 26 5.3 Phase III 27 6 Remedial Investigation -March 2003 through February 2004 29 6.1 New Monitoring Well Installation -May through June 2003 29 6.1.1 Objectives 29 6.1.2 Field Implementation 30 6.2 Supplemental Remedial Investigation -July through September 2003 31 6.2.1 Objectives 31 6.2.2 Field Implementation 32 6.2.3 Results 33 6.3 Monitoring Well Installation Activities -September through October 2003 34 ii Table of Contents 6.3.1 Objectives 34 6.3.2 Field Implementation 35 6. 4 Monitoring Well Installation Activities -January through February 2004 36 6.4.1 Objectives 36 6.4.2 Field Implementation 38 6.5 Monitoring Well Sampling and Analysis 39 6.6 Hydrogeologic Investigation Activities 41 6.6.1 Evaluation of Tidal Influence 41 6.6.2 Evaluation of Groundwater Elevations 42.6.6.2.1 Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit 42 6.6.2.2 Vincentown Formation 42 6.6.2.3 Evaluation of Vertical Groundwater Gradients 42 6.6.3 Evaluation of the Kirkwood Formation 43 6.6.4 Aquifer Characterization 43 6.6.4.1 Slug Tests 43 6.6.4.2 Pumping Tests 44 6.6.4.2.1 Well AB 44 6.6.4.2.2 Well AC 45 6.6.4.2.3 Well AD .45 6.6.4.2.4 Well Al 45 6.6.4.2.5 Well AJ 45 6.6.4.2.6 Well AM 46 6.6.4.2.7 Well S 46 7 Hydrogeologic Evaluation 47 7.1 Local Hydrogeology -Pre-Facility Construction 47 7.2 Local Hydrogeology -Current 47 7.2.1 Groundwater Flow -Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit 47 7,2.2 Groundwater Flow -Vincentown Formation 48 7,2.3 Vertical Gradients 49 7.3 Tidal Evaluation Results 49 iii Table of Contents 7.4 Evaluation of the Kirkwood Formation 49 7.5 Aquifer Characteristics 49 7.5.1 Slug Test Results 49 7.5.2 Pumping Test Results 50 7.5.2.1 Well AB 50 7.5.2.2 Well AC 50 7.5.2.3 Well AD 51 7.5.2.4 Well Al 51 7.5.2.5 Well AJ 51 7.5.2.6 Well AM 51 7.5.2.7 Well S 52 8 Analytical Results 53 8.1 Soil Samples 54 8.2 Groundwater Samples 55 8.2.1 Summary of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in theVincentown Formation (Wells L, K, P, Q, and V) 55 8.2.2 Summary of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in the Shallow, Water Bearing Unit Within the Limits of the Cofferdam (Wells M, N, 0, R, AC, and AE) 578.2.3 Summary of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in the Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit Outside of the Cofferdam (Wells S, T, U, V, W, Y, Z, AA, AB, AD, and AF) 59 8.3 Delaware River Tritium Concentrations 62 9 Fate and Transport Analysis 64 9.1 Constituent Pathways -Advective Water Movement 64 9.2 Water Balance Estimate of Groundwater Velocities 65 9.3 Sorptive Processes 67 94 Degradation 689.5 Dispersion 68 9.6 Tritium Age Dating and Groundwater Travel Time 69 10 Health and Environmental Risk Assessment 71 iv Table of Contents*10.1 On-Site Environmental Data for Tritium 71 10.2 Off-Site Environmental Data for Tritium 71,10.3 Methodology for Health and Environmental Risk Assessment 72 10.3.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways 72 10.3.2 Identification and Characterization of Potentially Exposed Individuals and Biota ..7310.3.3 Approach to Calculation of Doses to Humans and Comparisons with Applicable Standards 73 10.3.4 *Approach to Calculation of Doses to Biota and Comparisons with Applicable Guidance 7410.3.5 Approach to Calculation of Health Risks to Humans 75 10.4 Assessment of Potential Off-Site Exposures of Humans and Biota 76 11 Conclusions and Recommendations 77 11.1 Conclusions 77 11.2 Recommendations 78 12 References 79 v Table of Contents Tables 1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Constituents of Concern 2 Phase I Investigation Results 3 Phase II Investigation Results 4 Well Details 5 Supplemental Investigation Details 6 Supplemental Investigation Results 7 Field Parameters 8 Groundwater Elevation Measurements 9 Pumping Test Field Observations 10 Slug Test Results -Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity 11 Pumping Test Results -Aquifer Parameters 12 Groundwater Analytical Results Figures 1 Station Location 2 Station Layout 3 Regional Cross Sections 4 Surface Elevation of the Kirkwood Formation 5 Station Cross Section A -A'6 Station Cross Section B -B'7 Station Cross Section C -C'8 Station Cross Section D -D'9 Station Cross Section E -E'10 Phase I and I1 Sample Locations 11 Monitoring Well Network 12 Supplemental Investigation Sample Locations 13 Supplemental Investigation Results 14 Groundwater Elevation Contours -Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit (February 20, 2004)15 Groundwater Elevation Contours -Vincentown Formation (High -High Tide)Vi Table of Contents 16 Groundwater Elevation Contours -Vincentown Formation (Low- High Tide)17 Groundwater Elevation Contours -Vincentown Formation (Low -Low Tide)18 Hydraulic Conductivities and Travel Time Calculations 19 Relationship Between Dispersivity and Travel Distance Appendices A. Investigations of Salem Unit 1 Fuel Pool Leakage -Final Report Summary B. Section C -ISRA Non-Applicability Application (Station Operational History).C. Well Details (Boring Logs, Well Completion Details, Well Completion Records, and Survey Form Bs)D. Tidal Evaluation Results E. Evaluation of Water Levels in the Vincentown Formation F. Slug Test Results G. Pumping Test Results H. Dissolved Gas, Technetium-99 and Groundwater Age Determination Results for the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station I. Tritium Trend Plots for the Station Monitoring Wells J. A Perspective on Radiation Doses and Health Risks from Ingestion of Tritium in Drinking Water and Potential Impacts on Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota vii Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Executive Summary ARCADIS, Inc. (ARCADIS), on behalf of PSEG Services Corporation ("PSEG SC"), hasprepared this Remedial Investigation Report to document the findings of a remedialinvestigation conducted at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station (the"Station") located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The groundwater investigation was conducted in accordance with the scope of work defined in the Remedial Investigation Work Plan ("June 2003 RIWP") and the InitialGroundwater Investigation Report and Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum("RIWP Addendum") that were submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") in June 2003 and January 2004, respectively. The scope of work outlined in these documents was designed to investigate the discovery of tritium in the shallow, water-bearing unit adjacent to Unit I of the Salem Generating Station.The remedial investigation was initiated in September 2002 following the detection of low-level radioactive contaminants on the shoes of Station technicians. Initial investigationsindicated that the source of the low-level radioactive contaminants was water seeping through small cracks in the 78-foot Mechanical Penetration Room of the Unit I AuxiliaryBuilding. Further investigation revealed a second leak at the 92-foot elevation of the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool cooling line, adjacent to the pipe penetration through the concrete wall.Analytical results of water samples collected from the leaks indicated that the water had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water and that a leak from the Spent Fuel Pool system had likely occurred.The Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool is lined with stainless steel. Behind the stainless steel liner are liner drains (commonly referred to as "telltale drains") that are used as a combined leak monitoring, collection, and drainage mechanism. On January 31, 2003, a fiber optic examination of two of the telltale drains indicated that mineral deposits had formed a blockage in them. The blockage obstructed the flow of water in these drains resulting in the accumulation of Spent Fuel Pool water, which likely migrated along the paths of least resistance (e.g., a pipe conduit, construction joints, or cracks in the concrete)and ultimately manifested at the crack in the wall in the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room and through the gap/penetration where the Spent Fuel Pool cooling return lines intersects the wall at the 92-foot elevation. The mineral deposits have subsequently been removed to restore flow in the telltale drains.Further investigations conducted within the Station indicated that water from the Spent Fuel Pool had migrated to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap located between the Unit I FuelHandling Building and the Auxiliary Building. Along the narrow western and southern ends of the Seismic Gap, a flow path exists between the Styrofoam and foundation soils.As such, the potential exists for water in the seismic gap to migrate beyond the limits of the ES-1 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey engineered structures of the Station. Remedial investigation activities were initiated to determine if the Spent Fuel Pool water that had accumulated in the seismic gap hadmigrated beyond the limits of the engineered features of the building and into the environment (i.e., soil and groundwater. in contact with the seismic gap).Initially, eight groundwater monitoring wells.(Wells K through R) were installed in January and February 2003 at locations adjacent to and around the perimeter-of the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from these monitoring wells indicated that a potential release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool or other plant source to the environment had likely occurred. At this time, the subject remedial investigation was initiated.. The scope of work proposed inthe June 2003 RIWP and the RIWP Addendum was designed to determine if the tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed adjacent to Salem Unit 1 is a result of a release to the environment from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, a non-authorized release from other onsite operating or maintenance activities, or elevated background levels of tritium from authorized releases and other operating practices. The proposed scope of work was also O designed to assess the potential for: 1) tritium to migrate beyond the property boundaries;
- 2) human health 'and environmental risks associated with the -tritium detected in groundwater; and, 3) the need for any further action.The scope of work presented in the June 2003 RJWP and the RIWP Addendum consisted of the following:
- 1) the installation of an additional 21 monitoring wells and two replacement monitoring wells; 2). the collection and analysis of groundwater samples fromthe monitoring well network, including a one time event for groundwater age determination and for technetium-99 to definitively identify the Spent Fuel Pool as the source of the tritium; 3) an evaluation of the local and regional geology and hydrogeology including a review of published information and the performance of water level gauging events, slug tests and pumping tests; 4) an evaluation of tidal influences on select water-bearing units.
beneath the Station; 5) an evaluation of possible sources of the tritium detected in groundwater;
- 6) an evaluation of facility construction details and the preparation of detailed cross sections to identify potential migration pathways from the seismic gap and to highlight the principal components of the conceptual site model; 7) fate and transport analysis including the refinement of the conceptual site model, the delineation of groundwater flow pathways, and fate and transport calculations to estimate the' age of the tritium release and groundwater flow velocity; and, 8) to assess potential health risks to humans and potential impacts to aquatic and terrestrial biota. The following sectionsprovide a summary of the details and results of the remedial investigation activities.
ES-2 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Well Installation, Groundwater Sampling and the Supplemental Investigation The initial investigation included the installation and sampling of eight monitoring wells or direct-push points (Well K through Well R; M and R being direct-push points). Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells indicated that tritium was detected at concentrations above 3,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), the interim further investigation criterion proposed in the June 2003 RIWP, in groundwater samples collected from Monitoring Wells M, N, 0 and R. Tritium was also detected in the groundwater sample collected from Well N on January 30, 2003 at a concentration above the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criterion (GWQC) for tritium in groundwater of Class h1A aquifers (20,000 pCi/L).Monitoring Wells S through W were installed between May 5 and June 18, 2003 andexisting Monitoring Wells M and R were replaced with properly constructed and developed monitoring wells. Figure ES-1 shows the monitoring well network installed during the remedial investigation. Following installation and development of the new monitoring wells, groundwater samples were collected from the wells and analyzed by Maplewood for tritium, sodium, boron, and gamma-emitting isotopes. All samples were non-detect for.gamma-emitting isotopes. In July 2003, all tritium concentrations, with the exception of Monitoring Wells M and S, were below the GWQC of 20,000 pCi/L. The replacement.well for Monitoring Well M, within the cofferdam, indicated a tritium concentration of approximately 62,000 pCi/L and Well S, screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit outside of the cofferdam, indicated a tritium concentration of 3,500,000 pCi/L.A "supplemental" groundwater investigation was initiated in July 2003 in response to the detections of tritium in groundwater samples collected from Well S. The objectives of the supplemental investigation were as follows: 1) determine if the tritium measured in groundwater samples collected from Well S was migrating towards the property boundary;2) delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of the. tritium in groundwater in the vicinity of Well S; and 3) evaluate the potential sources of tritium in Well S. The supplemental investigation consisted of collecting grab groundwater samples from direct-push boreholes and temporary well points screened at various depths and locations along the site boundary, as well as surrounding Well S. Groundwater samples were submitted for analysis for tritium, boron, and gamma-emitting isotopes.Figure ES-2 shows the 37 proposed boring locations; samples were collected at as many as three depths at each location. Borings 1 through 8 were proposed to evaluate-concentrations along the site perimeter to assess the potential for off-site migration. Borings 9 through 18 and Borings 31 through 37 were proposed near Station infrastructure to identify possible sources of tritium. These potential sources include the liquid radioactive waste ("rad waste") line, the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, the Unit I refueling water ES-3 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey storage tank, and the Unit 1 primary water storage tank. Borings 19 through 30 were proposed in the vicinity and downgradient of Well S to determine the extent of tritium in groundwater. The findings from the supplemental investigation are summarized as follows: (1) the limit of groundwater concentrations above the GWQC for tritium (20,000 pCi/L) was defined as shown on Figure ES-2; (2) an expanded area in the vicinity of WellS with tritium levels above 500,000 pCi/L was quantified as shown on Figure ES-2; (3) a completed pathwaybetween a potential source and groundwater was not identified, but tritium concentrations and groundwater flow direction indicate that the southern end of the seismic gap is thelikely source of tritium in groundwater; and (4) extensive on-site monitoring of shallow groundwater indicates no tritium above permissible levels has migrated to the Station boundary.Following completion of the supplemental investigation, the RiWP Addendum was prepared and submitted to the NJDEP-BNE presenting the details and results of remedial investigation activities completed to date. The RIWP Addendum proposed additional remedial investigation activities designed to complete the delineation of groundwater impacts, and the hydrogeologic characterization of the shallow, water-bearing unit. The proposed remedial investigation activities included the installation of 16 additionalgroundwater monitoring wells.Between September 2003 and February 2004, the 16 additional groundwater monitoring wells proposed in the RIWP Addendum were installed at the Station. Initially, Monitoring Well Y, Well Z, and Wells AA through AF'were installed. Following the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from these wells, and a re-evaluation of groundwater flowdynamics within the shallow, water-bearing unit, Monitoring Well AG (Shallow and Deep), Well AH (Shallow and Deep), Well Al, Well AJ, Well' AL, and Well AM were installed to fill data gaps identified. The locations of the wells are shown of Figure ES-1.Groundwater monitoring activities have been ongoing since the installation of Wells K through R during initial Station investigation activities. Initially, groundwater samples were collected on a weekly basis. As the additional monitoring wells were installed, and as a database of groundwater analytical results for the monitoring wells was generated, the monitoring well sampling program was modifiedL The sampling program is being adaptively managed to provide the investigational data required to meet the currentinvestigation objectives and evaluate changes in tritium concentrations. The adaptivesampling management program is designed to ensure representative data are collected that meet the objectives of the. investigation and provide the information necessary to evaluate plume dynamics and migration. The current monitoring plan specifies.either biweekly, monthly, or quarterly sampling based upon the analytical history of each well.ES-4 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Groundwater samples are analyzed for tritium, major cations and anions, and gamma emitting isotopes. Analysis of groundwater samples collected from most of the Station Monitoring Wells has also included a single event analysis for groundwater age determination (by tritium -helium-3 age dating). As proposed in-the RIWP Addendum, Tc-99.was also analyzed as a single-event analysis for select monitoring wells to assist in the determination of the source of the tritium.Groundwater FlowGroundwater elevations in monitoring wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam are generally higher than groundwater elevations in monitoring wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit outside the limits of the cofferdam. Groundwater flow in the shallow, water-bearing formation is generally fromthe center of the island (northeast of the Salem Generating Station) towards the DelawareRiver. Due to permeability differences between the structural fill and the hydraulic fill, groundwater is mounded within the area of the cofferdam. Groundwater flows radially outward from the cofferdam, and the observed mounding effect dissipates quickly.Water levels in the Vincentown Formation, because it is a confined-unit, are tidally influenced. Water levels can vary as much as four feet per tide cycle depending on the proximity of the well to the Delaware River. To more accurately assess groundwater flow conditions in the Vincentown Formation, water level and tide data were evaluated to characterize groundwater flow conditions during various stages of the tide cycle of the Delaware River. Groundwater flow direction in the Vincentown Formation oscillates with the tides. During the high tide stage of the tide cycle groundwater flow in the Vincentown Formation is perpendicular from the shoreline of the Delaware River in the west and south towards the center of Artificial Island. During the low tide stage of the tide cycle groundwater flow in the Vincentown Formation is from the center of Artificial Islandtowards the Delaware River. During an intermediate stage of the tide cycle, an observed groundwater saddle is present between the Station and the Delaware River. Groundwater flow to the north and east of the saddle is to the south and east. Groundwater flow to the south and west of the saddle is to the north and east.Aquifer Testing Eight pumping tests were performed on seven wells (Wells AB, AC, AD, Al, AJ, AM, and S) to quantify the hydrogeologic characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) of the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of and just south of the cofferdam. The pumping test results indicate a range of transmissivity of 0.337 ft 2/day to 27.7 ft 2/day and hydraulic conductivities of 0.03 ftlday to 2.77 ft/day.ES-5 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC SalemGenerating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Tidal InvestigationPressure transducers were installed in Wells L, M, and W between July 29 and August 5, 2003 to evaluate the tidal influences of the Delaware River on site water levels. Well W installed in the riverbed sandsand gravels, and Well M screened in the structural fill within the cofferdam showed no water-level response to tidal variations. Well L installed in the Vincentown Formation (the first confined aquifer beneath the site) has a four foot change in water level in response to a six foot change in tide. This response is likely caused by changes in the hydraulic head exerting force on the clay, confining-unit (the aquitard overlying the Vincentown), which based upon site lithology, extends westward beneath the Delaware River. These data indicate that tidal variations in the Delaware River have noeffect on the movement of tritiated groundwater identified in the surficial aquifer (sediments above the clay, confining-unit). Analytical Results In accordance with the scope of work presented in the June 2003 RIWP and the RIWP Addendum, samples of environmental media (i.e., soil and groundwater) have been collected from various media at the Station to determine the magnitude and extent of the* release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. Additionally, samples were collected from theSpent Fuel Pool, the telltale drains, and from the various sample locations establishedwithin the facility. Collectively, the data indicate that water from the Spent Fuel Pool leaked behind the stainless-steel liner into the obstructed telltale drains, migrated through construction joints or minor cracks in the structural concrete and accumulated in the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap. Once there, the Spent Fuel Pool water seeped into the foundation soils along the southern side of the seismic gap. This release of Spent Fuel Pool water has resulted in an area of impacted groundwater extending from the. south side of the seismic gap to the circulating water discharge pipes (see Figure ES-2).The water samples collected from within the facility indicated concentrations of tritium, boron, and various gamma-emitting isotopes typical of Spent Fuel Pool water.Groundwater samples collected from outside the facility, which were analyzed for the same suite of parameters, have indicated concentrations of tritium, boron, and one slightly elevated concentration of Tc-99 that suggest that water from the Spent Fuel Pool is the likely source.The area of groundwater containing elevated tritium extends from the southern end of the Styrofoam seismic gap located between the Salem Auxiliary Building and the Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary Building in a southerly direction toward the circulation water discharge pipes. Groundwater with tritium at concentrations exceeding any regulatory limit has not migrated to the property boundary of the Station. Elevated levels of tritium have only been detected 0 ES-6 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey in groundwater samples collected from the shallow, water-bearing unit. There is noevidence that suggests that water from the .Spent Fuel Pool has migrated to an underlying aquifer as confirmed by groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation. Fate and Transport AnalysisShallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Station has been impacted by a release of waterfrom the Spent Fuel Pool. The pathway from the building to the environment cannot be documented with absolute certainty; however, site evidence indicates the seismic gap between the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building is the primary release point. The groundwater travel time between the primary release point and the500,000 pCi/L contour was computed using observed water levels, aquifer properties, facility operations data, groundwater recharge, and helium to tritium ratios. Collectively, these data indicate that the groundwater plume is between 5 and 10 years old.Health and. Environmental Risk Assessment The principal radionuclide of concern for this remedial investigation is tritium in shallow groundwater adjacent to Salem Generating Station Unit 1. To date, a completed exposure pathway to humans from tritium in shallow groundwater has not been established, nor is there any evidence that significant exposures of biota have occurred.Conclusions The results of remedial investigation activities conducted at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station, which were conducted in response to the detection of tritium in groundwater, indicate that the source of tritium detected in groundwater was the Spent Fuel Pool, the tritium release to the. environment has been stopped, and that tritium has not migrated to the property boundary above any regulatory limit. The following bullets provide a more detailed description of the investigation findings: There was a release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system resulting from blockage of the telltale drains by mineral precipitates. The telltale drains are a leak monitoring, collection, and drainage mechanism specifically designed to collect leakage that may accumulate behind the stainless steel liner of the Spent Fuel Pool and Refueling Canal. The blockage of the telltale drains resulted in the accumulation of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system (between the liner and the concrete wall) that created hydrostatic head and facilitated migration to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap located between the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building. The mineral precipitates have been physically ES-7 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey removed to ensure the proper operation of the telltale drains. The process of monitoring the telltale drains is routinely performed to ensure that blockage doesnot reoccur. Permanent seismic gap drains are beinginstalled on Salem Units 1 and 2, to permit identification, sampling, and drainage of any accumulated water in the seismic gap, and to create. an ingradient to the gap;The release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system was investigated throughthe sampling of monitoring wells installed in the area of Salem Unit 1. The groundwater analytical data collected from the monitoring well network were usedto delineate an area of groundwater in the shallow, water-bearing unit that contains elevated tritium. Gamma-emitting isotopes were also monitored in the groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells because the suspected source. of the tritium was the Spent Fuel Pool. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells;The area of groundwater containing elevated tritium extends from the southern end of the Styrofoam seismic gap located between the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling'Building and the Auxiliary Building in a southerly direction toward the circulation water discharge pipes. Groundwater with tritium at concentrations exceeding any regulatory limit has not migrated to the property boundary of the Station;Elevated levels of tritium have only been detected in groundwater samples collected from the shallow, water-bearing unit. There is no evidence that suggeststhat water from the Spent Fuel Pool has migrated to an underlying aquifer as confirmed by groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened inthe Vincentown Formation; and, A completed exposure pathway to humans from tritium in shallow groundwater has not been established, nor is there any evidence that significant exposures of biota have occurred. ES-8 C--C------in -7,~~1---.fr~)X (ii a ii N'O 1 770 Q%DRAWN DATE OJCT MANAGER DEPARTMENT MANAGER u. WA9EwSC 9/16/03 P. MuOUS D. FUtTON SLEAD DESIGN PROF. CHECKED 0 250 MONrlURIN RU. IL RWqM S. POTTER fB PIERCE E SCALE: 1"=250' AHlC A DiS w t pE G R U LEMALH C PRO JECT NUJMBER RAWING NIUMBER L IiU Ir P nSALEM AGENERATIN NSTATION 1P000571.000 ES-i I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW £RSEY 0 0 S----------------------------------- ~yN o~Z~I .-J1¸ý2 2+23 LEGEND-SEISMIC CAP AREA OF SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION _1____________-___DRAWN I DATE PROJECT MANAGER DEPARTMENT MANAGER i. WASLEWSKI 19/15/03 P. MUJoNMS 0. FULTON 100 LEAD DESIGN PROF. ICHECKEDI .IR UM LEVELS S. POTTER B.lPERCE Il SCLE:, o 1I0' ABOVE 500.000 pc/L IPRo.EC-1 NUMBER DRAING NUMBER "- .I PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC* I____________"___________________*_________'___________ _ .SALEM GENERATING STATION l -ll o"A I A/7 1 .0 0 0 3 E S -2 ARýTiICRIAL ISLAND oHANCOCKS BRIDE , NEW JERSEY'U' Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 1 Introduction ARCADIS, Inc. ("ARCADIS"), on behalf of PSEG Services Corporation ("PSEG SC"), has prepared this Remedial Investigation Report ("RIR") to document the findings of a remedial investigation conducted at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station (the"Station") located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The Station location and layout are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The remedial investigation was conducted in accordance with the Remedial Investigation Work Plan ("June 2003 RIWP") that was submitted to the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering ("NJDEP-BNE") in June 2003.The scope of work outlined in the June 2003 RIWP was designed to investigate the discovery of tritium in the shallow, water-bearing unit at the Station.A document entitled, "Initial Groundwater Investigation Report and Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum" ("RIWP Addendum") was submitted to the NJDEP in January 2004. The RIWP Addendum contained the initial results of the remedial investigation and, based on these results, proposed certain modifications to the June 2003 RIWP.This RIR contains the results of remedial investigations as described in both the June 2003 RIWP and the RIWP Addendum. The remedial investigation produced a comprehensive body of knowledge regarding the tritium discharge, its fate in the environment, and the physical environment at and in the vicinity of the Station. The findings presented in this RIR will be used as the basis for the development of a remedial action strategy and workplan that will be submitted to the NJDEP-BNE under separate cover.
1.1 Project
BackgroundOn September 18, 2002, the Station Radiation Protection staff reported measuring low-level radioactivity on the shoes of technicians inside the radiologically controlled Auxiliary Building. An initial facility investigation led to the discovery of a radioactive "chalk-like"substance adhering to the west wall in the 78-foot Mechanical Penetration Room of the Unit I Auxiliary Building. The buildup of the "chalk-like" deposits was removed and anactive seep of water into the 78-foot Mechanical Penetration Room was observed. Further investigation revealed a second leak at the 92-foot elevation of the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool cooling line, adjacent to the pipe penetration through the concrete wall.As presented in Section 5, sample points were established for the collection and analysis of water samples from the observed leaks. Samples collected from the sample points were analyzed for tritium, major cations and anions, and gamma-emitting isotopes to determinethe concentrations of constituents of concern in the water samples, to evaluate the potential age of the leak, and to evaluate a potential source of the water. Analytical results of the samples indicated that the water from both leaks had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water and that a leak from the Spent Fuel Pool system had likely occurred.I Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey The Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool is lined with stainless steel. Behind the stainless steel liner are liner drains (commonly. referred to as "telltale drains") that are used as a combined leak monitoring, collection, and drainage mechanism. The telltale drains are specifically designed to collect leakage that may accumulate behind the stainless steel liner of the Spent Fuel Pool and Refueling Canal. There are ten telltale drains associated with the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool that are identified as Drain Nos. 1 through 10. There are seven telltale drains associated with the Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Refueling Canal that are identified as Drain Nos. 11 through 17.Drains No. 11 through 17 are designed to monitor, collect, and drain leakage from the Refueling Canal that is associated with the Spent Fuel Pool.A series of water samples was collectedfrom the telltale drains to characterize the water that had accumulated. Analytical results of the water samples, discussed in further detail in Section 5, indicated that the likely source of water in the Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains was Spent Fuel Pool water, while the source of water in the Refueling Canal telltale drains indicated a possible mixing of water from the Spent Fuel Pool 'system with sodium, which is uncharacteristic of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system. A lack of chloride detected in water samples collected from the Refueling Canal telltale drains suggests that the sodium* concentrations are likely from the interaction of the Spent Fuel :Pool water with the structural concrete.On January 31, 2003, a fiber opticexamination of the telltale drains indicated a blockage by mineral deposits of the No. 4 and No. 5 drains beneath the welds in the stainiess-steel liner of the Spent Fuel Pool, which obstructed the flow of water that leaked behind the stainless-steel liner. While obstructed, the flow of water from leak(s) in the Spent Fuel Pool liner was likely forced between the liner plates and the structural concrete base and walls of theFuel Handling Building to establish hydraulic equilibrium with the water level in the Spent Fuel Pool. The Spent Fuel Pool water likely migrated along the paths of least resistance (e.g., a pipe conduit, construction joints, or cracks in the concrete) and ultimately manifested at the crack in the wall in the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration.Room and-through the gap/penetration where the Spent Fuel Pool cooling return lines intersects the wall at the 92-foot'elevation.'The mineral deposits were physically removed from the telltale drains to restore flow,which was measured to be approximately .100 gallons per day (gpd), which is within -the design parameters of the leak detection, collection and monitoring system and is processed through the routine waste treatment processes. The process of monitoring and removing the mineral deposits, as needed, has been and will continue to be conducted to ensure that the telltale drains do not become obstructed in the future.Analytical results of water samples collected from the observed leaks (78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room and through the gap where the Spent Fuel Pool cooling 2 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey return lines intersects the wall at the 92-foot elevation) and subsequent investigations of the Unit 1 telltale drains indicated that further investigation was necessary to: 1) characterize the observed leaks and determine their source; 2) determine the extent of the leaks withinthe Salem Generating Station Auxiliary and Spent Fuel Pool Buildings; and, 3) determine the extent of the impact from the leak, if any, into the environment (soil and groundwater in contact with the engineered features of the Station).Further investigations indicated that water from the Spent Fuel Pool had migrated to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap located between the Unit I Fuel Handling Building and the Auxiliary Building. The details and results of sampling activities that were conductedwithin the facility to identify the source of the water observed in the 78-foot elevationMechanical Penetration Room and through the gap where the Spent Fuel Pool cooling return lines intersects the wall at .the 92-foot elevation are summarized in Section 5 and are presented in detail in the Investigations, of Salem Unit 1 Fuel Pool Leakage -Final Report Summary provided in Appendix A.The Styrofoam-filled seismic gap is approximately six-inches wide and extends verticallyfrom grade (100 feet Plant Datum [PD]) to the top of the concrete foundation of the FuelHandling Building. A discussion of the lean concrete foundation is presented in Section 4.2.1. The Styrofoam was originally used as a concrete form for the surrounding concrete pour. The Styrofoam was left in place to serve as a seismic gap. Along the narrow western and'southern ends of the Seismic Gap, a flowpath exists between the Styrofoam and foundation soils. As such, the potential exists for water in the seismic gap to migrate beyond the limits of the engineered structures of the Station and into the environment. Following the discovery of water characteristic of the Spent Fuel Pool in the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap, remedial investigation activities were initiated to determine if Spent Fuel Pool water that had accumulated in the seismic gap had migrated beyond the limits of the engineered features of the building and into the environment (i.e., soil and groundwater in contact with the seismic gap). Initially, eight groundwater monitoring wells (Wells K through R) were installed in January and February 2003 adjacent to and around the perimeter of the Fuel Handling Building. Analytical results of groundwater samplescollected from these monitoring wells (discussed in more detail in Section 4.2) indicatedthat a potential release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool or other plant source to the environment had likely occurred. At this time, the subject remedial investigation was initiated.
1.2 Investigation
ObjectivesAs presented in Section 5.3, analytical results of groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed adjacent to and around the perimeter of the Unit 1 Fuel Handling Building indicated concentrations of tritium above the New Jersey Groundwater Quality 3 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Criteria ("GWQC") of 20,000 picocuries per liter ("pCi/L"). Other radionuclides were not detected in the groundwater samples at concentrations above background levels.The scope of work proposed in the June 2003 RIWP and the RIWP Addendum was designed to determine if the tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed adjacent to Salem Unit I is a result of a release to the environment from the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool, a non-authorized release from other onsite operating or maintenance activities, or elevated background levels of tritium from authorized releases and other operating practices. The proposed scope of work was also designed to assess the potential for: 1) tritium to migrate beyond the property boundaries;
- 2) human health and environmental risks associated with the tritium detected in groundwater; and, 3) the need for any further action.
1.3 Report
Organization This report provides relevant background information, the details and results of remedialinvestigation activities conducted to date, and proposed activities in the following sections:* Section 2 -History of Station Operations;
- Section 3 -Station Setting;* Section 4 -Facility Construction and Local Geology;* Section 5 -Initial Station Investigation Activities;
- Section 5 -Remedial Investigation Activities;
- Section 7 -Hydrogeologic Evaluation;
- Section 8 -Analytical Results.Section 9 -Fate and Transport Results* Section 10 -Health and Environmental Risk Assessment;
- Section 11 -Conclusions and Recommendations; and,* Section 12 -ReferencesThe History of Station Operations section (Section
- 2) presents information on the.Stationi operating history, historical releases, the area and constituents of concern, as well asregulatory information about the Station.The Station Setting section (Section 3) presents a description of the setting of the Salem Generating Station, including land use, the estuarine location, topography and-stationdrainage, climate and precipitation, and regional geology and hydrogeology.
-4 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey The Facility Construction and Local section (Section
- 4) presents conditions at Artificial Island prior to the construction of the Station and details how the facility construction has altered the local geology.The Initial Station Investigation Activities section (Section 5) presents the details and results of the initial investigation activities conducted to identify a source of the radioactivity, to characterize the extent of the release within the facility, and to determine ifthe release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool' system has migrated beyond the seismic gap.The Remedial Investigation Activities section (Section 6) presents a detailed summary of the remedial investigation activities that have been conducted following the submittal of the June 2003 RIWP and the subsequent RIWP Addendum.
This section includes the details for the initial station investigation activities, including sampling conducted. The Hydrogeologic Evaluation section (Section 7) provides the results of hydrogeologic investigation activities, including slug tests and pumping tests, designed to characterizegroundwater movement at the Station.The Analytical Results section (Section 8) provides a sumiary of analytical results for samples collected to date. The analytical results section includes a discussion regarding the distribution of tritium in groundwater and the results of ýiýtiu..n a&e-dating analysis and technetium-99 (Tc-99) analysis.The Fate and Transpoft Results section (Section 9) discuýses. potential flow pathways from the facility and the rate of migration of tritium in ground4 ater.The Health and Environmental Risk Assessment section (Section 10) presents a discussion
- regardifig potential exposure pathways and the methodology used for evaluating the risk associated with the exposure pathways.
The Conclusions and Recommendations section (Section 11) presents a summary of the findings of the remedial investigation and recommendations for further actions based on the findings.A list of References is presented in Section 12.5 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 2 History of Station Operations The following sections present information on the operating history of the Station, the area and constituents of concern, historical spills and releases, as well as regulatory information about the Station.2.1 Operating History PSEG Nuclear, LLC operates and is part owner of the Salem Generating Station located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. PSEG Nuclear, LLC (57.41%) and Exelon (42.59%) jointly own the Station. The Salem Generating Station is adjacent to the Hope Creek Generating Station, also located on Artificial Island. Both the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations (the Stations) are located on the eastern bank of the Delaware River. The Salem Generating Station encompasses an approximate 26-acre portion of the approximately 740-acre Artificial Island site.The Salem Generating Station is composed of two nuclear generating units (Units I and 2)and one distillate oil fueled combustion turbine unit (Unit 3). Commercial operations of Units 1 and 2 commenced in 1976 and 1981, respectively. The combustion turbine unit commenced operations in 1972. The nuclear generating units operate as base load units and the combustion turbine unit operates as a peaking unit. The Salem Generating Station has a combined generating capacity of over 2,300 MW. Over its operational life, the Salem Generating Station has experienced no significant changes in its operation. A detailed description of Salem Generating Station's operations and operational history,was prepared for Exhibit C of the September 1999 Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA)Non-Applicability Application, as is included in this RIR as Appendix B.2.1.1 Area of ConcernThe remedial investigation proposed in the June 2003 RJWP focused on tritium detected in groundwater adjacent to the Salem Generating Station Unit I Fuel Handling Building. As stated in Section 1.2, the primary objective of the remedial investigation was to determine if the tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed adjacent to Salem Unit I is a result of a release to the environment from the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool, a non-authorized release from other onsite operating or maintenance activities, or elevated background levels of tritium from authorized releases and other operating practices. Although the suspected source of the tritium in groundwater was the Spent Fuel Pool water that had accumulated in the seismic gap, other potential sources of tritium were evaluated to determine if they were the primary source, or likely contributors to the elevated levels of tritium. These potential sources included the radioactive liquid waste 6 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey discharge line, the Salem Unit 1 Fuel Transfer Canal, and the steam generator blowdown lines, each of which is shown on Figure 1.To evaluate the radioactive liquid waste discharge line and the Unit I Fuel Transfer Canal, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, performed local leak rate.tests. Additionally, a pressure test was performed on the radioactive liquid waste discharge line. According to PSEG Nuclear, LLC, the results of both the local leak rate tests and the pressure test indicated that the radioactive liquid waste discharge line and the Unit I Fuel Transfer Canal are functioning properly and are not considered sources of tritium (PSEG, verbal communication 2004). The steam generator blowdown lines, which typically contain tritium at concentrations of approximately 6,000 pCi/L, are not considered a significant source of tritium. As such, the steam generator blowdown lines were not tested for integrity. In addition to the potential point-source contributors of tritium, potential non-point sources such as historical spills and releases were also considered. A summary of historical spills and releases reported within the area of investigation are presented in Section 2.1.2.
2.1.2 Historical
Spills and Releases To evaluate potential sources of the tritium detected in groundwater adjacent to the Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, PSEG Nuclear, LLC conducted a review of data and interviewed Station personnel regarding any historical. spills or releases in the area of investigation. According to PSEG Nuclear, LLC, the results of the evaluation indicated that reported events~in the area of investigation generally occurred during the early years of the Station's construction and operation (PSEG, verbal communicaiiofni2004). Historical spills or releases were reported to the appropriate agencies to the extent that they met the reporting thresholds in affect at the time and resulted in leaks that weremanaged through the Station's radioactive liquid waste system without entering the environment or to the soil that was removed and properly disposed off-site. These events did not likely result in the elevated levels of tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from Station monitoring wells. This is evidenced by the difference between the recent groundwater analytical results and the quantity and concentration of tritium reported during these events and the corrective actions taken at the time of the events.2.1.3 Constituents of Concern The remedial investigation was initiated when water samples collected from the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap indicated the presence of tritium, boron, and various gamma-emitting radioisotopes typical of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. The physical and chemical properties of the constituents detected in the water samples from the seismic gap, are summarized in Table 1. These constituents are routinely monitored in groundwater samples collected from the Station monitoring wells. Other than tritium and boron, the physical 7 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey properties of the constituents identified in the seismic gap will limit their potential migration in the environment. For example, the gamma-emitting cations (e.g., strontium-90, cesium-137, and cobalt-60) in water will tend to bind strongly to soil particles causing them to migrate at least 100 times slower than groundwater. Tc-99, another constituent of spent fuel pool water, has "intermediate" mobility in groundwater (10 to 20 percent of the rate of groundwater). Tritium and boron do not adsorb strongly to soils and migrate withgroundwater. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected to date in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed at the Station; however, PSEG SC continues to analyze groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells for gamma-emitting isotopes because the suspected source of the tritium is the Spent Fuel Pool.The primary constituent of concern for this investigation istritium in groundwater. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen. Molecular hydrogen can exist in over 40 forms, most commonly hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium. Tritium is a hydrogen atom that has two additional neutrons in its nucleus. Tritium occurs naturally in the upperatmosphere when high-energy cosmic radiation bombard atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen and splits off a tritium nucleus (spallation); however, the predominant sources of tritium in the post-nuclear era (i.e., anthropogenic tritium) are the explosions of nuclear weapons, the byproduct of nuclear reactors, and commercial production for use in various self-luminescent devices. Although tritium can occur as hydrogen gas, it is most commonly found as a liquid. Tritium, like non-radioactive hydrogen, reacts with oxygen to form tritiated water. Tritiated water is colorless and odorless, has a half-life of 12.3 years, and emits low-energy beta particles that can be measured by liquid scintillation. Standard scintillation methods can routinely detect tritium concentrations of 200 pCi/L and greater.As proposed in the June 2003 RIWP, two action levels were defined for tritium in groundwater to assist in the evaluation of data generated through the investigation. These action levels are the Interim Further Investigation Criterion and the Further Action Criterion. The Interim Further Investigation Criterion for this investigation is 3,000 pCi/L.The Further Action Criterion for tritium in groundwater is 20,000 pCi!L, which is the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria for tritium in Class II A' aquifers. These criterion were used to evaluate the need for further delineation and characterization for tritium detected in groundwater, and the need for any further action (i.e., remediation).2.2 Regulatory Review Regulatory oversight for the Salem Generating Station, and other nuclear generating stations, is provided by both federal and state agencies. These agencies ensure that the stations are designed, constructed, licensed and operate in a manner that maximizes the safe containment and management of radioactive materials. These agencies also ensure that 8 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jerseysufficient funding mechanisms have been established, are adequately funded, and will be available to decommission the nuclear generating stations at the end of their life cycle.On the federal and state levels, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and NJDEP-BNE conduct licensing and oversight of nuclear generatingfacilities. Oversight by the NJDEP-BNE and USNRC includes inspections of nuclear power plants and conducting environmental radiological monitoring. 9 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 3 Station Setting The following sections provide information regarding the setting of the Salem Generating Station, including land use, the estuarine location, topography and station drainage, climate and precipitation, and regional geology and hydrogeology. A more detailed description of the setting of the Station is included in Section C of the ISRA Non-Applicability Application, which is provided in Appendix B to this report.3.1 Land Use PSEG Nuclear LLC owns and/or controls an approximately 740-acre area of Artificial Island that is situated adjacent to and surrounds the Salem and Hope Creek GeneratingStations. This area contains administrative and support facilities used by the Stations, the Hope Creek Switch Yard, the Salem Switch Yard, and undeveloped vacant land. With the exception of the Salem Generating Stations (Units I through 3) and the Salem Switchyard, the remaining acreage is considered to be the Hope Creek Generating Station.The zoning classification for the Salem Generating Station is industrial. The land adjacent to the Salem Generating Station is zoned for industrial and residential or agricultural use.3.2 Estuarine Location The Salem Generating Station is located on a portion of Artificial Island that borders the Delaware Estuary. The Estuary, in the location of the Salem Generating Station, is a tidal, brackish river, located in an area designated as Zone 5 by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).The United States Army Corps of Engineers, beginning in the early twentieth century, created Artificial Island by depositing dredge spoils within a diked area established around a natural sand bar that projected into the Delaware River. Prior to construction of the Salem Generating Station, the property was vacant, undeveloped, low-lying land.3.3 Topography and Station Drainage The topography at the Salem Generating Station is relatively flat with limited local relief.Topographic contours for the Station are included on Figure 2.Stormwater is managed in accordance with the Salem Generating Station New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Stormwater is collected in storm drains and routed to the Delaware River for discharge. The locations of the storm drains are included on Figure 2. Stormwater 10 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey from the principle petroleum storage and handling areas is routed to the oil/water separator prior to discharge.3.4 Climate and Precipitation Salem County is located in southwestern New Jersey. The county's climate is consideredto be humid and temperate, as the climate in this county is readily influenced by its proximity to the Delaware Bay. Coastal storms are not uncommon in this region and can produce high winds and heavy rainfall, which can cause wind damage and flooding in low-lying areas (USDA, 1969).Wind direction in this region is dependent upon the season; during the summer, winds are typically from the southwest while during the winter, winds are commonly from thenorthwest. Temperatures vary by season and the maximum expected high temperature for a given year is 96 degrees Fahrenheit, while the minimum expected yearly low temperature is minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual precipitation total is 39.9 inches.3.5 RegionalGeology and Hydrogeology The Salem Generating Station is located on the east edge of the Delaware River, sevenmiles north of the Delaware Bay, eight miles southeast of the City of Salem and about 40 miles south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Station is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, approximately 19 miles southeast of the contact between the coastal plain sediments and the Appalachian Highlands. This area is characterized by relatively flat to gently undulating terrain, underlain by unconsolidated sediments that increase in thickness to the southeast. The coastal plain sediments were deposited in marine and non-marine environments. The sediments are between 1,500 and 2,000 feet thick in the vicinity of the Station, and unconformably overlie bedrock. These sediments range in age from Holocene to Cretaceous (0 to 146 million years old), and are comprised of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Published geologic mapping indicates that the basement rock beneath these sediments (in the area of the Station) is metamorphic schist of the Wissahickon Formation, which is Pre-Cambrian in age (570 to 900 million years old) (USGS 1999).The shallow, water-bearing unit at the Station consists of approximately 25 to 35 feet ofdredge spoils (hydraulic fill), structural fill material, tidal marsh deposits and riverbeddeposits. The structural fill replaced the dredge spoils and natural deposits in select locations at the facility during construction of the Station. Additional information regarding the construction of the facility and the composition and nature of the structural fill are provided in Section 4.2.11 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey The geologic formations beneath the shallow, water-bearing unit, in order of increasing depth, are as follows: the Kirkwood Formation; the Vincentown Formation; the Homerstown-Navesink Aquitard; the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Formations; the Matawan Formation; the Magothy Formation; the Raritan Confining Unit and Aquifer; the Potomac Group; and, the Wissahickon Formation. Regional cross sections trending northeast to southwest (A-A') parallel to the Delaware River, and northwest to southeast (B-B')perpendicular to the river are provided on Figure 3 (USGS 1999).The following sections describe in more detail the units of the coastal plain sediments that are encountered in the vicinity of the Station.3.5.1 Hydraulic Fill Artificial Island is composed largely of hydraulically placed dredge spoils from construction and maintenance of nearby navigational channels by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic fill is not considered a source of drinking water.3.5.2 Riverbed Deposits A relatively thin layer of riverbed deposits underlies the more recent native and anthropogenic deposits composing Artificial Island. The layer consists of an approximatefive- to ten-foot layer of discontinuous Quaternary Age deposits consisting primarily of sand with some gravel, silt and clay. The unit appears as a discrete deposit in some borings (Wells U and V). The results of aquifer tests conducted previously have shown the riverbed deposits to have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 0.01 to I ft/day (Dames& Moore 1988, 1974).3.5.3 Kirkwood Formation The Kirkwood Formation, which consists of an upper clay-unit and a basal sand unit, separates the Vincentown Formation from the hydraulic fill and riverbed deposits of the shallow, water-bearing unit. The Kirkwood Formation consists of gray clay with trace silt and gravel, and is laterally extensive in the area of the investigation (see Figure 4).Conflicting geologic reports suggest that the geologic unit previously interpreted as the Kirkwood Formation may in fact be the Pleistocene Van Sciver Lake Bed deposits (USGS 1979 and 1999). To determine the relative age of this underlying unit, samples of the clay obtained during the drilling of Well V (see Section 6.5) were analyzed to determine the relative age of the unit, which is interpreted to be the Kirkwood Formation based on the age data.The Kirkwood Formation occurs at or near the surface and is considered unconfined in Salem and Gloucester Counties (USGS 1999). The Kirkwood Formation is composed of 12 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey micaceous sands and diatomaceous clay, trends from the northeast to the southwest, and dips to the east-southeast. The sand content increases to the east-northeast where the Kirkwood includes the Atlantic City 800-foot sand. In the vicinity of Artificial Island, the unit is primarily composed of hard clays with trace fine micaceous sand and a basal sandunit directly overlying the Vincentown Formation. The basal unit of the Kirkwood Formation is a fine to medium micaceous sand with varying silt content that coarsens with depth (Dames & Moore July 1976). The upper clay in the Kirkwood Formation is considered an aquitard for the Vincentown Formation and the overlying basal sand unit.3.5.4 Vincentown Formation The Vincentown Formation is an aquifer of minor importance in some areas. In the vicinity of the Station, the Vincentown Formation has chloride concentrations of 1,800 to 4,300 mg/L preventing the aquifer from being used as a potable water source (Dames &Moore 1988). The Vincentown Formation outcrops over a small area of central Salem County, and trends northeast to southwest and dips to the east-southeast. The Vincentown Formation is composed of sands to silty sand characterized by a glauconitic quality.Confined by the overlying Kirkwood Formation, the Vincentown Formation extends southeast from Keasby Creek to Stow Creek with the greatest thickness (approximately 60 feet) coinciding with Alloways Creek (USGS 1999). The Vincentown thins and narrows to the northeast reaching a minimum thickness between Glassboro and Berlin before again increasing in thickness and lateral extent. The results of aquifer and laboratory tests have shown the Vincentown Formation to have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of I to 10 ft/day (USGS 1999; Dames & Moore 1988). The Hornerstown-Navesink Aquitard underlies the Vincentown Formation. 3.5.5 Hornerstown-Navesink Aquitard The Homerstown-Navesink Aquitard is considered to be part of a composite confining unit that includes the less permeable portions of the Vincentown and Piney Point Formations.The aquitard is composed of clayey to silty glauconitic green and black sands with a relatively low permeability (USGS 1999). The results of aquifer tests indicate that the Hormerstown-Navesink Aquitard has a vertical hydraulic conductivity on the order of 0.01 ft/day in Salem County (USGS 1999). Qualitative evidence indicates that leakage occurs from the Vincentown through the Homerstown-Navesink Aquitard to the underlying Mt.Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer (Dames & Moore 1988).3.5.6 Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer The Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer is considered to be a major aquifer for the region and is composed of slightly glauconitic sand and increasing silt with depth. The Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer is also identified as existing in Delaware by the Delaware Geological 13 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Survey (DGS). The depth to the top of the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer is approximately 173 feet in the vicinity of the Station, with the outcrop area extending from slightly west of Salem and extending approximately halfway to Pennsville (Dames & Moore Decemberl6, 1968; USGS 1999). The aquifer has a strike of northeast-southwest and dips to the east-southeast. The maximum thickness of the aquifer is approximately parallel to strike and is coincident with Williamstown and Stow Creek. The results of aquifer tests have shown the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer to have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 0.01 to 10 ft/day and a storativity on the order of x10-5 to 1x0"4 (USGS 1999). The Matawan Aquitard underlies the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer.3.5.7 Matawan AquitardThe Matawan Aquitard is a composite unit including the Woodbury Clay and Merchantville Formations. The aquitard is predominantly composed of micaceous and glauconitic clay with some sand present. This unit is a major aquitard, conforming to regional strike and dip that may contain a thin water bearing sand in some areas. The New Jersey Geologic Survey (1995) defined the leakance of the aquitard as being on the order of lx 10-1 to Ix]0V feet/day/foot (day-1) in Salem and Gloucester Counties with the greater values in the western portions of the counties. The Matawan Aquitard is the confining unit for the Magothy Aquifer.3.5.8 Magothy AquiferThe Magothy Aquifer is composed of fine to coarse-grained sand with local beds of dark gray lignitic clay, and is located at a depth of 445 feet with a thickness of 50 to 100 feet in the vicinity of the Station (Dames & Moore Decemberl 6, 1968; USGS 1999). TheMagothy outcrops just west of Pennsville with the outcrop area following the regional strike of the coastal plain sediments. The Magothy Aquifer dips and thickens to thesoutheast (USGS 1999), and has been documented by the DGS as existing in Delaware.The results of aquifer tests have shown the Magothy to have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 100 ft/day and a storativity on the order of Ix0-3 (USGS 1999; NJGS 1995). The Magothy Formation is separated from theRaritan Formation by an unnamed confining unit.
3.5.9 Raritan
Confining UnitThe confining unit separating the Magothy and Raritan aquifers is composed primarily of dense clay at an approximate depth of 490 feet with a thickness of 190 feet including a 22-foot thick sand unit (Dames & Moore Decemberl6, 1968; 1988). A leakance on the order of 10-1 day-', increasing up dip, has been used by the NJGS (1995) to characterize the movement of water through the confining unit to the underlying Raritan Aquifer.14 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 3.5.10 Raritan Formation The Raritan Formation is composed of sand with traces of silt and with occasional lenses of clay appear with increasing frequency down dip. The Raritan is a major aquifer for the region conforming to the regional strike and dip (USGS 1999). The Raritan Aquifer consists of two sandy zones beneath the Station. The first is the 22-foot thick sand mentioned above at a depth of 688 feet often identified with the Raritan Confining Unit.The second includes a 35- and a 24-foot sand located at depths of 766 and 811 feet below ground surface (bgs), respectively (Dames & Moore December 16, 1968). The total thickness of the Raritan Aquifer has not been well quantified in eastern New Jersey (USGS 1999); however, it tends to thicken down dip, has an approximate thickness of 100 feet beneath the Station, and its maximum identified thickness occurs between Pennsville and Salem. The results of aquifer tests have shown the hydraulic conductivity of the Raritan Formation to be on the order of I to 1,000 ft/ day and storativity to be on the order of lxl0 3 to lxI0 (USGS 1999; Dames & Moore 1988). The Raritan Formation is separated from the Potomac Group by a discontinuous confining unit (USGS 1999).3.5.11 Potomac Group The Potomac Group is an undifferentiated series of gravel, sand, silt and clay layersseparated from the Raritan in some areas by a confining unit. Down dip, the Raritan and Potomac are undifferentiated (USGS 1983). The Potomac Formation is thought to be more than 250 feet thick and is located at a depth of approximately 836 feet beneath the Station with the uppermost sand occurring at 860 feet bgs (Dames & Moore Decemberl6, 1968;USGS 1999). The results of aquifer tests in Gloucester County have shown the group to have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 100 ft/day and a storativity on the order of lxlO-to 1xl04 (Barksdale et al. 1958). The Potomac Group is underlain by Pre-Cretaceous bedrock of the Wissahickon Formation (USGS 1999)3.5.12 Wissahickon Formation Located at a depth of approximately 1,400 feet, the Wissahickon Formation is primarily composed of metamorphic gneiss and schist (Hardt and Hilton 1969). The bedrock is not considered a significant source of groundwater. 15 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 4 Facility Construction and Local Geology The construction of the Salem Generating Station has caused significant changes to the local geology and hydrogeology. Within the footprint of the cofferdam surrounding Units I and 2, the majority of original Artificial Island materials were removed to a depth of 70 feet bgs. Beyond the limits of the cofferdam, sheet piling was driven into the Kirkwood Formation and left in place, portions of the riverbed deposits were excavated and replaced with structural fill, other portions of the riverbed deposits were chemically grouted thereby changing their physical properties, and the foundations of structures, utilities, as well asvarious buried piping systems, extend below the water table affecting groundwater flow.These issues and their potential influence on groundwater flow and transport are discussed in further detail in Section 8. The following sections describe the conditions at Artificial Island prior to the construction of the Station, and detail how the construction of the Station has altered the local geology.4.1 Pre-Facility Construction The Station is located on the southern tip of what was once a natural sand bar projecting into the Delaware River. The area between the sand bar and the mainland had been used as a dredge spoil deposit area. In 1899, a timber sheetpile wall was installed around the perimeter of the sand bar. Over the next 50 or so years the area was used as a spoil deposit area for material collected during the dredging of the Delaware River. Riprap was added to the perimeter when the timbers began to degrade (Dames & Moore February 1974, June 1977). The area landward of Artificial' Island has remained a tidal marsh.4.2 Facility Construction The construction of the Station has resulted in significant changes to the local geology. Itwas necessary to remove andrework much of the soil in the area of the present investigation in order to facilitate construction of the Station. This construction process was guided in part by the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation of Artificial Island (Dames and Moore August 28, 1968). This study recommended that the containment, fuel handling and auxiliary buildings be constructed upon a foundation mat placed at a depth of 50 to 70 feet bgs in the Vincentown Formation and recommended that the turbine, service and administration buildings be placed on pilings driven into theVincentown Formation. This section describes the construction of the Station, which has had a significant impact on local hydrogeology in the area of the investigation. Facility construction details are highlighted on cross section diagrams through various Station features (Figures 5 through 9)16 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 4.2.1 Construction of the Cofferdam The recommendations for the containment, fuel handling, and auxiliary buildings (primary or Class I structures) were implemented by first constructing a cellular cofferdam of welded interlocking sheet piling. The extent of the cofferdam is shown on Figure 2 and in profile on Figures 5 and 6. The cellular cofferdam, which encircled the excavation for all the Class I structures, was constructed at an approximate depth of 23 feet below existing grade (approximately 77 feet plant datum [PD] or -12.92 feet above mean sea level [amsl NAVD 1988]). The cofferdam consists of 24 circular cells, approximately 60.5 feet in diameter with connecting arcs, that were advanced approximately 10 feet into theVincentown Formation to an elevation of 17 feet PD (-72.92 feet amsl). The cofferdam sections are of two different heights, 50 feet and 60 feet. The elevation of the top of the cofferdam is 77 feet PD (-12.92 feet armsl) on the north, south and west sides. The elevation of the eastern side is 67 feet PD (-22.92 feet amsl) providing access and a foundation for the return circulating water pipes and associated thrust block. The inside area of the cofferdam sections were excavated to elevation 27 feet PD (-62.92feet amsl). A vertical steel wall was added inside each individual cofferdam section to divide the sections approximately in half. The inner half of the individual cofferdam sections, or the section facing the building foundations, was then filled to the top with lean concrete. The area contained by the entire cofferdam structure was then excavated to the Vincentown Formation for placement of the lean concrete mat that served as the foundation for the construction of the structures within the cofferdam. During this stage of the excavation, qualified personnel visually inspected the bottom of the excavation to verify that the excavation had reached the top of Vincentown Formation prior to placingany lean concrete.Prior to the completion of the excavation, at approximately elevation 45 feet PD (-44.92 feet amsl), 15 exploratory borings were drilled through the remaining Kirkwood Formation and into the underlying Vincentown to verify the depth to the formation. These additional borings showed no measurable differences from the study borings.After the Vincentown Formation had been exposed, an additional six test borings were advanced in the excavated area into the underlying Vincentown Formation to verify and ensure that the Vincentown Formation directly supported the foundation mat. Four ofthese borings were drilled under the Unit 2 Reactor Containment and two borings were drilled under the Unit I Reactor Containment. All of the borings penetrated a minimum of 20 feet into the underlying Vincentown Formation. Based on a review of availabledocuments, the top of the Vincentown Formation in-the area of the cofferdam ranges between 27 and 30 feet PD (-62.92 to -65.92 feet amsl).When the surface of the Vincentown Formation was reached, the area was cleared of loose soil and lean concrete was poured directly onto the exposed Vincentown Formation. 0 17 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New JerseyBecause the latter stages of the excavation were performed in freezingtemperatures, a layer of material was left in place to insulate the Vincentown Formation until the concrete was ready to pour. In cases where the top of the Vincentown Formation did freeze prior to pouring of the concrete, the frozen soils were excavated or thawed prior to starting the pour.The station construction drawings indicate that the base of the first lean concrete pour was at 30 feet PD (-59.92).4.2.1.1 Construction Within the Cofferdam The cofferdam serves as a basin in which the Class I structures were constructed. Prior to construction of the primary structures, a lean concrete mat was placed on top of theVincentown Formation for support of the structures. Following placement of the lean concrete, the Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Buildings and Reactor Containment Buildings were constructed. The remainder of the excavation within the cofferdam wasthen backfilled with structural fill meeting the design specifications of the Station. The following sections provide the details of these construction activities. 4.2.1.1.1 Lean Concrete The lean concrete Was placed in multiple pours. The initial lean concrete pour had a uniform thickness of 5.75 feet within the entire cofferdam area and went from elevation 30 feet to 35.75 feet PD (-59.92 to -54.17 feet amsl). As noted previously, the top of the Vincentown Formation in the area of the Station varies between 27 and 30 feet PD (-62.92 to -65.92 feet arnsl). Review of available documentation indicates that the base forthe first lean concrete pour was essentially uniform at 30 feet PD (-62.92 feet amsl) and that a soil blanket up to 3 feet thick in some areas was placed on top of the Vincentown Formation. The second lean concrete pour went from elevation 35.75 feet PD (-54.17 feet amsl) to 45.75 feet PD (-44.17 feet amsl) for an overall thickness of 10 feet. The second pour covered the entire area within the cofferdam with the exception of the Reactor Pit within the Containment Building and the RHR pump pit within the Auxiliary Building. These areas did not receive additional lean concrete beyond the first pour.The third lean concrete pour went from elevation 45.75 feet PD (-44.17 feet amsl) to 59.75 feet PD (-30.17 feet amsl) for an overall thickness of 14 feet. The third pour covered the entire area within the cofferdam except for the Reactor Pit within the Containment Building, and the residual heat removal (RHR) pump pit within the Auxiliary Building. In the area of the Auxiliary Building along the station centerline, thethird pour only reached an elevation of 53.75 feet PD (- 36.17 feet amsl). There is also a sloped area running southeast-from the RHR pump pit within the Auxiliary Building up to the cofferdam area that did not reach an elevation 53.75 feet PD (- 36.17 feet amsl). 18 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey The fourth and fifth lean concrete pours were limited to the area under the Fuel Handling Buildings and a portion of the Auxiliary Buildings. The fourth pour went from elevation 59.75 feet PD (-29.17 feet amsl) to an elevation of 69.75 feet PD (-19.17 feet amsl). The fifth pour brought the elevation of the lean concrete to 77.75 feet PD (-12.17 feet amsl).The overall thickness of the fourth and fifth pours combined was 18.25 feet 3 inches.The primary purpose of these pours was to provide the base for the Fuel Handling Building.After the lean concrete pour was completed, the subgrade exterior walls and foundations were waterproofed. A rubber waterproof membrane was installed under all foundations and was extended vertically up to 6 inches below yard grade. The horizontalwaterproofing membrane was constructed of 1/16-inch thick Ethylene Propylene DieneMonomers (EPDM rubber). A 1/8-inch thick hard board was installed over the membrane and then a concrete protection course approximately 3 inches thick wasinstalled over the hard board. After construction, the waterproofing membrane wasextended vertically up the foundation walls with 3/64-inch thick nylon reinforced rubber that was protected with 1/8-inch thick hardboard.The individual foundations for the Reactor Containments, Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings were placed on top of the completed lean concrete. These buildings were designed to be separate structures sitting on the same base mat of lean concrete. Toaccomplish this design, the base mat structural concrete for these buildings was kept asseparate structures with seismic clearance between the base mats. 4.2.1.1.2 Structural Concrete Auxiliary Building The base mat structural concrete under the Auxiliary Building in the area of the RHRpump pit starts at elevation 36 feet PD (-53.92 feet amsl) and extends up to approximate elevation 45 feet PD (-44.92 feet amsl). In the area of the Containment Building sumps this base mat extends from elevation 36 feet PD (-53.92 feet amsl) to an elevation of 60 feet PD (-29.92 feet amsl) where it completes the foundation structure for the Containment Building base mat. The base mat structural concrete under the center section of the Auxiliary Building starts at elevation 54 feet PD (-35.92 feet amsl) and extends up to elevation 64 feet PD (-25.92 feet amsl). The remainder of the Auxiliary Building walls and levels are continued up from these base mats to complete the structure. Reactor Containment The structural concrete base mat for the Containment Building that completed the reactorpit area to an approximate elevation of 52 feet PD (-37.92 feet amsl) and the remainder of 19 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey the containment base mat to an elevation of 75.5 feet PD (-14.42 feet amsl). This surface was then covered with a stainless steel liner plate and topped with concrete. The total thickness of the stainless steel liner and concrete is 0.5 feet. Once the reactor pit area base mat was completed to an elevation of 59.75 feet PD (-30.17 feet amsl), the reactor containment base mats for Salem Units I and 2 were poured in 6 and 8 circular segments, respectively. Vertical construction joints were constructed with expanded wire mesh. No horizontal joints were permitted. This flat concrete base mat is approximately 16-feet thick with a liner plate located on top of this mat. Once the base mat and liner plate was completed, the finished concrete floor of the containment was poured and the containment structure completed. The underground portion of the containment structure is waterproofed in order to avoid seepage of groundwater through cracks in the concrete. The waterproofing consists of animpervious membrane that is. placed under the mat and on the outside of the walls. TheEPDM membrane is designed to resist tearing during handling and when backfill is placed against it.Fuel Handling Building The Fuel Handling Building base mat structural concrete was poured from the top of thelean concrete at approximate elevation 77.75 feet PD (-12.17-feet amsl). The Spent Fuel Pool and the Fuel Transfer Pool were included in the first two structural concrete pours with approximate base elevations of 89.5 feet PD (-0.42 feet amsl) and 86 feet PD (-3.92 feet amsl), respectively. 4.2.1.1.3 Structural Fill The soils removed from within the cofferdam were not used to backfill the completed structure because the hydraulically placed fill underlying Artificial Island did not meet the building design specifications for the Station. Therefore, it was necessary to import construction or structural fill to build the facility. The structural fill was placed between and around the Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Buildings, Units I and 2, portions of the cofferdam, above the return circulating water pipes, and from the top of the Kirkwood Formation to the land surface in the portions of the area between the cofferdam and the circulating water discharge pipes. This material was used extensively in the area of Unit I and the circulation water pipes.4.2.2 Construction of the Service Water Intake StructureThe service water intake structure, shown on Figure 2, was constructed by driving sheet piles into the Vincentown Formation, and dewatering and excavating the enclosed soils (Dames & Moore August 28, 1968). The foundation of the structure lies upon a lean 20 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey concrete pour placed upon the top of the Vincentown Formation. The base of the lean concrete is at elevation 45 to 50 feet PD (44.92 to -39.92 feet amsl) (Dames & Moore June 3, 1970). This structure extends from the top of the Kirkwood Formation to the land surface preventing groundwater flow from this area to the Delaware River.
4.2.3 Construction
of the Service Water PipesThe original material in the locations of the service water pipes was excavated to the top of the riverbed deposits that overly the Kirkwood Formation. Structural backfill was placed above the riverbed deposits. The structural fill was compacted to 98 percent of optimum and used as the foundation for the service water lines (Dames & Moore August 28, 1968).Compaction is the process of increasing soil unit weight by forcing soil solids into a tighter state and reducing soil voids. This process strengthens soils and reduces hydraulic conductivity. Optimum compaction is the maximum soil weight that can be achieved at a given moisture content. The service water lines are two-foot diameter and are located at varying depths below ground surface throughout the area of investigation. The location ofthe lines is shown on Figure 2.4.2.4 Construction of the Circulating Water Intake StructureThe circulating water intake structure is shown on Figure 2. The area of the intakes for the circulating water pipes was dredged to elevation 56 feet PD (-33.92 feet amsl). The surrounding structure was constructed on piles cut off at elevation 56 feet PD (-33.92 feet amsl). The top of the Vincentown Formation in this area is between elevation 40 and 53feet PD (-49.92 and -36.92 feet amsl) (Dames & Moore June 3, 1970). This structure extends from the top of the Kirkwood Formation to the land surface preventing groundwater flow from this area to theDelaware River.4.2.5 Construction of the Circulating Water Pipes Water in the circulating water system is drawn from near shore, through 12, 7-foot diameter water intake lines. Water passes through the turbine building and returns to the Delaware River through 6, 10-foot diameter pipes extending approximately 500-feet off shore and discharging at an elevation of 53 feet PD (-36.92 feet amsl). The location of the lines is shown on Figure 2. The return circulating water lines are an important subsurface feature affecting groundwater flow in the area of investigation. They were constructed by sheet piling and excavation dewatering of the overlying sediments to the top of the Kirkwood Formation. Concrete footers were constructed perpendicular to the pipes from the turbine building to the shoreline. Between the concrete footers, crushed compacted concrete wasplaced. The surface of this foundation is sloped uniformly from an elevation of approximately 65 feet PD (-24.92 feet amsl) near the shore to about 75 feet PD (-14.92 feet amsl) near the turbine building. Following construction, lean concrete was poured between 21 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem* Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey the pipes. These pipes and underlying foundations are a buried flow barrier, extending vertically 15 to 20 feet from the top of the Kirkwood Formation limiting southward groundwater movement. Construction of the return circulating water pipes were completed by placement and compaction of structural fill from near the top of the pipes to the present land surface.4.2.6 Sheet Pile -Circulating Water Intake Structure to the Service Water Intake Structure Groundwater movement toward the Delaware River is also restricted between the Circulating Water and the Service Water Intake Structures by interlocking sheet pile.The sheet piling is considered tobe good barrier to flow as cathodic protection is used to control corrosion. The sheet piling was driven through the surficial aquifer into the first aquitard beneath Artificial Island (the Kirkwood Formation) during construction of the Salem Generating Station. The sheet piling is located asshown on Figure 9. Where the sheet piling is indicated using a dark black line, the elevation of the top is above the current water table; the sheet piling acts as a dam limiting the horizontal movement of water. Where the sheet piling is indicated using a gray line, the elevation of the top is below the current water table; groundwater is moving across the top of the sheet pilingtoward the Delaware River.4.3 Local Geology Certain information made available through the design and construction of the Station were used in conjunction with data obtained during the remedial investigation to define the geology as it currently exists. The Station geology is tied into the regional geology via theVincentown Formation. During construction many areas were excavated down to the top of the Vincentown Formation, as such, it is a logical reference point. In the vicinity of the Station, the Vincentown Formation is overlain by the Kirkwood Formation, including the Kirkwood basal sand unit and the Kirkwood Aquitard, the riverbed deposits, hydraulically placed dredge spoils, and in some locations structural backfill. In most cases, the properties of these formations have been described in the above sections. The upper surface of the Vincentown Formation in the area of the Station ranges between 27 and 30 feet PD (-62.92 to -65.92 feet amsi). The.Vincentown is composed of glauconitic sands to silty sands with varying degrees of calcite cementation. The Kirkwood basal sand overlies the Vincentown Formation in the vicinity of the Station.The Kirkwood basal sand is a reddish brown fine to medium sand coarsening with depth.*The sand is variable in thickness at the Station and has been misidentified as the deeper aquifer in previous investigations (Dames & Moore May 23, 1974). Pumping tests conducted in the Kirkwood basal sand and Vincentown Formation have shown the units to 22 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of lxi0"V cm/s and a storativity with a magnitude on the order of 1x104 to 1x10 3 (Dames & Moore May 23, 1974).The Kirkwood Aquitard extends from the top of the Kirkwood basal sand to approximately 60 feet PD (-30.53 feet amsl). The Kirkwood Aquitard is composed of hard tan to gray clay with some sand and silt ten to twenty feet in thickness. The Kirkwood Aquitard is overlain by the riverbed deposits of the shallow, water-bearing unit.The riverbed deposits are a dense, dark gray to tan, fine to medium sand with varying gravel content. With an upper elevation of approximately 65 feet PD (-25.53 feet amsl), the riverbed sand and gravel ranges in thickness from approximately I to 9 feet at the facility.The riverbed sand and gravel is overlain by hydraulic fill in some areas and structural fill in others, and is considered a leaky confined aquifer (Dames & Moore February 27, 1981 and December 23, 1992).The hydraulic fill is a dark gray estuarial silt and clay with a hydraulic conductivity 1,000 to 10,000 times less than the underlying riverbed sand and gravel unit (Dames & Moore December 23, 1992). The hydraulic fill extends approximately from an elevation of 35 feet PD (-55.53 feet amnsl) to surface grade in areas that remained undisturbed during the construction of the generating station. In other areas, the hydraulic fill has been entirely removed and replaced with structural fill.The structural fill used at the station was obtained from a number of sources in New Jersey and Delaware. One fill source used in the area of this investigation was the Hinchner Pit.While the location of the borrow source was not identified, the material was described as yellowish-brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt and clay (Dames & Moore June 20, 1972).23 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 5 Initial Station Investigation Activities Samples of leaking water were collected from three locations in an effort to characterize the nature of the leak detected from the west wall of the 78-foot Mechanical Penetration Room of the Unit I Auxiliary Building and from the penetration of the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool.cooling line at the 92-foot elevation. The three sample locations were as follows: " A drip bag was installed at the crack in the wall of the 78-foot MechanicalPenetration Room;" A catch tray with a sample tube was placed under the Spent Fuel Pool cooling line at the interface between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building;* and," A sample tube was established in the water stop located at the penetration betweenthe Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building.Samples collected from these locations were analyzed for tritium, major cations and anions, and gamma-emitting isotopes to determine the concentrations of constituents of concern in the water samples and to evaluate a potential source of the water. Analytical results of the samples were compared with analytical results of water samples collected from the SpentFuel Pool and the telltale drains. The analytical results of the initial samples from theselocations indicated that the water from the leaks had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water and that a leak from the Spent Fuel Pool system had occurred. A series of samples from these initially established locations, as well as other locationssubsequently established within the Station were collected and analyzed to characterize the leak from the Spent Fuel Pool system within the limits of the facility structures. The results of these sampling activities are presented in the Investigations of Salem Unit 1 Fuel Pool Leakage -Final Report Summary, which is provided in Appendix A.An investigation of environmental media (i.e., groundwater and soil) in response to the leak from the Spent Fuel Pool was initiated in October 2002. These activities were conducted in three distinct phases (herein identified as Phase I, II, and 1I1) each designed to determine the nature and extent of the release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. Phases I and. II of theinvestigation consisted of the collection and analysis of samples from within the facility.structures, from the shallow, groundwater unit beneath the Station, and from select production and monitoring wells located adjacent to the Station. Sections 5.1 and 5.2present the details of Phases I and 1I, respectively. Details of Phase III investigation activities, which included the installation and sampling of eight groundwater monitoring wells (Wells K through R), are presented in Section 5.3.0 24 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 5.1 Phase IThe objectives of Phase I of the investigation were to further characterize the leak in the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room, and to assess the likelihood that the leak had migrated to other locations within the Station, or beyond the limits of the Station structures and into the environment. The sampling program that comprised Phase I of the investigation included the following: " Two groundwater samples were collected from inside the area through the "Door to Nowhere" in the 100-foot elevation Auxiliary Building. The sample locations consisted of the following:. o Above the fuel transfer canal in the space between the Containment Building and the Fuel Handling Building (Sample Al). This required the removal of sandbags to a depth that groundwater was encountered. o Immediately inside the door to the right and next to the Fuel Handling Building (Sample A2)." A groundwater sample was collected from inside the security gate at the northeast comer of the Fuel Handling Building yard area (Sample B)." Water samples were collected from catch basins numbers 26 (Sample C26) and 33 (Sample C33)." A water sample was collected from the drain line located in the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room (Sample D)." An additional water sample was collected from the active drip located in the area of the crack observed in the 78-foot elevation Penetration Room (Sample E). The Phase I sample locations are shown on Figure 10. The groundwater samples (Samples Al, A2, and B) were discrete samples collected from a depth of four to five feet bgs (plant datum, [PD], 96 to 95 feet) in the area surrounding the Mechanical Penetration Room. The water samples collected from the catch basins (Samples C26 and C33), the drain line located in the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room (Sample D), and the activedrip from the crack in the wall of the 78-foot elevation Mechanical Penetration Room were grab samples. The samples (both water and groundwater) were analyzed onsite for gamma emitting isotopes. The analysis of Sample E included boron.Analytical results of the water samples collected during Phase I are summarized in Table 2.Analytical results of water samples collected in the shallow subsurface (five feet bgs) did 25 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey not indicate concentrations of target analytes that would indicate a release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool.Analytical results of Sample E, collected from the active drip in the crack observed in the 78-foot elevation penetration room, indicated a boron concentration of 2,600 milligrams-. per liter (mg/L), a cesium-134 (Cs-134) concentration of 118,000 pCiiL, and a cesium-137(Cs-137) concentration of 320,000 pCi/L. These concentrations are characteristic of water from the Spent Fuel Pool..5.2 Phase IIThe objective of Phase II of the investigation was to evaluate the extent of contamination in groundwater and the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap between the Salem Auxiliary Building and the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building. The sampling program that comprised Phase II of the investigation is described in more detail below: On December 12 and 13, 2002, the PSEG Salem Generating Station Chemistry Division (PSEG Chemistry) collected groundwater samples from select production and monitoring wells installed within the vicinity of the Station. The samples were collected to assess whether the leak detected within the facility had migrated beyond the engineered structures of the Station. The groundwater samples were submitted to the PSEG SC Maplewood Laboratory and Testing Services (Maplewood) for analysis for tritium and gamma-emitting isotopes. The watersample collected from Well G was also analyzed for sodium, chloride, and boron.Analytical results of the groundwater samples, summarized in Table 3, did not indicate concentrations of constituents of concern above expected background concentrations. Although the radium detected in the Hope Creek and Salem production wells is naturally occurring, the concentrations indicated by groundwater samples collected from the wells were above the New Jersey Drinking Water Standard. Since the production wells may be used for drinking water, the NJDEP requested that PSEG Nuclear, LLC collect water samples from the facility water distribution network and submit those samples for gross alphaanalysis. Analytical results of the water samples did not indicate gross alpha*activity above 5 pCi/L. As such, further radium analysis of the wells is not required.On December 19 and 20, 2002, two direct-push discrete water samplers (DP-1 and DP-2) were advanced into the Styrofoam-filled Seismic Gap between the Salem Auxiliary Building and the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building. The water samplers consisted of one and one quarter-inch steel rods with a two-foot millslotted sample screen. Water samples were obtained using quarterrinch polyethylene tubing and a peristaltic pump. The locations of DP-l and DP-2 are 26 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jerseyshown on Figure 10. DP- 1 was installed vertically along the northeast exterior wall of the Fuel Handling Building. DP-2 was installed on a 45-degree angle from the area of the "door to nowhere" into the Styrofoam to a depth that corresponded with the leak observed at the 78-foot elevation in the Mechanical Penetration Room. Analytical results of water samples collected from DP-I and DP-2, summarized in Table 3, indicated concentrations of constituents of concern (primarily boron and tritium) that are consistent with Spent Fuel Pool water.Results of the Phase II investigation indicated that water in the Styrofoam-filled SeismicGap and the water observed leaking into the 78-foot elevation of the MechanicalPenetration Room had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water and likely had accumulated when the Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains had become obstructed.
5.3 Phase
Ill Phase III of the investigation was initiated following the discovery of water containing boron and various radioisotopes characteristic of water from the Spent Fuel Pool in theStyrofoam-filled Seismic Gap and was designed to determine if water leaking from the Spent Fuel Pool had migrated into the environment (i.e., soil and groundwater underlying the facility) adjacent to the Fuel Handling Building. This phase of the investigationinvolved the installation and collection of groundwater samples from eight monitoringwells adjacent to and around the perimeter of the Fuel Handling Building.The installation of the eight monitoring wells was completed in two sub-phases (III. (a) and III (b)). The locations of the Sub-Phase III (a) and Sub-Phase III (b) Monitoring Wells are shown on Figure 11. Monitoring Wells M, N, 0, and R installed during Phase III (a), were installed at locations between the Phase II direct push discrete water samplers (DP-1 and DP-2) and the cofferdam, which bounds the perimeter of the Salem Generating Stationfoundation. The Sub-Phase III (a) wells were installed to a total depth of 20 feet bgs. The.depths of the wells considered the elevation of the lean concrete foundation within the cofferdam. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the elevation of the lean concrete foundation is approximately 78 feet PD. Each monitoring well was constructed with a ten-foot screened interval (10 to 20-feet bgs). Monitoring Wells M and R are constructed of 111/4-inch steel and were installed using direct push (i.e., Geoprobe) technology due to access restrictions. Monitoring Wells N and 0 are constructed of two-inch PVC and were installed using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment.Monitoring Wells K, L, P, and Q installed during Phase III (b), were installed outside the limits of the cofferdam. The Sub-Phase III (b) wells were installed into the Vincentown Fornation using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment to a total depth of 80 feet bgs (20 feet PD), which corresponds with an elevation often feet below the Salem Generating Station foundation. The Sub-Phase III (b) monitoring wells, designed to monitor 27 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey groundwater quality outside of the cofferdam, were constructed with a ten-foot screened interval (70 to 80-feet bgs) and are constructed of two-inch diameter PVC well materials. A summary of the well construction details for the Station monitoring wells is presented in Table 4, and well construction logs and boring logs are included-in Appendix C.Following installation and development of the monitoring wells, groundwater samples were collected on a periodic basis to assess groundwater quality. Details of the groundwater sampling activities are presented in-Secti6n
6.5. Analytical
Results of the groundwater sampling activities, which are discussed in detail in Section 8, indicate that tritium was detected above the Interim Further Investigation Criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L) in groundwater samples collected from Monitoring Wells M, N, 0, and R. In addition, tritium was detected above the laboratory detection limit in the groundwater samples collected from Monitoring Well K. Tritium was detected in the groundwater sample collected from Monitoring Well N on January 30, 2003 at a concentration above the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criterion for tritium in Class IiA aquifers (20,000 pCi/L). Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the Phase III monitoring wells indicated.that the release of water from the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool had potentially migrated beyond the Styrofoam-filled Seismic Gap and into the environment.Additional investigation activities were then initiated to determine the source of the tritium detected in groundwater. 28 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6 Remedial Investigation -March 2003 through February 2004 The remedial investigation of the release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system was conducted between March 2003 and February 2004 in accordance with the June 2003 RiWP and the RIWP Addendum. The remedial investigation proposed in the June 2003 RPWP and the RIWP Addendum was based on the results of the three-phased initial investigation that was described in Section 5 of this report. The remedial investigation was designed to determine:
- 1) the source of the tritium in groundwater;
- 2) the extent of tritium in groundwater;
- 3) the fate and transport of tritium in groundwater;
- 4) the potential for tritium to migrate beyond the property boundaries;
- 5) human health and environmentalrisks associated with the tritium detected ingroundwater; and, 6) the need for any further action.The following sections provide the details of the remedial investigation.
The results of remedial investigation activities are presented in subsequent sections of this report.6.1 New Monitoring Well Installation -May through June 2003 Five locations were identified for the installation of additional monitoring wells. Details regarding these wells and their installation are provided in the following sections.6.1.1 Objectives Five additional groundwater monitoring wells (Wells S through W) and two replacementgroundwater monitoring wells (Wells M and R) were installed at pre-determined locations surrounding Salem Unit I to evaluate the extent.of tritium in groundwater, and to evaluate groundwater flow dynamics in the shallow, water-bearing unit. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 11. The specific purposes for each of the monitoring wells are as follows: " Monitoring Wells S and W were installed south and southwest of the cofferdam to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area downgradient of the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool between the cofferdam andthe Delaware River;" Monitoring Wells T, U, and V were installed north of the cofferdam to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions upgradient of the cofferdam both in the shallow water-bearing unit and the Vincentown Formation; and," Replacements for the existing Monitoring Wells M and R were installed to allow for the collection of groundwater samples in the area of these wells from properly constructed and developed monitoring wells.29 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6.1.2 Field Implementation Between May 5 and June 18, 2003, Monitoring Wells S through W were installed. Inm addition, existing Monitoring Wells M and R, which were originally installed as temporary wells constructed of mill-slotted Geoprobe sample rods, were replaced with properly constructed and developed monitoring wells. The monitoring wells were installed by CT&E Environmental Services, Inc. of West Creek, New Jersey using a combination of direct-push, hollow-stem auger, and mud rotary drilling equipment. ARCADIS personnel supervised monitoring well installation activities. A summary of the well constructiondetails for the Station monitoring wells is presented in Table 4. Appendix C presents the boring logs, well completion details, NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation Monitoring Well Records, and Monitoring Well Certification Forms (Form B) for the wells.Monitoring Wells S through W were constructed, with two-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.0 10 slot). Well V, which is screened in the Vincentown Formation, is constructed with a six-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC outer casing. Thereplacement monitoring wells for Well M and Well R were constructed of one-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot). A gravel pack consisting of Morie.No. 1 sand was installed to a minimum of one foot above the top of the well screen.The. remainder of the borehole was grouted with neat cement containing approximately fivepercent bentonite. The grout was installed in the annular space around the casing using a grout pump and a tremie-pipe. Monitoring Wells S, T, U, and W were installed at various locations outside of thecofferdam. The wells were constructed with screened intervals in the hydraulic fill and riverbed deposits encountered above the Kirkwood Formation. The screened intervals for these Wells range from 22 to 37 feet bgs. Monitoring Well V, installed north of the cofferdam, is constructed with a screened interval from 70 to 80 feet bgs in the deeper Vincentown Formation.
- The monitoring wells were developed using a combination of surging and pumping techniques.
Development of the monitoring wells was considered complete:when the discharge appeared to be sediment free.' Following installation, Stires 'Associates, P.A., a licensed New Jersey surveyor, surveyed the monitoring wells. Top of casing elevations, reported in elevations relative-to plant datum, are included in Table 4. Monitoring Well Certification Form Bs for the wells are included in Appendix C. In August 2003, PSEGNuclear, LLC conducted a separate survey to .determine the relationship between plant datum and mean sea level (NAVD. 1988). The results of the Survey'indicate that the conversion factor from plant datum to NAVD 1988 is -89.92 (i.e., to convert from plantdatum to NAVD 1988 subtract 89.92 feet).Investigation-derived waste (IDW) (i.e., drill cuttings, purge water, and decontaminationmaterials) generated during the installation of the monitoring wells was containerized in 55-30 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey gallon steel drums and labeled for identification. Characterization and disposal of the IDW was in accordance with Station radiological controls and waste management programs.During monitoring well installation activities, Station personnel from radiation protection monitored radioactivity in the work area to ensure the safety of project personnel and as a preliminary screening measure for IDW.6.2 Supplemental Remedial Investigation -July through September 2003 Following installation of Monitoring Wells S through W and replacement monitoring wells for Wells M and R, an initial round of groundwater samples was collected during the weeks of June 30 and July 7, 2003. Analytical results of these groundwater samples, which are discussed in detail in Section 8, indicated that tritium was detected in the groundwater sample collected from Monitoring Well S at a concentration of 3,530,000 pCi/L. Based on the results of the groundwater sample collected from Monitoring Well S, a supplementalremedial investigation was implemented to assess the extent of tritium as indicated by this well. The details and results of the supplemental remedial investigation are presented in the following sections.6.2.1 Objectives In an effort to characterize groundwater in the vicinity of Monitoring Well S and to investigate the source of tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from the well, a supplemental remedial investigation was initiated. The objectives of the supplementalremedial investigation were to: 1) determine if the tritium indicated by the groundwatersample collected from Monitoring Well S had migrated to the river; 2) delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of the tritium in groundwater in the vicinity of Monitoring Well S;and 3) evaluate the potential sources of tritium in Monitoring Well S.To achieve the objectives of the supplemental investigation, the groundwater sampling program was expanded significantly. The expanded groundwater sampling program consisted of the collection of grab groundwater samples from various depths at locations along the Delaware River, and surrounding Well S. The samples were then submitted for analysis for tritium, boron, and gamma-emitting isotopes. The groundwater sampling program designed to achieve the objectives of the investigation consisted of the collection of three proposed groundwater samples from discrete intervals in 37 proposed borings. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 12. The specific purposes of the proposed borings were as follows: Borings 1 through 8 were advanced along the Station boundary with the Delaware River. The purpose of the borings was to evaluate concentrations of tritium and other analytes in groundwater as it approached the Delaware River.31 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Borings 9 through 18 and Borings 31 through 37 were advanced within the vicinity of Station infrastructure identified as possible sources of tritium in groundwater. These potential sources include the "rad-waste" line, the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, the Unit I refueling water storage tank; and the Unit I primary water storage tank.Borings 19 through 30 were advanced in the vicinity and downgradient of Well S to evaluate the extent of tritium indicated by groundwater samples collected from the well.The following. sections provide the details of the field implementation and analytical results obtained through the implementation of the supplemental remedial investigation.
6.2.2 Field
Implementation The supplemental remedial investigation was initiated in July 2003 following the detection of elevated concentrations of tritium in Monitoring Well S. As stated previously, the objectives of the supplemental investigation were to determine the extent of migration ofthe tritium, as indicated by Well S, and to assess the lateral and vertical extent and potential sources of the tritium in groundwater. Borings were advanced at the locations shown on Figure 12 using truck mounted Hurricane direct-push drilling equipmenti to the sample target depths. The Hurricane rig was operated by ADT Diamond Drilling, Inc. of Neptune, New Jersey. Prior to advancingthe borings, Underground Services, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania cleared the borings to a depth often feet bgs using SoftDig technology (a vacuum excavation system).Subsurface structures, which prohibited the advancement of borings, were encountered inthe locations of Borings 5, 6, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 29 through the use of SoftDig. In these circumstances, attempts to advance the borings were abandoned. Once cleared, groundwater samples were collected from the borings through the use of a Geoprobe SP- 15 screened point sampler advance to select target depths. Typically, the target depths for the collection of groundwater samples were as follows: 1) 11 to 15 feet bgs; 2) 21 to 25 feet bgs; and, .3) 31 to 35 feet bgs. These target intervals were chosen to evaluate groundwater at or near the water table surface, in the riverbed deposits or other sediments encountered just above the Kirkwood Formation, and some intermediate sample interval. The target sample intervals were modified in the field based on field conditions and observations, as necessary. In several locations, the shallower target intervals (11 to 15 feet and 21 to 25 feet) yielded too little groundwater to collect a sufficient volume of water for analysis. In these locations, one-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC temporary wells were installed to facilitate 32 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey the collection of groundwater. The temporary wells were installed using two and a quarter inch diameter Geoprobe well installation rods with an expendable point. Drilling equipment and sampling devices (e.g., the SP- 15 sampler) were decontaminated between sample locations. Maplewood Testing Services personnel (Maplewood) collected the groundwater samples using peristaltic pumps. New sample tubing was used at each sample location to prevent cross contamination between sample locations. A sufficient volume of water was collected from each sample location to analyze for tritium. Groundwater samples were collected from select borings to be analyzed for major cations and anions and gamma emitting isotopes.The groundwater samples were submitted to the Salem Generating Station Chemistry Department (Chemistry) for initial screening for tritium and gamma-emitting isotopes. If groundwater samples did not indicate a concentration of tritium above the Station Chemistry lower level of detection (LLD), the sample was sent to the Maplewood laboratory for analysis using more sensitive equipment. The advancement and subsequent sampling of 30 out of the 37 proposed borings was completed successfully. Table 5 presents a summary of the details of the supplemental remedial investigation. The results of the investigation are presented in the following section.6.2.3 ResultsThe laboratory analytical results for the supplemental remedial investigation are summarized in Table 6 and are included on Figure 13 along with the analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the Station monitoring wells. Groundwater analytical results for samples collected from the borings advanced beyond the limits of the defined plume demonstrate that there has not been a release of tritium or gamma-emitting isotopes to the river above any regulatory limits. In addition, the groundwater analytical results for samples collected from borings located at the southern and eastern limits of the supplemental investigation generally define the extent of groundwater containing tritium;however, the results of the supplemental investigation have identified an expanded area in the vicinity of Monitoring Well S with elevated levels of tritium in groundwater. This area of groundwater has been identified on Figure 13 as an area with tritium levels above 500,000 pCi/L. Gamma-emitting isotopes were not detected at concentrations above expected background concentrations in groundwater samples collected during the supplemental investigation. The results of the supplemental investigation were not able to complete a pathway between a potential source of primary water and Well S. Based on the distribution of tritium, and 33 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey water levels observed in Monitoring Wells R and N (i.e., the hydraulic gradient in the seismic gap is from the northern to. southern end), the likely source of tritium in the shallow, water-bearing unit is the southern end of the Seismic-Gap, which is in directcontact with foundation soils. In order to further characterize groundwater flow within the shallow, water-bearing unit, and to establish permanent groundwater monitoring points, additional monitoring wells were required. Following completion of the supplementalinvestigation, the RIWP Addendum was prepared and submitted to the NJDEP-BNE presenting the details and results of remedial investigation activities completed to date. The RIWP Addendum proposed additional remedial investigation activities designed to complete the delineation of groundwater impacts, and the hydrogeologic characterization of the shallow, water-bearing unit. The proposed remedial investigation activities. includedthe installation of 16 additional groundwater monitoring wells.Between September 2003 and February 2004, the 16 additional groundwater monitoringwells proposed in the RIWP Addendum were installed at the Station. Initially, Monitoring Well Y, Well Z, and Wells AA through AF were installed. Following the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from these wells, and a re-evaluation of groundwater flow dynamics within the shallow, water-bearing unit, Monitoring Well AG (Shallow and Deep),.Well AH (Shallow and Deep), Well Al, Well AJ, Well AL, and Well AM were installed to fill data gaps identified. Sections 6.3 and 6.4 provide the details of these monitoring well installation activities.
6.3 Monitoring
Well Installation Activities -September through October 2003 Between September 22 and October 8, 2003, eight additional groundwater monitoring .wells (Wells Y, Z and AA through AF) were installed at various locations adjacent to Salem Unit I to establish permanent groundwater monitoring locations between the Station and the Delaware River, to further characterize the extent of tritium in groundwater with concentrations above the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criterion of 20,000 pCi/L, and to evaluate groundwater flow dynamics in the shallow, water-bearing unit. The following sections present the details of the well installation activities.
6.3.1 ObjectivesThe
specific purposes for each of the Monitoring Wells areasfollows: Monitoring Wells Y and Z were installed in the locations of supplemental investigation Borings I and 3, respectively. These wells were installed tocharacterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area downgradient of the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool between the cofferdam and the Delaware River; 0 34 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Monitoring Wells AA and AB were installed in the locations of supplementalinvestigation Borings 13 and 20, respectively. These wells were installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area south and southeast of Monitoring Well S, respectively; U Monitoring Well AC was installed near the location of supplemental investigation Boring 35, as close to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap as practical. This well wasinstalled to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions directly south of the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap and to the east of the Unit 1 equipment hatch;M Monitoring Well AD was installed-at a location outside of the cofferdam andwithin the area of groundwater containing tritium to further characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions. This well was also used for performing a pumping test to evaluate aquifer parameters;
- Monitoring Well AE was installed in the location of supplemental investigation Boring 37. This well was installed in a location east of the Salem GeneratingStation Unit I to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in this area;and,* Monitoring Well AF was installed in the location of supplemental investigation Boring 18. This well was installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area south of the circulating water discharge pipes.
6.3.2 Field
Implementation Monitoring Wells Y, Z and AA through AF were installed by A.C. Schultes, Inc. ofWoodbury Heights, New Jersey using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. ARCADIS personnel supervised monitoring well installation activities. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 11. A summary of the well construction details for the Station monitoring wells is presented in Table 4. Appendix C presents the boring logs, well completion details, NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation Monitoring Well Records, and Monitoring Well Certification Forms (Form B) for the wells.Other than Well AD, the monitoring wells were constructed with two-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot). Well AD was constructed with six-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot). A gravel pack consisting of Morie No. I sand was installed to a minimum of one foot above the top of the well screen. The remainder of the borehole was grouted with neat cement containing approximately five percent bentonite. The grout was installed in the annular space around the casing using a grout pump and a tremie-pipe. 35 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Other than Well AC and Well AE, which were installed within the limits of the cofferdam,the boreholes for the wells were advanced to the depth that the Kirkwood Formation was encountered. The Kirkwood Formation was confirmed at each of-the monitoring well locations through the collection of split-spoon samples. The wells were then constructed with ten-foot screened intervals exposed to the hydraulic fill and riverbed deposits directly above the Kirkwood Formation. The screened intervals for these wells ranges from a, minimum top of casing depth of 26 feet bgs to a maximum bottom of screen depth of 42feet bgs. This screened interval was chosen to monitor groundwater directly above the.Kirkwood Formation in the zone of the shallow, water-bearing unit that had the potential for exhibiting the highest hydraulic conductivity (i.e., the riverbed deposits). Well AC and Well AE, installed within the limits of the cofferdam, were advanced to the lean concrete foundation. The lean concrete was encountered at depths of 25 and 27.5 feet bgs in Well AC and Well AE, respectively. The wells were constructed with ten-foot screened intervals directly above the lean concrete. This screened interval was chosen to monitor groundwater directly above the lean concrete.The monitoring wells were deveioped using a combination of surging and pumping: techniques. Well AD, which was originally being considered for use during a long-term pumping test, was also developed using a chemical development agent (BMR).Development of the monitoring wells was considered complete when the discharge appeared to be sediment free. Following installation, Stires Associates, P.A., a licensed New Jersey surveyor, surveyed the monitoring wells. IDW was handled in a manner similar to the description provided in Section 6.1.6.4 Monitoring Well Installation Activities -January through February 2004 Following installation and development of the additional monitoring wells in September and October 2003 (Wells Y, Z and AA through AF), groundwater monitoring activities were initiated to determine the extent' of delineation, and to identify data gaps that may be present in the existing monitoring well network. Groundwater monitoring activities consisted of the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from the recently installed wells and the collection and evaluation of two rounds of synoptic water levels from all of the Station monitoring wells. Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring activities, several data gaps were identified within the existing monitoring well network. As a result, eight additional monitoring wells (Wells AG-Shallow, AG-Deep, AH-Shallow, AH-Deep, Al, AJ, AL, and AM) were installed at the Salem Generating Station.6.4.1 Objectives The purposes for the additional monitoring wells are as follows: 36 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey" The well cluster consisting of Monitoring Wells AG-Shallow and AG-Deep was installed at the location of supplemental investigation Boring 7. The well clusterwas installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area downgradient of the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool and immediately north of the circulation water discharge pipes;" The well cluster consisting of Monitoring Wells AH-Shallow and AH-Deep was installed at the location of supplemental investigation Boring 8. The well cluster was installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions in an area downgradient of the Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool and immediately south of the circulation water discharge pipes;" Monitoring Well Al was installed in the location of supplemental investigation Boring 9. This well was installed to further characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions within the cofferdam. Following installation, a pump test was performed on this well to evaluate aquifer parameters and potential remedial alternatives for the tritium in groundwater (e.g., capture of the tritiated water through pumping and permitted discharge);" Monitoring Well AJ was installed outside of the cofferdam within the area of groundwater indicating relatively high concentrations of tritium. This well was used for performing a pumping test to evaluate aquifer parameters, and potentiallymay be incorporated into a remedial action designed to capture the groundwater containing tritium;E Monitoring Well AL was installed in the location of supplemental investigation Boring 30. This well was installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions south of the Salem Generating Station Unit I Spent Fuel Pool and the circulation water discharge pipes; and," Monitoring Well AM was installed near the location of supplemental investigation Boring 34, as close to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap as practical. This well was installed to characterize groundwater quality and flow conditions directly south of the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap and to the west of the Unit I equipment hatch.An additional monitoring well (Well AK) was proposed for the location of supplemental investigation Boring 28; however, due to plans for an additional structure to be erected at the proposed well location, the well was not installed. Other locations for the well were considered, but attempts to install the well were abandoned due to the existence of significant subsurface infrastructure in this location and the proximity of the proposed well to existing wells.37 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6.4.2 Field Implementation Between January 14 and February 18, 2004, Monitoring Wells AG-Shallow, AG-Deep, AH-Shallow, AH-Deep, Al, AJ, AL, and AM were installed. Talon Drilling of WestTrenton, New Jersey' installed the monitoring wells using hollow-stem auger drillingequipment. ARCADIS personnel supervised monitoring well installation activities. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 11. A summary of thewell ,construction details for the Station monitoring wells is presented in Table 4. Appendix C presents the boring logs, well completion details, NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation Monitoring Well Records, and Monitoring Well Certification Forms (Form B) for the wells.Well clusters were installed at the locations of Well AG (Shallow and Deep) and Well AH (Shallow and Deep). The well clusters, completed within the same borehole, wereconstructed with screened intervals from 15 to 25 feet bgs and 30 to 40 feet bgs. Thescreened intervals, which were designed to provide a vertical profile of tritium immediately downgradient of the sheetpiling through which thecirculation water discharge pipes penetrate, are separated by approximately four-feet of grout.. The wells within each cluster are constructed of one-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot).A gravel pack consisting of Morie No. 1 sand, which grades to Morie No. 00 sand over the last foot, was installed to approximately one foot above the top of the well screen. The remainder of each borehole was grouted with neat cement containing approximately five percent bentonite. The gout was installed in the annular space around the casing using agrout pump and a tremie-pipe. Details regarding the installation of the remaining wells are as follows: Well Al and AM were installed within the limits of the cofferdam. The boreholes for these wells were advanced to the depth that lean concrete was encountered. The wells were then constructed with ten-foot screened intervals immediately above the lean concrete. These wells were constructed with four-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot).Well AJ was installed outside of the limits of the cofferdam within the area exhibiting elevated (greater than 500,000 pCi/L) levels of tritium. The borehole for well AJ was advanced to the depth that the Kirkwood Formation was encountered, which was confirmed through the, collection of split-spoon samples. Well AJ wasconstructed with four-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot). The well was constructed with a 25-foot screened interval installed immediately above the Kirkwood Formation. Well AL, installed beyond the limits of the cofferdam and directly south of the circulation water discharge pipes, was installed to a depth of 25 feet bgs. Well AL was completed with a ten-foot screened interval designed to monitor groundwater , 38 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jerseyabove and downgradient of the circulation water discharge pipes. The well wasconstructed with two-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and well screen (0.010 slot).A gravel pack consisting of Morie No. I sand was installed to a minimum of one foot above the top of the well screens. The remainder of each borehole was grouted with neat cement containing approximately five percent bentonite. The grout was installed in the annular space around the casing using a grout pump and a tremie-pipe. The monitoring wells were developed using a combination of surging and pumping techniques. Development of the monitoring wells was considered complete when the discharge appeared to be sediment free. Following installation, Stires Associates, P.A., a licensed New Jersey surveyor, surveyed the monitoring wells. IDW was handled in a manner similar to the description provided in Section 6.1.6.5 Monitoring Well Sampling and Analysis Groundwater monitoring activities have been ongoing since the installation of Wells K through R during Phase III of the initial Station investigation activities. Initially, groundwater samples were collected on a weekly basis. As additional monitoring wellswere installed, and as a database of groundwater analytical results for the monitoring wellswas generated, the monitoring well sampling program was modified. Groundwater samples are analyzed for tritium, major cations and anions, and gamma emitting isotopes.The sampling program is being adaptively managed to provide the investigational data required to meet the current investigation objectives and evaluate changes in tritium concentrations. Currently, the sampling program design for the Station monitoring wells consists of the following:
- Due to the relatively low levels of tritium (typically less than 1,000 pCi/L) historically detected in groundwater samples collected from Wells L, P, Q, T, U, and V, and the"natural" (or ambient) levels of tritium detected using low-level tritium in-growth techniques (detection limit approximately 1.5 pCi/L), these wells are currently sampled on a quarterly basis and the frequency may be reduced to semi-annual in the near future;* Wells K, R, W, and AF are currently sampled on a monthly basis but are beingevaluated for a reduced frequency based on consistent analytical results below the level of detection;" Wells such as M, N, 0, AA, AB, AC, AD, and AE, which indicate concentrations oftritium above 20,000 pCi/L, are currently sampled on a monthly basis. These wells are monitored to evaluate current plume dynamics and migration; and, 39 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New JerseyRecently installed monitoring wells, such as Wells AG through AM, are currently sampled on a bi-weekly basis to establish an analytical history for these wells.
Following development of the analytical history, the sample frequency will be modified based on similar factors as explained above. The adaptive sampling management program is designed to ensure representative data are collected .that meet the objectives of the investigationand provide the information necessary to evaluate plume dynamics and migration. Analysis of groundwater samples collected from most of the Station Monitoring Wells has also included a single event analysis for groundwater age determination (by tritium -helium-3 age dating). As proposed in the RIWP Addendum, Tc-99 was also analyzed as a single-event analysis. The Tc-99 analysis, which was performed in lieu of iodine- 129, was performed to assist in the determination of the source of the tritium. The iodine-129 analysis could not be performed due to unavailability of analysis equipment at Purdue University. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected through December 2003 are discussed in Section 8 of this report.To minimize the influence of turbidity, groundwater samples are collected in accordance O with the low-flow sampling 'procedure outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which was included as an appendix to the June 2003 RIWP. The use of low-flow purging and sampling procedures results in the collection of groundwater samples from monitoring wells that are representative of groundwater conditions in the geologic formation. This is accomplished by minimizing stress on the geologic formation and minimizing disturbance of sediment that has collected in the well (Groundwater Sampling Procedure, Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region I, March 1998).As outlined in the low-flow sampling standard operating procedure (SOP) provided in the QAPP, low-flow purging and sampling involves lowering a QED Micropurge %-inch diameter bladder pump (model SP-%-P) to the midpoint of the screened interval of the monitoring wells. The wells are then purged at a constant rate maintained at or below 200 milliliters per minute. The water level in the well being sampled is monitored during purging, and the pumping rate is adjusted to minimize drawdown. A properly calibrated Micropurge Basics Flow Cell Model MP20DT is used to collect field parameter measurements every five minutes from the recovered groundwater. The parameters include dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), specific conductivity, pH, and temperature. Once the field parameters stabilize (no more than 10 percent fluctuation over threemeasurements), a sample is collected. The sample is collected directly from the pump discharge line, which is disconnected from the influent line of the flow-through cell to O facilitate sample collection. A summary of stabilized field parameters (final readings) for 40 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells is provided in Table 7. The field parameter measurements collected during sample collection activities indicated the following: " Temperature ranged from 12.50 to 32.69 degrees Centigrade (°C)." Specific conductivity ranged from 15.10 to 0'19 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm)." pH ranged from 4.96 to 8.32 standard units (su)." ORP ranged from -219 to +484 millivolts (mV)." DO concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 8.02 milligrams per liter (mg/L).The relatively wide range of temperatures is likely due to the influence of the facility infrastructure. The wells indicating higher temperatures are screened in the shallow, water-table aquifer in areas adjacent to subsurface structures that cause an increase in subsurface temperature (e.g., steam blow down lines).Before sampling and between each well, all non-dedicated field equipment (e.g., submersible pumps and water-level indicators) is decontaminated following the procedures outlined in the QAPP. Purge water generated during sampling is containerized pending disposal in accordance with Station radiological controls and waste management programs.6.6 Hydrogeologic Investigation Activities The following sections provide the details of the site-specific hydrogeologic investigation activities detailed in the June 2003 RIWP and RIWP Addendum. These activities includethe collection of groundwater elevation data from Station monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater flow conditions in the shallow, water-bearing unit; the monitoring of groundwater elevations in the Vincentown Formation to evaluate groundwater flow conditions during various points in the tide cycle; the performance of slug tests and pumping tests on various monitoring wells; the evaluation of tidal influences on the various hydrogeologic units encountered beneath the Station; and, the evaluation of a clay sample from the Kirkwood Formation to accurately characterize this unit. The results of the site-specific hydrogeologic investigation activities are presented in Section 6.6.6.1 Evaluation of Tidal InfluenceBetween July 29 and August 5, 2003, data logging miniTROLL pressure transducers were installed in Monitoring Wells L, M, and W to evaluate the tidal influences of the Delaware River on water levels in the Vincentown Formation (Well L), the hydraulic fill and river bed deposits (Well W), and the structural fill within the cofferdam (Well M). The miniTROLLs were programmed to record data on 15-minute intervals throughout the period of record. In addition to the water-level information from the wells, actual tidal data 41 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey from the Reedy Point, Delaware tidal station (USGS Station No. 8551910), and precipitation data from the weather station located approximately
0.9 miles
east of the Salem Generating Station were obtained.Following completion of the tests, the data were downloaded from the miniTROLLs and evaluated using Win-Situ software. The tidal data from Reedy Point and precipitation data obtained from the Station were also evaluated. An analysis of the tidal evaluation data and results are presented in Section 7.3.6.6.2 Evaluation of Groundwater Elevations As presented in Section 7.3, water levels in the Vincentown Formation are influenced by tidal fluctuations in the Delaware River, while water levels in the shallow, water-bearing unit are not tidally influenced. As such, the approach to evaluating groundwater elevations in these units varied. The following sections provide the details for the evaluation of groundwater elevations in these units.6.6.2.1 Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit To characterize groundwater flow conditions in the shallow, water-bearing unit, water level measurements were collected from the monitoring wells during six synoptic events conducted on June 26, July 28, August 15, October 14, and November 6, 2003 and February 20, 2004. A summary of the water level measurements is presented in Table 8.The results of the water level measurement events are discussed in Section 7.2. 1., 6.6.2.2 Vincentown FormationTo characterize groundwater flow conditions in the Vincentown Formation, continuous data logging pressure transducers were installed in Well K, Well L, Well P, Well Q, and Well V from January 12 through 19, 2004. Tide data for the same time period were obtained from the tide station located at the Hope Creek Generating Station. The data obtained from these wells and the tide station were evaluated to characterize groundwater flow conditions in the Vincentown Formation during various stages of the tide in the Delaware River. The results of the groundwater elevation data for the Vincentown Formation are presented in Section 7.2.2.6.6.2.3 Evaluation of Vertical Groundwater Gradients To evaluate the vertical, gradient between the shallow, water-bearing unit, relative groundwater elevations for the units, calculated from water level measurements obtained on June 26, July 28, August 15, October 14; and November 6, 20034 were compared. The results of this evaluation are presented in Section 7.2.3.42 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6.6.3 Evaluation of the Kirkwood Formation Conflicting geologic reports suggest that the clay, confining unit that separates the riverbed deposits and hydraulic fill of the shallow, water-bearing unit from the Vincentown Formation is either the Miocene Kirkwood Formation or the Pleistocene Van Sciver Lake Bed deposits (USGS 1979 and 1999). In order to determine the relative age of the clay, confining-unit, samples of the clay obtained during the drilling of Well V were submitted to Lehigh University for pollen analysis. Results of the age determination analysis are presented in Section 7.4.6.6.4 Aquifer Characterization To evaluate aquifer parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) for the shallow, water-bearing unit and the Vincentown Formation, slug tests and pumping tests were performed on various monitoring wells. The details of these tests are presented in the following sections..6.6.4.1 Slug Tests ARCADIS collected slug test data from Monitoring Wells N, 0, and U in August 2003.The purpose of the slug tests was to obtain preliminary estimates of hydraulic conductivity for the structural fill encountered within the cofferdam and the hydraulic fill and riverbed deposits. Pumping tests were performed to obtain a more refined estimate of the hydraulic conductivity and other aquifer parameters for the various components of the shallow, water-bearing unit. Details regarding the proposed pumping tests are included in Section 7.4.1.The slug tests were performed by first programming and installing an In-SituminiTROLL-30 PSIA pressure transducer and data logger (miniTROLL) in the test well.Programming the miniTROLLs consisted of entering the test start time (projected to be approximately 15 minutes following installation of the miniTROLLs into the test well) and data collection interval (minimum of 1.5 seconds). Following installation of the miniTROLL into the test well, the water level in the well was allowed to stabilize. (If the water level had stabilized by the time the miniTROLL was scheduled to start recording data, the slug was introduced to the well. If the water level had not stabilized, the water level was allowed to stabilize before introducing the slug.) The slug that was used for the tests is a three-foot long, one and a half (1.5) inch diameter, solid Schedule 80 PVC rod. In a two-inch diameter well, the slug will displace the water table approximately 1.7 feet (i.e., 0.27 gallons).Upon introducing the slug to the test well to start the falling head test, the time and depth to water were recorded. During the test, the depth to water was periodically recorded tocompare the water-level readings recorded by the miniTROLL. Once the water table had 43 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey recovered to within 90 percent of static, the slug was removed to start the rising head test.Again, depth to water measurements and the time were recorded initially after removing the slug and periodically during the test. The testwas considered complete once the water table had recovered to within 90 percent of static. The same process was repeated for each test well. An analysis of the slug test data and results are presented in Section 7.4.1.6.6.4.2 Pumping Tests Between January 30 and February 4, 2004, eight aquifer pumping tests were conducted on seven monitoring wells (Wells AB, AC, AD, Al, AJ, AM, and S) screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit. The tests, which consisted of both a pumping phase and a recovery phase, were performed to quantify the hydrogeologic characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) of this unit within the limits of and just south of the cofferdam. The pumping tests were performed by first installing a variable rate two-inch submersible Grundfos pump in the test well. A miniTROLL data logging pressure transducer was then programmed and installed in the test well. Programming the miniTROLLs consisted of entering the test start time (projected to be approximately 15 minutes following installation of the miniTROLLs into the test well) and data collection interval (logarithmic). Following installation of the miniTROLL into the test well, the water level in the well was measured and manually recorded. The pumping test was then initiated.The wells were tested at pumping rates ranging from 0.25 to 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm).Pumping rates maintained during the pumping portion of the test Were confirmed through the use of a digital flow meter and through manual flow rate calculations using a calibrated receptacle and a stopwatch. Recovery data were monitored until the water level in the well had recovered to a minimum of 85% of the static water level measured at the start of the test. The water generated during the tests was pumped directly into 55-gallon steel drums.Following completion of the tests, water in the drums was transferred to a storage tank pending characterization and disposal, which was coordinated by PSEG Nuclear, LLC personnel Details regarding the pumping tests performed on the individual wells are provided in the following sections. Field observations made during the tests are summarized in Table 9. Results of the pumping tests are presented in Section 7.4.2.6.6.4.2.1 Well AB The pumping test conducted on Well AB consisted of a 304-minute step-drawdown test.The steps of the test were performed at the following pumping rates: 0.25 gpm; 0.5 gpm;1.0 gpm; and, 2.0 gpm. Drawdown stabilized in the well during each pumping rate. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 280 gallons.'The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 16 feet from the static water level.44 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6.6.4.2.2 Well AC The pumping test conducted on Well AC consisted of a 283-minute step-drawdown test, which was conducted concurrently with a pumping test on Well AM. The steps of the test were performed at the following pumping rates: 0.25 gpm; 0.5 gpm; and, 0.75 gpm.Drawdown stabilized in the well during the 0.25 gpm and 0.5 gpm pumping rates but thewell was not able to maintain a pumping rate of 0.75 gpm. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 116 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 10.3 feet from the static water level. 6.6.4.2.3 Well AD The pumping test conducted on Well AD consisted of a 331 -minute step-drawdown test, which was conducted concurrently with the development of Well AJ. A noticeable effect of the development of Well AJ was observed in the water levels measured in Well AD.The steps of the test were performed at the following pumping rates: 0.25 gpm and 0.5 gpm. Drawdown stabilized in the well during the 0.25 gpm pumping rate but the well was not able to maintain a pumping rate of 0.5 gpm. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 85 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 17 feet from the static water level.6.6.4.2.4 Well Al The pumping test conducted on Well Al consisted of a 315-minute step-drawdown test.The steps of the test were performed at the following pumping rates: 0.25 gpm; 0.5 gpm;and, 0.75 gpm. Drawdown stabilized in the well during the 0.25 gpm and the 0.5 gpm pumping rates but the well was not able to maintain a pumping rate of 0.75 gpm. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 145 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 11.6 feet from the static water level.6.6.4.2.5 Well AJ The pumping test conducted on Well AJ consisted of a 275-minute step-drawdown test, which was conducted concurrently with the pumping test on Well S. The steps of the test were performed at the following pumping rates: 0.25 gpm and 0.5 gpm. Drawdown stabilized in the well during the 0.25 gpm pumping rate but the well was not able to maintain a pumping rate of 0.5 gpm. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 75 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 23.2 feet from the static water level.45 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 6.6.4.2.6 Well AM The pumping test performed on Well AM consisted of a 202-minute test that was effectively separated into two separate time frames (i.e., an initial portion and a subsequent portion). The test on Well AM was also performed.concurrently with the pumping test performed on Well AC.The initial portion of the test was performed at the following pumping rates: 0,25 gpm and 0.5 gpm. Drawdown' stabilized in the well during the 0.25 gpm pumping rate but the well was not able to maintain a pumping rate of 0.5 gpm. The total volume of water recovered during the initial portion of the test was approximately 40 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well during this portion was. approximately 12.3 feet from the static water level.Prior to initiating the subsequent portion of the test, the water level in the well was allowed to recover to within 90-percent of the static water level. This required approximately 90 minutes. The subsequent portion of the test on Well AM was conducted at a pumping rate of 0.33 gpm. Drawdown in the well had not stabilized at the time the subsequent portion of the test was terminated, and approximately 18 gallons of water were recovered during this portion of the test.6.6.4.2.7 Well S The pumping test conducted on Well S consisted of a 305-minute test, which was conducted concurrently with the pumping test on Well. AJ. The pumping test was conducted at a pumping rate of 0.25 gpm. Drawdown in the well began to stabilize at this pumping rate near the end of the pumping phase of the test. The total volume of water recovered during the pumping test was approximately 77 gallons. The maximum drawdown observed in the well was approximately 20 feet from the static water level.0 46 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 7 Hydrogeologic Evaluation The following sections provide the results of the site-specific hydrogeologic investigation activities detailed in the June 2003 RIWP and RIWP Addendum, as well as a hypothesis regarding groundwater flow at the facility prior to construction of the cofferdam and other facility structures, which have had a significant impact on groundwater flow. As presented in Section 5, the site-specific hydrogeologic investigation activities included the collection of groundwater elevation data from Station monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater flow conditions in the shallow, water-bearing unit; the monitoring of groundwater elevations inthe Vincentown Formation to evaluate groundwater flow conditions during various points in the tide cycle; the performance of slug tests and pumping tests on various monitoring wells; the evaluation of tidal influences on the various hydrogeologic units encounteredbeneath the Station; and, the evaluation of a clay sample from the Kirkwood Formation to accurately characterize this unit.
7.1 Local
Hydrogeology -Pre-Facility ConstructionThe Station is located on the southern tip of what was once a natural bar projecting into the Delaware River. The groundwater flow conditions .present in the natural bar would have been typical of those present on any island composed of unconsolidated materials. Waterwould move away from the axis of the bar in either direction with semi-radial flow occurring at the ends of the bar.The area between the bar and the mainland had been formerly used as a dredge spoil area.In 1899, a timber sheetpile wall was installed around the perimeter of the bar. Over the next 50 or so years the area was used as a spoil deposit area for material obtained during the dredging of the Delaware River by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Riprap was added to the perimeter when the timbers began to degrade (Dames & Moore February 1974, June 1977). The area landward of Artificial Island has remained a tidal marsh.7.2 Local Hydrogeology -Current The following sections provide the results of the site-specific hydrogeologic investigation activities. Detailed water level measurements have been collected from site monitoring wells as well as the site tidal station to determine groundwater flow directions and surface water/groundwater interactions. The results of these activities are summarized below.7.2.1 Groundwater Flow -Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit ARCADIS personnel performed site-wide monitoring well gauging events on June 26, July 28, August 15, October 14, and November 6, 2003 and February 20, 2004. The depth-to-water in each well was measured relative to the top of the well casing using an electronic 47 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey water-level indicator. Using the gauging measurements and the surveyed top of casing elevations, groundwater elevations were calculated for each well. Table 8 provides a summary of the groundwater elevation data.As summarized in Table 8, groundwater elevations in monitoring wells screened inthe shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam are generally higher than groundwater elevations in monitoring wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit outside the limits of the cofferdam. Water-table elevations have generally decreased across the site since June 2003. A groundwater elevation contour map for the shallow, water-bearing unit based on the February 20, 2004 data is presented on Figure 14. Groundwater flow. is generally from the center of the island (northeast of the Salem Generating Station)towards the Delaware River. Due to permeability differences between the structural fill and the hydraulic fill, groundwater is mounded within the area of the cofferdam. Groundwater flows radially outward from the cofferdam, and the observed mounding effect dissipates. quickly.7.2.2 Groundwater Flow -Vincentown Formation As presented in Section 7.3, water levels in the Vincentown Formation, because it is a confined-unit, are tidally influenced. Water levels can vary as much as four feet per tide cycle depending on the proximity of the well to the Delaware River. To more accurately assess groundwater flow conditions in the Vincentown Formation, data logging pressure transducers were installed in Well K, Well L, Well P, Well Q, and Well V from January 12 through 19, 2004. Tide data for the same time period were obtained from the tide station located at the Hope Creek Generating Station. The water level and tide data were evaluatedto characterize groundwater flow conditions during various stages of the tide cycle of theDelaware River. Graphs of water levels for the individual wells and .the tide data are presented as Figures E-I through E-6 in Appendix D. The tide data was evaluated to determine the highest tide (high-high tide), the lowest tide (low-low-tide), and an intermediate high tide (low-high tide) observed during the monitoring period. Corresponding water levels in the monitoring wells were noted for these stages of the tide cycle, and groundwater elevations were calculated. Groundwater elevation contours for the high-high tide, the low-high tide, and the low-low tide are presented on Figures 15, 16, and 17, respectively. Groundwater. flow direction in the Vincentown Formation oscillates with the tides. Duringthe high-high tide stage of the tide cycle (Figure 15), groundwater flow in the Vincentown Formation is perpendicular to the shoreline of the Delaware River in the west and southtowards the center of Artificial Island. During the low-high tide stage of the tide cycle (Figure 16), an observed groundwater saddle is present between the Station and the Delaware River. Groundwater flow to .the north and east of the saddle is to the south and 48 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey east. Groundwater flow to the south and west of the saddle is to the north and east. During the low-low tide stage of the tide cycle (Figure 17), groundwater flow in the Vincentown Formation is from the center of Artificial Island towards the Delaware River.7.2.3 Vertical Gradients As summarized in Table 8, groundwater elevations in the Vincentown Formation are generally two to four feet lower than the hydraulic head in the shallow, water-bearing unit.This indicates that the potential for downward vertical migration of groundwater exists.7.3 Tidal Evaluation ResultsThe results of the tidal investigation were consistent with previous tidal studies (Dames &Moore January 4, 1968). Approximately four feet of tidal response was observed in Well L (screened within the Vincentown Formation). Well W, screened within the shallow, water-bearing unit, showed a negligible tidal response. Similarly, Well M, located within the cofferdam on the west end of the Salem Unit 1 Fuel Handling Building exhibited no discemable tidal response. These tidal data indicate that the Kirkwood Aquitard effectively isolates the riverbed deposits from tidal fluctuations in the Vincentown Formation and there are no tidal influences in the aquifer where tritium has been detected. Plots depicting thetidal evaluation analyses are provided in Appendix E.7.4 Evaluation of the Kirkwood Formation Conflicting geologic reports suggest that the clay, confining unit that separates the riverbed deposits and hydraulic fill of the shallow, water-bearing unit from the Vincentown Formation is either the Miocene Kirkwood Formation or the Pleistocene Van Sciver Lake Bed deposits (USGS 1979 and 1999). In order to determine the relative age of the clay, confining-unit, samples of the clay obtained during the drilling of Well V were submitted to Lehigh University for pollen analysis. Results of the age determination analysis indicate that the clay, confining-unit is late Miocene or Pliocene in age (Yu 2003). As such, the clay, confining-unit is interpreted as the Kirkwood Formation.
7.5 Aquifer
Characteristics The following sections provide the results of the slug tests and pumping tests performed on the various monitoring wells at the Station.7;5.1 Slug Test ResultsSlug tests were performed on Monitoring Wells N, 0, and U to quantify hydraulic properties in the unconfined aquifer. The field procedure followed for these tests are 49 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station* .Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey discussed in Section 6.6.4.1. The slug test data generated from these wells were evaluated using the Bouwer and Rice (1976) method. The primary assumptions of this analysis are: 1) the flow field is steady and laminar near the well; 2) the aquifer is homogenous and isotropic within the zone of influence; and 3) the well screen is clean.Table 10 provides a summary of the hydraulic conductivity values estimated from the slugtests. Plots of the slug test analyses are provided in Appendix F. Monitoring Wells N and 0 are screened in the structural fill. The estimated hydraulic conductivity at Well N is between 0.09 and 0.14 ft/day. The estimated hydraulic conductivity at Well 0 is between 3.6 and 4.3 ft/day. The variation in hydraulic conductivity between wells reflects not only differences between soils and well construction, but also slug test procedures in general.Slug tests displace only a small volume of water in the vicinity of the well, thereby stressing only a small portion of the aquifer. The discrepancy between sampling points is not atypical. The estimated hydraulic conductivity value for Monitoring Well U screened in the riverbed deposits was 2.95 ft/day.7.5.2 Pumping Test Results As presented in Section 6.6.4.2, eight pumping tests were performed on seven wells (Wells.AB, AC, AD, Al, AJ, AM, and S) to quantify the hydrogeologic characteristics (e.g.,hydraulic conductivity) of the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of and just south of the cofferdam. The data collected during the pumping and recovery phases of the pumping tests were analyzed using AQTESLOV for Windows (HydroSOLVE, !1996). The results of the individual pumping tests, which are discussed in the following sections, are summarized in Table 11. The pumping test results indicate a range of transmissivity of 0.337 ft 2/day to 27.7 ft2/day and hydraulic conductivities of 0.03 ft/day to 2.77 ft/day.7.5.2.1 Well AB Details of the analysis of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AB are presented, on Figures H-I and H-2 in Appendix G, respectively.The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 27.7 ft 2/day and 2.77 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 22.7 fl 2/day and 2.27 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.2 Well AC Details of the analysis of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AC are presented on Figures H-3 and H-4 in Appendix G, respectively.The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 12.6 ft 2/day and 1.26 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and 0 50 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 1.67 ft 2/day and 0.17 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.3 Well AD Details of the analysis of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AD are presented on Figures H-5 and H-6 in Appendix G, respectively.The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 0.942 ft 2/day and 0.09 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 0.937 ft 2/day and 0.09 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.4 Well Al Details of the analysis of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well Al are presented on Figures H-7 and H-8 in Appendix G, respectively.The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 7.97 ft 2/day and 0.80 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 2.10 ft 2/day and 0.21 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.5 Well AJ Details of the analysis dfthe pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AJ are presented on Figures H-9 and H- 10 in Appendix G, respectively. The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 1.73 ft 2/day and 0.09 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 0.56 ft 2/day and 0.03 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.6 Well AM Details of the analysis of the first portion of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AM are presented on Figures H-1l and H-12 in Appendix G, respectively. The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data for the various steps are 1.40 ft 2/day and 0.14 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 0.572 ft 2/day and 0.06 ft/day, respectively. Details of the analysis of the second portion of the pumping and recovery phases of the step-drawdown test performed on Well AM are presented on Figures H-13 and H-14 in Appendix G, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from 51 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey the pumping data are 1.08 ft 2/day and 0.11 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 0.338 ft 2/day and 0.03 ft/day, respectively. 7.5.2.7 Well S Details of the analysis of the pumping and recovery phases of the constant-rate test performed on Well S are presented on Figures H- 15 and H- 16 in Appendix G, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the pumping data are 1.70 ft 2/day and 0.17 ft/day, respectively. The transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity calculated from the recovery data are 1.10 ft 2/day and 0.11 ft/day, respectively. 0 52 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 8 Analytical Results in accordance with the scope of work presented in the June 2003 RIWP and the RIWP Addendum, samples have been collected from various media at the Station to determine the magnitude and extent of the release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. Soils samples were obtained during the installation of the monitoring wells, grab groundwater samples were collected at various depths using direct push methods, and groundwater samples were collected using low flow sampling methods from the Station monitoring wells. Throughout the investigation, samples were also collected from the Spent Fuel Pool, the telltale drains, and from the various sample locations established within the facility (see Appendix A).Collectively, the data indicate that water from the Spent Fuel Pool leaked behind the stainless-steel liner into the obstructed telltale drains, migrated through curing cracks in the structural concrete and accumulated in the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap. Once there, the Spent Fuel Pool water, for which there is a flowpath to foundation soils, seeped into the foundation soils along the southern side of the seismic gap. This release of Spent Fuel Pool water has resulted in an area of impacted groundwater extending from the south side of the seismic gap to the circulating water discharge pipes.The water samples collected from within the facility indicated concentrations of tritium, boron, and various gamma-emitting isotopes typical of Spent Fuel Pool water.Groundwater samples collected from outside the facility, which were analyzed for the same.suite of parameters, have indicated concentrations of tritium, boron, and one slightly elevated concentration of Tc-99 that suggest that water from the Spent Fuel Pool is the probable source. The data generated during the remedial investigation, both from withinthe facility and groundwater samples collected from the Station monitoring wells, indicate that the removal of the mineral deposits from the telltale drains has resulted in the proper*operation of the leak detection, collection and monitoring system. Analytical results of water samples collected from the drill points established within the seismic gap (DP- I and DP-2), which initially indicated that the water in the gap was mostly Spent Fuel Pool water,have indicated decreasing concentration trends of Spent Fuel Pool constituents. As presented in Appendix B, the most recent water samples collected from the seismic gap indicate that the water is approximately three-percent Spent Fuel Pool water.Additional evidence that suggests that the hydraulic head created by the blockage in the telltale drains has been removed and that Spent Fuel Pool water is no longer migrating to the seismic gap is the concentration trend of tritium in groundwater samples collected from Well AC. This well, which is installed near the contact of the southern end of the seismicgap with foundation soils, has indicated the highest concentrations of tritium and boron in groundwater and is therefore considered the source area monitoring well. Groundwater samples collected from Well AC have indicated stable concentrations of tritium indicating that the source of the tritium has been removed. Future groundwater samples collected from Well AC should indicate a decreasing trend for tritium and boron concentrations. 53 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey As stated in Section 1. 1, the telltale drains are routinely monitored to ensure that mineral deposits do not accumulate and result in an additional discharge of tritium and other constituents to the seismic gap. To further ensure that the seismic gap does not provide a pathway for the migration of constituents of concern to the environment, gap drains are currently being designed and will be installed to permit detection, sampling, and draining of water (both groundwater and water from other sources) that accumulates in the seismic gaps of both Salem Units 1 and 2. The water that accumulates in the seismic gaps will be characterized by Salem Chemistry and will be handled in accordance with Station procedures. Characterization samples collected from the seismic gap drains will provide an additional line of evidence to suggest that the corrective actions taken by PSEG Nuclear, LLC have resulted in the proper functioning of the telltale drains. The drain will also provide control for residual contamination within the Unit 1 seismic gap resulting from the accumulation of Spent Fuel Pool water by permitting controlled draining of the residual contamination. The analytical results of soil and groundwater samples collected following the initiation of.the remedial investigation are presented in the following sections. Radiation protectionpersonnel screened soil samples obtained during the installation of the Station monitoringwells for gamma-emitting isotopes. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoringwells following installation were submitted toSalem Chemistry, Maplewood and the University of Rochester for various analyses. Collectively, the data generated during the investigation was evaluated to determine that the investigation objectives were meet. As discussed previously, the investigation objectives were to determine the source, the extent, and the risk associated with the tritium in groundwater. 8.1 Soil Samples Salem Chemistry analyzed soil samples collected from the borehole cuttings of the Station monitoring wells for gamma-emitting isotopes to determine the appropriate disposal technique based on Station procedures. The soil samples were composite samples (one sample per drum) of cuttings obtained during the monitoring well installation and vacuum excavation activities. According to PSEG, soil samples were non-detect for plant related gamma-emitting isotopes, with the exception of one of the nine soil samples collected from the cuttings of Well T (PSEG, verbal communication 2004). Well T is located to the north of the Salem Generating Station. The plant related gamma-emitting isotope identified in the Well T cuttings is not related to the tritium investigation based on the distance and orientation from the area of concern. Gamma-emitting isotopes were not detected in the other well installation soil samples.54 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 8.2 Groundwater Samples A total of 29 monitoring wells have been installed at various locations surrounding the Station'to delineate the extent of groundwater impacts from the release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. Numerous water quality samples have been collected from the Station monitoring wells. The groundwater samples have been analyzed to assess natural geochemistry, as well as facility-related constituents. As presented in Section 6.5, groundwater samples were initially collected on a weekly basis; however, as the number of monitoring wells increased and the analytical history of the individual monitoring wells was established, the sampling program was modified. The current monitoring planspecifies either biweekly, monthly, or quarterly sampling basedupon the analytical history. of each well.Groundwater samples were submitted to Maplewood and!or Salem Chemistry for analysis for tritium, major cations and anions (sodium and boron), and gamma-emitting isotopes. A summary of the analytical results obtained from Maplewood and Salem Chemistry is presented in Table 12, and the analytical results for tritium are shown on Figure 13. As presented in Section 5.2.5, a separate set of groundwater samples was collected to perform a one-time analysis for groundwater age determination (by tritium -helium-3 ratio), dissolved gases, and Tc-99. The research analytical laboratory at the University of Rochester performed these analyses. Analytical results obtained from the University of Rochester are provided in Appendix H.Analytical results for the groundwater samples, which are discussed in the followingsections, were evaluated based on the water-bearing zone in which the monitoring wells are screened. The three primary water-bearing units being investigated beneath the Station are: 1) the Vincentown Formation;
- 2) the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of thecofferdam; and, 3) the shallow, water-bearing unit outside of the limits of the cofferdam.
8.2.1 Summary
of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in the Vincentown Formation (Wells L, K, P, Q, and V)With the exception of Wells K and V, analytical results of groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation do not indicate concentrations of tritium above regional background concentrations. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Wells K and V indicate tritium concentrations between 185 pCi/L and 1,200 pCi/L, which may be a result of tritiated water from Station activities 20 years ago that recharged to the aquifer. Analytical results of the groundwater samples obtained from the Vincentown Formation indicate concentrations of Tc-99 (0.8 pCi/L) consistent with the ambient abundance of this constituent in precipitation in the 1970s. Plant-related gamma-emitting isotopes have not been detected in groundwatersamples collected from the monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation. Based 55 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey on groundwater flow directions and dissolved methaneconcentrations detected in thegroundwater samples, recharge to the Vincentown Formation is likely to occur from areas north and east of the plant. The following bullets provide an evaluation of the analytical results for the individual monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation.Well K -Tritium has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from Well K at concentrations above the further investigation criterion (3,000 pCi/L). A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure I-, in Appendix I.Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well K consistentlyindicate tritium concentrations between 500 and 1,200 pCi/L. The groundwater age investigation (Appendix H) of Well K indicates that tritiated water recharged at about 3,000 to 5,000 pCi/L approximately 19 years ago and has traveled to the upper part of the Vincentown Formation. The most likely source for this recharge is east of Well K. The level of Tc-99 is 0.8 pCi/L, consistent with post-nuclear background for the eastern United States 25 years ago. Well L -Tritium has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from Well L at concentrations above .the further investigation criterion.(3,000 pCi/L).Analytical results from Maplewood for groundwater samples collected from Well L are below the laboratory detection limit. Results from the University of Rochester indicate a tritium concentration of 45 pCi/L. The groundwater ageanalysis indicates that the water at Well L recharged about 21 years ago consistent with local precipitation 20 to 25 years ago. Groundwater at Well L is approximately the same age as groundwater at Well K, consistent with recharge that occurred 20 years ago. The absence of tritium above the laboratory detection limit suggests that there is no major pathway for tritiated water into the Vincentown Formation. > Well P -Tritium has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from Well P at concentrations above the further investigation criterion (3,000 pCi/L).Analytical results from Maplewood for groundwater samples collected from WellP indicate tritium concentrations between 465 pCi/L and the laboratory detection limit. Results from the University of Rochester measured 58 pCi/L with a groundwater age of about 13 years. Well P is located downgradient, south of Salem Unit 1.> Well Q -Tritium has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from Well Q at concentrations above the further investigation criteria (3,000 pCi/L).Analytical results from Maplewood for groundwater samples collected from Well Q are all below the laboratory detection limit. Low-level tritium analysis performed at the University of Rochester indicates a tritium concentration of 1.5 pCi/L, which is typical of precipitation that recharges prior to the onset of the 56 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey nuclear era (ca. 1950). Elevated levels of dissolved methane in Well Q at 38 cc/kg (1.7mmol/kg) and less than solubility levels for argon and nitrogen indicate the point of recharge to be within the marshes that border the plant to the east.Well V -Tritium has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from Well V at concentrations above the further investigation criterion (3,000 pCi/L). A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-8, in Appendix I.Analytical results from Maplewood for groundwater samples collected from WellV indicate tritium concentrations between 185 pCi/L and 549 pCi/L. Laboratory analyses from the University of Rochester were 549 pCi/L. Groundwater age dating indicates the local groundwater in Well V is 15.4 years old. Groundwatersamples collected from this well indicated a dissolved methane concentration of 15.4 cc/kg methane and dissolved neon and argon concentrations below atmospheric solubility, indicating recharge from the marshes to the east.8.2.2 Summary of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in the Shallow, Water Bearing Unit Within the Limits of the Cofferdam (Wells M, N, 0, R, AC, and AE)Analytical results of the groundwater samples indicate that tritium has been detected above 3,000 pCi!L (the Interim Further Investigation Criterion for Tritium) in groundwatersamples collected from Monitoring Wells M, N, 0, AC, AE and R installed within the limits of the cofferdam. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well M, N, and AC have indicated concentrations of tritium above the further action criteria of 20,000 pCi!L. While they indicate elevated concentrations of tritium, they do not indicate elevated levels of plant related gamma-emitting isotopes or Tc-99. Tritium concentrations have been steady throughout the period of investigation, consistent with the hypothesis that draining of the seismic gap and the unplugging of the telltale drains has stopped the further migration of Spent Fuel Pool water out of the seismic gap. Tc-99 has been detected between 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L, consistent with background concentrations. 1; Well M -Prior to the replacement of Well M in May 2003, tritium concentrations detected in groundwater samples collected from Well M indicated a steady decrease in concentrations from 18,700 pCi/L on February 12, 2003 to 8,800 pCi/L on April 30, 2003. This well was replaced to conform to New Jersey wellconstruction requirements with the new screen interval a few feet deeper than the original; the well was drilled to refusal. The analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the replacement well were initially 126,000 pCi/L, andhave steadily declined to 11,400 pCi/L. Current concentrations are consistent with concentrations measured before the well was replaced. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-2, in Appendix I. The groundwater age dating indicates the water became isolated from the atmosphere less than 0.1 years ago. Boron concentrations in Well M are between 0.222 mg/L and 0.320 mg/L, 57 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey consistent with background for. Artificial Island. The Tc799 concentration for this well is 0.5 pCi/L, also consistent with backgroun& > Well N -Initial groundwater samples collected from Well N indicated concentrations of tritium above the further action criteria for tritium (20,000 pCi/L). A groundwater sample collected from Well N on January 30, 2003 indicated a concentration of tritium of 69,000 pCi/L. Concentrations detected ingroundwater samples collected from Well N have declined steadily in subsequent monitoring to 6,460 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-3, in Appendix I. Boron concentrations are between 0.197 and 0.409 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 1 year. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.4pCi/L, near the background value of 0.5 pCi/liter. > Well 0 -Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well 0 have consistently indicated concentrations of tritium above the further investigationcriterion (3,000 pCi/L) during 2003. Analytical results of groundwater samples.collected from Well 0 by Maplewood indicate tritium concentrations between 1,220 and 13,400 pCi/L. A trend graph~of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-4, in Appendix I. Concentration fluctuations have stabilized and are approximately 7,000 pCi/L. Boron concentrations have ranged from 0.071 and 0.305 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. Groundwater age dating indicates the water is 0.22 years old. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.2 pCi/L, near the background value of 0.5 pCi/liter. > Well R -Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well R havedetected concentrations of tritium at or above the further investigation criterion (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium concentrations have steadily decreased from 13,900 PCiL on February 26, 2003 to 2,550 pCi/L on December 12, 2003. A trend graph oftritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-5, in Appendix I. Groundwater agedating results suggest an age of about 1.2 years. Boron concentrations have ranged from 0.229 and 0.511 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island.The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.4 pCi/L, near the background value of 0.5 pCi/liter. > Well AC -Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well AC have indicated the highest concentrations of tritium in Site monitoring wells (15,000,000 pCi/L): Tritium concentrations have.ranged from 10,700,000 pCi/L and 15,000,000 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-13, in Appendix I. Groundwater age dating and Tc-99 analysis have notbeen completed in this wellbecause of the high levels of tritium. The boron concentration was measured between 253 mg/L and 332 mg/L. Comparison of 0 58 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey tritium concentrations in Well AC to the Spent Fuel Pool indicates local groundwater is 5.5 to 7.5 percent Spent Fuel Pool. Comparison of the boron concentrations in Well AC to Spent Fuel Pool indicates that local groundwater is between 11 and 15 percent Spent Fuel Pool water. The difference in the percentages of Spent Fuel Pool water indicates either a 50% degradation in tritium (the water is about 12 years old) or that the plume is stratified across the well screen. Given the close proximity of Well AC to the seismic, gap, the most likely interpretation is that the plume is stratified. Well AE -Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Well AEhave detected concentrations of tritium at or above the further investigation criterion (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium concentrations have ranged from 5,990 pCi!L to 16,100 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-15, in Appendix I. Groundwater age dating results suggest an age of about 0.33 years.The boron concentration was measured at 0.234 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.7 pCi/L, near the background value of 0.5 pCi/liter.8.2.3 Summary of Analytical Data for Wells Screened in the Shallow, Water-Bearing Unit Outside of the Cofferdam (Wells S, T, U, V, W, Y, Z, AA, AB, AD, and AF)The wells installed in the shallow, water-bearing:unit outside of the limits of the cofferdam are screened either just above the Kirkwood Formation, or in the interval indicating thehighest tritium concentrations during the Supplemental Investigation. The samples indicate that tritium has been detected above 3,000 pCi!L (the Interim Further InvestigationCriterion for Tritium) in Wells S, W, AB, and AD. Wells S, AB, and AD also have indicated concentrations of tritium above the further action criteria of 20,000 pCi/L.Groundwater samples collected from these monitoring wells did not indicate concentrations of plant-related gamma-emitting isotopes. Groundwater samples collected from Well W indicated a concentration of Tc-99 above background for Artificial Island. When analyzed, there are elevated levels of boron where tritium is greater than 20,000 pCi/L. Consistent with conditions inside the cofferdam, tritium concentrations have been steady throughout the period of investigation. Tc-99 has been detected between 0.2 and 4.1 pCi/L, consistentwith background concentrations or slightly higher in the groundwater sample from Well W. Well S -Groundwater samples collected from Well S detected concentrations of tritium above the further action criteria for tritium (20,000 pCi/L). Concentrations of tritium in Well S have ranged from 1,420,000 to 3,530,000 pCi/L with adeclining trend over the period of investigation. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-6, in Appendix I. Boron concentration hasbeen sampled once at 57.4 mg/L, indicating Spent Fuel Pool water. Comparing tritium concentrations in local groundwater to SFP indicate 0.7% to 1.7% Spent 59 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Fuel Pool water. The boron sample indicates a composition of about 2.5% Spent Fuel Pool water. This reduced tritium concentration indicates an age of approximately 6.9 years. Groundwater'age dating comparing helium to tritium ratios suggests an age of about 0.7 years. No plant related gamma-emittingisotopes have been detected in Well S. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.5 pCi!L, equal to the background value. Groundwater samples collected from Well S were also analyzed for strontium-89 and strontium-90. Analytical results of these groundwater samples did not indicate concentrations of these constituents above. the laboratory detection limit. > Well T -Groundwater samples collected from Well T have been below the furtherinvestigation criteria for tritium (3,000 pCi/L). All samples sent to Maplewood were non-detect for tritium while the one sample sent to the University of Rochester detected 257 pCi/L. Boron concentrations ranged from 0.601 mg/L to 0.680 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 1.6 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well T. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 0.7pCi!L, slightly above the background value of 0.5 pCi/L.> Well U -Groundwater samples collected from Well U been below the furtherinvestigation criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium results from samples sent to Maplewood ranged from non-detect to 203 pCi/L while the one sample sent to the University of Rochester detected 78 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-7, in Appendix I. Boron concentrations ranged from 0.341 mg/L to 0.421 mg/L consistent with background for Artificial Island. Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 4.1 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well U. The Tc-99 concentrationin this well is 0.5 pCi/L, equal to the background value.Well W -Groundwater samples collected from Well W have been above the further investigation criterion for' tritium (3,000 pCiiL). Tritium results from samples ranged from 6,010 pCi/L to 15,500 pCiIL. The one sample sent to the University of Rochester detected 13,062 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-9, in Appendix I. Boron concentrations-range from 0.464 mg/L to 0.591 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. The groundwater age determination for a groundwater sample collected in July 2003 had a significant uncertainty likely related to the monitoring well installation. The groundwater age determination for a groundwater sample collected in November 2003 indicated an age of'4.1 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well U. The Tc-99 concentration in this well is 4.1 pCi/L, slightly above the expected background value.0 60 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Well Y -Groundwater samples collected from Well Y have been below the further investigation criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium results from samples sent to Maplewood have been non-detect. The boron concentration was measured at 0.822 mg/L, consistent with background levels for Artificial Island. The well wasnot sampled for groundwater age dating or Tc-99. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well Y.Well Z -Groundwater samples collected from Well Z have been below the further investigation criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium results from samples sent to Maplewood ranged from non-detect to 729 pCi/L while the one sample sent tothe University of Rochester detected 729 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-10, in Appendix I. The boronconcentration was 0.498 mg/L, which is consistent with the background level forArtificial Island. Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 3.2 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well U. The Tc-99 concentration of the groundwater sample collected from this well is 0.4 pCi/L, slightly below the background value of 0.5 pCi/L.Well AA -Tritium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from Monitoring Well AA have been below the further investigation criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L). Tritium results from samples sent to Maplewood ranged from 613pCi/L to 785 pCi/L while the one sample sent to the University of Rochester detected 734 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-11, in Appendix I. The boron concentration was 0.247 mg/L, which is consistent with the background level for Artificial Island. Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 2.1 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well AA. The Tc-99 concentration of the groundwater sample collected from this well is 0.5 pCi/L, equal to the background value. Well AB -Groundwater samples collected from Well AB detected concentrations of tritium above the further action criterion for tritium (20,000 pCiiL).Concentrations of tritium defected in groundwater samples collected from Well ABhave ranged from 280,000 to 409,000 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-12, in Appendix I. Boron analysis has notbeen performed on groundwater samples collected from this well due to elevated tritium results. Comparing tritium concentrations in local groundwater to Spent Fuel Pool indicate that the groundwater is 0.14% to 0.20% Spent Fuel Pool water.Groundwater age dating suggests an age of about 1.38 years. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well AB. The Tc-99 concentration in the groundwater sample collected from this well is 0.4 pCi/L, slightly below the background value of 0.5 pCi/L.61 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Well AD -Groundwater samples collected from Well AD detected concentrations of tritium above the further action criterion for tritium (20,000 pCi/L).Concentrations of tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from Well ADhave ranged from 220,000 to 487,000 pCi/L. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-1, in Appendix I. Boronanalysis has not been performed on groundwater samples collected from this well due to elevated tritium results. Comparing tritium concentrations in local groundwater to SpentFuel Pool indicates that 0.11% to 0.24% of the ground-water is Spent Fuel Pool water. Water samples from this well were not analyzed for age dating or Tc-99.No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well AD.Well AF -Groundwater samples collected from Well AF did not detect tritium.concentrations above the further investigation criterion for tritium (3,000 pCi/L).Concentrations in Well AF have ranged from non-detect to 330 pCi/L. The* analytical results of the low-level tritium analysis performed at the University of Rochester indicated a tritium concentration of 245 pCi/L. The groundwater age determination for the sample collected from Well AF indicates an age of approximately 10 years. A trend graph of tritium concentrations is presented on Figure 1-14, in Appendix I. Boron has been detected at concentrations between 0.380 mg/L and 0.429 mg/L consistent with background levels for Artificial Island.The Tc-99 concentration detected in the groundwater sample collected in this well is consistent with regional background concentrations. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in Well AF.8.3 Delaware River Tritium Concentrations Based on the analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells placed near the Station boundary with the Delaware River, the tritium detected in the shallow, water-bearing unit is not releasing to the Delaware River at concentrations that could violate any exiting standard.A groundwater model is being developed that will provide a quantitative assurance that the tritium in the shallow, water-bearing unit will continue to meet all off-site regulatory standards for tritium. Sampling and analysis of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Salem is routinely conducted and reported under the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ("REMP"). A surface water sampling program was evaluated and determined to be impracticable. The tritium contamination in the shallow, water-bearing unit would not be expected to be discernable in the Delaware River even if a release occurred because: Based on the location and extent of the plume as determined by site sampling, tritium concentrations from the shallow, water-bearing unit would not be detected in the Delaware River; 62 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 2. The ambient tritium levels fluctuate in the environment as shown in the historical Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports (RERRs)submitted annually. There is no viable method of distinguishing low level ambient tritium in the Delaware River from any shallow, water-bearingunit discharge;
- 3. The volume, velocity, and bi-directional tidal flow of the Delaware River prevent making generalizations regarding the transport of tritium in the river and distinguishing between potential sources including routine permitted discharges; and, 4. Analyses conducted on shallow, water-bearing unit show the only facility related parameter to be tritium; no plant related gamma emitters have been detected.
Therefore, there are no "tracer" parameters that can be used to define the source of any tritium detected; and, 5. Delaware River sediment sampling would not provide any useful data regarding a potential release of tritium from the shallow, water-bearing unit as tritium is water and will not adsorb to soil or sediment.Based on these evaluations, no sampling of the Delaware River water or sediment for tritium has been. conducted for this remedial investigation. A mathematical model of the potential concentrations in the Delaware River will be developed to provide the information for adapting the remedial action plan to ensure there is no release to the Delaware River above a regulatory standard as well as validating that there is no significant impact to the environment. The model will serve as the basis for evaluating tritium mass flux to the Delaware River and to assess remedialsystem performance. The groundwater flow model will be constructed using the computer program MODFLOW, a publicly available groundwater flow simulation program developed by the USGS. MODFLOW is thoroughly documented, widely used by consultants, government agencies and researchers, and is consistently accepted in regulatory proceedings. The hydrogeologic studies conducted and samples collected for the tritium investigation will be used to define model parameters. A solute transport model will be used to simulate the movement of tritium considering the processes advection, dispersion, and radioactive decay. The solute transport modeling will be performed using MT3D, a three-dimensional solute transport program developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. MT3D is used in conjunction with MODFLOW, thereby providing a seamless transition from the groundwater flow model to the solute transport modeling. Similar to MODFLOW, MT3D is thoroughly documented and routinely used in regulatory proceeding. 63 Remedial Investigation, Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 9 Fate and Transport Analysis Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Station has been impacted by a release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool. The pathway from the building to the environment cannot be documented with absolute certainty; however, site evidence, indicates the seismic gap between the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building is the primary release point. The origin of the water in the seismic gap is the Spent Fuel Pool and the pathway from the Spent Fuel Pool is discussed in Section 5. This release has resulted in a plume of boron and tritium extending south-southwest from this point-of-origin as shown on Figure 13; no other contaminates of significance have been detected in the affected area.The fate and transport of this plume is assessed in this section to determine flow pathways and the rate of migration. Quantification of solute migration requires specification of various transport parameters and processes that control the rate, movement, mixing, sorption, and degradation of a contaminant in the subsurface. Advection defines the process of contaminant migration due to the movement of groundwater. Dispersion accounts for the spreading and mixing of the constituent due to heterogeneities and non-ideal flow paths in the soil that cause.variations in the groundwater velocity as well as Fickian diffusion driven by concentrationgradients. Sorption refers to the partitioning of a contaminant between the liquid and solid phases of the aquifer. Degradation is the mass decay of a contaminant as a result ofphysical, chemical, and biological activity within the aquifer. Each of these processes and their effect on the movement of site related constituents along flow pathways are summarized in the following sections.9.1 Constituent Pathways -Advective Water Movement Water-level measurements taken in monitoring wells distributed spatially across the site and distributed within several depth intervals provide the necessary information to describethe direction of groundwater movement. These water-level measurements are combined.with effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity measurements .to determine the rate or speed of groundwater movement. In general, water-level measurements are used to define the slope of the water table (gradient) and direction of movement; groundwater moves down the slope or gradient from high water table elevations to lower water table, elevations. Water level elevations, hydraulic gradients, and groundwater flow directions for the shallow, water-bearing unit are presented on Figure 14. Based upon both water levels and constituent concentrations, the primary flow pathways are away from the seismic gap toward the south-southwest. Along individual flow paths there is a decrease in both water-level elevations and concentrations of isotopes of interest.The movement of a solute with the groundwater, or advective transport, can be computed using Darcy's Law. Darcy's Law is written as follows: 64 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey q=Ki (1)where, q is the Darcian flux (ft 3/day/ft 2 or ft/day), K is the hydraulic conductivity (ft/day), and i is the hydraulic gradient (ft/ft). Aquifer testing at the Site (Section 7.5) has determined that the mean hydraulic conductivity of the soils affected by tritium to be approximately 0.4 ft/day. The average hydraulic gradients are approximately 0.008 ft/ft and 0.004 ft/ft inside and outside the cofferdam, respectively. Therefore, the specific discharge of groundwater inside and outside the cofferdam is 0.0032 ft/day and 0.0016 ft/day, respectively. Since water can only move through the pore spaces, these values arenot the velocities at which groundwater is moving. The average linear velocity of groundwater is higher as water moves only through the voids or pore spaces of the soil:= (2)YO where v is thevelocity (ft/day) and 0, is the effective porosity (ft 3/ft 3). The effective porosity for the unconsolidated sediments at the site was assumed to be 0.20. This value is consistent with estimates developed by the USEPA (1989) that indicate most medium to coarse-grained soils (Unified Soil Classification System textural groups GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC) have an effective porosity of approximately 0.2. The groundwatervelocity inside and outside the cofferdam computed from the average flow rates and an effective porosity of 0.2, are 5.8 ft/yr (0.0032/0.2*365) and 2.9 ft/yr (0.0016/0.2*365), respectively. Applying the higher of these velocities over the groundwater pathway between the seismic gap and the 500,000 pCi/L contour, indicates the plume is 31 years old. This travel time or age of the tritium plume is inconsistent with facility data, other observed, modeled, and calculated data, and it is longer than the facility has been inoperation. These slow travel velocities indicate that the hydraulic conductivity value from the pumping tests are biased low; the use of drawdown data in the pumping well as the only observation point for each test precludes assessment of well efficiency which increase drawdown in the pumping well. The pumping test data and analysis did provide accurateinformation concerning sustained yield for the design of a groundwater containment system.9.2 Water Balance Estimate of Groundwater Velocities To assess this discrepancy and develop'a better estimate of groundwater velocities and travel times, an alternative method based upon continuity and a water balance approach, was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity and groundwater velocities. The plume and the impacted groundwater are located in a hydrologically isolated portion of the.facility; the source for all of the groundwater within the plume, originates from within the plume. Therefore, if we know how much water is moving along a flow path (the rechargerate), the length of the flow path (seismic gap to the 500,000 pCi/L isopleth), the saturated thickness of the aquifer (about 15 feet within the cofferdam and 35 feet outside the 65 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey cofferdam), and hydraulic gradient (the water table slope is .0.008 inside the cofferdam and0.004 outside the cofferdam), an effective or mean hydraulic conductivity can be computed.Figure 18 illustrates the idealized flow path from the seismic gap to the 500,000 pCi/L isopleth. The total flow per unit width at a point along this pathline is: q =Kib (3)where b is the saturated aquifer thickness. Equation (3) is also equal to thecumulative recharge upgradient from a point where (3) is applied: q =LN (4)where N isthe recharge and L is the upgradient flow path length. Recharge or percolation is the flux to the water table; a portion of precipitation impacts the land surface, a portion runs off, the remainder infiltrates
- into the groundwater, and the fraction that infiltrates which does not become evapotranspiration is recharge. The total length of a flow path from the seismic gap to the 500,000 pCi/L isopleth is approximately 186 feet, 102 feet from the seismic gap to the limit of the cofferdam (section 1), with an additional 84 feet from the limit of the cofferdam to the 500,000 pCi/L contour (section 2). If we equate equations (3)and. (4), assume a recharge rate of 8 in/year, and apply them to section 1 of the flowpath on Figure 18, we can write the following:, K, i 1 b, L, N K X0.008- /tx 15 ft= 102ft x 0.67 fyr 102 0x.67 = 5 7 0 f 'orl'K,-57 t r10 0.008 x 15 ly day In summaray, if the percolation rate is approximately 8 iniyr, the effective hydraulic conductivity of the saturated soils above the cofferdam is about 1.6 ft/day. Similarly, if the recharge rate were 16 in/yr, the effective hydraulic conductivity of the saturated soils above the cofferdam would be double or about 3.2 ft/day.
Repeating these calculations for Section 2 of the flowpath on Figure 18, and noting that the total amount of water through this section also includes the flow through section 1, we can, write the following: K 2 i 2 b 2 LIN+L 2 N = N(LI +L 2)66 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey K 2 x 0.00.4 -ftlx 3 5 ft 0.67 ftl y(102 ft + 84 ft)186x0.67 -890 ft or2.4f 0.004 x 35 yT day In summary, if the percolation rate is approximately 8 in/yr, the effective hydraulic conductivity of the saturated soils outside the cofferdam is about 2.4 ftday. Similarly, if the recharge rate were 16 in/yr, the effective hydraulic conductivity of the saturated soils outside the cofferdam would be double or 4.8 ft/day.Consistent with Section 9.1 above, groundwater velocities were computed using these alternative hydraulic conductivity values developed using equations (3) and (4). The groundwater velocity inside and outside the cofferdam computed from the average hydraulic gradients, an effective porosity of 0.2, and a recharge rate of 8 in/yr are 23.4 ft/yr (1.6*0.008/0.2*365) and 17.5 ftyr (2.4*0.004/0.2*365), respectively. Similarly, if the recharge rate were 16 in/yr, then the groundwater velocity inside and outside the cofferdam would be 46.7 ft/yr (3.2*0.008/0.2*365) and 35.0 ft/yr (4.8*0.004/0.2*365), respectively. Applying these velocities over the groundwater pathway between the seismic gap and the 500,000 pCi/L contour, the plume is between 4.6 and 9.2 years old. This estimated age ofthe tritium plume is consistent with general hydrogeologic conditions and available facility operation records, and groundwater age results.9.3 Sorptive ProcessesThe term sorption refers to the removal of a solute from solution through association with a solid surface. This attraction between a soil surface and a solute can result from a number of forces. The effects of these forces or processes are commonly described by sorption isotherms. These isotherms assume that when a solution contacts a solid, the solute will tend to transfer from liquid to solid until the concentration of solute in solution is inequilibrium with the soil concentration. These processes, especially for inorganic compounds, tend to be pH dependent, not always completely irreversible, and site specific.With respect to the constituents found in groundwater at the Salem site, this process has noeffect on the movement of tritiated water and only a minor effect on the movement of boron; however, this process is important to understanding why the other dissolvedconstituents identified in the seismic gap have not been found in Site monitoring wells.Table 1 summarizes the complete list of constituents found in the Spent Fuel Pool and potentially in the seismic gap and adjacent groundwater as well as their sorptive characteristics to soil. Columns 4 and 5 summarize the range in literature reported distribution coefficients. The distribution coefficient (Kd) is defined as follows: 67 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Kd = Soil Concentration (5)Dissolved Concentration Therefore, the higher the distribution coefficient, the more strongly a constituent will stick (i.e., adsorb and absorb) to soils. The range in values reported in Table 1 is most strongly correlated to pH and amount of clay or fines in site soils. Solutes dissolved in low pH water in soils without fine materials will tend to adsorb to soils and have Kd in the lower reported range. Solutes dissolved in neutral pH water (consistent with site conditions) With a quantifiable fraction of fine sediments (the site soils have a minimum of 5% silt and clay)will tend not to adsorb to soils and have Kd in the lower reported range. This process ofexchange and interaction between solute and soil will also cause solutes to move slower than the groundwater. This ratio of the groundwater velocity to the solute velocity iscaused the retardation factor. The retardation factor can be computed from the distributioncoefficient using the following equation: Rf +PbKd~0--where Pb is the bulk density. Gamma emitting isotopes are absent from site monitoring wells because they have adsorbed to soils near the seismic gap-and are moving at only a fraction of the speed of the tritium and boron.9.4 Degradation With the exception of boron, all site related constituents degrade. Table 1 summarizes the half-lives for each constituent.
9.5 Dispersion
Dispersion is the process whereby contaminants spread over a greater region than would be predicted solely from the average linear groundwater velocity. Dispersion occurs at multiple scales. The primary cause of dispersion is variations in groundwater velocity, on a microscale by variations in pore size and on a macroscale by variations in hydraulic conductivity. The hydrodynamic dispersion tensor is complex. For isotropic media, thedispersion coefficient written to incorporate molecular diffusion (described byFick's Law), is calculated as follows: D= ad v + D (7)68 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey where D, is the dispersion coefficient [L 2/T], Otd is the dispersivity [L], v is the groundwater velocity [L/T], and D the molecular diffusion coefficient [L 2/T].While the general process of dispersion is understood, the dispersivity of a formation is not easily measured or quantified at the field scale. Therefore, as dispersion is related to porewater velocities, plume travel distance is the single most important factor that-can becorrelated to dispersivity. This general relationship is best illustrated in a figure developed by Gelhar et al. (1992). If we consider Figure 19, the scale of the plume is about 180 ft (60 in), which corresponds to a longitudinal dispersivity of approximately 3.3 m. The groundwater velocity is about 9 mryr, and molecular diffusion for most common ions is on the order of 2xl 09 m 2/s (or 0.0631 m 2/yr). Substituting these values into equation (7), yields: D4 =3.3mx9m r +0.0631mXyr yr y 22 De=29.7m +0.0631m Comparison of the above two terms, indicates that movement of the primary constituents at the site (tritium and boron) is primarily an advectively driven process as the first term is approximately 500 times larger than the second. The site data also reflects this, withslightly elevated levels of tritium extending approximately 75 feet downgradient of the leading edge of the center of mass of the plume.9.6 Tritium Age Dating and Groundwater Travel Time The most effective use of groundwater age dating in transport analyses is in the determination of the vertical component of groundwater velocity and the recharge rate tothe aquifer. The shallow wells inside of the cofferdam (Wells N, 0, M, and AE) have effectively "zero tritium-3He ages" because of the shallow depth of the wells below the water table, the screened interval's exposure to air (i.e., interval above the water table) and the introduction of atmospheric gases during monitoring well installation activities. The wells outside of the cofferdams (Wells S, AA, and AB) that are directly downgradient from the seismic gap have ages from which one can estimate recharge. For Well S, the calculation of age determination has tritium moving over the top of the cofferdam (at -13 feet and zero tritium-3 He age) to the mid-point of the screened interval at S (-18 feet) or 5 vertical feet in 0.7 years (7 +/- 2 feet/yr). This change in vertical elevation for the tritium plume is equivalent to a recharge of 16 in/yr (assumes a porosity of 0.2). A similar calculation for Well AB, as the plume moves from -13 feet at the cofferdam to -23 feet at the well, yields a recharge rate of 17 in/yr (vertical movement of 10 feet in 1.4 years). A similar calculation can be made for Well AA. Because AA is not tritium contaminated, the flow line did not originate at the lean concrete at the top of the cofferdam but rather at the 69 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey seasonally low water table in the vicinity of well S. The "clock" for this age system is notset until approximately 3 feet below the water table. Thus, we have the flow from -3 feet to -18 feet (mid-point of screen) in 2.1 years or 7 feet/yr, equal to 16 in/yr of recharge. The agreement in recharge estimates for the three wells is somewhat fortuitous but it can reasonably be characterized as 16 +/- 4 in/yr or about 40% of annual precipitation. This estimate of 40% is consistent with other flow systems that have limited evapotransporation (i.e., no grass or trees). Other wells that are screened at the 35-foot level (Wells Z, U, T, and W) have ages of about 3 to 4 years for 20-25 feet of vertical travel, equal to a vertical velocity of 6 to 8 feet/yr. The recharge estimate can then be used in the water balance calculation (Section 9.2) to estimate horizontal transport. The calculations based on groundwater ages agree with the estimates based on the physical properties of the structural fill (e.g., aquifer pumping tests) and water balance calculations. 0 70 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 10 Health and Environmental Risk Assessment The principal radionuclide of concern for this remedial investigation is tritium in shallow groundwater adjacent to Salem Generating Station Unit 1. To date, a completed exposure pathway to humans from tritium in shallow groundwater has not been established, nor is there any evidence that significant exposures of biota have occurred. However, since the remedial investigation is continuing, there is a still a possibility that findings might indicate that significant amounts of tritium have migrated to off-site locations, or could be expected to do so, under certain conditions. Therefore, there should be a conceptual approach that outlines the methodology that will be followed in assessing potential impacts on human health and the environment from any such occurrence. This conceptual approach is presented in Section 6.3, following brief discussions of on-site and off-site environmental data for tritium.10.1 On-Site Environmental Data for Tritium Concentrations of tritium in groundwater samples taken over time from monitoring wells on the Salem Site provide the most important data set for characterizing the inventory of tritium that could potentially migrate to off-site locations. If transport from shallow groundwater to off-site locations were observed or assumed to occur, data from monitoringwells would be used as input to an analysis of environmental transport to locations where humans or biota could be exposed. Data on concentrations over time at various on-site locations could be used to calibrate a dynamic environmental transport model to projectfuture releases. Knowledge of the age of tritiumn in on-site environmental samples is needed to determine if releases occurred many years ago or are recent and, perhaps, continuing at the present time.10.2 Off-Site Environmental Data for Tritium The program of off-site environmental monitoring at the Salem Station has not detected tritium in environmental media or biota at concentrations above the lower limit of detection in routine sampling procedures. Routine off-site environmental monitoring data will continue to be examined for indications that tritium in shallow groundwater at the Salem Station has migrated beyond the Station boundary.In evaluating environmental monitoring data, it is important toxrecognize that all environmental media and living organisms contain low levels of tritium from two sources that are unrelated to operations at the Salem Station: (1) naturally occurring tritium that is continually produced by interactions of cosmic radiation with constituents of the earth's atmosphere, and (2) tritium that was injected into the atmosphere during the period of above-ground testing of nuclear weapons that ended in the early 1960s. Tritium from those sources occurs as tritiated water, which is transported in the environment and incorporated 71 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC.Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey into tissues of all organisms by the natural movement of water. This remedial investigation is concerned only with uncontrolled or unexpected releases of tritium to off-site locations,but not with levels due to natural production in the atmosphere and residual contamination from nuclear-weapons testing.10.3 Methodology for Health and Environmental Risk Assessment The following sections discuss the steps to be taken to perform a health and environmental risk assessment if tritium were released, or assumed to be released, to locations beyond the site boundary under uncontrolledor unpermitted conditions. 10.3.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways Since tritium in the environment normally is in the form of tritiated water, exposures of humans and biota occur as a result of intakes of contaminated water by various pathways.When tritium is found in groundwater or surface water, the most important pathway of exposure of humans often is direct consumption of tritium in drinking water obtained from.a contaminated source. Consumption of contaminated plant and animal products, including fish, also can be important exposure pathways for humans. A third potential exposure pathway for humans is inhalation and skin absorption of tritiated water vapor. This pathway can be important if an on-site release of tritiated water vapor occurs and airborne tritium is transported to off-site receptor locations. External exposure to tritium is not a concern, because tritium emits only very low-energy electrons (beta particles) that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of.skin.Doses and risks to humans occur only when there is a completed exposure pathway. If no exposure pathways are known to exist, an assumption that humans are being exposed to known sources of tritium in the environment (either on-site or off-site) can be made for the purpose of obtaining bounding estimates of potential doses and risks. For example, direct consumption of tritium in shallow groundwater at the Salem site can be assumed, even though that pathway is precluded by institutional controls that are maintained at the site.Such bounding analyses are hypothetical, but they are useful in evaluating the potential importance of assumed levels of environmental contamination. However, it is important to emphasize that calculated doses are credible only if there is a completed exposure pathway.Doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota due to tritium in the environment normally can be estimated on the basis of an assumption that organisms reside in a contaminated medium (e.g., surface water) and that concentrations of tritium in tissues of organisms are the same as concentrations of tritium in water in the medium. Since tritium in the environment behaves in the same way as water, tritium is not concentrated in tissues of organisms compared with levels in contaminated environmental media.72 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 10.3.2 Identification and Characterization of Potentially Exposed Individuals and Biota A realistic assessment of doses and risks to humans requires knowledge of the locations and living habits of potentially exposed individuals. However, for purposes of a bounding analysis, it is often assumed that humans are exposed at locations of highest concentrations in the environment beyond the site boundary, even though there may be no receptors at those locations at the present time. Assumptions about locations and exposures of potential receptors can be basedon readily available demographic information on the local population, augmented by standard assumptions about living habits of typical members of the general public. The level of detail in characterizing potential receptors should be commensurate with expected levels of environmental contamination and associated doses and risks.A detailed characterization of local flora and fauna is not required in evaluating impacts of tritium (and other radionuclides) on biota, because current guidance on protection of biota is based on assumptions about the effects of ionizing radiation on the most sensitive species of aquatic animals and terrestrial plants and animals. Thus, an assessment of potential impacts on biota can be based on an assumption that all organisms are located where the highest concentrations of tritium in environmental media occur.10.3.3 Approach to Calculation of Doses to Humans and Comparisons with Applicable StandardsOn the basis of estimated concentrations of tritium in environmental media, including their dependence on time, and assumptions about exposure pathways, it is a straightforward procedure to estimate radiation doses to humans. In general, dose is calculated as the product of an activity concentration of tritium in a material (air, water, or foodstuff) used by humans, an assumed intake of that material by ingestion, inhalation, or skin absorption, andestimated doses per unit activity intake of tritium by each route.Using the drinking water pathway as an example, the dose to an exposed individual is calculated as the product of (1) the concentration of tritium in the source of water being consumed, (2) the quantity of water consumed over the period of concern, and (3) the dose per unit activity intake of tritium by ingestion. The first factor is based on environmental measurements or projections of future contamination; the second factor is an appropriate assumption for the exposure pathway of concern, such as a consumption rate of 2 liters (L)per day of drinking water; and the third factor is a standard value calculated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), with an appropriate modification that takes into account the biological effectiveness of beta particles emitted in tritium decay. An example dose calculation for tritium in drinking water is given in Appendix I (Kocher 2003).73 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey A number of regulatory standards are applicable to control of exposures to tritium at the Salem Station. In regard to releases of tritium beyond the Station boundary, the applicablestandards include (1) the NRC's radiation protection standards for the public in 10 CFR Part 20, which specify limits on concentrations of tritium (and other radionuclides)in air or water at the boundary and also specify that annual doses to individual members of the public from airborne releases shall comply with standards established by the EPA under the Clean Air Act in 40 CFR Part 61, and (2) the EPA's uranium fuel-cycle standards in 40 CFR Part 190, which specify limits on annual doses to individual members of the public from all release and exposure pathways combined. The two EPA standards differ from the NRC standards in IQ CFR Part 20 in that they apply at locations where members of the public are exposed, rather than at the Station boundary. The standard for airborne releases of tritium in EPA's Clean Air Act standards is a limit on annual effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem, and the limit for all release pathways in EPA's fuel-cycle standards is an annual dose equivalent to the whole body of 25 mrem. The effective dose equivalent and dose equivalent to the whole body are assumed to be the same for tritium.
- The NRC's 10 CFR Part 20 also includes requirements for protection of workers within the Station boundary in the form of limits on annual effective dose equivalent and limits on concentrations of radionuclides in air and water. In addition, the EPA's drinking water standards in 40 CFR Part 141, which specify concentration limits for individual radionuclides in drinking water, are applied as groundwater protection requirements by the State of New Jersey. The drinking water standard for tritium is a concentration limit of 20,000 pCi/L. A comprehensive assessment of potential impacts of releases on humans should include comparisons of measured or calculated concentrations or doses with relevant regulatory requirements.
10.3.4 Approach to Calculation~of Doses to Biota and Comparisons with Applicable Guidance Measured or calculated concentrations of tritium in environmental media, especially surface water, also are used to estimate doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota. Because tritium in the environment behaves the same as water, doses to biota are calculated on the basis of an assumption that the activity per unit mass of water in tissues of organisms is the same as the activity per unit mass of water in the environmental medium to which an organism is exposed. Bounding estimates of dose to biota can be based on the highest measured or projected concentrations in water.The NRC and EPA have not established standards to limit radiation exposures of biota.However, guidance on dose limits for biota, which are intended to ensure adequate protection of populations of the most sensitive species, has been developed by expert groups and adopted by the U.S. Department of Energy; this guidance is summarized in Appendix I. The consensus dose limits for biota, which are 0.1 or I rad/day depending on 0 74 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey the type of organism, are much higher than applicable dose limits for individual workers or members of the public.10.3.5 Approach to Calculation of Health Risks to Humans Once doses to humans are estimated, the associated risks to human health, specifically the risks of cancer incidence associated with an exposure, can be estimated on the basis of an assumption about the cancer risk per unit dose. Estimates of cancer risk assume that anyadditional dose entails some risk and that risk is proportional to the dose from exposure to the source of concern. For purposes of assessing cancer risks in general terms, exposure over a lifetime often is assumed, and the assumed risk per unit dose is an average value over an individual's normal life span of about 70 years. An example calculation of the lifetime risk of cancer incidence from consumption of tritium in drinking water is given in Appendix I.Estimates of health risks from exposure to tritium, or any other environmental contaminant, can be used to provide a perspective on the significance of estimated exposures. By comparing calculated cancer risks with other risks experienced in everyday life, including unavoidable risks from exposure to natural background radiation, a frame of reference that would allow affected individuals to judge the significance of potential exposures is provided.For example, a useful frame of reference for evaluating the significance of doses due to releases of tritium would be to compare estimated doses with doses from exposure to naturally occurring tritium produced in the atmosphere and tritium produced by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Doses from these sources are unavoidable and are experienced by all members of the public. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has estimated that the annual dose from exposure to naturally occurring tritium produced in the atmosphere is about 0.001 millirem (mrem), and theannual dose from exposure to tritium produced by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons currently is about 0.003 mrem (NCRP 1979). In comparison, the total annual dose from all sources of natural background radiation is about 100 mrem, excluding indoor radon, and about 300 mrem if indoor radon is included.Estimates of health risks as described above are not relevant for biota, because cancer is not a biological effect of concern and current guidance on dose limits is based on an assumption that all species will be adequately protected if doses are maintained below specified limits, even though individual members of species may be harmed. Potential impacts on species can be indicated in a general way by comparing estimated doses with dose limits in the guidance. The lower the estimated doses relative to the limits, the greater the margin of safety in protecting species of aquatic and terrestrial biota.75 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station.Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 10.4 Assessment of Potential Off-Site Exposures of Humans and Biota There is no evidence to date to indicate that a significant quantity of tritium in groundwater has migrated or is presently migrating beyond the boundary of the Salem site. Elevated levels of tritium have been found only in the water table aquifer on the site, and there is no evidence that tritium in shallow groundwater has migrated directly to the Delaware River or to an underlying aquifer that provides a source of drinking water for the local population. Thus, on the basis of present knowledge, an exposure pathway to humans beyond the site boundary or to biota has not been completed; and there is no basis for performing an assessment of potential off-site exposures of humans and biota.76 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 11 Conclusions and Recommendations The following sections provide conclusions and recommendations based on the results of remedial investigation activities conducted to date.11.1 Conclusions The following detailed conclusions are presented that support the evidence that the source of tritium detected in groundwater was the Spent Fuel Pool, the tritium released to the environment has been stopped, and that tritium has not migrated to the property boundaryabove any regulatory limit: 1. There was a release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system resulting from blockage of the telltale drains by mineral precipitates. The telltale drains are a leak monitoring, collection, and drainage mechanism specifically designed to collect leakage that may accumulate behind the stainless steel liner of the Spent Fuel Pool and Refueling Canal. The blockage of the telltale drains resulted in the accumulation of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system (between the liner and the concrete wall) that created hydrostatic head and facilitated migration to the Styrofoam-filled seismic gap located between the Salem Unit I Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building. The mineral precipitates have been physically removed to ensure the proper operation of the telltale drains. The process of monitoring the telltale drains is routinely performed to ensure that blockage doesnot reoccur. Permanent seismic gap drains are being installed to facilitate control of the accumulation of water in the seismic gap, and to create an ingradient to the gap;2. The release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool system was investigated through the sampling of monitoring wells installed in the area of Salem Unit 1. The groundwater analytical data collected from the monitoring well network were usedto delineate an area of groundwater in the shallow, water-bearing unit that contains elevated concentrations of tritium. Gamma-emitting isotopes were also monitored in the groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells because the suspected source of the tritium was the Spent Fuel Pool. No plant related gamma-emitting isotopes have been detected in groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells;3. The area of groundwater containing elevated tritium extends from the southern end of the Styrofoam seismic gap located between the Salem Auxiliary Building and the Salem Unit I Reactor Containment Building in a southerly direction toward the circulation water discharge pipes. Groundwater with tritium at concentrations 77 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem.Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey exceeding any regulatory limit has not migrated to the property boundary of the Station;4. Elevated levels of tritium have only been detected in groundwater samples collected from the shallow, water-bearing unit. There is no evidence that suggests that water from the Spent Fuel Pool has migrated to an underlying aquifer as confirmed by groundwatersamples collected from monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation;.
- 5. A completed exposure pathway to humans from .tritium in shallow groundwater.
has not been established, nor is there any evidence that significant exposures of biota have occurred.11.2 Recommendations Based on the conclusions of the remedial investigation, the following recommendations are presented:
- 1. Continued groundwater monitoring should be conducted on a periodic basis.
This groundwater monitoring should include the collection of groundwater samples from monitoring wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit on a monthly or quarterly basis, to be determined based on quantitative parameters. During these sampling events, depth to water-level measurements should be collected from site monitoring wells. Groundwater samples should also be collected from monitoringwells screened in the Vincentown Formation on a semi-annual basis.2. A pilot test should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of groundwater extraction, to provide engineering data to support the extraction system design, and to initially contain the furthermigration of tritium in groundwater near Salem Unit 3. A Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) should be prepared in accordance with the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E). The RAW will besubmitted within 90 days of approval of the Remedial Investigation Report.78 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 12 References ARCADIS, June 2003; Remedial Investigation Work Plan, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.ARCADIS, January 2004; Initial Groundwater Investigation Report and RemedialInvestigation Work Plan Addendum, PSEG Nuclear LLC,. Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Dames & Moore, August 28, 1968, Report, Foundation Studies, Proposed SalemGenerating Station. Dames & Moore, December] 6, 1968, Report, Groundwater Supply Investigation, Salem Generating Station.Dames & Moore, April 9, 1969, Supplemental Report, Control of Excavation, Salem Generating Station.Dames & Moore, June 3, 1970, Report, Supplementary Studies, Proposed Salem Generating Station.Dames & Moore, June 20, 1972, Report, Consultation, Proposed Heavy Equipment HaulRoad, Salem Generating Station.Dames & Moore, February 7, 1974, Design, High Water Levels, Proposed Hope Creek Generating Station.Dames & Moore, May 23, 1974, Report, Foundation Studies, Proposed Hope Creek Generating Station.Dames & Moore, July 6,1976, Report Auxiliary Boring Program Along Service Water Supply Lines, Hope Creek Generating Station.Dames & Moore, June 1977, Evaluation of Shoreline Stability, Hope Creek Generating Station.Dames & Moore, February 27, 1981, Final Report, Seismic Ground Motion and Site Stability Evaluation at the Controlled Facilities Building, Salem Generating Station.Dames & Moore, 1988, Final Report, Study of Long-Term Groundwater Withdrawals and Water-Supply Alternatives, Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations.79 Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Dames & Moore, December 23, 1992; Report, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation,Proposed Oil-Water Separator Basin, Salem Generating Stations.NJGS, 1995, Geologic Survey Report GSR 38, Ground-Water Flow Conditions in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer System, Camden Area, New Jersey.United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation ServiceNational Water & Climate Center. 1988. Field Office Guide to Climatic Data, last revised 18 November 1998.'USGS, 1979, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1067-D, Upper Cenozoic Sediments of the LowerDelaware Valley and the Northern Delmarva Peninsula, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.USGS, 1999, Water-Resources investigations report. 98-4136, Hydroge01ogy of, Water Withdrawal from, and Water levels and Chloride Concentrations in the Major Coastal plain Aquifers of Gloucester and Salem Counties, New Jersey. West Trenton New. Jersey.0 80 Table 01. Physical and Chemical Properties of Constituents of Concern, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Kd (mL/g) Retardation Factor 1 Molecular Specific Half-Life Constituent of Concern Weight (gl/mol) Gravity 2 Minumum Maximum Recommended 3 Minimum Maximum Recommended' Half-Life Units Antimony-125 124.905 6.68 0 10,000 3,981 1 68,901 27,431 2.758 years Barium-133 132.906 3.62 NR NR ----10.53 years Barium-140/Lanthanum-140 139.911/139.909 3.62 NR NR ---12.75/1.678 days Berium-7 7.0169 NR NR -- ---53.28 days Boron 10.811 2.34 0 3,990 0 1.00 27,492 1 NR Cerium-141 140.908 6.77 10 10,000. 1,000 69.9 68,901 6,891 32.5 days Cerium-144 143.914 6.77 10 10,000 1,000 69.9 68,901 6,891 284.6 days Cesium-133 132.906 1.93 1 100,000 501 7.89 689,001 3,454 NR Cesium-134 133.907 1.93 1 100,000 501 7.89 689,001 3,454 2.065 years Cesium-137 136.907 1.93 1 100,000 501 7.89 689,001 3,454 30.2 years Chromium-51 50.945 7.15 1 1,000 40 7.89 6,891 275 27.7 days Cobalt-58 57.936 8.86 0.1 1,000 10 1.689 6,891 70 70.88 days Cobalt-60 59.934 8.86 0.1 1,000 10 1.689 6,891 70 5.271. years Iodine-129 128.904 4.93 0.001 1 0.20 1.00689 9 2 1.70E+07 years Iodine-131 130.906 4.93 0.001 2 .0.20 1.00689 15 2 8.04 days Iron-59 58.935 7.87 NR NR .- ---44.51 days Manganese-54 53.94 7.3 NR NR "- -.. 312.1 ..days Molybdenum-99 98.908 10.2 0 100 -1 690 -2.748 .days Potassium-40 39.964 0.89 NR NR ---1.26E+09 years Radium-Natural (Ra-226) 226.0254 5 5 1,000,000 100 35.45 6,890,001 690 1599 years Ruthenium-103 102.906 12.1 100 1,000 158 690 6,891 1,093 39.27 days Ruthenium-106 105.907 12.1 100 1,000 158 690 6,891 1,093 1.02 years Silver-11iM 109.906 10.5 10 1,000 100 69.9 6,891 690 249.8 days Sodium-22 21.994 0.97 NR NR ----2.605 years Technetium-99 98.906 11 0 100 0.001 1 690 1 2.13E+05 years Tellurium-129M 128.906 6.24 NR NR ----33.6 days Tellurium-132 131.909 6.24 NR NR ----3.26 days Thorium-232 232.038 11.7 10 100,000 100 69.9 689,001 690 1.40E+10 years Thorium-234 234.044 11.7 10 100,000 100 69.9 .689,001 690 24.1 days Tritium 3.016 0.2693 0.001 0 0.001 1.00689 1 1 12.33 years Uranium-235 235.044 19.1 0.1 1,000,000 40 1.689 6,890,001 275 7.04E+08 years Zinc-65 64.929 7.14 0.1 10,000 16 1.689 68,901 110 243.8 days Zirconiurm-95/Niobium-95 94.908 6.52 260 500 -1792.4 3,446 -64.02 days NOTES: Assumes an effective porosity of 0.25 and a bulk density of 1.7225 NR Not Reported 2 Value for the stable isotope Based on Looney et al., 1988 Boron Kd values The table presents the entire range reported in the literature, mostly derived from soil systems. It is likely that Kd is negligible in low day, sandy aquifer sediments. Looney, B.B., Grant, M.W., King, C.M., 1987, Estimation of Geochemical Parameters for Assessing Subsurface Transport at the Svannah River Plant: DPST-85-904. Spitz K. and Moreno, J., 1996, A Practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute Transport Modeling: John Wiley and Sons, New York.Montgomery J.H., 2000, Groundwater Chemicals Desk
Reference:
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.Lide, D.R., 2003, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 83rd Edition: CRC Press, Boca Raton.
References:
1 of I Table 02. Groundwater Analytical Results, Phase I Investigation, October through November 2002, PSEG Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Sample. Identification' and Collection Date A2 B C26 C33 Al E A2 A2 Constituent of Concern 10/02/02 10/03/02 10/04/02 10/04/02 10/04/02 10/05/02 11/22/02 11/22/02 Major Cations and Anions (mg/L)Boron NA NA NA NA NA 2,600 NA NA Gamma Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Potassium-40 1,490 3,780 5,960 6,450 NA NA 1,760 1,970 Cesium-134 NA NA NA NA NA .118,000 NA NA Cesium-137 NA NA NA NA NA 320,000 NA NA Notes: mg/L-pCi/L NA Milligrams per liter Picocuries per liter Constituent not analyzed Bold values exceed the laboratory detection limit. Corresponds with sample locations shown on Figure 10. of I Table 03. Groundwater Analytical Results, Phase 1I Investigation, December 2002, PSEG Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Sample Sample Sodium Chlorine Boron Tritium Gamma Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pCi/L) Potassium-40 Chromium-51 Manga...e.54 Cobalt-58 Cobalt6 Antiony-125 Iodine-13 Cesium-134 Cesium-t37 Radium-Nat M aThorium-234 C Uraniuim-de35Production Wells and Observation Wells HC-I 12/12/2002 NA NA NA <160 53.3 <6.64 <01881 <0892 <125 <2.87 <0.863 <0.614 <118 V1.6 NA NA HC-2 .12/12/2002 NA NA NA <166 75.0 <6.80 <0:822 <1.11 <0.985 <1.99 <0.992 <0.895 <1.86 51.9 NA NA PW-2 12/12/2002 NA NA NA <167 66.3 <6.81 <0.649 <0.747 <1.02 <2.33 <0.936 <0.841 <1.11 58.0 NA NA PW1-5 12/12/2002 NA NA NA <162 43.7 <4.01 <1 20 <0.793 <0.681 <1.37 <0.457 <0.803 <1.31 17.0 NA NA PW-6 .12/12/2002 NA NA NA <156 42.4 <6.45 <0.902 <0,630 <0.813 <1.45 <0.601 <0.541 <0.850 18.0 NA NA Obs G 12/13/2002 NA NA NA <169 .64.2 <6.62 <1.28 <0.988 <1.26 <3.75 <0.842 .<1.19 <1.66 221 42.10 3.90 ObsJ 12/13/2002 NA NA NA <161 31.0 <5.72 <0,424 <0.562 <0,788 <1.95 <0.685 <0.832 <0.780 19.2 53.10 1.79Direct-Push Discrete Water Samples DP-I 12/19/02 14:37 14.0 5.5 1,705 137,000,000 NA NA NA NA 6,779 24,870 NA 75,790 254,100 NA NA NA DP- 1 12/20/02 9:30 10.4 0.33 1,968 120,000,000 NA NA 1,057 1,025 2,107 1,776 2,591 .40,570 132,600 NA NA NA DP-2 12/20/02 13:00 98.0 0.39 684 69,800,000 NA NA 234 NA NA NA 794 23,760 72,710 NA .NA NA DP-2 12/20/02 13:25 40.6 0.43 1,293 121,000,000 NA NA 201 NA 316 NA 1,595 19,650 64,930 NA NA NADP-2 12/20/02 14:00 22.6 0.50 1,725 182,000,000 NA NA 697 NA 784 NA 2,134 32,290 102,800 NA NA NA DP-2 .12/20/02 14:40 23.3 .0.56 1,771 179,000,000 NA NA 972 638 3,877 3,635 .2,362 40,240 133,900 NA NA NA Notes: mgfL pCi/L 14.0<6.64 ND NA Milligrams per liter Picocuries per literResult was detected above laboratory method detection limit.Laboratory method detection limit.Analyte was not detected; laboratory detection limit is not known. Constituent not analyzed. Corresponds with sample locations shown on Figure 10. of I Table 04.Well Construction Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey. , Installation Construction Diameter Total Depth Monitoring Monitored MP MP Northing Easting Well ID Date Purpose Details (inches) (feet bgs) Interval Hydrogeologic Elevation Elevation (NAD 83) (NAD 83)(feet bgs) Unit (feet RPD) (feet amsl)Well K Feb-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 1 102.00 12.08 231,435 199,697 Well L Jan-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 1 101.46 11.54 230,933 199,263 Well M May-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 20.0 10.0-20.0 Cofferdam 2 102.17 12.25 230,843 199,546 Well N Jan-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 20.0 10.0-20.0 Cofferdam 2 101.65 11.73 230,777 199,661 Well 0 Jan-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 20.0 10.0-20.0 Cofferdam 2 101.33 11.41 230,804 199,839 Well P Mar-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown ' 101.13 11.21 230,336 200,000 Well Q Mar-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown' 106.59 16.67 230,645 201,196 Well R Jun-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 19.0 9.0- 19.0 Cofferdam 2 102.35 12.43 230,906 199,640 Well S4 May-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 34.7 24.7-34.7 Shallow3 99.04 9.12 230,711 199,613 Well T Jun-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 31.2 21.2 -31.2 Shallow3 104.13 14.21 231,575 199,575 Well U 4 May-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 32.2 27.2-32.2 Shallow 3 98.57 8.65 231,370 199,618 Well V 4 Jun-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 79.5 69.5-79.5 Vincentown' 98.74 8.82 231,355 199,548 Well W 4 Jun-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 35.0 25.0- 35.0 Shallow 3 98.69 8.77 230,777 199,450 Well Y Sep-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 37.0 27.0-35.0 Shallow3 101.81 11.89 230,771 199,343.Well Z Sep-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 37.5 27.5-37.5 Shallow3 101.86 1.1.94 230,681 199,399 Well AA4 Sep-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 36.0 26.0-36.0 Shallow' 99.07 9.15 230,603 199,541 Well AB 4 Oct-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC , 2 42.0 32.0- 42.0 Shallow 3 98.93 9.01 230,623 199,677 Well AC 4 Sep-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 24.0 14:0 -24.0 Cofferdam2 98.77 8.85 230,724 199,725 Well AD 4 Oct-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 6 43.0 33.0'- 43.0 Shallow 3 98.99 9.07 230,684 199,607Well AE Oct-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 37.5 27.5-37.5 Cofferdam2 101.54 11.62 230,829 .199,845 Well AF Oct-03 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 45.0 35.0- 45.0 Shallow 3 101.61 11.69 230,491 199,702 Well AG-Shallow Feb-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 24.2 -14.2 -24.2 Shallow 3 99.29 9.37 230,496 199,508 WellAG-Deep Feb-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 40.0 30.0-40.0 Shallow 3 99.20 9.28 230,496 199,508 Well AH-Shallow Feb-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 24.5 14.5-24.5 Shallow 3 102.58 12.66 .230,450 199,596 Well AH-Deep Feb-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1 40.0 30.0-40.0 Shallow 3 102.70 12.78 230,450 199,596 Well Al Jan-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4 22.0 12.0-22.0 Cofferdam 2 98.79 8.87 230,798 19§,521 Well AJ Jan-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4 35.3 15.3-35!3 Shallow 3 98.85 8.93 .230,670 199,665 Well AL Jan-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 2 25.3 15.3-25.3 Shallow 3 99.13 9.21 230,594 199,806 Well AM Jan-04 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4 20.9 -10.9-20.9 Cofferdam2 98.55 8.63 230,762 199,680 Notes: MP bgs RPD amsl 2 3 4 Measuring Point Below ground surfaceRelative to plant datum Relative to mean sea level (NAVD 1988).Monitoring well is screened in the Vincentown Formation. Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location within the limits of the cofferdam. Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location outside the limits of the cofferdam. The surface completions of Monitoring Wells S,-U, V, W, AA, AB, AC, and AD were converted from above-grade to flush-grade in February 2004. Page 1 of 3 Table 05. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Details. PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey. Groundwater Sample Interval (ft bgs) Groundwater Sample Analysis Boring Comments/Details Gamma-Identification Cm nDei 15' 21 to 25 15 to 252 31 to ' Tritium -Tritium -Boron Gamma-11 to1 2 2 15 Sae3 Maplewood 4 Emitting SIsotopes 5 1X X -- X X X X X 2 4-... X X X X X X 4 -- ... X X X X X X 5 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction.-- .. ........... 6 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction. -- -- ............ 7 x X -- x x x x x 8 .... x x x ......9 Equipment refusal encountered at 22 ft bgs. -- X(18-22) .... X --......10 Equipment refusal encountered at 21.5 ft bgs. -- X(17.5-21.5) -- " -- X .....I1 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction. -- -- -............ 12 X(8-9) -- X -- X X -- X Notes: ft bgs -Feet below ground surface.Groundwater samples collected from the II to 15, 21 to 25 and 31 to 35 foot below ground surface intervals were collected using the Geoprobeg four-foot SP-15 Screened Point Groundwater Sampler.2 Groundwater samples collected from the interval. of 15 to 25 foot below ground surface were collected from a temporary one-inch diameter PVC well. The temporary wells were installed to facilitate the collection of groundwater samples in areas/intervals that did not yield sufficient groundwater. Refers to the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Station Chemistry. Initial analysis of groundwater samples was conducted at the on-site laboratory for screening purposes.If tritium concentrations indicated by the groundwater sample were below the detection limits of Station chemistry, the sample was submitted to Maplewood Testing Services for analysis.4 Maplewood Testing Services.5 The list of gamma-emitting isotopes included: Potassium-40; Actinium-228; Lead-221; Bismuth-212; Thallium-208; Thorium-234; Lead-214; Bismuth-214; Cesium-137; and, Uranium-235. -- Indicates that either a sample was attempted and was unsuccessful, the collection of water from the interval was not attempted, and/or the analysis was not performed. X -Indicates that a groundwater sample was collected from the listed sample. interval, unless otherwise indcated (e.g., "18-22), and was subsequently analyzed for the indicated parameters. Table 05 -Supplem nvestigation Details Page 2 of 3 Table 05. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey. Groundwater Sample Interval (ft bgs) Groundwater Sample Analysis Boring .Gamma-Identification Comments/Details toooTritium Tritium -II to Is' 21 to 25. 15t5 3Maplewood 4 t Boron Emitting Salemsotopes5 13 ... --- X .X " ..14 X X. X X.15 .X X X X 16 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction.- -.... -.........17 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction. 7- ...... -18 X X X ......19 x X(14-18) X 20 XX .. ...21 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction. -............. 22 Equipment refusal encountered at 33 ft bgs. X X -- X(29-33) X X -- X 23. X X X X -- X 24 X X X-- X Notes: ft bgs -Feet below ground surface.Groundwater samples collected from the I I to 15, 21 to 25 and 31 to 35 foot below ground surface intervals were collected using the Geoprobe four-foot SP-15 Screened Point Groundwater Sampler.2 Groundwater samples collected from the interval of 15 to 25 foot below ground surface were collected from a temporary one-inch diameter PVC well. The temporary wells were installed to facilitate the collection ofgroundwater samples in areas/intervals that did not yield sufficient groundwater. 3 Refers to the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Station Chemistry. Initial analysis of groundwater samples was.conducted at the on-site laboratory for screening purposes.If tritium concentrations indicated by the groundwater sample were below the detection limits of Station chemistry, the sample was submitted to. .Maplewood Testing Services for analysis.4 Maplewood Testing Services.5 The list of gamma-emitting isotopes included: Potassium-40; Actinium-228; Lead-221; Bismuth-212; Thallium-208; Thorium-234; Lead-214; Bismuth-214; Cesium-137; and, Uranium-235. Indicates that either a sample was attempted and was unsuccessful, the collection of water from the interval was not attempted, and/or the analysis was not performed. X -Indicates that a groundwater sample was collected from the listed sample interval, unless otherwise indcated (e.g., "18-22), and was subsequently analyzed fror the indicated parameters. Table 05 -Supplemental Investigation Details Page 3. of 3 Table 05. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Groundwater Sample Interval (ft bgs) Groundwater Sample Analysis Boring Comments/Details Gamma-Identification CI to 15' 21 to 25' 15 to 252 31 to 35' Salem Maplewood 4 Boron Emitting Isotopes5 25 Equipment refusal encountered at 25 ft bgs. -- -- X -- X X -- x 26 Equipment refusal encountered at 32 ft bgs. -- -- X X(28-32) X X -- X 27 X .... X X X --X 28 X X -- X X X -- X 29 Unable to advance boring due to obstruction. -.......... -....30 ..... X X X ......31 .... X X(34-38) X 32 -- -- X X(34-38) X .......33 Equipm ent refusal encountered at 19 ft bgs. -- X (9-19) .... X .... " 34 Equipment refusal encountered at 22 ft bgs. -- X(12-22) .... X ......35 Equipm ent refusal encountered at 24 ft bgs. -- X (14-24) .... X ......36 Equipment refusal encountered at 16 ft bgs. X ...... X ......37 Boring was not advanced deeper than 25 ft bgs. ..... X -- X ......Notes: ft bgs -Feet below ground surface. Groundwater samples collected from the II to 15, 21 to 25 and 31 to 35 foot below ground surface intervals were collected using the Geoprobe four-foot SP-15 Screened Point Groundwater Sampler.2 Groundwater samples collected from the interval of 15 to 25 foot below ground surface were collected from a temporary one-inch diameter PVC well. The temporary wells were installed to facilitate the collection of groundwater samples in areas/intervals that did not yield sufficient groundwater. 3 Refers to the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Station Chemistry. Initial analysis of groundwater samples was conducted at the on-site laboratory for screening purposes.Iftritium concentrations indicated by the groundwater sample were below the detection limits of Station chemistry, the sample was submitted to Maplewood Testing Services for analysis.4 Maplewood Testing Services.The list of gamma-emitting isotopes included: Potassium-40; Actinium-228; Lead-221 Bismuth-212: Thallium-208; Thorium-234; Lead-214, Bismuth-214; Cesium-137; and, Uranium-235. -- Indicates that either a sample was attempted and was unsuccessful, the collection of water from the. interval was not attempted, and/or the analysis was not performed. X -Indicates that a groundwater sample was collected from the listed sample interval, unless otherwise indcated (e.g., "18-22), and was subsequently analyzed for the indicated parameters. Table 05 -Supple n vestigation Details W 0 1 of 2 Table 06. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Gamma-Enitting Isotopes (pCi/L) Bismuth -212 Thorium -234 Urnm-23 Boring SanpleInterval (ft Tritium (pCiIL) Boron (ug/L) Potassium -40 (Thoriumu -232) lUranih .U -235 Identification bgs)22 Salem' Maplewood' Maplewood' Maplewood 5 Maplewood t Maplewood t Maplewood t Il -15 " <6,800 <138 --1 21 -25 <5,960 -...31 -35 <5,740 <139 812 81.5 <4.45 84.7 5.59 2 15 -25 <5,190 <145 578 <23.5 * <6.70' <103 <4.47 31- 35 <5,380 206 635 <26.8 <4.35 <69.1 <4,53 15 -25 <4,740 .<140 641 97.9 <13.8 <11.0 47631 -35 <5,420 986 393 <80.2 <6.33 <50.0 <3.78 4 15 -25 <5,790 626 65.4 <13.1 175 .4.7531 -35 <5,520 271 457 .<10.2 <4.99 <50.2 <1.7811 -15 <5,020 <142 266 513 <545 <128 <5.05 7 21-25 <5,020 222 318, 75.5 <7.47 <46.0 .<3.88 31 -35 <5,090 2,545 690 71.9 <4.33 <38.5 <2.63 15 -25 <6,670 1,175 206 57.0 <4.80 <7.91 .<3.87 31 -35 <14,600 1,731 510 <42.6 <4.78 .199 4,53 9 18-22 80,800 ..10 17.5 -21.5 21,300 -...... _28-9 <4,540 1,941 365 <14.7 .<3,68 169 6.00 12 15 -25 <4,380 1,814 291 82.7 <8.57 187 3.90 13 15-25 <5,410 -579 457 46.6 <10.7 165 6,47 15-25 5.860 8,674 -<15.0 <3.68 198 5.27 31 -35 <5,590 10,190 ........15 15-25 <5,210 726 407 96.5 .18.5 <119 5.83 31 -35 <5,170 756 411 <56.0 <3.94 <144 <4.61 I8 15-25 <15,500 499 143 50.2 15.2 209 6.17.31 -35 514,600 396 675 99.0 <7.48 <112 <5.31 19 11 -15 114,000 ........ i14- 18 591,000 -- ..20 15 -25 461,000 .... ....31- 35 172,000 -.....II -15 <4,750 920 408 <34.9 <4.13 <105 <2.98 22 21 -25 <4,700 1,433 268 <22.7 <4.10 150 <1.27 29-33 <6,020 8,449 301 <35.3 .<13.5 180 6.59 23 15 -25 <3,920 567 -- * <56.0 <5.09 <40.3 <4.23 31 -35 <7,210 474 344 --Notes: ft bgs pCi/L ug/L Feet below ground surface.Picocuries per liter.micrograms per liter.Less than the laboratory detection limit.Constituent not analyzed.Refers to PSEG3 Nuclear, LLC Station Chemistry. If tritium concentrations indicated by a groundwater sample were below the detection limits of Station chemistry, the sample was submitted to Maplewood Testing Services for analysis. Initial analysis of groundwater sarmples was conducted at the Salem on-site laboratory for screening purposes.Maplewood Testing Services.Table 06 -Supplemental Investigation Results 2 of 2 Table 06. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station. Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge. New Jersey.I_ _ Gaammsa-Entitting Isotopes (pCi/L) Tnti (p~/L) Boro (u/L) otasium-40 Bismuth -212 Thorium -234 Urnu-23 Boring Sample Interval (f Tritium (pCi/L) Boron (TgoL) .Potassium-40 Bisium -232) TUranium -238)Identification bgs) Salem' Maplewood2 .Maplesood' Maplewood' Maplewood2 Maplewood' Maplewood t 24 31-35 <4,790 361 188 43.1 <9.04 <130 <3.87 25 15-25 <4,610 1,500 409 <48.4 <5.82 <120 <4.52 15-25 <4.500 4,127 582 .97.6 <9.56 <62.6 <5.52 26 28-32 6,760 --......I 1 -15 620,090 .-....27 31 -35 <4,930 1,028 710 67.5 <6.63 <61.7 <3.21 11 -15 45,000 -- -- --28 21 -25 1,980,000 -- -- --31-35 <5,140 1,794 660 95.4 <6.55 <109 <4.55 15 -25 <14,900 406 339 70.2 <5.83 152 <1.46 30 31-35 <15,500 <142 228 <14.4 <4.38 143 .3.71 15-25 <15,500 <140 -- -- -- -- --31 34-38 <15,500 <141 -479 -<4.61 <63.9 ..<3.35 32 15 -25 < g15,500 <139 793 197 <13.0 457 <10.0 34-38 <15,700 168 -<11.6 <6.11 <72.2 <4.38 33 9- 19 1,080,000 .- --34 12-22 698,000 .... -35 14-24 1,250,000 -36 11 -16 <15,300 11,404 --..37 15-25 <15,200 4,550 181 <42.8 16.8 <91.2 <4.15 Notes;fit bgs pCi/L ag/L Feet below ground surface. Picocuries per liter.micrograms per liter.Less than the laboratory detection limit.Constituent not analyzed. Refers to PSEG Nuclear, LLC Station Chemistry. If tritium concentrations indicated by a groundwater sample were below the detection limits of Station chemistry, the sample was submitted to Maplewood Testing Services for analysis. Initial analysis of grotmdwvater samples was conducted at the Salem on-site laboratory for screening purposes. Maplewood Testing Services.Table 06 -Spplem esftigabonn Results 0 I of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station,Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter Observation Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Oxygen (mg/L) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) (00) Potential (my) Well K 04/29/03 7.10 8.58 18.5 0.37 18.23 21 05/05/03 6.80 7.55 12.0 0.23 14.90 -107 05/20/03 7.13 ,7.68 13.2 0.22 16.93 -174 05/28/03 7.17 7.84 15.1 0.20 15.97 -153 06/04/03 7.04 7.92 14.4 0.14 14.91 -173 06/10/03 7.10 7.06 14.4 0.25 17.44 -140 06/17/03 7.18 7.02 17.8 0.10 16.00 -184 06/24/03 7.11 8.62 1.8 0.16 17.61. -186 06/30/03 7.30 8.28 11.1 0.14 18.52 -142 07/16/03 7.24 8.23 6.5 0.19 18.31 -102 07/29/03 7.19 *8.47 7.0 0.13 18.09 -127 08/12/03 6.95 8.37 1.6 0.21 19.06 -58 08/27/03 6.91 8.17 5.6 0.41 19.75 -64 09/09/03 6.93 8.01 5.5 0.72 18.89 -38 09/25/03 7.13 8.3 5.8 1.67 .18.51 -22 10/06/03 6.75 8.29 20.0 2.44 17.22 -14 11/09/03 6.84 8.19 3.1 0.30 15.75 -25 Well L 04/29/03 7.40 14.11 13.3 0.36 16.35 -75 05/05/03 7.00 13.29 11.0 1.35 12.50 -166 05/15/03 7.45 13.12 6.3 0.42 15.09 -183 05/20/03 7.38 12.98 8.8 0.22 15.48 -201 05/28/03 7.39 13.52 11.0 0.34 15.04 -160 06/04/03 7.31 13.44 10.0 0.29 14.64 -191 06/10/03 7.45 11.98 9.4 0.20 16.94 -150 06/17/03 7.38 12.03 13.2 0.18 15.59 -185 06/24/03 7.36 14.90 1.2 0.18 16.70 -199 06/30/03 7.43 ,14.14 9.7 0.17 17.32 -160 07/29/03 7.40 14.29 11.0 0.14 -16.99 -140 08/27/03 7.08 14.07 9.4 0.13 17.67 -35 09/25/03 7.37 14.41 3.9 0.12 17.65 .19 12/16/03 7.09 14.27 8.1 0.11 13.60 52 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV MillivoltsmS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units°C Degrees Celsius 0 Table 07 -Field Parameters 2 of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station,Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parame~~r Oiain Observation Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Oxygen (mg/L) (.C) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) Potential (mV)Well M 04/30/03 7.17 0.42 16.6 7.64 21.34 35 07/09/03 6.84 0.43 125.0 0.14 .28.42 -27 07/23/03 6.81 0.43 59.0 0.11 28.89 -39 08/06/03 6.75 0.44 120.0 0.13 30.08 -19 08/20/03 6.70 0.43 100.0 0.15 30.53 85 09/04/03 6.72 0.42 .134 0.10 30.71 163 09/16/03 6.72 0.42 71.5 0.25 32.69. 19710/03/03 6.77 0.43 150.0 0.13 28.53 24 10/20/03 6.71 0.44 30.5 0.12 27.55 27 12/04/03 6.85 0.39 22.3 0.11 19.48 95 Well N 04/30/03 5.70 0.37 3.8 2.18 20.14 484 05/06/03 5.65 0.31 7.9 3.40 19.60 239 05/21/03 5.90 0.38 6.7 3.25 19.75 194 05/27/03 5.80 0.35 38.8 3.29 20.23 283 06/04/03 5.80 0.31 11.1 2.18 20.11 -58 06/11/03 5.66 0.28 8.1 1.70 21.83 151 06/19/03 5.63 0.29 25.1 1.24 22:21 194 06/25/03 5.61 0.30 1.6 1.24 23.06 165 07/10/03 5.66 0.29 24.8 1.31 24.88 294 07/25/03 5.70 0.31 2.0 1.63 26.83 120 08/20/03 5.53 0.31 10.0 1.65 27.89 188 09/04/03 5.77 3.65 2.0 2.03 27.45 263 09/17/03 5.81 0.37 3.2 2.88 28.52 330 10/03/03 5.95 0.405 .13.5 3.19 27.42 190 11/03/03 6.02 0.39 76.1 1.98 25.61 299 12/12/03 5.92 0.42 6.1 0.79 22.23 86 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV Millivolts mS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units°C Degrees Celsius Table 07 -Field Parameters 3.of 7 Table 07. Field-Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter Observation p (U Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity(NTU) Oxygen (rag/L) (C) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) Potential (mV)Well 0 04/29/03 7.25 0.21 3.5 0.30 16.39 -NA 05/06/03 6.99 0.19 1.8 0.50 16.00 -144 05/23/03 7.28 0.20 4.9 0.32 18.87 -119 05/28/03. 7.40 0.23 6.5 0.39 17.92 -134 06/03/03 7.01 0.24 6.1 0.55 18.95 -82.06/10/03 7.10* 0.21 10.6 0.54 20.30 -123 06/17/03 7.08 0.21 10.2 0.66 20.33 -91 06/24/03 6.84 0.27 0.0 .0.76 22.49 -8807/09/03 7.05 0.27 0.0 0.41 23.81 -46 07/25/03 6.79 0.25 0.0 0.82 25.27 -11 08/20/03 6.66 0.30 4.6 0.40 27.68 80 09/03/03 6.96 0.26 0.0 0.74 27.94 42 09/15/03 7.11 0.26 0.0 0.59 28.50 3110/03/03 6.74 0.45 4.9 0.26 26.24 129 10/20/03 6.58 0.71 0.0 .0.28 25.07 -35 11/17/03 6.68 0.42 3.8 0.21 .22.25 -43 12/18/03 6.20 2.49 2.1 .1.40 14.48 290 Well P 04/29/03 6.74 10.39 29.5 0.94 15.16 -40 05/05/03 6.50 9.94 13.4 0.48 12.90 -17505/15/03 6.80 10.50 17.6 0.19 14.68 -166 05/20/03 6.83 10.38 15.8 0.33 16.22 -178 05/31/03 6.69 12.30 20.6 0.18 17.00 -137 06/04/03 6.75 10.84 24.3 0.10 14.25 -181 06/10/03 6.75 9.78 33.0 0.50 17.43 -16506/17/03 6.79 9.98 40.2 0.17. 15.72 -176 06/24/03 6.86. 12.29 20.0 0.21 17.44 -181 07/16/03 6.88 1 i.91 46.7 0.18 18.44 -120 08/13/03 6.39 12.29 56.0 -0.13 18.38 -105 09/08/03 6.52 11.78 9.9 0.10 18.29 -76 10/06/03 6.41 12.38 14.0 0.09 17.22 -96 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV MillivoltsmS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units 0C Degrees Celsius Table 07 -Field Parameters 4 of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter Observation Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) O e g(Potential (mV)Well Q 04/30/03 6.46 13.69 20.0 0.20 14.55 -48 05/06/03 6.34 12.01 99.6 0.16 15.30 -123 05/12/03 6.28 12.43 38.9 0.36 16.56 -76 05/19/03 6.42 12.61 159 0.12 16.19 -170 05/30/03 6.35 14.80 173.0 0.22 16.88 -113 06/05/03 6.43 11.80 15.4 0.17 15.31 -157 06/11/03 6.35 11.74 12.6 0.14 17.64 -145 06/16/03 6.48 12.00 16.5 0.16 16.64 -152 06/23/03 6.24 15.10 8.3 0.18 16.99 -99 07/17/03 6.39 13.87 11.0 0.31 17.10 -86 08/13/03 6.25 14.11 14.2 0.14 18.98 -85 09/10/03 6.14 13.75 11.4 0.09 16.58 13 10/07/03 6.01 14.44 0.0 0.16 16.61 169 11/09/03 5.98 14.06 4.2 0.17 13.86 102 Well R 04/30/03 6.74 0.54 15.8 8.02 18.72 33 07/09/03 8.20 0.60 85 0.12 24.33 -189 07/25/03 7.30 0.57 21.6 0.12 25.52 -99 08/06/03 8.11 0.60 145 0.10 26.17 -9908/20/03 6.76 0.58 280 0.19 27.13 84 09/17/03 8.32 0.63 27.3 0.16 26.03 -10/03/03 6.66 0.64 19.8 0.12 24.48 178 10/21/03 6.58 0.65 24.9 0.12 22.86 197 12/05/03 6.31 0.64 24.8 0.13 15.87 279 Well S 07/09/03 6.89 0.72 5.9 0.12 19.20 -128 07/21/03 7.05 0.69 9.6 0.13 20.80 -107 08/07/03 6.58 6.70 32.4 0.08 19.85 -73 08/21/03 6.92 0.62 -65.0 0.15 21.77 009/15/03 6.58 0.62 23.7 0.10 21.63 -23 10/04/03 6.29 0.63 40.8 0.13 20.75 61 10/13/03 6.43 0.67 15.0 0.10 21.11 0 10/20/03 5.98 0.70 39.0 0.10 19.54 145 11/09/03 6.42 0.63 13.6 0.11 18.40 -42 11/26/03 6.57 0.62 64.4 0.28 17.67 278 0 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV Millivolts mS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units 0C Degrees Celsius Table 07 -Field Parameters 5 of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements. PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station,Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter Observation Specific.... Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) Oxygen (mg/L) (0 C) Potential (mV)Well T 07/02/03 NA NA NA NA NA NA 07/10/03 6.86 6.35 3.0 0.10 17.80 -149 07/15/03 6.81 6.34 4.2 0.18 19.07 -101 07/30/03 6.88' 6.43 4.9 0.19 18.52 -92 08/12/03 6.83 6.41 .05 0.10 19.99 -100 08/28/03 6.61 6.27 59.1 0.13 18.85 12 09/09/03 6.71 6.18 38.9 0.07 19.23 -55 09/25/03 7.07 6.33 50.0 0.09 19.53 -84 10/06/03 6.51 6.08 14.6 0.16 18.31 90 12/12/03 6.51 6.41 69.9 0.06 15.85 -21 Well U 07/02/03 NA. NA. NA NA NA NA 07/10/03. 6.91 1.57 6.7 0.13 16.45 -136 07/16/03 6.85 1.53 5.6 0.09 17.91 .-140 07/29/03 6.96 1.52 20.8 0.09 17.88 -128 08/12/03 6.81 1.59 0.4 0.10 18.72 -117 08/27/03 6.75 1.49 21.0 0.09 .19.05 -94 09/08/03 6.54 1.48 14.1 0.09 17.74 -46 09/25/03 7.07 1.43 24.9 0.12 18.98 -6310/06/03 6.45 1.52 23.1 0.06 17.29 -65 12/12/03 6.38 1.52 11.0 0.06 14.36 0 Well V 07/02/03 NA NA NA NA NA NA 07/21/03 7.14 3.91 14.9 0.16 19.64 -29 07/29/03 7.06 3.90 7.2 0.11 18.61 -95 08/12/03 6.80 3.85 0.0 0.11- 18.82 -24 08/22/03 6.81 3.83 3.5 0.15 19.66 -10 09/09/03 6.72' 3.89 0.0 0.08 .18.80 -41 09/25/03 7.30 4.05 0.6 0.20 18.99 1210/06/03 6.65 3.69 0.0 0.07 17.94 -85 12/12/03 6.51 3.68 1.7 0.09 14.07 14 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging.SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV Millivolts mS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units 0C Degrees Celsius 0 Table 07 -Field Parameters 6 of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter Observation Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Oxygen (mg/L) (00) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) Potential (mV)Well W 07/07/03 6.80 2.29 1.0 0.48 19.78 -108 07/21/03 6.80 2.36 2.0 0.14 20.74 -104 08/07/03 5.62 0.35 17.0 1.68 26.89 308 08/19/03 6.73 2.39 8.0 0.12 20.34 -74 09/03/03 6.63 2.33 3.3 0.10 19.25 -35 09/15/03 6.72 2.34 0.5 0.13 20.37 -24 10/03/03 6.53 2.35 2.3 0.11 19.39 45 10/20/03 6.24 2.67 0.0 0.13 17.81 125 11/17/03 6.43 2.46 2.6 0.23 17.72 -24 12/16/03 6.49 2.16 6.0 0.09 15.11 8 Well Y 10/27/03 6.92 7.42 34ý2 0.32 16.29 108 11/09/03 6.55 7.52 3.7 0.67 15.44 25911/24/03 6.92 7.49 5.6. 0.11 15.73 255 12/12/03 6.43. 7.46 5.8 0.11 13.53 141 12/22/03 6.33 7.5 11.5 0.09 14.25 186 Well Z 10/27/03 7.1.0 3.90 42.0 0.08 17.25 -37 11/09/03 6.71 3.99 28.2 0.58 16.18 206 11/24/03 7.06 4.00 19.5 0.07 16.21 12012/12/03 6.62 3.98 20.6 0.07 14.41 55 12/22/03 6.51 3.92 9.9 0.09 15.13 76 Well AA 10/27/03 5.74 2.21 53.0 0.08 18.17 10 11/10/03 5.73 2.24 49.2 0.15 17.79 8011/24/03 6.03 2.21 14.7 0.11 17.72 57 12/10/03 5.02 2.19 18.3 0.16 18.70 236 12/22/03 4:96 1.96 10.0 0.26 15.54 76 Well AB 10/28/03 6.41 1.79 58.7 0.12 22.95 2911/02/03 6.32 1.82 31.9 0.05 23.28 20511/17/03 6.13 1.90 16.2 0.14 22.12 17 12/04/03 6.45 1.85 24.6 0.11 20.04 87 12/16/03 6.31 1.89 5.1 0.07 19.22 :27 Well AC 10/28/03 6.68 0.45 50.3 0.24 24.61 -16 11/03/03 6.65 0.43 25.0 0.30 24.38 0.429 11/18/03 6.39 0.48 12.9 0.17 23.41 -21912/05/03 6.52 0.44 38.0 0.27 21.88 30412/18/03 6.49 0.44 14.4 0.05 20.25 101 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV Millivolts mS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units 0C Degrees Celsius Table 07 -Field Parameters 7.of 7 Table 07. Field Parameter Measurements, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Parameter " Observation Specific Dissolved Temperature Oxidation-Well Date pH (SU) Conductance Turbidity (NTU) Oxygen (rag/L) (°C) Reduction Identification (mS/cm) Potential (mV)Well AD 10/27/03 7.12 1.90 24.0 0.07 20.28 -72 11/02/03 6.67 1.98 16.3 0.06 21.36 64 11/17/03 6.52 2.18 21.8 0.22 18.72 15 12/04/03 6.76 1.60 4.6 0.08 17.69 81 12/16/03 6.08 1.45 11.1 0.13 17.36 -12ýWell AE 10/27/03 6ý64 0.27 11.4 0.10 24.98 -6011/02/03 6.19 0.25 13.6 0.44 25.18 -60 11/17/03 6.15 0.25 2.9 0.16 23.64 -25 12/04/03 6.32 0.23 2.3 0.23 .* 19.83 83 12/18/03 5.60 0.22 1.6 0.36 17.09 288 Well AF 10/27/03 7.11 4.10 101.0 0.04 20.43 -99 11/10/03 6.73 3.00 55.4 0.09 19.68 20 11/24/03 7.01 3.65 9.5 0.07 20.51 -30 12/13/03 6.39 3.36 21.7 .0.11 18.50 238 12/22/03 6.41 3.36 2.9 0.06 18.19 3Maximum Measurement 8.32 15.10 280.0 8.02 32.69 .484 Minimum Measurement 4.96 0.19 -65.0 0.04 12.50 -219Average Measurement 6.65 4.73 23.1 0.48 19.584 Notes: The values presented in the table are stabilized, final readings during purging. SU Standard Units mg/L Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million mV Millivolts mS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter NTU Nephelometric turbidity units 0C Degrees Celsius 0 Table 07 -Field Parameters , ft Table 08. Gm -w ale, Elations PSEG Salem Gmteeing Sttioe H -anOe s Br1idge. New Jetey.Se need Ie-tedI Monletord Wel1 Water-Leee! Warn-4e-e1 Weer.-Le-Ie Water-Iee1 W.e-Le-el Wate-LeeI Witee-Leel Watet-Lerel Water-e eeL Water-Leeni Weterel Water-Le-l T7 il 0I L.1eilegte Un(t! (de nrifeeeiR-Elevetle (9 e wft Erpd) F9-wioeetioe(t
Elceetle n (ft -ee) EJ-.tw. IIId) Eleeteen -9 S l) Elesin (t ,id) Eletlie (A -eer) Eleestir (0i Mill Eleelee (i ae=l) Eleeetiee (I( p! Eleation (9 atete!)(Ii b9s) 26-Jlr-233 26-Je-203 2-u1.1-2003 29-J.l-200 3 15-A.-2093 l3-Aug-20X2 1-Oet.2003 I4-Oet-2003 6-Ne-Z20Q3 6-Noe-2003 20.Feb-2M84 20-Fee-20G4 Well M 95.11 5.19 9456 3464 -74 4.82 93.39 566 93.37 3.45 93.51 3.59____ -WelIIN 94k33 4.41 9155 3,63 9335 3. 93100 3.98 92.76 2.4 9229 2.37-anIe.¶~re. WOlO1 95.!? 9.2 94.30 453 8.7 4.47 9.45 3.3 35 .39.723[01o20 at.-8)e (84 Wel} R, 96.5(0 6.58$ 95.86 5.94 0694 6.12 94.4 4.32 9465 4.73 94.84 4.92 lWlel ACj --.93.01 3.39 9292 2.99 NM NM 1 Well AE -93.15 3.23 94.32 4.40 92.13 2.21 Wel A] .- ....... -92.21 2.29.M1- 99.28 546 W8.62 4.70 %4.83 4.9. 93.84 3.S2 93- .3.6i 992.91 299 Well, 92.93 3.03 92.946 2.3 92.5 W.29.4 2.52 97.10 2.18 -9.716 Well T 92.95 3.03 92.66 .2.4 9262 2.70 92.74 2.92 92.94 2.14 91.76 1.84 Well Ii 93.20 338 94.95 2.93 92.92 2.96 92.79 ..37 92.14 2.22 91,87 1.95 Will1W 92.94 2.94 32.4! 2.9491 92.4 2.49 92.29 2.93 91.91.8 91,41 1.49 WelS ....-93.3 2.27l 91.8 -.76 9:9137 WellE -----92.07 2.15 91.70 1.79 91913 1.21 Wel! AI ."A 91.97 2.05 91.97 1.65 91.08 l..6-Nh~ee. aae- Wel 4 --- -.923!2.39 92.903 2.11 91,53 16 25,,,e 3 5 e ia Ver -WeI AD 1 92.17 2.25 91.80 I.88 91.24 1.32 25 ee3 d ldei Ueee0 Well AF -92.19 2.26 91.90 0:8 912" Z.3 WelIAll Sllow- -390.43 0.53-e1 Allit ep) W-.---- .3.7! 0 79 WeIIAI -- -- 91,40 WeIIIAL ------93.!! 3.1 WeIll AM .... ... L -a 29 Mer 92.99 3.43 92.66 2.684 ..." 2.68 99.31 2.39 91.117 L"3 91.40 1.48 Wl.939 .4 39.98 1.06 1 392 9." 1.9 .2 0.20 NM NM Well 1 91.35 1.42 39.6! 7.69 1154 .0.62 92A2 2.30 91.91 I.-9 NM9 NM 72 e ra WellP 9!032 1.4 9.67 0.75 :0.37 A.45 92.55 2.63 93.43 3.31 NM NM Lieale .- wel 91.29 1 .33 9939..02 11 1.16 91.31 L"3 P.1 136 NM NM wel:: L6_k 9109 .i JJ! 992 19 99 )-j240 3(99 NM Mern 9138 1.49 W9.65 0.33 M 7.18.83 929L.6 19G.3 .NM NN1 NM 36bp 354 P}a~le Li94louie uit,, ,,ep".d eilh fth, efllned I. ee A-A lroh gh E-.'U. aha1e. eat-6eaing eel ef lie e 1a a-d rdeimlge ,,1 atd the deeelred depeite. Tee9hllewe eatet-beatIeg eel! i eqeatetd f-ee 1b, Vineentetn Fee byatloi t9 IhIMe ...eire FoiPm.Monitringteell ee installed at the fi b e , he w-ele eli gauging ee.Waeetleelte eeetteeteeeeeloeleeted. Feel leleow geeted sreface. Eleeeliere lie Peet)telalle 2 pIae! dAreFeet aees etan area Ieee (6A90 19991.Mere tide leerl at Aeilpeial Ilanad is Ol.11lfel 19690 19981.TO M -I-WO teel 0 o 1 oflI Table09. Summary of Field Observations Aquifer Pumping Tests, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Total Dpth toDurationDuainoRdusVlm Depth to Appo t Maximum Volume of Date Total Static of Approximate Duration of Displacment at Water Well ID Test TestNo. Depth of Water Pumping Discharge Discharge Specified Rate of well of Well Well (ft) 2 Phase of Rates (gpm) Rate (min) (in) (gal) (gal)Level (ft) 2 Test (min) 0 80 AM' 2/4/2004 1 20.9 6.74 140 0.65 60 5.3 0.17 48.5 40*0.5 60 12.3 AM' 2/4/2004 2 20.9 7.5 62 0.33 62 9.1 0.17 45.9 18 S 2/2/2004 1 37.2 11.83 305 0.25 305 19.9 0.08 74.6 77 0.25 78 2.3 AC 2/4/2004 1 27 9.64 283 0.5 174 6.4 .0.08 51.0 116 0.75 31 10.3 AJ1 2/2/2004 1 35.3 8.16 275 0.25 148 7.3 0.17 93.0 75 0.5 127 23.2 0.25 80 3.3 Al' 2/3/2004 1. 22 10.63 315 05 175 6.6 0.17 38.9 145 0.75 60 11.6 0.25 205 8.6AD 1/30/2004 1 45.5 10.44 331 0.5 26 1.0 0.25 148.1 85 0.5 126 17.00.25 60 1.5 0.5 70 3.3 AB 1/29/2004 1 44.5 11.1 304 0 6.2 0.08 98.2 280 2I 94 6.2 2 80 16.0 Notes: I Well not completed, top of well approximately at land surface.2 From measuring point, approximately 2.5 feet above land surface.3 included volume of gravel pack ft feet gal = gallons Table 09 -Pumping Test -Field Observations 1 of 1 Table 10. Slug Test Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Hydraulic Hydraulic Well Monitored Test Type Conductivity Conductivity Identification Lithologic Unit' Results Results (ft/day) (cm/s)Well N Engineered Fill Falling Head 0.144 5.07 x 105 (10 to 20 ft bgs) Rising.Head 0.0928 3.28 x 10-5 Well 0 Engineered Fill Falling Head 3.62 -1.28 x.10-3 (10 to 20 ft bgs) Rising Head. 4.26 1.50 x 10.Well U Vincentown formation Falling Head 2.95 1.04 x 10.3 (70 to 80 ft bgs) Rising Head NA NA Notes I ft/day cm/s ft bgs NA Lithologic Units correspond with those outlined on cross sections A-A' through E-E'. Feet per day.Centimeters per second.Feet below ground surface.Data not available. Test not performed Table 10 -S Test Results 0 1 of I Table 11. Summary of Aquifer Pumping Test Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station,Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Puminiz, Recoverv Transmissivity Coducic Transmissivity Hydraulic Well ID Date of Test Conductivity Conductivity (ft'lday) (ft/day) (ft 2/day) (ft/day)AM 2/4/2004 1.403 0.14 0.572 0.06 AM2 2/4/2004 1.079 0.11 .0.338 0.03 S 2/2/2004 1.701 0.17 1.096 0.11 AC 2/4/2004 12.63 1.26 1.672 0.17 AJ 2/2/2004 1.73 0.09 0.56 0.03 Al 2/3/2004 7.97 0.80 2.101 0.21 AD 1/30/2004 0.942 0.09 0.937 0.09 AB 1/29/2004 27.67 2.77 22.69. .2.27 Notes: Results of the step drawdown test.2 Results of the constant rate test.ft2/day = square feet per day.ft/day -feet per day.0 Table 11 -Pumping Test -Results I of 10 Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (mg/L) Potassiun-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thorium-234 Uranium-235 K 1 02/05/03 1,120 738 1,060 82.4 23.7 <651 <50.4 4.90 K 2 02/05/03 1,070 -- -- -- -- --K 02/12/03 506 557 727 -- ......K 02/27/03 1,170 803 1,210 <20.4 "9.24 <9.31 128 5.76 K 03/14/03 937 1,380. 1,200 -----K 03/18/03 875 1,190 1,060 .... -K 03/26/03 822 966 1,070 -.......K 03/31/03 677 -1,150 1,190 .... -....K 04/09/03 1,010 1,290 1,290 ...... ---K 04/17/03 1,170 1,160 1,370 ....... -K 04/21/03 911 -- 1,240 ...... -K 04/29/03 833 -- 1,240 .......... K 05/05/03 948 -- 1,210 ...... " ..K 05/20/03 878 1,240 1,200 -- ........K. 05/28/03 859 1,020 1,210 ..... ..K 06/04/03 921 980 1,240 ........K 06/10/03 897 1,260 1,260 ......K 06/17/03 894 1,040 1,220 ......K 06/24/03 783 1,080 1,250 -......K 06/30/03 914 1,190 1,300 61.0 <1.31 <4.40 241 6.06 K 07/16/03 870 1,140 1,300 <13.6 6.24 <4.81 <59.6 8.23 K 07/29/03 950 988 1,240 <18.1 <3.93 <6.81 166 5.57 K 08/12/03 845 1,130 1,190 57.4 <4.62 <3.61 132 5.82 K 08/27/03 852 1,020 1,220 41.3 <2.15 <5.16 160 4.79 K 09/09/03 653 1,160. 14170 <21.4 <2.69 <6.02 <80.0 <5.50 K 09/25/03 713 816 1,280 57.6 <3.13 <4.69 135 <4.87 K 10/06/03 880 1,150 1,250 .........K 11/09/03 891 919 1,330 .......... Notes:ug/L Micrograms per liter mg/L Milligrams per literpCi/L Picocuries per liter 1,120 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit. <20.4 Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-Constituent not analyzed. I Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. Samples were re-analyzed to compare results.Table 12 -Ground Analytical Results 2 of 1O p Table 12ý Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Saleln Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (rag/L) Potassiumn-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thorium'234 Uranium-235 L 01/27/03 <151 533 1,900 ......L 03/14/03 <143 .. .........L 03/18/03 < 143 --L 03/26/03 < 141 -.........L 0 4 /0 2 /0 3 < 1 5 3 2 ,1 7 0 2 ,2 6 0 -.-.......L 04/08/03 <142.-- ........... L 04/15/03 <141 ....... ' -- ....* L 04/24/03 <i39- ....- ....L 04/29/03 <141 .. ........L 05/05/03 <134 -- .--- .--- --L. ' 05/15/03 <144 = ........-" -L 05/20/03 <144 ........ " --L. 05/28/03 <.5141 -- --.. .. ....L 06/04/03 <140 " 7" " L. 06/10/03 <137 -----..L 06/17/03 <141 .... " ---L 06/24/03 <141 ............ L 06/30/03 <140 2,080 2,490 <95.3 <5.55 <19.1. 447 12.3 L 07/29/03 .<141 1,860 .2,360 <9.99 6.47 <5.08 264 9.55 L " 08/27/03 <142 1,950 2,330 --..L 09/25/03 <140 1,620 2,490 -----L 12/16/03 <146 ---....M 02/12/03 18,700 252 23.0 146 12.9 <13.3 <43.2 7.10 M 02/28/03 14,400 168 27.7 64.7 <2.84 <6.48 123 <1.22 M 03/03/03 9,420 164 26.6. 62.7 <2.44 <4.54 <42.8 <2.90 M 03/10/03 15,000 234 23.6 -..-..M 03/17/03 10,600 207 22.2 -.....M 03/24/03 10,100 171 26.3 .........M 03/31/03 11,000 161 23.1 ......M 04/07/03. 9,260 177 24.3 ---.-M 04/14/03 9,600 186 23.9 -.....-- -Notes: ug/L. Micrograms per liter mg/L -Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 18,700 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.<141. Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-- Constituemt not analyzed.Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. Table 12 -Groundwater Analytical Results 3 of 10 Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamra-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) .Boron (ug/L) Sodium (nig/L) Potassiuni-40 Radiuni-Natural Thorium-232 Thoriunr-234 Uraniurn-235. M3 04/21/03 8,880 .22.5 ---M 3 04/30/03 8,800 -23.7 .......M3 07/09/03 126,000 > /' 307 20.8 <23.7 43.9 <3.70 <83.2 <4.13 M 07/23/03 113,001 ' 234 .22.0 78.1 <2.97 <7.30 <82.4 <4.52 M 08/06/03 73,20o9 242 21.9 53.1 16.1 <4.38 <38.9 <2.88 M 08/20/03 62,000) 274 22.5 48.1 <2.17 <4.08 169 <4.31 M 09/04/03 3,3 0 11 222 22.8 63.2 12.7 <4.48 178 <337 M 09/16/03 28,400 320 24.5 47.7 7.26 <3.97 <148 <412 M 10/03/03 25,4001 266 25.0 49.0 11.8 <4.46 116 <479 M 10/20/03 16,380 ....-M 12/04/03 9,010 --- .....M 01/06/04 11,400 " -.. -N 01/30/03 69,000 339 14.3 <41.2 32 <5.25 <38.4 <3.37 N 2 01/30/03 5 _8400 370 14.4 --..N 02/10/03 15,600 276 10.6 --.....N 03/04/03 2,770 197 34.3 62.5 43.9 <7.23 <47.0 4.99 N 03/14/03 2,670 408 24.0 .- -.. ..N 03/17/03 3,830 362 20.5 .....N 03/25/03 3,480 238 18.1 -- --....N 04/04/03 3,560 210 19.6 .....N 04/11/03 3,730 249 19.3 ..... --N 04/16/03 3,910 228 " 22.2 ......N 04/25/03 4,600 -16.2 --....N 04/30/03 9,370 -15.8 .... -- --N 05/06/03 9,830 -19.8 ----- -N 05/21/03 7,480 299 19.2 ......N 05/27/03 7,130 225 17.6 .....N 06/04/03 5,480 233 20.0 ........N 06/11/03 4,990 304 19.8 -.....Notes: ug/L Micrograms Per liter mg/L Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 18,700 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.<141 Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-- Constituent not analyzed.I Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. 2 Samples were re-analyzed to compare results.3 Well M was replaced in May 2003 with a properly constructed Monitoring Well. Prior to this, Well M was installed as a temporary Well constructed with nmill-slotled steel Table 12 -Groud Analytical Results 0 0 4of 1O Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (ing/L) Potassiunu-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thoriuln-234 Uranium-235 N 06/19/03 5,680 217 18.4 -- ----N 06/25/03 5,060 268 17.1 ......N 07/10/03 5,020 268 17.5 <21.1 5.37 <4.48 <64.5 8.10 N .07/25/03 5,220 217 19.6 <13.0 <2.38 <4.19 153 <4.52 N 08/07/03 5,110 210 23.5 <15.4 14.7 <4.70 <93.5 11.0 N 08/20/03 5,850 247 20.4 <9.32 <2.41 <4.00 <160 <4.06 N 09/04/03 5,660 334 22.8 <16.1 <1.75 <4.54 <52.9 3.96 N 09/17/03 6,160 267 22.4 67.9 <2.51 <5.90 <57.1 <4.81 N 10/03/03 5,740 240 24.0 <31.7 6.37 <3.87 166 <125 N 11/03/03 5,560 .- -- --- -N 12/12/03 6,010 ......N 01/20/04 6,460 --- ----0 01/29/03 .1,220 156 40.5 930 62.9 88.5 177 16.5 0 2 01/29/03 1,400 172 .40.4 -.- -- --0 02/10/03 10,300 97 13.2 -- .....0 02/21/03 .7,370 89 15.4 .- -- --0 02/28/03 11,700 .89 17.0 <14.8 9.12 <6.97 120 4.04.0 03/04/03 8,800 71 r 20.8 -.... " -0 03/13/03 12,300 108 15.5 .......0 03/17/03 11,000 83 11.9 .......0 03/25/03 8,660 98 11.7 .....0 03/31/03 8,010 64 13.91 -- --0 04/07/03 7,290 77 8.8 -- -- --0 04/15/03 12,400 85 10.0 -----0 04/21/03 11,800 1- 1.5 ----0 04/29/03 10,500 -12.3 --" -" 0 05/06/03 10,200 -- ' 11.2 .....0 05/21/03 11,100 108 10.3 ---- -- --0 05/28/03 12,700 183 11.9 --"....Notes: ug/L Micrograms per liter mg/L Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 12,400<16.1 2 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.Constituent hot analyzed.Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. Samples were re-analyzed to compare results.Table 12 -Groundwater Analytical Results 5of 10 Table 12. Grouadwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L) Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (mg/L) Potassiunm-40 Radium-Natoral Thoriunm-232 Thoriln-234 Uranium-235 0 .0 6 /0 8 /0 3 12 ,2 0 0 14 0 13 .5 ......0 06/10/03 12,800 183 14.3 ......O 06/17/03 10,300 204 14.9 .........O 06/24/03 13,400 252 14.7 .........O 07/09/03 9,100 272 14.6 <21.2 <2.66 <6.62 <123 <3.43 O 07/25/03 7,710 234 13.5 <37.8 6.34 <4.13 <199 3.95 O 08/06/03 8,300 240 14.4 39.2 10.8 <4.26 <148 <4.13 O 08/20/03 7,440 305 13.9 <16.4 <2.58 <3.82 164 <4.31 O 09/03/03 6,400 282 13.5 46.2 <2.58 <3.82 164 <4.31 o 09/15/03 5,110 270 12.9 <2.62 6.13 <6.96 58.2 <3.52 O 10/03/03 6,980 233 23.2 4.30 10.7 <3.55 <92.9 <3.45 O 10/20/03 6,700 201 47.0 --....0 12/18/03 7,060 ..-- --p 02/06/03 <153 -......... P 02/21/03 <148 -- --..... .-p 03/13/03 303 417 1,080 ........P 03/18/03 465 199 699 .........P 03/26/03 <143 336 698 ...... *- --P 04/03/03 <154 241 1,110 ........p 04/24/03 <139 -- .......- --P 04/29/03 <144 ." .... ---P 05/05/03 <134 ........ -P 05/20/03 <145 ........P 05/30/03 <142 .......... P 06/04/03 <141 ...... -p 06/10/03 <138 ........P 06/17/03 <141 ............ P 06/24/03 <141 ............. p 07/16/03 <141 485 1,580 60.7 <3.56 <5.04 127 3.46 P 08/13/03 <140 480 1,570 47.5 3.21 <4.54 <1.98 <4.34 P .09/09/03 <147 645 1,560 63.8 11.8 6.19 54.8 <5.02 p 10/06/03 <143 481 1,610 -- ---- --Notes: ug/L mg/L pCi/L 303<3.56 Microatrams per liter Milligrams per liter Picocuries per liter Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.Constituent not aiialyzed. Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. 0 Table 12 -GrounodAnalytical Results 6 of 10 Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) .Sodium (rag/L) Potassiun-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thoriun-234 Uranium-235 Q 03/14/03 <143 ----.... ...Q 03/19/03 <143 --....Q 03/24/03 <143 .......Q 04/23/03 <139 " --- --" " Q .04/30/03 <142 -- ........-Q 05/06/03 <135 -- -- -- -..Q 05/12/03 <144 -.-- -...Q 05/19/03 <144 -- -----Q 05/30/03 <140 -------Q 06/05/03 <139 ....... .--Q 06/11/03 <138 ...... -......Q 06/16/03 <141 .. * ....Q 06/23/03 <143 --.... --Q 07/17/03 <141 340 2,100 151 <5.78 <13.9 <88.4 8.99 Q 08/13/03 <142 315 1,830 85.7 5.63 <4.09 <7.45 <3.06 Q 09/10/03 <148 247 1,790 86.8 30.2 <5.42 98.1 5.53 Q 10/07/03> <144 331 1,920 .- -- .......Q 111/09/03 < 142 317 1,930 --- .......R 02/26/03 13,900 288 42.6 258 15.0 <8.58 122 7.49 R2 03/03/03 .7,490 229 37.3 80.5 7.37 <8.73 144 5.75 R2 03/10/03 6,170 270 28.7 R 2 03/17/03 7,270 269 33.4 -: .-" ..R' 03/25/03 6,810 248 32.4 -----R2 04/01/03 6,740 216 34.8 -.....R 2 04/08/03 5,940 251 33.3 .... ---R2 04/14/03 5,890 255 33.4 .... ..R2 04/22/03 5,800 -32.6 --....... -R2 04/30/03 5,260 -" 31.8 ......R 07/09/03 1 3,270 511 57.4 58.2 33.4 <4.73 <36.6 <3. 18 Notes: ug/L Micrograms per liter.mg/L Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 6,740 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.<4.73 Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-- Constituent not analyzed.Grab groundwater sample collected during monitoring well installation. Well R was replaced in May 2003 with a properly constructed Monitoring Well. Prior to this, Well R was installed as a temporary well construicted with mill-slotted steel Table 12 -Groundwater Analytical Results 7of 1O Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results. PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L). Sodium (mg/L) Potassiutn-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thorium-234 Uranium-235 R 07/25/03 2,940 403 48.7 <14.2 <2.40 <4.91 226 <3.98 R 08/06/03 2,860 457 53.6 52.2 14.0 <4.29 112 <4.03 R 08/20/03 2,861 .505 48.1 92.1 <2.46 <5.91 <78.0 <3.43 R 09/04/03 2,987 567 45.6 <18.0 6.2 <4.20 <78.7 <2.61 R 09/17/03 2,797 472 49.6 59.3 5.8 <4.48 139 <4.35 R 10/03/03 2,740 402 51.8 61.6 11.8 <4.51 <49.7 <2.92 R 10/21/03 2,650 ---- --....R 12/05/03 2,550 367 49.9. -......S 07/09/03 ;,530,130O0 57,400 67.0 <19.4. 52.0 <5.06 <50.6 <9.62 S 07/09/03 3,450,000: --- -.-- ---S 08/07/03 Z920,000.. ...... .S 09/03/03 232190,000.. S 09/15/03 .........S 10/04/03 .S 10/13/03 .i,.2,30,0001 --......S 10/20/03 -- -.....--S 11/09/03 i S 11/26/03 . S 0 1 / 2 0 / 0 4 _ 1 ,4 2 0 ,0 0 0 ', :. -----... .. ..T 07/10/03 <147 680 1,040 51.0 87.7 <4.67 111 <1.53 T 07/15/03 <140 645 1,150 63.4 43.2 <7.56 <114 <3.85 T 07/30/03 <141 601 969 72.3 <3.41 <4.49 <49.8 <3.33 T 08/12/03 < 140 637 931 59.7 3.67 <4.38 <91.2 <3.01 T 08/28/03 < 141 660 896 73.3 11.4 <4.31 121 6.17 T 09/09/03 <147 633 899 75.5 18.7 <4.40 184 <3.61 T 09/25/03 <142 633 9i2 <3.94 7.35 <5.87 <68.3 <5.08 T 10/06/03 <146 650 966 -- ----T 12/12/03 <149 --.....Notes: ug/L Micrograms per liter mg/L Milligrams per literpCi/L Picocuries per liter 680 -Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.<3.41 Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-- *Constituent not analyzed.2 Samtples were re-analyzed to comnpare results.Table 12.Grou rAnalytical Results 0 8of tO Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (tng/L) Potassium-40 Radium-Natural Thorium-232 Thorium-234 Uraniuni-235 U 07/10/03 <136 389 178 88.4 13.6 <7.18 <48.6 <4.55 U 07/16/03 '146 380 175 77.4 14.5 <4.56 <35.2 <4.01 U 07/29/03 <141 421 146 53.2 <3.09 <4.05 153 <3.90 U 08/12/03 <139 341 " 139 64.6 <2.13 <4.65 201 <1.16 U 08/27/03 <143 347 144 <43.3 4.20 <4.55 <136 <3.62 U. 09/09/03 .148 376 .. 139 .<36.8 <3.97 <4.60 107 5.30 U 09/25/03 <139 335 155 <23.3 <1.79 <4.58 <46.9 <3.59 U 10/06/03 203 354 140 -- --- -U 12/12/03 <148 --.......V 07/21/03 334 489 609 43.0 <1.86 <4.01 <5.68 <2.78 V 07/29/03 285 431 592 47.4 <3.26 .<4.71 164 <4.63 V 08/12/03 278 495 568 39.0 <1.60 <3.95 < 143 <2.47 V 08/27/03 338 607 584 <16.8 <1.81 <3.97 <53.3 "<3.21 V 09/09/03 337 571 582 <15.7 <4.35 <4.06 116 5.23 V 09/25/03 261 472 670 <43.5 <1.79 <4.30 171 4.65 V 10/06/03 185 463 543 .......V .11/19/03 549 -- ..--. ...V 12/12/03 207 ...... .- --.W 07/07/03 10,500 490 220 <15.9 9.51 <3.36 98.2 <4.56 W 07/21/03 11,100 491 227 67.7 <1.73 <3.11 <59.0 <2.65 W 08/06/03 11,500 464 211 74.2 <2.78 <7.46 <94.1 <4.62 W 08/07/03 6,010 ---... ..W 08/19/03 7,660 .591 215 60.1 <2.43 <5.86 <135 <5.29 W 09/03/03 8,110 533 222 <45.1 <1.76 <3.82 111 5.80 W 09/15/03 8,710 566 237 55.2 <2.43 <4.33 158 <1.23 W 10/03/03 li1 00 455 240 <68.1 <3.82 <6.46 <51.9 <5.91 W 10/21/03 8,260 ---- -----W 1i/17/03 12,200- --.. .-- ..W 11/19/03 13,200 -- -- -- .W 12/16/03 15,500 ... -* -W 01/14/04 11,400 -* ---- -Notes: mg/L pCi/L Milligrams per liter Picocuries per liter 10,500 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.<148 .Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-- Constituent not analyzed.. Table 12 -Groundwater Analytical Results 9of 10 Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gannma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (ug/L) Sodium (rig/L) Potassium.-40 Radiunm-Natural Thorium-232 Thorium-234 Uranint-235 Y 10/27/03 < 142 -- -- -.. -Y 11/09/03 <143 .......... Y 11/19/03 <3,750 -- --.......Y 11/25/03 < 141 822 1,070 ........Y 12/12/03 <148 --........... Y 12/22/03 <147 -- --............. Z 10/27/03 573 ............ Z 11/09/03 <140 ..... --- ---Z 11/19/03 729 --......... Z 11/24/03 583 498 519 ..... --Z 12/12/03 621 --- ......Z 12/22/03 659 -- ... ---AA 10/27/03 613 ........AA 11/10/03 645 .......... AA 11/19/03 734 -- --........ AA 11/24/03 639 247 253 .......... AA 12/10/03 785 .............. AA 12/22/03 682 .............. AA 01/06/04 713 .... ......AB 10/28/03 .292.00..AB 11/02/03 '< 0 .......... AB 11/19/03 / -.......AB 12/04/03 ...409,0.AB 12/16/03 :396,00 -......... AB 01/14/03 -[. 281,000 .---Notes: mg/L pCi/L 613<140 Milligrams per liter Picocuries per liter Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.Constituent not analyzed.Table 12 -Gro Analytical Results 10 of 10 Table 12. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey., Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Gamma-Emmitting Isotopes (pCi/L)Identification Date (pCi/L) Boron (og/L) Sodium (mg/L) Potassiom-40 Radium-Natural Thoriumn-232 Thoriumt-234 Uranitnn-235 AC 10/28/03 " i0O96 ,000 253,000 30.8 ....AC 1 1/03/03 14 ,2.00,000 332,000 30.4 -- ---AC 11/18/03 .-....AC i 2/18/03 s0o15,00(t,000 ....AC -01/20/04 0,700,0o00 --- -- ----AD 10/27/03 : 244,00. -0.. -.....AD 11/02/03 2" .42... -: AD 11/17/03 225,000 -- -......AD 12/04/03 392,000. * ..... .AD 12/16/03 , 4.7.. -----AD. 01/14/04 ",220,000 ...... ---AE 10/27/03 5,990 .-- .....- " -AE 11/02/03 5,710 ............ AE 11/19/03 6,910 234 14.2 ... , -- * ....AE 12/04/03. 6,310 ......AE 12/18/03 16,100 ---.....AE 01/14/04 12,600 --. ----AF 10/07/03 < 142 380 227 .......AF 10/27/03 242 --AF 11/10/03 330 -- -- ---- --AF 11/19/03 256 ..--... -- --AF 11/24/03 245 429 545 ....-" -- -AF 12/10/03 343 ---'AF 12/22/03 302 --....Notes: mg/L Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 242 Constittent was detected above the laboratory method detection linst.<142 .Constituent was not detected above the laboratory detection limit.-Constituent not analyzed.Table 12 -Groundwater Analytical Results 6'~ '~K;.:AL LOW1- SITE LOCAT-I ON;(-1-~- 01~IyTRE E~< $~A~K..St&wP~n~SN L/QUADRANGLE LOCATION SCALE 1:24000 10 1 MILE 1000
- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 10 \'.5 0 1 KILOMETER 187 MILS 0`21'6 MIL CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 UTM GRID AND 1981 TOPOGRAPHICAL OUADRANGLE TAYLORS BRIDGE. DEL-N.J. 1948 PHOTOREVISED 1981. MAGNETIC NORTH SOURPCE> UISIS 7.P. MINT1 SOURCE, HSrS 7 5 MIN Y ~ ....~0 0>ARCADIS UDAWN GUAIL I PIROJLCI MANAGER V. WASILEWSOI 2/27/04 P. MIUONISDEPARTMENT MANAGER
- 0. FULTON+SITE LOCAlnONPSEG NUCLEAR, LLCSALEM GENERATING STATION ARTIFICIAL ISLANDHANCOCK'S BRIDGE.
NEW JERSEY LLAS JtSIUN POTI .S. POTTER CHECKED B PIERCE I a-J.PROJECT NUMBER NP000571.0003DRAWING NUMBER 1-- m w'Al 0 OJC P- PM7*mo m6N \ aem\ , 1.0003 -Remedial investigation \codd \FIG- 1 STATION LOCATION.DWG 2/27/2004 -2:30:44 PM Layout: 8.501 H NV?I-.. ..2 I~I1.... -PROPE R-- Om.. LOW O N-- .LGUID RAW" WASTE LINE L .SEISMIC CAP (STYROFOAM)SERVICE WATER PIPING SCIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING< CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING S-. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL)I --- --STORM SEWER PIPING CATCH BASIN e MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROM ABOVE THE WATER TABLE THROUGH THE KIRKWOOD FORMATION SHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTENDTO AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE SLOCATION OF THRUST BLOCK (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)m AFST AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK RNST REFUEUNG WATER STORAGE TANK NOTE:LOCATION OF THE THRUST BLOCK IS APPROXIMATE. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF THE THRUST BLOCK WERE OBTAINED FROM ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING FACILITY CONSTRUCTION. B-I o 1 a.--I--na--a--'TIFi~A 33 Ia 33 33 33 33 33 33 A I EGNO NEILL So" L AQUIFER (RI-2003)WEL. LO MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THEVTNCENTOWN FORMATION (RI-2OO3)-A 7 2~~~~~'F IF--7/LI~~A.-~I It r I~j R41 SOIL BORING LOCATION (PREFACILITY CONSTRUCTION) HA UT ELEVATION OF CLAY UNIT (PLANT DATUM)CONTOUR (2.5 FOOT INTERVAL)LDASHED WHERE INFERRED-" -- -.....PROPERTY BOUNDARY BLOW DOWN PIPINGLIQUID =RADO WASTE LINESE RACE WATER PIPINGCIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING STORM SEWER PIPINGCATCH BASIN MANHOLE (STORM SEWER) -SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROM HABGE THE WATER TABLE THROUGHTHE KIRKWOOO FORMATION-.SHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION ABOVE TUE WATER TABLE.ii AFST AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PWIST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK RWST REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK lza"~-1 1/ J~XU~E Q-J LEGENG, _ L STRUTURAL FLLCTL.T KIRKWMOO CONFITNG UN1I South KIRKWOOD BASAL SAND HWICEHTTTONORA THIER 20 N-NJVESOINT LEHAN COTNCRETE WTTH CBMTWTlLEEEDW ~STUTURAL CO SEISIC GAP (SMRO)_100 -- ----SLOW DOWN MN* ----- WDO WR WASTE IME Ti "'"--SHEETPFGE SERACE WATER PB'I C0RClUL AIR WATER OUTLET XL ' WATER IWLET S -~-- -STORMG SLY" PIPING 0 CATH BASNI S 60, WHRLE (STORM SEWER)RCP RENFORCED COTEETE PPE t ML RME THERE LEVEL SBILDIDG WALL 40 W aLI. r MONTTTJNG WELL SCREEED z N THE SHAILO, 0 MATER-MBEHNG UNAf WIT N THE THE COFFERDAM, 20 FEET DEEP-"TPICAL WELlS N. 0D, R.AC. AE. AT AMI H).20 I 50 M ¶FR NG WELL WATER-REARMIG UNIT OUTSIDE TE LPITS OG TIE COFERDEAM. 35 FEET DEEP- TYPCAL (WELLS S.T. U. W. Y. Z, HAAR. WAD.AF. AE(SMALLTW & [EEP, 0 DEEP), AWi a LO MOTRT WELL SCREENALN INE vtx Dowfm ECR1AR10 90 FEET DEEP-* TYPICAL (WELLS H, L P. U ANDR).-20 uM PSE ISAMPLE LOCATION DP-T PHS u SAMPLE I LOCATIONW KIRIK FACTKIRKWOOD BASAL SAN U VICENTOWN FORMATION FOOTNOTE-140 -SEISME CAP' --40 PROPERTY BOUNDARY-0 ,0-MWELL OESrIN.TION -- EXXRtTTG LEAT SURFACE --_60t ER.EOLE/ILL CASE-160-STRUCTURAL FILL BB RrVERBEO DEPOSITS UI West E"" KIRKWOOD CONFINING UNIT 40 KIRKWOOD BASAL SAND FUEL MVINCENTOWN FORMATION HANDLING SALEM -120 BUILDING UNIT 1 RORNERTOWN-NAVESINK AQUITARDLEAN CONCRETE WITH 0 m C LCONSTRUCTION JOINT STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WITH t CONSTRUCTION JOINT A, 10 SEISMIC GAP (STYROFOAM)
BLOW DOWN PIPINGDELAWAR RIVER- UOUID "RAD" WASTE LINE 0 T- 11 -SHEET PILE HYT)IkALIC OL U 'U SERVICE RATER PIPINGCIRCULAINGO RATEsR OUTLET PIPING LEA(X)............
.......... CC.. -CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING -20 STORM SEWER PIPING z MANHOLE (STORM SEWER) a- RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 0zRAM~r %ý l.(OR3. Mr. MEAN TIDE LEVEL 0- BUILDING WALL BA KIRKOOO ASALSAND.>. B4 WELL SCREENED IN TAE SHALLOW.... .......... WATR-WEANG UNIT WIHIN- THE N UITS OF THE IORKOOD ASALSANDCOFTERDAM, 20 FEET DEEP-TYISCAL (WELLS M, N. 0. It AC. AL .N M SM).WEAL BR IJONVISRA SCEL ERNED IN ATHE SHANLLO.z WAVRNR-BEARWNG UNIT OUTSIDE MHE LMITS OF TH 0 AR20 ..ROP 35 FEET DEEP-YTUN AY (ELLS V.1. LL W. Y. Z. AA AB. AN D, NV. AG(SWLLOW A SEEP. A-CSEA.LO A DEEP). M AND RAN.0 EU LO MONITORING WELL CREEBED IN THE TuNCEOTO-N FORATION. W* FEET DEEP-TTH*N. (WELLS A. L, P,.S AND ).Sol L~oiONSPL OPO HS ISAMPLE (100ATENC-EST M FORVMATION Lm SSEISMIC GAP 2 -PROPERTY BOUNDARYF N 140,-ECTOWELL DESIGNATITN -120 ENGNEERNG ETALS O TH COFERDM AD _ ERISFING LABS SUR1FACESTRUTURS WTHINTHECOFERDA WEE BRWESOLE/WELL CASING TO VRIFYACCRACYOF TATIN _ WATER-LEVEL ELEVATION-140 ~20 FEBRUARY 2003 )NAVD TBRR)-140 SIETIQSCREENED INTERVAL FUEL HANDLING BUILDING v UNIT 1 C South 40]201 0-FUEL HAiODLING BUILDII UNIT I DTRUCrARA4
- CDONEVE (PoU LJPUR L"N ..CON C :P0UA,-20----------IG-80-60-40 0HYDRAULIC FILL STRUCTURAL FILL* STRUCTURAL FILL WITHCONCRETE BEYONDRIVERBED DEPOSITS KIRKWOOD CONFINING UNITK KIRKWOOD BASAL SAND VINCENTOWN FORMATION HORNERTOWN-NAVESINK ADUITARD A LEAN CONCRETE WITH CONSTRUCTION JOINTS UCTURAL CONCRETE AMTN K-.' CONSTRUCTION JOINT SEISMIC GAP (STYROFOAM)
--RI-- BLOW DOWN PIPING
- -----' LIQUID "RAD* WASTE UNE IN SHEET PILE 1 SERVICE WATER PIPING.. CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING, CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING
-- -RI- STORM SEWER PIPING E CATCH BASIN M AINHOLE (STORM SEWER)RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE MTL MEAN TIDE LEVEL-BUILDING WALL"VtI.I. NIORBIG BELL SCREENED IN THE %TALLOW. WATER-BEARBG UNIT WiTIB RH TIRIS OF TH CODTFERDMM 20 FEET DEEP- TTFk (WELLS M.N. 0. A. AC. AL N AD AM).z-40 H_60--120--20:-0-20--40 W SL 50 MRIOR BELL SCREENED IN TS 51IAIUDW, UNIT D 1TSE tR TAMT OF TE CEEU.RWM., 35 FEET DEEP- TP.A (WEUS S.T, U. W. 0,. L AA. l AD, AF. AE(SIWLLGW It DEEP, AN(S1WLUD It DEEP). AJ AND AQ)VINCENTOWN FORMATION FOOTNOTE WEL LeO MONITORIN WL SCREENED B THE VBICEBNORN FORMATION. BT FEET DEEP-TYPECAL (WELLS K. L P. 0 WAR A).B0§ PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATION DP-Ml PHASE II SAMPLE LOCATION.SEISMIC GAPPROPERTY BOUNDARY S--WELL DESIGNATION_ EXISTING LAND SURFACEBOREHOLE/WELL CASING ( " '-BWATER-LEVEL ELEVATION20 FEBRUARY 2003 (NATO 19RR)SCREENED INTERVAL:ENGINEERING DETAILS OF THE COFFERDAM ANDSTRUCTURES WITHIN THE COFFERDAM WERE REVIEWED. BY SARGENT & LUNDY., UC. (2004)TO VERIFY ?ACCURACY OF STATION CONSTRuC'nON DETAILS.r -ITORAULIC FILL DSTRUCTURAL FILL D i BUILDINGD'SRCUAFILW7 Wast (ADDITION) CONCRETE BEYOND 40 RIVERBED DEPOSITS KIRKWOOD CONFINING UNITUNIT 1- 120 VINCENTOWN FORMATION AOUITARD LEAN CONCRETE WITH" CONSTRUCTION JOINT C, -,sTRCUA CONCRETE WITH CONSTRUCTION JOINT 100 SEISMIC GAP (STYROFO.AM)----BLOB DOWN PIPING 0ý I I MLIQUIUD RAD' BASTE LINE H SHEET PILE___0_ SERVICE WATER PIPING.-S .; .' ... I- CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING ....... CIRCULATING RATER INLET PIPING L A. .DA) BTE .I -OUI 4- -STORM SEWER PIPING 0 -CATCH BASIN 5 MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)KRN tA : RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE o .MTL MEAN TIDE LEVEL -40*.. T BUILDING WALL TEMSFR 0RI N MOWOINCE BELL SCREEFED IN TIM. SNAMGOW, BAT2R-BE UNIM T RIFHN THE LIMITS Of ITEýDCOFFERDAM. 35 FEET DEEP.- TYPIL (BELLS M,_60T* N. U. R. A .AE, .A D AN AH).WEILL LO MOWTOFORB WELL SEFRUFO 01 TH NIM. .--COFF OMK 35 E ET DEEP- TEP- 4 (RES S.TP (. W. Y. L. P. .,). X , DEEP PAR(SEII11 &SAMPLE AJAMW.INLOCATION --T ... .... ... W-E NT --I I ". .. -AM PHASE II SAMPLE 20 LOCATION SEISMIC CAP-120 COFFER0A~ AN, "I-PROPERTY BOUNDARY-120 ENINEERING DETAILS OF THE COFFRDAM AND, WELL DESIGNATION STRUCTURES WITHIN THE COFFERDAM WERE , EXISTING LAND SURFACE REVI EWEO By SARGENT & LUNDY, LLC, (2004) ".TO VERIFY ACCURACY OF STATION "40 BOREHOLE/WELL CASING CONSTRUCTION DE'TALS. (4..7)-140 * <k,,NAESjIKAO r\AR-WATER-LEVEL ELEVATION-140 1D' 20 FEBRUARY 2003 (NAVD 1988)SECTION SCREENED INTERVAL AULA JIZ.lL 11 5550 00-1 A KEY PLAN E NoFr#Iwd 40 SALEM 20 UNIT I C~ 1-I I 3* -L o J, E DELAWARE RIVER AC.-0 0--20--40)---60-80--100-"LE.ENQTYO. AUlJC FILL STRUCTIINAL FILL RIVERBED DEPOSITSKIRKWOOD CONFINING UNIT IKIRKWOOD BASAL SAND; VINCENTOWN FORMAATIONNORNERTOWN-NAVESINK ACUITARDLEAN CONCRETE WITH 120 CONSTRUCTION JOINTSTRUCTURAL CONCRETE WITHCONSTRUCTION JOINTSEISMIC GAP (STYROFOAM) BLOW DOWN PIPING-100 --- LIQUID 'RAO' WASTE UNE HE -SHEET PILE T ItElýL SERVICE WATER PIPING z CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING-o0 CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING --.'- -STORM SEWER PIPING 0 CATCH BASIN F 8 MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 60 MTL MEAN TIDE LEVEL-BUILDING WALL Z WýI. p" MNOmrTR WELL SCREENED IN THI SHALLOW O WRTER-BEARNG UNIT Bn TBt UNITS Or THECOFFERDAM. 20 TEET DEET- TYPIAL (WRELS u.-40 N. 0. R, AC. AER MlIAD U4)I(KWOOO CONFINING1 UNIT III i REACTOR PIT KUIRIEVD BASAL SAND II II WATER-BERKI LANE OUTIRDE THE RNITS OF TIC35 FEETDE- .T7CAL (WELLS S. I. U. NE V. Z. A., .DW. R. NC(SLANLW &DEEP. N(SHALL0W & DEEP). i ANID AL)VINCENTOWN FORMATION ý20 20-40 FOOTNOTE~ENGINEERING DETAILS OF THE COFFERDAM AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE. COFFERDAM WEREREVIEWED BY SARGENT. & LUNDY. LLC. (2004)TO VERIFY ACCURACY OF STATION CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.T ~ j WELL LIS WDONTIOR WELL SCREENED IN TE WVIENTW FORMATIOrN, RD FEET DEEP-TrPCN. (WELLS K. L P. 0 MND VH.BDI PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATIOND 1P-1 PHASE It SAMPLE LOCATION.. SEISMIC GAP PROPERTY BOUNDARY SDESIGNATIN 0 TEMORARYWELL DESIGNATION u.a EXISTING LAND SURFACEBOREHOLE/WELL CASING A-WATER-LEVIEL ELEVATION 20FEBRUARY DOUR (NAVO TORN)SCREENED INTERVAL A-ANALYTICAL TRITIUM RESULTS FROMSUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION (AUGUST 20ft3 -f-140-IC -, .. I...--------.. ....aTLLILLLLN. 4 <UJCOMWIflNNLAM.mnflhr t. UTANIN, -SE~TIO 0 N. LEGEND*A2 0 DPN PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATION PHASE II SAMPLE LOCATIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYBLOW DOWN PIPING UQUID "RAD" WASTE UNE SEISMIC GAP (STYROFOAM) SERVICE WATER PIPING CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPINGSTORM SEWER PIPING
CATCH BASIN MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SHEET PILE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANKPRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK REFUEUNG WATER STORAGE TANK AFST PWST RWST< N I L..1>k ~'4.HTLLL Ml MONITORING NELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW, WATER-BEARINGUNIT WITHIN THE UMITS OF FME COFFERDAM. 20 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS M. N. 0. R. AC.AE. Al AND AM). WELL SO MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW. WATER-BEARINGUNRIT OUTSIDE THE UMITS OF THECOFFERDAM. 35 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS S. T. U. W. Y, Z.AA AR. AD, AF. AG(SHALLOW &DEEP. AH(SHALLOW & DEEP). A.)AND AL).WELU LO MOMTORING WELL SCREENED INTHE VINGENTOWN FORMATION. RoFEET DEEP- TYPICAL (WELLS K, L, P. 0 AND V).13"rn i"PROPERTY BOUNDARY BLOW DOWN PIPING UOUIO "RAD' WASTE LINE SEISMIC GAP (STYROFOAM) SERVICE WATER PIPING CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPINGSTORM SEWER PIPING CATCH BASINMANHOLE (STORM SEWER) --_ SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROM AROVE THE WATER TABLE THROUGHTHE KIRKWOOD FORMATIONSHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTENDTO AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE.f]AFST AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANKPWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANKRWST REFUEUNG WATER STORAGE TANK ElI U/////4THE MEAN TIDAL LEVEL OF THE DELAWARE RIER AT ARTIFICIAL ISLAND IS 0.11 FT (NAVD 195a)l0_ A U\\\\LEGEND*O R MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW. WATER-BEARMNGUNIT WITHIN THE UMITS OF THE COFFERDAM, 20 F DEEPT -TYPICAL (WELLS M. N. 0, R).WEILL SO MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THE SHALLOW. WATER-SEARING UNIT OUTSIDE THE UMITS OF THE COFFERDAM, 35 FEET DEEP-TYIPICAL. (WELLS S. T. U. W).I+ GRAB GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION 5, DISCONTINUED SAMPLE LOCATION SS-i W SOIL BORING LOCATION PROPERTY BOUNDARY GROUNDWATER INVESTiGATION GRID L... GEST GAP (STYROFOAM)
..SLOW DOWN PIPING
....
UGIJO HPAD WASTE UNE SERVICE WATER PIPING E7 CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING-STORM SEWER PIPING o CATCH BASIN* MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)-SHEET PILE -EXTENOS FROM ABORE THE WATER TABLE THROUGH THE KIRKWOOO FORMATION SHEET PILE -DOES ROT EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION ADMO THE WATER TABLE.3i3*33 V, # j! ../....../$ .....~ ...... .......i a ~PSE6 wJIXLAR LLC DAIIW /TEG fU ~ D~O________ ARCADIS SIPLMETA WKSMA 11O LA (31DR OIIE SCLE "-Q PAq &k. ARWIM AM SAPL LE)N Zwccc 300. .i .oý PMA IBM01 PACDSMNWJRE000571.0003 12 MO. DATE W*M u iu TAN myjR-Io FIm- nDWD/sD-IW T712 1002 .U. w. 0. AC 00.22M ill000100707000 00710000100 'U.1 000*01 040 F 7070101 (01075 5 10 .6.7 0 .2372, 0. 0. 01 OC(00J.0104
- -M 10Ro 107 L.. 5010010(700000
~~~~~~~~M 0101R0 071 207100 <4KBU no= 050000112 o 007R Boo* E0000(000000510017 100 000 000000100 'A7 SWýE/ N Li Kr WE. fig THETTI TSCREENED IN_ESITR BEARINGUNIT WITHRT IMITurS OF THE COFFERDAM, 20 FEET DEEP-TYPIICAL (WELLS M. N. 0. R. AC, AE. Al AND AM).WU~L SQ MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THE SHALLOW. WATER-BEARING UNIT OUTSIDE THE UNITS OF THE COFFERDAM, 35 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS S. 1. U. W. Y. Z.AA, AB, AD, AE. AG(SHAULOW &DEEP. AI-(SIIALLDW Al DEEP). A.J AND AL).MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THE IIINCENTOWN FORMATION. RD FEET SEEP- TYPICAL (WELLS K. L.P. 0 AND V), J. 19 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL -NAVD 1988)GRO0(UNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR-1 .0 (.5 FOOT INTERVAL)IE GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 211 0 0~i-i'Took.... PROPERTY BOUNDA~RY BLOW DOWN PIPING LUQUID 'PAD" WASTE UNE SERVICE WATER PIPING CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING STORM SEWER PIPING CATCH BASIN MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROM ABOVE THE WATER TABLE THROUGHTHE KIRKWOOD FORMATION SHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTENDTO AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE..'i L AFST AUXILIARY STORAGE TANK PWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK RWST REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANKTHE MEAN TIDE LEVEL OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AT ARTIFICIAL ISLAND IS 0.11 FT (NAVO 'IP.50~*o0 riT~*9 N \ .LErGEND 0MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW. WATER-BEA'INGUNIT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THECOFFERDAM. 20 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS M. N.
- 0. R. AC.AE, AM AND AM).MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW. WATER-SEARINGUNIT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE COFFERDAM.
35 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS S, T. U. W. Y. Z,AA, AN. AU, HF. AGFSHALLOW &DEEP. AH(SHALLOW & DEEP). AJ AND AL).WELL L@ MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE VINCENTOWN FORMATION. NDFEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS K. L P. 0 AND V).L Hz~i-'jI 1/77-77 -I 1~ ~ ENANLIP\/I0T GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL -NAVD 1988)-1 .00 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR (1.0 FOOT INTERVAL) DASHEDWHERE INFERRED VT .1 14 /I.I-,.1'*1~ /l -GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION U'--- ----PROPERTY BOUNDARYBLOW DOWN PIPING UGUID 'RAD' WASTE LINE SERVICE WATER PIPINGCIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPINGCIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPINGSTORM SEWER PIPINGCATCH BASINMANHOLE (STORM SEWER) SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROMABOVE THE WATER TABLE THROUGHTHE KIRKWOOD FORMATIONSHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTENDTO AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE.AFST AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANKPMST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK RWST REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANKTHE MEAN TIDE LEVEL OF THE DELAWARERIVER AT ARTI FCIAL ISLAND I 0.11 FT(NAVO 1988) ~RS V'C2 i~-..... >IICT (J.- -~2 A'12.MON TORIýCRECNED INCOFFERDAM, 20 FEET DEEP TYPICAL (WELLS U. N. 0. R, AC.AE. A AND AM).MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHUE SHALLOW. RATER-REARING UNIT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THlE COFFERDAM. 35 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS S. T, U. W. Y. Z.AA. AB. AD. AP, AG(SIXRLLOW &DEEP. AII(SHAALLOW & DEEP). AM AND AL), WELL. Le MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THlE VINCENTOWN FORMATION. RI0FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS K. L.P. 0 AND V).-02Z6 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL -NAVO 1988).0 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR-1 .0 (0. 5 FOOT INTERVAL) DASHEDWHERE INFERRED ,4 .GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 4 GROUNDWATER SADDLE--- ----PROPERTY BOUNDARY BLOW DOWN PIPING UQUID "RAD' WASTE LINESERVICE WATER PIPING CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING STORM SEWER PIPING CATCH BASINMANHOLE (STORM SEWER)-SHEET PILE -EXTENDS FROM ABOVE THE WATER TABLE THROUGH THE KIRKWOOD FORMATION-SHEET PILE -DOES NOT EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE.AFS7 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PIWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANKRWST REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK THE MEAN TIDE LEVEL OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AT ARTIFICIAL ISLAND IS 0.11 FT (NAVD 1988)iR.N~ XIV / N~4~.K?2~MONITORING WELL SCREENED IN THE SHALLOW. WATER-SEARINGUNIT WITHIN THE UMITS OF THECOFFERDAM. 20 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS M, N.
- 0. R. AC.AE. AJ AND AM).MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE SHALLOW. WATER-BEARING UNIT OCJTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THECOFFERDAM. 35 FEET DEEP-TYPICAL (WELLS S. T. U. W. Y. Z.AA. AB, AD. A. AU(SHALLOW
&DEEP. AH(SHAILOW & DEEP). MJAND AL).WELL
- MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTHE VINCENTOWN FORMAITON.
0FEET DEEP- TYPICAL (WELLS K. L. P. 0 AND V).0 7 0 PU)'.76 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET ABOVE MEAN EA LEVEL -NAVD 1988)_1.00 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR(1.0 FOOT INTERVAL) DASHED WHERE INFERRED E- GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 4 U, PROPERTY BOUNDARYBLOW DOWN PIPING L00UID "RAD WASTE LINESERVICE WATER PIPINGCIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING STORM SEWER PIPINGCATCH BASIN
MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SERVICE WATER PIPINGCIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING AFST AUXIUAR'Y FEEDWATER STORAGE TANIPWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANW RWST REFUELUIN WATER STORAGE TANK EEL w EELTHE MEAN TIDE LEVEL OF THE DELAWARERIVER AT ARTIFICIAL. ISLAND IS 0.11 FT (NAVD 198)-201.00-2;00 90 80-7 0 70--60-5E*2 aL I UNIT I (4 -92)9 dt~ X~ X-___10 q',K~i 20 LIN q~2= L 2 N 2'(LO 84'(L,)10 4 0 U I2 I P 20~-50-70 Recharge(N) = 8/yr-80 Hydraulic Conductivity Groundwater GroundwatWr Estimate Velocty K~b 1=LIN V. =KI/O 2 1 1 10 -K~x0.008x15ft = 102 ftxf2 fttyr V .= 1.6(0.008)10.20 t" = 1=0 K,= =570ft/yr or 1.6 It/day " " -23.4 fyr t,=4.36yr... ... ..." ... ....10 0 K 2 = LIN + L2N = N(L+ LW V2= KelI1e t KIxO.004 x35ft = f lVyr (102ft + 84 ft) V= 2.4 (0.004) 10.20 t, =Ki=W%=866Wyr or 2.4ft/day t.=17,5ftyr t 1=4.80yr -110 Total Travel Time =4.361+4.80 = 9.2 yrs ICM.tA SMII MXUA. L 26/1-u-0 2. 100HCDSM ,W M P000571.0003 1 r Lu 0 Relationship Between Dispersivity and FIGURE ARCADIS Travel Distance 19 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Appendix A Investigations of Salem Unit 1 Fuel Pool Leakage -Final Report Summary 0 INVESTIGATIONS OF SALEM UNIT 1 FUEL POOL LEAKAGE FINAL REPORT
SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 23, 2004 PSEG NUCLEAR LLC RADIATION PROTECTION/CHEMISTRY SUPPORT P.O. BOX 236 HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 08038 ABSTRACT On September 18, 2002 radioactive contamination in the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Room in the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) water. Preliminary conclusions from sample results during the initial Phase I investigations prompted an extensive investigation to characterize the source of activity and leakage paths. This evaluation documents the pathway for leakage from the SFP to the liner surrounding the SFP; blockage in the telltale drains; seepage through constructionjoints in the liner into the Styrofoam Seismic Gap between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building. The seepage is confirmed by monitoring the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Room wall, the Spent Fuel Pool cooling line' at the interfacebetween the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building, the water stop (boot) at the penetration between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building, and two drill points in theStyrofoam. The testing results indicate that build-up of SFP water behind the liner has been ongoing for at least five years on the basis of cesium activity ratios, and that water from the sampling points is consistent with boron and tritium levels in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool.The telltale drains were snaked on January 29, 2003 and following days. Water then freely drained from the telltales, thereby reducing both the amount of water and the time that SFP water stayed in the leakage collection system (i.e. the space between the liner and the concrete enclosure). Water from the telltales (after snaking) drained at about 100 gpd and had characteristics that more closely resembled SFP water with less indication of interactions with the concrete enclosure. By February 7 th, "cleared" telltales had reduced the hydraulic pressure andeffectively stopped the seepage around the Auxillary and Fuel Handling Building. In February 2003, 45 gallons of water were pumped from Drill Pont No. 1, thereby significantly reducing the amount of water in the Styrofoam Seismic Gap. Further investigation during 2003 indicated thatthe composition of the water that migrated back into the gap was most likely a mixture of SFP water (3%) that had migrated beyond the gap and groundwater (97%). Again, boron and tritium confirm the link to the SFP, whereas cesium and cobalt activity are at very low or non-detectable levels because of interactions with concrete and soil surfaces. Water from the SFP continues to drain through the telltales at the rate of about 130 gpd (as of January 2 9 th 2004). Most of the water drips through Telltale No. 2 with tritium levels that reflect the changes in the SFP tritium (50% increase during 2003). Cesium activity ratios in the telltales do not change in response to introduction of SFP demineralizers, again reflecting the strong role that concrete surfaces play in controlling cesium levels. Background for InvestigationThe Spent Fuel Pool (hereafter referred to as SFP) liner drains (telltale drains) are a leakage detection system designed to collect water from the SFP that migrates through the stainless steel liner into the concrete enclosure surrounding the SFP. Work orders, interim reports and discussions with Salem personnel have indicated that the Unit 1 telltale drains have performed this function since early in the operation of the plant. At some unknown point in the past, chemical deposits (originally assumed to be boric acid- now shown to be a mix of boric acid and other crystals such as calcium carbonate) began to interfere with the drainage system. The space between the stainless steel liner and concrete enclosure of the SFP began to collect water with characteristics of the SFP. On September 18, 2002, Radiation Protection reported the detection of low-level radioactivity on several technicians' shoes. Investigations indicated a "calcium-like" substance adhering to the west wall in the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Room had measurable radionuclide contamination (Notification No. 20114071). These deposits were removed and an active flow of water into the room was then noted. Phase I investigations indicted that the leak had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water (see Table 1) and more samples were collected to characterize the source of activity and possible leakage paths. Another leak was subsequently discovered around the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool cooling line return on the 92-Foot Elevation (relative to a plant surface elevation of 100 :feet). This leak was separated into the return line at the interface between the Auxiliary Building and Fuel Handling Building and the water stop (boot)at the penetration between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building. The following sample points were routinely monitored for radioactivity and compared with activity in the SFP and the telltale drains:* A drip bag was constructed on the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Room wall to collect water. This is the "Drip Bag" sample.* A catch tray with a sample tube was placed under the Spent Fuel Pool cooling line at the interface between the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building on December 17, 2002. This sample was designated as the "Short" sample because of the length of the sample line.* A sample tube was inserted in the water stop (boot) located at the penetration between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building. This sample was designated as the"Long" sample because of the length of the sample line.* Two drill points (Drill Point No. 1 and Drill Point No.
- 2) were inserted into the Styrofoam between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building (often referred to as the Seismic Gap).* Water that accumulated between the Unit 1 Containment and the Auxiliary Building (1BD41).Because of low flow from the leakage collection system of about 6 gallons/day (as well as other factors), the telltale drains were snaked on January 29 and following days. Water then freely drained from the telltales, thereby reducing both the amount of water and the time that SFP water stayed in the leakage collection system.
Water from the telltales (after snaking) drained at about 100 gpd and had characteristics that more closely resembled SFP water with less indication of interactions with the concrete enclosure. Fiber optic examinations of the telltale drains on January 3 1 st showed blockage in No. 4 and 5 drains beneath the welds, creating a dam effect. The probe inserted beyond this point indicated chemical deposits (originally assumed to be boric acid Wcrystals) had formed. Flow from leakage of the SS liner was forced between the liner plate and concrete providing water to other channels. Rather than draining out, the blockage diverted thewater along the space between the SS liner and the concrete, eventually seeping out at the 78-Foot Elevation in the Mechanical Penetration Room. Water also seeped out of the gap where the Spent Fuel Pool cooling return line intersects the wall at the 92-Foot Elevation. Over time, thewater apparently migrated and reached the void space between the Auxiliary Building and Containment. Figure 4 shows these locations. By February 7, 2003, "cleared" telltales had reduced the hydraulic pressure in the leakagecollection system and samples from the Drip Bag, "Short," and "Long" sample points could not be obtained because the flow had stopped,(or nearly so). Minoramounts of water could be obtained from the sampling points at infrequent intervals in 2003. In February 2003, 45 gallons ofwater were pumped from Drill Point No. 1, thereby significantly reducing the amount of water in, the Styrofoam Seismic Gap. Some water migrated back into the gap and samples Were collectedwhen sufficient water was present or about every two months). All radionuclide characteristics from the sampling program waters supported the scenario described above.Summary of Evaluation MethodologyCharacteristics of SFP WaterRadioactive water from the SFP of a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) will containapproximately constant levels of boron, tritium, cesium, and cobalt activities (subject to radioactive decay). To detect and quantify leakage from the Spent Fuel Pool, the results are interpreted using the assumptions that the Spent Fuel Pool water typically contains a distinctive radionuclide fingerprint and that interaction with solid surfaces (e.g. concrete) can alter theactivity levels dramatically:
- Boron at approximately 2300 ppm and tritium at 0.2 [tCi/mL (increasing during 2003 to 0.3pCi/mL -see Figure 1, Tables I and 5). These two tracers are relatively inert and typically migrate with minimal reactivity to concrete or soil (termed "conservative" behavior in the literature).
- Cesium-134 (134 Cs has a 2.062 year half-life) and " 3'Cs (30.17 year half-life) activity in the SFP results from refueling operations and leaching from rods stored in the pool.
The activitylevels and ratio can change during the course of a fuel cycle. Demineralizers effectively remove cesium from the SFP and change the activity by more than a factor often (see Figure 1). Because of difference in half-lives but similar chemical behavior the ratio of cesium activity can provide some qualitative measure of the approximate timing of any release and migration of SFP water. However, cesium interacts strongly with both concrete and soil to retard the migration away from the SFP (i.e. most of the cesium remains sorbed on the concrete enclosure of the SEP. This strong interaction with soil and concrete surfaces also complicates the straightforward use of cesium activity ratios. Cobalt Activity: 5 8 Co (70.80 day half-life) and 6"Co (5.271 year half-life) will have a Acharacteristic activity ratio after refueling operations that will drop rapidly as the 58 Co decays. Cobalt also interacts strongly with soil and concrete with typically a lower mobility than cesium.The presence of short-lived radionuclides such as 131} (a nuclide that does not adsorb to solid surfaces) would be indicative of rapid transport of SFP water from pool to sample point. Only during an October 21,2002 fuel movement (Mode 6) were any shorter-lived radionuclides (i.e., 131I) detected.Although assumed to have a constant radionuclide inventory, activity levels in the SFP do change in response to the use of a mixed-bed resin demineralizer (to reduce radioactive cations and anions in the SFP water) and to operational events such as refueling .After an interval of time, the levels return to an approximately "steady state" condition (where production.andremoval rates are equivalent and levels remain constant). However, water analyzed many years after migration from the SFP (or other source) may be difficult to trace to a particular event because of non-unique activity ratios and chemical interactions with concrete and soil. Both cesium and cobalt activity levels (relative to tritium or boron) from SFP leakage will be differentthan activity in the Spent Fuel Pool because of these chemical and physical interactions (plus decay of short-lived cesium and cobalt). Activity ratios of a given element (i.e., cesium or cobalt)may provide an indication of the age of the leak and/or the extent of the interaction with solidsurfaces because of the very different half-lives of the two isotopes. As seen in Tables 1 and 2, the cesium and cobalt activity ratios are much lower for the sampling points vs. the SFP and strongly point to both age of the leak and chemical/physical interactions with the surrounding concrete and soil. Because demineralizers reduce all reactive cations (and anions) in the SFP water, any measurable cation concentration (such as sodium) could indicate introduction ofgroundwater and/or leaching of sodium from the concrete. Boron and tritium levels showed a"qualitative" inverse relationship with sodium (higher sodium in some samples- e.g. 1BD41- that have lower tritium) that may indicate mixing with groundwater, although the correlation is far from exact.Conclusions from Radionuclide Evaluation The results from the radionuclide investigations produce the following conclusions about the leakage collection system (telltale drains). This system was designed to collect and drain the water that migrated through the stainless steel liner of the SFP. All available reports and data indicated that the Unit 1 telltale drains had performed this function since early in the operation of the plant.At some unknown point in the past, the precipitation of chemical deposits (originally assumed to be boric acid; calcium carbonate has also been detected) began to interfere with the drainage system. The space between the stainless steel liner and concrete enclosure of the SFP began to collect SFP water. In October 2002, a number. of seepage points appeared in the Auxiliary Building and were collected for radionuclide analysis. They indicated that water from the leakage collection system had seeped/migrated to several sampling sites (see Figure 4 for locations andbackground investigation for description). Table I summarized the average results for samples collected for the Phase I1 investigation (prior to snaking of the telltales drains) (Figures 5 through 10 graph the time series of the data and discussion of the individual sampling points follows this section). The following major conclusions result from the Phase II samples in January 2003 (prior to snaking): The samples from the Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains, the 78-Foot Elevation Drip Bag, and the water in the Styrofoambetween the Fuel Handling Building and the Auxiliary Building had common isotopic characteristics. Boron and tritium levels are equivalent to SFP water (90 to 100% of SFP level). Sodium was between 2 and 15 ppm indicating minimal groundwater input and/or leaching of structural material. Cesium and cobalt absolute activities were more than a factor of five lower than the SFP (8 to 20% of SFP) and the activity ratios were indicative of extensive interaction with the concrete and structural materials. The samples from the canal telltale drains and the water stop (boot) located at thepenetration between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building ("Long" sample) had common characteristics. Boron and tritium were at 60% to 70% of SFP water; elevated sodium suggested that groundwater mixed with these two sources (although the potential pathway for groundwater ingress was unclear). The canal telltales and "Long" sample also had very low 6 0 Co activity, suggesting a strong interaction with structural materials or soil.Water in the space between the Unit 1 Containment and the Auxiliary Building (1BD41 sample) had characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water that left the pool more than five-years ago and was subject to extensive interaction with structural materials. Cesium-137 activity is nearly 70 times lower than SFP and cobalt activity is at or near ND (non-detectable) levels.Higher sodium with some chlorideindicated a groundwater component and/or interactionwith solid surfaces. Most likely, SFP water had migrated from the leakage collection system over time through a six-inch gap between buildings and mixed with groundwater (70% SFP-30% groundwater) (although the pathway is not clear).The whole question surrounding the seepage of groundwater into the various sampling points is problematic. The pathways are not defined but average water table elevations are about 5 feet bgs (95 feet plant datum) vs. sampling points between 78 and 92 feet (plant datum).Thus for most of the past twenty years there has been a hydrostatic head driving water through cracks and construction joints into the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building. In the absence of any radionuclide contamination, this small amount of water that seeps into the building would not be noticed (most or all would evaporate rather than pool). The presence of sodium in a sample does not automatically "fingerprint" groundwater as the source of the sodium. If sodium and chloride are not "balanced" and the levels of tritium and boron are near or at SFP values (e.g. Drip Bag samples), then most likely the sodium has been released from leaching of the concrete/structural materials. On the other hand if tritium and boron are at some % of SFP values (e.g. Canal Telltales and 78' Long -Table 1) and sodium is elevated, then the sodium may come from seepage of groundwater into the facility or mixing with periodic precipitation and structural concrete. A complete structural analysis of potential seepage paths is not required for analysis of the source of the SFP water.* Iodine-I131 in selected samples was related to Mode 6 operation (part of iRI 5 refueling) during October 2002. 131} leached from rods stored in the fuel racks during the refueling operations. This water, containing 131J, leaked and mixed with existing water (13 1 1-free) in the space between the SS liner and the concrete enclosure of the SFP. Cesium activity ratios for the sampling points reflect water that has interacted with the concrete as opposed to "zero-age" SFP water. The 1311 activity suggests a relatively rapid migration of small amounts of SFP water to the sampling points. Iodine- 131 activity has not been detected in samples after January 2003, supporting the link to the refueling operation and not some other leakage path.TABLE 1: AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND ACTIVITY LEVELS DURING STABLE PERIODS FOR PHASE II SAMPLE POINTS (January 2003)AVERAGE RESULT DURING STABLE PERIODS Constituent I SFP Pool Canal 78 "Short" Drip Bag 78 "Long" Drill Points 1 BD41 Telltales* Telltales* _ .Na, ppm 6.2 122 2.8 14.7 26.8 6.02 59.7 CI, ppm 0.0012 0.09 0.52 10.6 0.41 12.1 Iron, ppm 0.03 0.10 0.47 5.15 0.04 Boron, ppm 2316 2257 1465 2292 2605 1365 2119 1208 H-3 1.93E-01 1.78E-01 1.31E-01 1:91E-01 1.81 E-01 1.18E-01 1.88E-01 1.19E-01 H-3: Ratio to SFP 92% 68% 99% 94% 61% 97% 62%1311, Mode 6** 5.96E-04 4.25E-04 ND 4.24E-04 4.05E-04 3.12E-04 3.84E-04 1.28E-0413 4 cs 2.18E-03 5.34E-05 5.11E-05 3.01E-04 5.84E-05 8.62E-05 4.01E-05 6.22E-06137 0s 2.17E-03 1.67E-04 1.87E-04 4.52E-04 1.73E-04 2.02E-04 1.31 E-04 3.06E-05 137Cs 7.7% 8.6% 20.8% 8.0% 9.3% 6.0% 1.4%Ratio to SFP54 Mn 4.1OE-05 2.38E-06 ND 9.07E-06 1.39E-06 1.87E-06 1.22E-06 ND58 Co, Mode 6** 8.02E-03 2.46E-05 2.72E-05 9.OOE-04 ND 1.05E-04 8.43E-07 ND 6 0co 9.82E-04 5.88E-05 8.06E-06 2.12E-04 3.56E-07 2.86E-05 1.02E-06 9.99E-0812 5 Sb 1.07E-05 2.59E-05 2.12E-06 9.40E-06 ND 3.62E-06 1.82E-06 ND 134 Cs/137 Cs 1.02 0.33 0.22 0.67 0.34 0.42 0.31 0.20 58Co/0°Co 8.27 0.83 2.74 4.211 0.0 3.59 0.531 ND = Not detected in samples analyzed.Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)*Before snaking telltale drains.**Shorter-lived activities were decay-corrected to October 21, 2002 22:42 when Mode 6 (fuel movement) was established. "Snaking " of the Telltale Drains Because of low flow from the leakage collection system (as well as other factors), the telltale drains were snaked on January 29 and followingdays. Fiber optic inspection confirmed that thedrains had been generally cleared. Water then freely drained from the telltailes, thereby reducing both the amount of water and the time that SFP water stayed in the leakage collection system.Water from the telltales (after snaking) drained at about 100 gpd and this rate has continued to the present, as measured by the building sump pump (February, 2004). Most of the water (about 500 ml/min) drained through Telltale No.2. By February 7, 2003, "cleared" telltales had reduced the hydraulic pressure and samples from the Drip Bag, "Short," and "Long". sample points couldnot be obtained at regular intervals because the flow had stopped (or nearly so). The results obtained during 2003 (after snaking) are summarized in Table 2:* After the "snaking" operation, .the telltale (TT) samples.closely resembled the SFP water (see time series in Figures 1 and 2). In boron and tritium, the match is almost exact, reflecting the fact that neither constituent reacts with the concrete materials in the SFP. Cesium-137 activity was 75% of SFP. at No. 1 TT and 16% at No. 8 TT; the cesium activity ratios (0.89 -0.64) and the 60 Co activity (64% to 2%) also decrease in a similar fashion reflecting an increase in flow path and time for chemical interactions from No..1 TT to No. 8 TT..Water from the SFP continues to drain through the telltales at the rate of about 130 gpd (as of January 29 th 2004). Most of the water drips through No. 2 TT and has tritium levels that reflect the changes in the SFP during 2003 (from 0.2 [tCi/ml to 0.3 ktCi/ml): Cesium ratios in the telltales did not change dramatically in response to introduction of SFP demineralizers in October 2003, again reflecting the strong role that concrete surfaces play in controlling cesium levels. Figure 2 does show a consistent drop in Cesium- 137 activity, for Telltale No.2 during 2003 as the cesium on the surface of the concrete exchanges with low cesium in the demineralized SFP water to "buffer" the activity level.After "snaking of the telltales", sampling points outside the concrete 'enclosure had a lower overall yield as well as a lower contribution of water from the leakage collection system.Tritium dropped to 14% (of SFP) at BD41 to 31% at the Drip Bag (Table 2). The tritium level in the Styrofoam Seismic Gap dropped to 3% of SFP levels from about 70% prior to"snaking" the drains. The low tritium level at Drill Point No. 1 resulted from inflow of groundwater or precipitation into the Seismic Gap, driven by the change in hydrostatic headwhen water was pumped from the Seismic Gap. Cesium-activity levels were 2 to 8% of SFP (with the exception of a single Drip Bag sample that was not replicated). Cesium activity ratios were comparable to pre-snaking ratios and reflect long-term interaction with theconcrete enclosure of the SFP. Cobalt activity is at or near non-detectable (ND) and <1% of SFP because of strong adsorption to structural material.The interpretation and results from the individual sampling locations during 2002 and 2003 are presented in the sections that follow and are used to support the above conclusions. The time series is typically divided into "pre and post -snaking", pre and post refueling operation. Table 2. Activity in Selected Samples (Averages after Snaking) Ratios to Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool.Boron, Na, 3H 37CS, ý134CS/137CS 60Oo, 58CO/60Oo Sample Date/Time ppm ppm jgCi/mL gCi/mL Ratio ICi/mL Ratio 1 SFP 12-Jun-03 2395 -0 2.36E-01 3.08E-03 0.75 2.42E-03 0.36 10-Jul-03 2354 -0 2.67E-01 3.48E-03 0.71 2.46E-03 0.28 17-Jul-03 -0 3.65E-03 0.71 2.40E-03 0.29 24-Jul-03 2359 -0 3.73E-03 0.69. 2.60E-03 0.24 7-Aug-03 2349 -0 4.32E-03 0.67 2.86E-03 0.21 1SFP Average 2364 2.52E-01 3.65E-03 0.71 2.55E-03 0.28 Drill Pt 12-Jun-03 234** 38 7.71E-03 1.34E-04 0.28 2.40E-07 -No. 1 30-Jul-03 -6.77E-03 1.25E-04 0.26 2.14E-07 -Ratio to-SFP 0.10 0.029 0.035 0.38 0.000089 1 BD 41 24-Sep-03 -5.49E-05 0.20 ND 23-Oct-03 317* 178 3.45E-02 6.99E-05 0.19 ND Ratio to-SFP 0.13 0.14 0.019 0.27"Long" 1-Jul-03 332 60 5.19E&02 3-Jul-03 3.34E-04 0.36 1.72E-05 Ratio to-SFP 0.14 0.21 0.091 0.51 0.007 78 Drip Bag 1-Jul-03 2.45. 7.87E-02 3-Jul-03 5.86E-03 0.30 Ratio to-SFP 0.31 1.61 0.43 No. 1 TT 27-Aug-03 2393 1.50 2.90E-01 2.84E-03 0.65 1.42E-03. 0.19 24-Sep-03 2371 5.60
- 2.64E-03 0.63 1.65E-03 0.14 22-Oct-03 2364 0:94 2.61E-01 2.78E-03 0.60 1.79E-03 0.11 Ratio to-SFP 1.01 1.10 0.75 0.89 0.64 0.53 Boron, Na, 3 H, 137Cs, 134Cs/13 7 Cs 60 CO, 5 8CO/6 0CO Sample Date/Time ppm ppm. GCi/mL jiCimL Ratio gCi/mL Ratio No. 2 TT 27-Aug-03 2264 4.52 3.06E-01 1.64E-03 0.62 6.99E-04 0.18 24-Sep-03 2278 14.7
- 9.59E-04 0.64 3.35E-04 0.15 22-Oct-03 2310 2.70 3.26E-01 1.33E-03 0.61 6.54E-04 0.09 Ratio to-SFP 0.97 1.26 0.36 0.88 0.22 0.51 No. 3 TT 2-Jul-03 2140 1.00 *** 3.78E-04 0.61 8.72E-05 26-Sep-03 2282
- 5.62E-04 0.53 3.48E-05 23-Oct-03 2294 2.40 2.67E-01 1.01tE-03 0.53 3.89E-05 Ratio to-SFP 0.95 1.06 0.18 0.79 0.021 No. 5 TT 27-Aug-03 2296 4.01 2.93E-01 8.52E-04 0.56 6.55E-05 26-Sep-03 2260 24.5
- 5.95E-04 0.52 7.92E-05 23-Oct-03 2054** 6.40 2.25E-01 5.26E-04 0.48 8.78E-05 -Ratio to-SFP 0.93 -1.03 0.18 0.74 0.030 No. 8 TT 27-Aug-03 2279 5.56 2.89E-01 6.63E-04 0.509 1.OOE-04 26-Sep-03 2263 -2.97E-01 5.20E-04 0.46 1.51E-04 0.09 23-Oct-03 2159* 4.90 2.68EI01 5.19E-04 0.51 2.12E-04 0.10 Ratio to-SFP 0.94 1.13 0.16 0.68 0.061 0.34* Suspect Value**Re-analysis
- Insufficient sample FIGURE la. SAIEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOI./JLETALE NO. 1 BORON, CESIUIM AND IODINE ACTIVITY 2600 1.001E-02 2400 j~eltals~ydolye.1.00E-04 1600 1.0E-0 6-4-- SF1'Boron, ppm , Boron, IT No.1,ppm" .TrSnaked o...@ SFPCs-134,uC/mL -CS-134,Tr No. 1, uCi/mnL--.A-o.
SFPC~s-137,u~i/mL ---Cs-137, TiT No. 1, uGl/mL -4 SF1' 1-131, uCi/mL FIGUREIlb SALEMUNIT1 SPENT FUEL PIOO/TELLTALE NO. 1 BORON AND COBALT ACWITFY Denimt Res 2400 22 200 1800.1600)1.OOE-02 1.00]E-04'5 am4 1.OOE-05 FIGURE 1c SALEM UN1T1 SPENT FUEL PIOI/TELLTALE NO. 1 BORON, TRITIUMK AND SODIUM 2600 .V vs 1.00E+01 2400 Y LDmHEl1.00E+00 I80- -0~ Tdll As A ,R i;J 1600 1.00E-01--- SFP Boron, ppm -...- Bororw'IT No.1, ppm " -TSnaked U SFPIDenmin -O- -H-3, ITNo.u1, u/nL A SFPH-3,uCG/mL. --U-- -Na,1T No. 1, ppm----SFPBoron, ppm -0.- Boron, TrNo.1ppm is T Soaked a- SFP --U- SFP Co-58, uCi/mL --.-- Co-58, TT No. 1, uCi/mL--SFPCo.60, uQ/mL --- Co-0, Tr No.1, u,/mL FIGUREld SALEM UNIt1 TELLTALE NO. 1 METALS AND COBALTAAcnvITY 10000 ---- -` 1.OOE-02-Las-t Sufficien 1000 -elae Hdoye aml 12)1 Cw-- g m -b-: ?. -1.OOE-03 2 100 -s ~ 0 10OOF/ -HJ 1.00E-04.iNa, 1T rb. 1, ppm .Tr No. 1, ppm Tf No. 1, ppb--0--. 7n, TT No. 1, ppb T]Tr Snae -m Co-58, Tr No. 1, uGi/L- -Co0TrNo.-1,ui/mL 10 FIGURE2a. SALEM UN1T1 SPENT RJELPOOITELLTAIENQ 2 BORON, CESIUM,.AND IODINE ACVWITY 2400-2600Hoyd1.00E-03 S2200 -t40 u .0-3..I4 1.00E-04 nemiapwue (Telitale N.. 1 ...peMte), 8.8 Day Half-Life* .: = mif..... 1.00E-05 1800 [ .::, ::. :: ..;,:,:: * : :Flow #50 lmn* Floodupl .in TeRtale No.2 Sa-pIes.- ,i i 1 97 , 4/ - 1600 M .rv 15dei6;it:.i :i<Kr .. r 1.1 'ii ii I 1.OOE-06-----SFPBoror ppm .- BoronT No.2. ppm
- TelltalesSnaked 0 SFPCs-134, ui/nmL --- -Cs-134, TF No. Z uCi/mL -- -tz -SFP Cs-137, uG/ mL--Cs-137, Tr No.2, uCi/rnL -- SFP 1-131, uCi/mL HGURE 21x SAILEM UNIt 1 SPENT FIEL P0(1/TEILTALE NO. 2 BORON AND COBALT ACTnTVHY 2600 Dtmus Res 2400 2 S2200 200 1800 1600 1.UOE-02 1.00E-03.4 1.00E-05~1.00E-06 IIH95 iaQý f9i Egg 855 o--- F PBornppm -'-.Bor'nTrM.,ppm ITS'ed1Denul. .... ....
P Co-9ý,uG/trd5 C--58, Tr No. Z uGi/mL---o- SFP o-60, uC!/ni- -Co-60,Tr No.2,ui/mrL L SFIGURE2c: SALEMUNH'1 SPENTFUELIOOI/ TLLTA[LENO.2BORON,TRMIIUM AND SODIUM 2600 2400 2200 S2000 1800 1600 1.00E+02 1.00E+01 1.00E+00;2 1.OOE-01 El 1.00E-02-*- SrFBro ppm U SFP ermt*-ao Na,'T No. 2;ppin-o-- BorumT lNo. Z ppmn.- 0 H-3jfTNo.Zt11/mL. MTrSnak,-d A SFPH-3,uG/rnLm g? ý?Ell 811 j,2- 1 6ý Ge 19 1ý1-- Na, TT No. Z ppni 0 CaTTNo.2,ppm FeTrNo.Zppb
ZiiTTNo.Zppb El 'rTSrwWd -jD--Cb58,TTNo.2,uG/ni,---e- -Co-60,TTNo.ZuG/mL I 11 0 0 FIGURE 3A: SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL BORON, CESIUM, AND IODINE 2600 1.OOE-02 Demin.2400 lOEOC Bor AmL5-on,2200 m L.i r: Q ; :: : on,2200 1 "UA 88 Day Half-Life 10E0~pp ! : i .1.00E-0-1ict
-!i0 0i: Lo i: i: Deminii m 2000-- i 'iiiii=,;!? ii!i ivit Out Mode 6, 1.OOE-05 1800 8Floodu 1600 4" "" ' 1.OOE-06 9/1/ 9/11 9/21 10/110/1 10/2 10/3 11/1 11/2 11/3 121 12/2 12/3 1/9/ 1/19 1/29 2/8/ 2/18 02 (02 (02 (02 1/02 1/02 1/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 03 /03 (03 03 .103---- Boron, ppm 0 Cs-134, uCi/mL -A CS-137, uCi/mL--o-1-131, uCi/m]0 0 FIGURE 3B: SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL 2600 -BORON AND" COBALT 1.00E-02 2400 Ci!Bor 1.OOE-03CL on, 2200 m pp,%m 2000 ivit Demin.Q 1.00E-04y 1800 *Mode 6, Low-*Floodu 1600 1.OOE-05 9/1/ 9/11 9/21 10/1 10/1 10/2 10/3 11/1 11/2 11/3 12/1 12/2 12/3 1/9/ 1/19 1/29 2/8/ 2/18 02 /02 /02 (02 1/02 1/02 1/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 0/02 03 (03 (03 03 /03Boron, ppm j Co-58, uCi/mL -- Co-60, uCi/mL 12 Time Series of Individual Sampling Locations SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL -(Recent History)Salem performs weekly boron and gamma isotopic analyses and monthly impurity (e.g., chloride, fluoride, and sulfate)analyses of the Spent Fuel Pool water. The normal sample point is the Spent Fuel Pump discharge pressure tap and is representative of water re-circulated in the Spent Fuel Pool through the unit's heat exchanger (note. that water beneath the fuel racks could be relatively stagnant and only mix with the rest of the SFP by thermal convection). Figures 3A and 3B show historic boron levels in the Salem Spent Fuel Pools based on routine analyses. Salem Unit 1 prepared for a scheduled refueling outage in October 2002. Salem Chemistry personnel have noticed a faint "bathtub" ring of white crystals at the wall interface of the pool surface that suggests decreasing water level and deposition of trace levels of boric acid. Boron levels in the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool decreased prior to the refueling outage ; the result of a combination of.evaporation, leakage of SFP water through the SS liner and makeup with de-mineralized (boron-free) water. Mass balance calculations are not sufficiently sensitive to estimate leakage ratesbecause the evaporation term is a number of times greater than the leakage rate through the SS liner (which by October 2002 had slowed considerably (< I Ogpd) as the water level in the concrete enclosure reached the level of the SFP, thereby eliminating the hydrostatic driving force).Salem Unit 1 entered Mode 3 for IRI5 (refueling operation) on October 10, 2002. The cavity was flooded on October 15"' and Mode 6 was established on October 2 1 St. During refueling, the water in the canal is connected to the Spent Fuel Pool when the gate is open, but re-circulation between the Spent Fuel Pool and the canal is limited. The significance of flooding was that reactor coolant was mixed with refueling water and activity, levels in the Spent Fuel Pool increased. Iodine-131 and 58 Co activity reported after October 21 ' was decayed-corrected to October 21' when Mode 6 was established to enable comparisons of isotopes with different half-lives. Iodine- 131 was not detected in the bulk Spent Fuel Pool water after November 29 th (Figure 3A); sample size and the counting interval were not optimized to detect 311 prior to the recent investigation. The average decay-corrected level of 1311 was 5.96 x 1 0-4 [Ci/mL. Several samples (see Table 3) detected 131I activity after October 21, suggesting a relatively short pathway from the SFP to sampling points such as the Styrofoam Seismic Gap.The Spent Fuel Pool de-mineralizer wasplaced in service January 1, 2003. Activity levels decreased by approximately a factor of ten as the resin effectively reduced radioactive cesium and cobalt (Figures 3A and 3B). Antimony-125 could now be detected because spectral interferences were reduced. Cobalt and cesium activities had begun to increase because of low flow in the demineralizer and continued to increase after removal of the demineralizer on February 6 th 2 Prior to placing the demineralizer in service, the average 134 Cs/"37 Cs activity ratio was 1.02, whereas the average decay-corrected (to Mode. 6 on October 21, 2002). 5 Co/6°Co activity ratio was 8.27.After the demineralizer was placed in service, the cesium activity ratio decreased from 1.02 to 0.80 and the cobalt activity ratio decreased, from a decay-corrected value of approximately 8.27 to 13 2.9. This is explained by isotopic equilibration with accumulated cesium on the demineralizer rkesin and differences in removal efficiency for 58 Co relative to 6 0 Co with the purification media used inthe demineralizer vessel. On January 30, 2003 special sampling techniques were used to safely sample water underneath the fuel racks in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool and water at the bottom of the canal. For comparison a separate samplewas collected near the surface of the Spent Fuel Pool. These sample results are summarized in Table 3 and provide important conclusions: .Water in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool at the normal sampling point, near the pool surface, andbeneath the fuel racks was homogeneous with little temperature gradient.
- The special sample analysis results do not indicate that a difference exists in the water chemistry beneath the fuel racks and the circulating water; after the demineralizer was placed in service January 1, 2003, the pool water was homogeneous by January 30 th.* The special sampling did not establish that 131 I levels were higher in the bottom of the pool prior to placing the demineralizer in service. With an 8.04 day half-life, insufficient 13" activity remained by January 30 th to, provide confirmation.
- The demineralizers were taken out of service in late January 2003: Cesium and cobalt activity levels gradually increased throughout 2003 (Figure 1)' Tritium also showed a slight increase throughout 2003. Cesium and cobalt activity dropped again when the de-mineralizers were placed into service in late October 2003.In conclusion, activity in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool increased during refueling operations as expected and decreased when the demineralizer was placed in service on January 1, 2003. The expectation is that samples from leakage paths from the Spent Fuel Pool would eventually show decreasing activity levels and changing activity ratios, providing a means to estimate the migration time (however, the strong interaction of cesium and cobalt with concrete surfaces obscured any simple correlation).
Temperature, boron, tritium, cesium and cobalt activity indicate homogeneity. in the SFP. Activity levels from the bottom of the pool, where assemblies with defective rods are stored, were equivalent to surface SFP water. at 29 days after the demineralizer was placed in service. During 2003, nuclear operations continued in a normal mode and activity levels in the SFP stabilized over the course of the year (slight increase in activity from February to October).In October, the demineralizer was returned to service and cesium and cobalt activity levelsdropped dramatically in the SFP. Because of the strong interaction of cesium and cobalt with theconcrete surfaces, the telltale drain samples did not show a dramatic change because the large amount of cesium present on the surfaces of structural material "buffered" the cesium activity.SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS The Salem Unit I Spent Fuel Pool liner drains (e.g., telltale drains) are a leak detection/collection system designed to collect leakage beneath the stainless steel liner. Telltale drains No. 1 through 10 receive the leakage from the Spent Fuel Pool, whereas drains No. 11 through 17 receive the leakage from the refueling canal, which is deeper than the Spent Fuel Pool (Tables3 and 4). Three sets of samples were collected from the telltale drains (prior tothe"snaking" operation. The first set was taken December 11 -12, 2002 and the second set was 14 taken December 14,. 2002 by collecting water dripping from each drain. The average leakage was equivalent to approximately 5.8 gpd. Drains No. 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the Spent Fuel Pool and No. 14 of the'canal had the highest leakage; no leakage was noted for No. 7, 10, 11 ,and 12. Caps were placed on the drains and removed January 17, 2003 for the third set of samples.Tables 2-4 summarize boron, impurities, tritium, and gamma activity from the samples collected. Time series are graphed in Figures. 1 and 2. Boron and tritium levels in the telltale drain samples provided a direct correlation with the Spent Fuel Pool, whereas cesium and cobalt activities (and ratios) were expected to provide a possible indication of sample age and extent ofinteraction with structural material. Sodium levels may provide an indication of groundwater intrusion and/or leaching from structural materials. Chloride should balance sodium if groundwater is present. pH changes may indicate interactions of the boric acid with structural materials. On January 29, 2003 the telltale drains were individually snaked; the water collected, analyzed, and reported in Tables 2-4. Collectively, the telltale drain data indicate the following: Boron and tritium data from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains indicate that the pool water was the source (Figures 1 and 2), whereas the canal telltale drains indicate possible mixing with groundwater (10 to 20%). Sodium levels for the SFP drains were reasonably consistent at <lppm. In Telltale No. 14 and No. 16 (from the canal liner), sodium was 69.7 ppm and 329 ppm, respectively. Boron and tritium in the canal telltale drains were lower than typical levels in the pool drains, and sodium was also much higher, suggesting dilution by groundwater (although the sodium was not balanced by chloride ion) and/or release of sodium from the interactions with structural materials. Iodine-131 (8.04 day half-life), when detected, was present in selected samples from telltale samples from the Spent Fuel Pool but not present in the telltale samples from the canal area.When decay-corrected to Mode 6 (the time of fuel movement), the average.level was 71% of the average SFP. decay-corrected activity of "'I. This comparison strongly suggests that the Spent Fuel Pool was the source of the 1311 activity. The lack of detected "3'I activity in the telltale drain samples after December 14, 2002 also points to the refueling operation as the source of the activity which became too low to measure after two months of decay.Cobalt-5 8 was not, detected in all samples in which 1311 was detected, suggesting interactions of cobalt with structural materials (e.g., concrete) that does not adsorb iodine. The 131 1-to-137 Cs activity ratio corrected to Mode 6 for drains No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 was 5.2, compared to0.36 for the Spent Fuel Pool. Substantial uptake of cesium by structural materials hadoccurred, to reduce cesium activity by about 90%. Cesium and cobalt activity levels in the telltale drain samples were small fractions of levels in .the Spent Fuel Pool water analyzed, most likely as a result of interactions with structural materials. The 134 Cs-to-137 Cs activity ratio (0.19 -0.85) and 58 Co-to-6°Co activity ratio (0.20 -2.01) in the telltale drain samples were also lower than average ratios for the Spent Fuel Pool (1.02 and 8.27, respectively). The cesium and cobalt in telltale drain water had exchanged (to isotopic equilibration) with"old" cesium and cobalt (low 5 8 Co and 134 Cs activity), adsorbed to the structural concrete.Thus, even if the path is short (from SFP to telltale) the cesium and cobalt exchange rapidlywith the large amount of cesium and cobalt on the concrete and will reflect the activity ratio of the adsorbed fraction (i.e. "old") rather than the activity ratio of the SFP (i.e., "young").15 Because. 131I only weakly adsorbs to concrete and migrates at the rate of water flow, levels of 1311 activity are present soon after the refueling operation was completed. Antimony-125 was detected in only one telltale drain sample from the canal and in several of the pool telltale drain samples. Antimony-125 (2.77 year half-life) is a decay product of,25 Sn.(9.64 day half-life), an activation product of 124 Sn (5.79% in nature), which is in the zirconium alloy cladding., Leakage from water in the pool in contact with fuel rods would explain the 125 Sb in the samples.The average pH of pool drains No. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 sampled January 17'h was-7.10 compared to an expected pH for approximately 2,257 ppm boron of 4.56. The average pH of canaldrains No. 13 and 14 was 7.79 compared to an expected pH of approximately 4.80 for 1465 ppm boron. The neutral to basic pH indicates interactions with structural materials and/or mixing with groundwater. The calcium carbonate in concrete would neutralize the hydrogen ions in boric acid to increase the pH to neutral without changing the borate contentof the"water. Cation exchange of hydrogen ion for sodium and potassium -in the concrete would cause both an increase in the pH and in the sodium and potassium concentration. After snaking on January 29 th significant tan or brown debris,, characteristic of rust deposits, flushed from drains No. 2, No. 3, No. 6, and No.14. The debris was not magnetic. The water initially flowed from drain No. 2 at approximately I gpm after snaking, decreasing to about I liter per minute. Telltale No. 2 continued to drain at about 0.5 liters/min through 2003. The other drains had at least a factor often lower flow. The data in Table 3 suggest that the operation allowed accumulated water to drain, and resulted in an increase in both the 5 8 Co level and 58 Co-to-6 0 Co activity ratio [1.5 to approximately 3.2 (decay-corrected to Mode 6)] .Fiber optic inspections on January 31, 2003 indicated deposits (originally thought. to be boric acid) behind the telltale drains. The restriction of flow forced leaking water to the build up in the leakage collection system. The formation of deposits suggests that the leakage had occurred over many years, which helps to explain the age characteristics of cesium and cobalt activity in the telltale drain samples. The drip rate from telltale drains was approximately 5.8 gpd prior to snaking.After snaking, initially water freely flowed from the telltale drains, diminishing to steady drips;however, the rate was not accurately measured for an extended period. Snaking was repeated February 21, 2003 and the flow was measured at 22 litersper hour (139 gpd) from the sump pump. This rate continued throughout 2003.'Deposits on the wall area above the pitchdown trench, which receives the drips from thetelltale drains, hadan average 134 Cs-to-137 Cs- activity ratio of 0.13. Decay of an initial source with an activity ratio of 1.02 (SFP water) would require
6.5 years
to 'decrease to an activity ratio of 0.13; an upper limit age of the activity on the wall. The calculated "age" was about three years if one used an activity ratio typical of the telltale drains (0.3 to 0.4). Cobalt activity was not'detected in the white deposits, confirming the slow migration rate of cobalt in contact with concrete.In summary, water beneath the fuel racks is postulated to be leaking into the telltale drains beneath the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, and' water beneath the canal is postulated to be leaking intothe telltale drains beneath the canal area. Groundwater may be mixing with the water in the drains beneath the canal based on lower tritium and higher sodium levels (although the pathway is not 16 clear) and/or interactions with the structural concrete is occurring. Very limited mixing with groundwater in the drains beneath the Spent Fuel Pool has occurred.* Cesium activity ratios suggested a "history" equivalent to approximately five years based on an initial 134 Cs-to-'37 Cs activity of 1.02 (SFP) that decayed to 0.22 (telltales). Most of the reduction in activity has taken place through a process of isotopic exchange between cesium in the water and cesium on concrete surfaces. The chemical behavior of cesium strongly favored adsorption to solid surfaces. [Cesium-134 decays with a.2.062 year half-life and '37 Cs decays with a 30.17 year half-life.]
- Iodine-131 was detected in selected samples after a refueling operation (only) and demonstrates that a radioisotope that only weakly adsorbs .to solid surfaces can migrate..rapidly in this environment from source to sampling, point.* Snaking initially increased, the flow rate, allowing the accumulated water to be purged from the- leakage collection system. After snaking the cobalt activity level also increased in the No. 2 drain with an increase in the 58 Co-to-6 0 Co activity ratio, indicating a more recent history and a better comparison to cobalt activity in the Spent Fuel Pool.
- Figures 1 and 2 show the activity levels in the Telltale drains Nos.1 and 2 through 2003.Of particular importance was the fact that during the interval that the demineralizers were in service (January and October through December 2003) the cesium activity dropped by more than a factor often in the SFP; the telltale drainsdid not show a similar drop. This supports the hypothesis of a strong adsorbtion coefficient for cesium and that the cesium activity is buffered by interaction between the water in the leakage collection system andthe concrete surfaces.* Tritium in the SFP increased by about 50% during 2003 and Telltale No.2 displayed a similar trend to the SFP that confirmed the direct connection between the SFP and Telltale No. 2.78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Area Drip Bag Sampling of the 78-Foot Elevation Mechanical Penetration wall began on December 11,2002.Tables 2 and 3 summarize results and compare average levels in the Drip Bag to the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool and telltale drains. The boron, tritium, iodine (two samples), and cesium activity for the Drip Bag is equivalent to the average telltale activity.
Figures 5A through 5D show boron, activity levels, and sodium as a function of time. Boron and tritium gradually increased with time, whereas cesium activity was relatively constant; 58 Co activity was not detected and 6 0 Co levels were low and only detected, when the sample size and counting intervals were increased. By February 7, 2003, the snaking of the telltales had reduced the hydraulic pressure and the seepage stopped. Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 5A-D show the following: Boron and tritium suggest Spent Fuel Pool water migrated through the SFP leakagecollection system. Boron and tritium levels in samples collected in the drip bag increased over time as indicated in Figure 5A, possibly as a result of source water displacing groundwater. The boron was 2735 ppm in the most recent sample; levels that are higher than the Spent Fuel Pool; evaporation (and' possible dissolution of previously depositedboric acid) may explains the elevated boron level .The increase in boron and tritium corresponds to a decrease in sodium (Figure 5D), suggesting less dilution by groundwater 17 and/or less chemical interaction with structural material over time (chloride was less than 1 ppm, a level that would support the latter conclusion).
- The extremely low cesium and cobalt activity levels -compared to the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool levels (but similar to telltale drain samples) may be explained by interactions with structural materials; the cesium activity ratio also linked the Drip Bag samples to the telltale drain. Low sodium and chloride levels also indicate a low level of groundwaterdilution (chloride was less. than 1 ppm). Relatively constant cesium levels indicate equilibrium with construction materials/concrete.
- The relatively low 134 Cs-to-"37Cs activity ratio in the Drip Bag samples (0.34 average)indicates "old" cesium that has adsorbed to the walls of the leakage collection system and matches the cesium ratio in the telltale drain samples (0.33 average prior to snaking).
This conclusion is supported by non-detectable 58 Co (70.80 day half-life) and detectable 6 0 Co (5.27 year half-life) only in counting large samples.* Iodine-131 (8.04 day half-life) was detected in two samples after the drip bag was established. When decay-corrected to the time Mode 6 was established for 1R15, theactivity levels match levels in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool. This fact and the lack of detected 131. activity in later: samples point to the refueling operation as the source of 1311.Iodine does not adsorb strongly to surfaces, as cesium and cobalt do, and may explain why the iodine signal reflects "young" water while the cesium activity reflects "old" water..Iron was measured in selected samples and present at 0.09 to 0.48 ppm. The source of iron is uncertain and two, scenarios are most plausible. The concern is boric acid corrosion of rebar in the concrete. If iron rebar corrodes under reducing conditions (Fe metal would oxidize to Fe(II)aqueous; although the rate is certainly much, lower than under oxidizing conditions -i.e. when oxygen is present), soluble Fe(II) is formed. Groundwater also contains high levels of mobile Fe(II). Groundwater Fe(II) occurs when bacteria reduce FeO(OH) in soils to soluble Fe(II). The Fe acts as an electron acceptor bacterial oxidation of organic matter. Soluble Fe in groundwater can be as high as 5ppm in organic rich sediments of coastal marshes. In either scenario, when soluble Fe(II) is exposed to air(oxygen),- insoluble Fe(III) hydroxides form, leading to the familiar yellow to orange to red staining patterns from Fe(OH)3 , FeOOH, and Fe 2 0 3.An extensive structural review is underway by plant personnel to understand the source of the iron.* .The pH of the Drip Bag sample collected January 28, 2003 was 7.16 rather than an expected pH of 4.45 for 2735 ppm boron as boric acid. The concrete can neutralize thehydrogen ions via exchange of sodium and potassium in the concrete for hydrogen ion.In conclusion, the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Area Drip Bag samples match reasonably well with the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains. The water in the SFP leakage collection system has been modified from the original SFP activity ratios via interaction with structural material.Possible minor dilution with groundwater may occur for the Drip*Bag sample (although chloride was less than I ppm). The cesium activity ratio and levels match, but cobalt activity levels in the drip bag are lower as explained by additional uptake (interaction) with structural materials. Cesium and cobalt activity levels through January 28, 2003 did not decrease when the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool demineralizer was placed in service January 1st, suggesting that the cesium and 18 cobalt activity in the leakage collection system are controlled by surface interactions between the concrete and the water.19 FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF SAMPLES TO CHARACTERIZE SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LEAKAGE (Not to Scale)110' -100'90'80'.70'.60' _43' .Aux Building"Long" (Boot) and"Short" (Cooling Line Return) Samples 78-Foot Elevation Mech Penetration--- Drip Bag Samples F B uel Handling uilding Fuel Pool Cooling Lin(Ground Level (100')Groundwater (96')Telltale Drains on 84 Elevation at-approximately 86 Feet Weeping Wall 78'-A-78' Elevation Proposed Sample , ---<D epth (80')ýofferdamns '67'&79.')` Concrete-Styrofoam 20 FIGURE 5A. 78 DRIP BAG BORON AND TRITIUM 2800 Z0OE-01 2600 1.80E-01-~Telltale Drains 5 Snaked P. 2400 1.60E-01 2000- 1.20E-01 1800 1.00E-01-0-- Boron, ppm A No Flow ... 0 TrititunhiuCi/AL FIGURE 5B: 78 DRIP BAG BORON, 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1.00E-03 1.00E-04 1.00E-05 1.00E-06 .1.00E-07 21n m .Om0eEen m e RN Mc : 'R--- Boron, ppm A No Flow Cs-134, uCi/mL ---- 1-131, uCi/mL-. -A- --Cs-137, uCi/mL I 21 0 U FIGURE 5D: 78 DRIP BAG BORON AND SODIUM 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 Telltale Drains Snaked:.i:i'",,I i I I i,?: I I I I i'~ [:" II I I < {,<.j': i 40 35, 30 25 20 15;0 10 ci:1 5 0 S~0 F--- Boron, ppm A No Flow ... -Sodium, ppm]0 22 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 6A: 92 "SHORT" BORON AND TRITIUM 2600 2 4 0 0 -................ 220~~0 ....... ... A, 0,:; 0... A]:i 200 o b Telltale Drains Snaked,="2000.1 6 0 0 --:;;F* Boron, ppm, A No Flow ...,ED- Tritium, uCi/ mL 2.20E-01 -1.80E-01 -4 1.20E-01 1.0OE-01 FIGURE 6B: 92 "SHORT" BORON, CESIUM, AND IODINE ACTIVITY 2600 2400 2200 0 8 2000 1800 1600 Telltale Drains Snaked 5.5 Day Half-LifeI I I:, ,I, 1.00E-03 1.OOE-04 E 1.OOE-05 " 1.00E-06 0-Boron, ppm A No Flow- Cs-134, uCi/mL ---&- 1-131, uCi/mL Cs-137, uCi/mL 23 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 6C: 92 "SHORT" BORON 2600 AND-COBALT ACTIVITY 1.OOE-03 2400.Aý I 2200 TelltaleDU Snaked~2000 , 8 1800 1600 -, , 1.00E-04--* Boron, ppm A No Flow --- Co-58, uCi/mL --.- -Co-60, uCi/mL FIGURE 6D: 92 "SHORT" SODIUM AND TRITIUM 30 2.20E-01... .. .. .. .. .0:-- .......... a ; '< ' 1 '"~ ~ A -1.OOE-01 0.20 Tltl 1.80E-01~6 TeltaleDrains Snaked~15-16E0010 --- 1 --- --1.40E-01
- ,-E74 5 1.20t-01 0 1.IE0-0-Sodiumppm A No Flow .. O-- Tritiun-, uCi/mLI ppm, 24 February 24, 2003 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Line Return at the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building Interface
("Short" Sample)Water was dripping from the annular space around the Spent Fuel Pool cooling return line at the interface between the Auxiliary Building and Fuel Handling Building. A catch tray with a sample tube was installed on December 17, 2002 to divert and collect the water, which ranged'from 0 to 0.039 gpm (14.5 gpd average) between December 22, 2002 and January 7, 2003.Because of the length of the sample tube, the sample point was designated as the "Short" sample.Tables 2 and 3 summarize analysis results from this sample and Figures 6A through 6D show trends over time. The analysis results indicate the following:
- The "Short" sample was not water currently re-circulating in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool (i.e., a leak in the cooling return line is not indicated).
- Once the sample source was separated, the boron and tritium levels were relatively constant and indicate Spent Fuel Pool water modified by interaction with structural material (e.g.concrete).
Most likely this water originated in the leakage collection system of the SFP.* Sodium levels initially were erratic, but became stable and relatively low. Sodium levels were much higher than levels expected in the Spent Fuel Pool but comparable to water in~the leakage collection system.. This suggested that interactions with structural materials released sodium to water in the leakage collection system (also explains the increase in pH) and thiswater migrated to the "Short" sample. Chloride levels were less than 0.1 ppm and suggest minimal involvement of groundwater.
- Cesium and cobalt activity levels were relatively stable and intermediate between levels in the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool and the telltale drains. The 34 Cs-to-'37 Cs activity ratio averaged 0.67 (compared to 1.02 for the Spent Fuel Pool and 0.33 for the average telltale), and the decay-corrected 58 Co-to-6°Co activity averaged 4.21 compared to 8.27 for the Spent Fuel Pool.This suggests a more recent history and/or less interaction with structural concrete than the Drip Bag or telltale samples. The higher activity ratios suggest a shorter and quicker pathway for migration from the SFP to the "Short" sampler. Because both cesium and cobalt activity levels were lower than corresponding levels in the Spent Fuel Pool, both dilution and interaction with structural materials was indicated,* Iodine- 131 (8.04 day half-life) was detected in two samples. When decay-corrected to the time Mode 6 was established for iR15, the activity levels match levels in the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool .(and the telltale drains for the pool and 78-foot elevation Drip Bag) reasonablywell. This linked the iodine activity to the refueling operation and a postulated leak from areas in the Spent Fuel Pool that contained defective rods from 1R15.* Iron levels were low, indicating relatively little contact with corroding ferrous materials or iron in groundwater.
- The pH of the "Short" sample collected January 28, 2003 was 6.47 rather than an expected pH of 4.55 for 2290 ppm boron as boric acid. It is not as basic as the Drip Bag sample perhaps indicative of a shorter travel time or direct mixing of SFP water with water from the leakage collection system.After the telltale drains were snaked on January 29, 2003, the flow from the "Short" sample decreased.
When the caps were placed on the drainsthe flow resumed. Radiation Protection 25 February 24, 2003 personnel noted this correlation on three occasions. By February 7, 2003, flow was insufficient to obtain a sample. This behavior supported a hypothesis that water from leakage from the poolliner was restricted and being forced, into the region between the concrete and the liner, eventually issuing through the opening where the cooling line return pipe intersects the wall.In conclusion,,the "Short" sample indicated a morerecent history and less interaction with the structural material than other samples (such as the Drip Bag or telltale drains) as compared with water in the Unit I Spent Fuel Pool after 1R15. Interactions with structural materials and dilution with an "older" source (e.g. water from the leakage collection system) can explain cesium and cobalt activity levels being lower than corresponding levels in the Spent Fuel Pool. Cesium and cobalt activity levels in the "Short" sample were higher than corresponding levels in the telltale drain samples or the 78-Foot Elevation Drip Bag sample, suggesting less opportunity for interactions with structural materials. Cesium and cobalt activity levels in the "Short" sample were higher than corresponding levels in other samples, but below levels in the Spent Fuel Pool.After snaking, the telltale drains showed more common characteristics with the "Short" sample (before it dried up).Water Stop (Boot) Around the Fuel Handling Building Concrete Plug at 92-Foot Elevation ("Long" Sample)A rupture in the boot occurred on' December 14, 2002 and the flow eventually stabilized.. A long tube was inserted to divert the water, hence the designation of"Long" sample. The flow rate ranged from 0 to I gpm, averaging approximately 51.4 gpd between December 21, 2002 and January 7, 2003. The flow appeared to be affected by rainfall (as noted by Radiation Protectionpersonnel) because leakage from the roof between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel HandlingBuilding near the service water .pit, resulted in rainwater in the penetrations area in the 12 Service Water Valve Room; repairs were completed, January 10, 2003. Precipitation data showed a directcorrelation between the daily rainfall and increasing the "Long" sample flow rate, which was not indicated for the "Short" sample. Results for the "Long" sample are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 and plotted in Figures 7A through 7D. Boron, tritium, gamma activity, and sodium levels weremore variable than for other sample points, suggesting mixing with other sources (such as rainfall). Boron generally followed tritium, suggesting a common source. The following conclusions result from evaluating Table 3 data and Figures 7A through 7D:* After the "long" tube was inserted into the "boot" on December 14 1h boron, tritium, and sodium increased for about three weeks. This suggests that the initial samples contained higher levels of groundwater .In early January 2003, chloride concentrations increased and tritium and boron decreased, suggesting a quick response of this sampling point to changingenvironmental variables.
- Cesium activity levels were relatively stable (137 Cs <10% of SFP water) until January 6, 2003, after which time levels increased as tritium and boron decreased. The average
'34 Cs-to-'37 Cs activity ratio prior to January 6, 2003 was 0.36, similar to "old" cesium activity present in the leakage collection system....
- Cobalt activity was more variable and' was not detected in several samples. The average58 Co-to-6 0 Co activity ratio based on 58 Co activity (decay-corrected to Mode 6) was 3.59, suggesting that a small fraction of the water came from the previous refueling operation.
26 February 24, 2003* Iodine-131 was detected in four sample and related (in time) to the Mode 6 refueling operation, contributing "recent" radioisotopes to the SFP inventory.On the average, the "Long" sample showed similar characteristics to the water in the telltale drains. A mixture of groundwater and/or rainfall reduced activity of tritium to about 70 to 90%of the level in the leakage collection system. 131 I and 5"Co activity in some samples, linked in time to Mode 6 refueling, suggested that at least a small fraction of recent SFP or canal water couldmigrate (through the SS liner of the SFP- most likely) to the "Long" sample at 92-foot elevation. After January 24 th the sample point dried up because of limited groundwater ingress with lack of precipitation and eventually from the "snaking", of the telltales that drained the water from the leakage collection system of the SFP.27 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 7A. 92 ."LONG" BORON AND TRITIUM 2000 1800 c1600 1400 1200 1 fnn 2.OOE-01 1.80E-01 1.60E-01 1..4-0 1.20E-012 2 1 OOE-01 Boron, ppm A No Flow ...@ D -Tritium, uCi/mL FIGURE 7B: 92 "LONG" BORON, CESIUM, AND IODINE ACTIVITY 2000 1800 S1600 0.0 1400 1200 1000::i :i{i A A AA eLnaired by 3110O/03.1.OOE-03-1.OOE-04-1.OOE-05*1.OOE-06 Roi::io tb eliminating rainwater inleakae.::;:TT:-7,TZr777 i i i 9 e N e N. m "-Boron, ppm A No Flow .--A... Cs-137, uCi/mL I Cs-134, uCi/mL --- 1-131, uCi/mL I 28 February 24, 2003 STYROFOAM SEISMIC GAP- AUXILARY BUILDING AND THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING Two drill points were installed in the Styrofoam between the Salem Auxiliary Building andthe Fuel Handling Building on December 19 and 20, 2002. The drill points consisted of a 1-'/4-inch direct push sampler with a 2-foot mill-slotted well point. The samples were obtained using 1tubing and a pump. Drill Point No. 1 was installed vertically along the northeast exterior wall-of the Fuel Handling Building as shown in Figure 8. Drill Point No. 2 was installed on a 45-degree angle into the Styrofoam from the "Door to Nowhere" (100-Foot Elevation of Auxiliary Building, opening to the outside of the Fuel Handling Building on theright and Containment on the left) near the area for the 78 Drip Bag sample in the Auxiliary Building. Tables 2 and 3 summarize results through February 21, 2003. Figures 9A through 9D showed Drill Point No. I trends and Figures 1 A through 1 OD showed Drill Point No. 2 trends. The Table 3 data and plots showed the following:
- The initial samples indicated groundwater mixed with water containing activity levels similar to the leakage collection system. Once purged of the groundwater component, boron, tritium, and cesium activity levels were stable and identical to water from the SFP telltales (orthe 78-Foot Drip Bag sample). After stable conditions were attained, Drill Point No. 1 and Drill Point No. 2 were essentially equivalent.The average 134 Cs-to-137 Cs activity ratio of 0.31 and the average decay-corrected 5 8 Co-to-60 Co activity ratio of 0.90 suggested"old"'
activity that resulted from isotopic equilibration with the concrete enclosure of the SFP.Iodine-131 was detected in selected samples up to January 9, 2003. Decay-corrected 131I activity supports the link between 1311 and the Mode 6 refueling operation. Activity levels through January 28, 2003 were reasonably stable, with no effect from use of the demineralizer after January 1, 2003. The water in the Styrofoam Seismic Gap was not directly related to the water in the Spent Fuel Pool (based on cesium and cobalt activity) but rather-had flowed through the SS liner of the SFP and into the leakage collection system.Interaction with the walls of the concrete enclosure reduced the cesium and cobalt activity.Water in the seismic gap was a cause of concern because of its elevated tritium activity and its ability to migrate away from the Containment building and to contaminate groundwater. On February 6 through 13, 2003 , 45 gallons of water were extracted from the Styrofoam at Drill Point No. 1. As shown in Figures 9A and I OA, boron and tritium decreased and sodium increased as shown in Figures 9D and 1OD. Cesium activity remained constant and 6 0 Co decreased (58 Co had not been detected since January 16 th). Cesium adsorbs strongly onto surfaces and the cesium activity reflects an isotopic exchange between the water and structural material near the Seismic Gap. The snaking the telltale drains eliminated the source of SFP water to the Seismic Gap and removal of the water in the Seismic Gap allowed ambient groundwater to flow into the region. Boron and tritium levels dramatically dropped from SFP levels to less than 50%of SFP activity in one week.. The important conclusion was that the chemical and radionuclide characteristics for bothdrill points were identifiable to the Spent Fuel Pool telltale drains, and the combined effects of snaking telltale drains and pumping the water out of the Styrofoam was effective in dramatically reducing boron, tritium, and cobalt activity. Samples collected during the 29 February 24, 2003 summer of 2003 (Table 2) at Drill Point No. I had decreased levels of tritium (3% of SFP), consistent with.the stoppage of the leak to the Styrofoam Seismic Gap and the subsequent inflow of groundwater to the Styrofoam. Cesium and cobalt activity are also very low, near ND levels.30 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF DRILL POINTS DECEMBER 19 -20,2002 AUx Buil Salem 'Unit #1 Reactor Containment Area of Seepage Crack inýWall at 78 84 Foot Line leVation.F. ill Point No .450* * "[ A-~./Point N(r Drill 31 February 24, 2003 0 FIGURE 9A: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 1 AT 20 -21 FEET--BORON AND TRITIUM*2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 r%~.Snaked Approximately:45 gal-1.90E-01 1.70E-01 1.50E-01 1.30E-O1MU 1.10E-01 9.OOE-02 °, 7.00E-02 r. nnu-n,)pumped on 2/13/03.1100 7.OOE-02 QAA ~ nnr~v~J.aa.a..IUU--- Boron, ppm -.-.. Tritium, uCi/mL* 0 FIGURE 9B: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 1 AT 20 -21 FEET- BORON, CESIUM, AND IODINE ACTIVITY 2300 1.OOE-03 Ejeitale Drains Snaked 2100 1900 A A ~1.OOE-04 1900 --o1700 1.OOE-05~1500__* Approximately 45 gal 1300 pumped on 2/13/03. 1.OOE-06 <1100 900... .. 1.00E-07 F-- Boron, ppm --- Cs-134, uCi/mL --Cs-137, uCi/mL I--i-31, uCi/mLi 32 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 9C: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 1 AT 20 -21 FEET--BORON AND COBALT ACTIVITY 2300. ...... 1.00E-05 2100-1900Snk 1700-1.OOE-06 1500.1300 Approximately 45 gl 1100 pumped on 900 I I": I I , I I 1.00E-07 Boron, ppm --- -Co-58, uCi/rnL --M- Co-60, uCi/mL FIGURE 9D: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 1 AT 20 -21 FEET--BORON AND SODIUM 2100. 30 Telltale Drains 2 1900 2Snaked 25 c 1700 20~0 A~pproximnately 45 ga 0ý4 1500 15~Epumped on2/1/0.1300 10l 1100 5-0n El E 7u5 900~00--.-- Boron, ppm .. [- E-- Sodium, ppm 33 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 1OA: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 2 AT 27 FEET--BORON AND TRITIUM 2300 1.90E-0i 2100-1.70E-01 1900 ----Telltale Drains Snaked-0 S1500 p m yg1.15E-0i from Drill Point No. Ion 2/13/03 1300 9.00E-02 1100- 7.OOE-02 900 ii I 5.00E-02-.0_ Boron, ppm ..-o. Tritium, uCi/mLI FIGURE 1OC: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 2 AT 27 FEET--. BORON AND COBALT ACTIVITY 2300 1.00E-05 PqTellltale'Drains Sniaked 1 9 0 0 , : : , , PL 1700 U 1.OOE-06 1500.1300-Approximately 45 galI pumped 1100from Drill Point No. 1 on 2/13/03.900 .. ....~' i 1.00&-07---- Boron, ppm .... -,, Co-58, uCi/mL --M Co-60, uCi/mL 34 February 24, 2003 FIGURE 10D: PHASE II DRILL POINT NO. 2 20AT 27 FEET--BORON AND SODIUM 2300 .............- ... 35 Telltale Drains Snaked 2100 30 1900 ..... 25 1700 .: .Approximately 45 gal pumped ,20 21500 from Drill Point No. 1 on 2/13/03. 1 1500 ,. ...15 00 1300 10 ~1100 ...11-FI 5 900 1 .... .0-~-Boron, ppm -E .Sodium, ppm 35 February 24, 2003 W OTHER SAMPLE LOCATIONS Table 4 summarizes analysis results for miscellaneous samples withdrawn at various Salem Unit I and Unit 2 locations. Evaluation of these data indicate the following:
- The Unit 1 RWST after IR15 was not the source of contamination on the basis of tritium level (1.26 E-1 jiCi/mL versus 1.91 E-1 tCi/nL average in the "Short" sample) and average58 Co-to-6°Co activity ratio (1.51 versus 4.21 average in the "Short" sample, decay correctedto Mode 6).* Although the. 12 RHR floor drain indicated cesium and cobalt contamination, boron was not detected in deposits collected in the area.* The stalactites in the RAP tank area (this the RWST, AFST, and PWST) did not contain'boron; leakage from the RWST to this area was eliminated on this basis.* Three samples of seepage water between the Unit 1 Containment and Auxiliary Building (1BD41) suggest a link to the leakage collection system on the basis of boron (1208 ppm average) and tritium (1.19E-1 aCi/mL average).
Water from the leakage collection system could possibly migrate in the void between buildings and accumulate over time. The 134 Cs-to-'37 Cs activity ratio of 0.20 indicates "old" activity, consistent with the telltale samples. A low 60 Co level was detected, but interactions with structural materials will reduce cobalt inliquid samples. The 59.7-ppm sodium (average) and 12.1-ppm chloride level indicates some groundwater, and/or leaching from structural materials. The source of 1311, seen in many of the telltale, drill point and seepage samples most likely related to the refueling in October 2002.0 36 February 24, 2003 TABLE 6. SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 FUEL POOL INVESTIGATIONS--MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES Sample Concentration, ppm Activity at Sample Time, ltCi/mL Mode 6 4Ci/mL Cs-134/ Co-58/Sample Location Date/Time Na Cl Boron 11-3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60I Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 I RWST 12/17/02 8:10 2367 1.26E-01 3.89E-043.61E-043.29E-03 1.77E-04 5.72E-03 1.08 32.3Puddle Around U 1 RWST 9/27/02 9:00 2.94E-05 5:56E-056.08E-05 5.41E-05 2.99E-05 0.53 Rainwater Puddle Around UI/U2 RWSTs 9/27/02 9:00 2.90E-05 5.05E-05 1.04E-06 9.78E-07 0.57 Puddle Around U I RWST 12/15/02 8:30 0 7.81E-06 Rainwater Puddle Around UI RWST 12/21/02 17:50 0 4.45E-051 Puddle Around U I RWST 12/22/02 16:30 0 3.25 E-041 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcudes per milliliter (?Ci/mL)37 February 24, 2003 TABLE 6 (continued). SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 FUEL POOL INVESTIGATIONS--MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES Sample Concentration,. ppm Activity at Sample Time, ICi/mL Mode 6 iCi/mL Cs-134/ Co-58/Sample Location. Date/Time Na Cl Boron H1-3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 Water from Void Between Aux da1/'17/03 85o <3!723 1 '24E-051 7 4-03 /--I 719 0 2 Unit I Containment (2BD41)WUiter fr2 C iab d TnBfes AU ut RLi ,and /9/03id50 1 4705 12561 H-I 6.47E-0638 2E-0 1- -07 0,29 Unit I Contiri~nmit ID4I K ) P Water from Void Betwveen Aux Bldg and 1/17/03 8:35') <3.3 2. 1E-0 5 Unit 2 Containment (2BD4 1)Unit 2Cable Tunnels Under South RAP Tank 1/9/03 10:50 0 5.49E-08 1.92E-07 I 68E-07 0.29 U1 12 RHR-Wall Across from Ladder 1/2/03 10:00 0 UI 12 RHR-Floor Drain 1/2/03 10:02 0 1.42E-04 2.81E-03 UI 12 RHR-12SJ147 1/2/03 10:05 0 7T83E-05 8.18E-05 1.59E-04 1.94 Pipe Trench North RAP Tanks Overhead Stalactites 1/15/03 13:12 -0 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)38-Summary The Salem Unit I Spent Fuel Pool has experienced leakage through the SS liner into the leakage collection system that surrounded the SFP. Over time chemical deposits in the telltale drains restricted flow and caused a buildup of water in the concrete enclosure surrounding the SFP. This water has seeped through the enclosure and migrated to several unexpected locations: the area behind the 78-Foot Mechanical Penetration Room wall in the Auxiliary Building, the Spent Fuel Pool cooling line at the interface between the Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building, the water stop (boot) located at thepenetration between the Auxiliary Building and the Fuel Handling Building, and Styrofoam Seismic Gap between the Fuel Handling Building and the Auxiliary Building. The water .in question had many characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water (e.g., boron and tritium levels), but low cesium and cobalt activity levels and activity ratios suggested extensive interactions with structural materials (e.g.concrete). Iodine-13 1 in selected samples when decay corrected to Mode 6 during. IR15 refueling, were comparable to levels in the Spent Fuel Pool. This finding for 131I, which does not interact withconcrete, suggests relatively rapid migration of SFP water through the SS liner and ultimately seepingthrough construction joints and/or cracks in the concrete enclosure of the SFP. Iodine-131 activity was not detected at other times, suggesting that the refueling operations were the source. None of the samples points showed the effects of placing the Spent Fuel Pool demineralizer in service January 1, 2003 because cesium and cobalt activity levels and ratios are controlled by exchange with solid surfaces (e.g. concrete). Flow rates at seepage points dropped dramatically (or stopped) after the telltale drains were snaked and normal flow in the leakage collection system resumed (at about 100 gpd). Because of more rapid throughput of water to the telltales after snaking, the activity levels in the telltales more closely resembled SFP water (e.g. Telltale No.2 tritium level increased by about 50% through 2003 in response to a similar increase in the SFP). In October 2003, the use of demineralizers reduced SFP cesium and cobalt by more than a factor of ten; a similar decrease was not observed in the Telltale No. 2 because of the buffering effect of the cesium that strongly sorbed to the surfaces of the SFP concreteenclosure. Removal of the water in the Styrofoam Seismic Gap on February 13,2003 reduced activity levels of tritium to 3% of SFP levels in the Gap via groundwater inflow. Less than 5 gallons of water could be withdrawn from the gap on two occasions and the activity levels were at about 3% of SFP for tritium and <<1% for cobalt and cesium activity.39 f U CC 6'.-'~ 4 aNj~a4~'.Oa ~0 N 0.0 0 rJ4 U U (-I H H.-1 zo z 0 04 0 U'C*C -0 U U 0)(0 K~1'C 0 U IN U 0 N 0 00 ira'.0 ,0 (J~Ca~Ca 0 2' Lea 0 a-?'>N N 0 N (U 4'<4 0 aO-4 N en LQ L 00 eý n Ia'e 0q 0 0 N zv~-N ', 'en en '0 O 70'Lý n, c afoo N0 N `0 N 00 90 N 00~00 00 r4 en Nf -4 ýN 0~0 0 0 0)0~ai C:)caJ 0 (U 0 0)('a Z I, ->> 0~>S.< <4 L r7 F-.0'(000 00 0~.00 N'0'(0"4', 4444, tfa '~ "(C"'(0 00O'4~(0 000~cfl ~7E-LI~ 0 00 <~ 0 (CN.9 ~*~ >"<: (0~I February 24, 2003 TABLE 3 (continued). SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS PRIOR TO SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS)Concentration, ppm l Activity at Sampl Tine, pCi/il Mode 6 p CifmL Cs-134/ Co-58/Sample Location Fe Na Cl Boron H-3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 Ratio to No. 2 Telltales 1.05 1.03 0.99 3.86 2.84 3.59 0.82 4.61 1.37 1.31 Ratio to 78 Drip Bag >0.33 0.19 0.18 0.88 1.05 5.15 .2.62 595 1.05 .1.97 Ratio to 1 SFP 0.99 0.99 0.14 0.21 0.22 1.00 0.71 0.11 0.66 0.51 ANERAGE f& 04 26.8 .10.6 .1365i 8E-iL'84E-06 ,2 02E-04 4,69E-05 2.86E-i5 '362E06 3:2E-04 3:5, Ratio to "Short" 14.4 9.9 113.2 0.60 0.62 0.29 0.45 0.13 0.39 0.74 0.12 0.63 0.8E Ratio to Canal 0.22 0.93 0.90 1.69 1.08 3.54 1.71 3.85 1.93 1.31 Ratio to 1 SFP 0.59 0.61 0.04 0.093 0.029 0.38 0.52 0.013 0.41 0.42 Ave.W1No. 1 (21 ~5.15 6.02 0.41 2119 1.8§E-01i 1.86E-06 4.01 F-05~ -131 E-04 4.9-71.02E-06 1.82E-0& 3.S4E-.04 4A3E-07 ~0.3'1 c Ft), No. 2(27 Ft) K .. .I ,{Ratio to 78 Drip Bag 51.2 0.41 0.79 0.81 1.04 0.69 .076 2.87 0.95 0.91 Ratio to "Short" 156 2.13 4.36 0.92 0.98 0.13 0.29 0.0048 0.19 0.91 0.00094 0.46 0.1ýRatio to "Long" 10.9 0.22 0.039 1.55 * .1.60 0.47 0.65 0.036 0.50 1.23 0.008 0.74 0.1E Ratio to Pool Telltales 0.97 0.94 1.06 0.75 0.78 0.017 0.07 0.90 0.034 0.93 0.64 Ratio to 1 SFP 0.91 0.97 0.018 0.06 0.001 0.64 0.000105 0.30 0.064 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)41 February 24, 2003 TABLE 3 (continued). SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS PRIOR TO SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS)Sample A Co)'3tncentraton ,ppm. .Actvtt atSampleTirme,pCi/nile lde Cs-134/ Co-58/Sample Location Date/Time Fe Na CI Boron 14-3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 rench Below Drains 9/30/02 10:35 2.34E-04 7.23E-04 1.00E-03 2.51E-04 0.32 Telltale No. 1 (Pool) 12/11/02 16:30 2232 7.01E-05 1.72E-04 2.14E-05 S.90E-05 -3.52E-05 0.41 0.60 Telltale No. 1 (Pool) 12/14/02 6:00 1.86E-01 1.08E-04 2.07E-04 2.11E-05 4.65E-05 3.56E-05 0.52 0.77 Telltale No. I (Pool) 1/17/03 13:05 -4.76 2355 1.95E-01 6.01E-05 1.40E-04 2.63E-05 5.66E-05 9.32E-06 6.21E-05 0.43 1.10 Telltale No. 2 (Pool) 12/11/02 16:45 2229 2.27E-04 2.68E-04 1.92E-05 1.57E-05 3.16E-05 0.85 2.01 Telltale No. 2 (Pool) 12/14/02 6:00 1.85E-01 5.71E-05 1.24E-04 9.71E-06 1.56E-05 1.83E-05 1.64E-05 0.46 1.05 Telltale No. 2 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:07 -4.74 .2301 3.69E-05 9.59E-05 1.33E-05.2.23E-05 1.78E-05 3.13E-05 0.38 1.40 Telltale No. 3 (Pool) 12/12/02 17:30 2263 4.83E-06 1.27E-05 4.82E-05 .2.81E-05 4.20E-04 0.26 Telltale No. 3 (Pool) 12/14/02 11:45 1.64E-01 2.35E-06 1.17E-05 5.12E-05 :2.42E-05 2.37E-04 0.23 Telltale No. 3 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:09 3.44 2259 1.94E-01 1.02E-05 4.32E-05 3.22E-05 0.24 elltale No. 4 (Pool) 12/11/02 16:45 2230 7.43E-06 2.93E-05 8.52E-05 4.32E-06 2.41E-05 2.33E-05 5.91E-04 7.10E-06 0.34 0.29 Telltale No. 4 (Pool) 12/14/02 6:00 1.65EM01 3.20E-06 5.04E-05 1.12E-04 5.79E-06 1.93E-05 2.54E-05 3.17E-04 9.76E-06 0.45 0.51 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)42 February 24, 2003 TABLE 3 (continued). SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS PRIOR TO SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS)Sample [ _ cniit__ati_ I yc t-iv at Sample Tim p i 4> e 6 -Cs-134/ Co-58/SampleLocation Date/Time [Fe Na I I ] Boron I- 3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-1371 Co-60 Telltale No. 4 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:12 4.56 2301 1.85E-01 2.93E-05 8.09E-05 5.OOE-06 3;19E-05 1.50E-05 1.18E-05 0.36 0.37 Telltale No. 5 (Pool) 12/12/02 17:30 2357 2.93E-06 2.25E-05 7.38E-05 3.78E-05 2.54E-04 0.30 Telltale No.5 (Pool) 12/14/02 11:45 1.34E-01 2.92E-06 2.40E-05 8.25E-05 4.15E-05 2.95E-04 0.29 Telltale No. 5 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:15 3.34 2232 1.90E-01 2.09E-05 6.43E-05 4.59E-05 0.33 Telltale No. 6 (Pool) 12/11/02 16:45 2221 8.80E-06 2.86E-05 1.07E-04 2.54E-05 1.48E-05 7.OOE-04 0.27 Telltale No. 6 (Pool) 12/14/02 6:00 1.35E-01 4.98E-05 1.39E-04 3.29E-06 2.80E-05 1.50E-05 5.54E-06 0.36 0.20 Telltale No. 6 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:19 7.84 2402 1.91 E-01 2.62E-05 1.05E-04 1.76E-04 4.73E-05 0.25 Telltale No. 8 (Pool) 12/12/02 1730 2290 5.27E-06 8.05E-05 3.88E-04 2.87E-05 4.58E-04 0.21 Telltale No. 8 (Pool) 12/14/02 11:45 1.71E-01 5.48E-06 3.38E-04 2.61 E-05 5.54E-04 0.21 Telltale No. 8 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:21 12.1 2304 7.07E-05 3.48E-04 4. 52E-04 1.05E-04 0.20 Telltale No. 9 (Pool) 12/12/02 17:30 2271 6.95E-05 3.31E-04 3.22E-05 0.21 Telltale No. 9 (Pool) 12/14/02 11:45 i.72E-01 4.24E-06 6.49E-05 3.49E-04 3.14E-05 4.29E-04 0.19 Telltale No. 9 (Pool) 1/17/03 13:23 9.16 1861 5.12E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-04 6.62E-06 0.20 AVERAGE POOL DRAMS: ,' ;. :6.24 2257 1.74E-01 14.74E-06 5.34E-05 1.67E-04 1.29E-051 .88E-05 2.59E05 2.46E-6;5 o033 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)43 February 24, 2003 TABLE 3 (continued). SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS PRIOR TO SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS)Sample Concentratlion, ppm, Acthivty at Sample Time, [iCi/mL Mode 26,ICi/mL Cs-134/ Co-58/Sample Location Date/Time Fe Na Cl *Boron H-3 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-58 Co-60 Sb-125 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 Telltale No. II (Canal) 1/17/03 13:26 3.03E-06 1.76E-05 1.66E-06 3.48E-06 3.91E-06 0.17. 1.12 Telltale No. 13 (Canal) 12/12/02 17:30 2085 8.54E-05 4.10E-04 0.21 Telltale No. 13 (Canal) 12/14/02 11:45 1.49E-01 8.63E-05 3.68E-04 0.23 Telltale No. 13 (Canal) 1/17/03 13:28 48.4 1.92E-01 5.77E-05 2.66E-04 9.90E-07 2.12E-06 0.22 Telltale No. 14 (Canal) 12/11/02 16:50 1703 5.18E-05 2.12E-04 1.IIE-05 1.82E-05 0.24 Telltale No. 14 (Canal) 12/14/02 6:00 1.12E-01 7.11E-05 2.12E-04 9.92E-06 4.05E-06 1.67E-05 0.34 4.13 Telltale No. 14 (Canal) 1/17/03 13:30 09.7 1665 1.59E-01 5.02E-05 1.82E-04 2.97E-05 2.37E-05' 7.01 E-05 *0.28 2.95 Telltale No. 15 (Canal) 1/17/03 13:30 40.7 7.34E-06 0.00 Telltale No. 16 (Canal) 1/17/03 13:34 329 408 4.40E-02 3.31E-06 1.29E-05 0.26 Ratio Pool Drains:l SFP 0.97 0.92 0.025 .0.077 0.060 2.74 0.71 0.0031 0.33 0.10 Ratio Canal Drains:l SFP " 0.63 0.68 0.023 0.086 0.008 0.22 0.00 0.0034 0.21 0.33 Note: Bolded values were used in averages. Mode 6 for 1R15 was established 10/21/02 22:42.Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)44 TABLE 3B: SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS AFTER SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS)Sample Concentration, ppm Br Activity at Sample Time, ýtCi/mL Mode 6 pCi/mL I Cs-134/ Co-58/F saple Location Date/Time Fe Na I C Boron [ 11-3 1 1-131 Cs-134 1 Cs-137 I Co-58 Co-60 I Sb-125 1 1-131 Co-58 Cs-137 Co-60 Telltale No. 1 Ave Before Snaking 4.76 2294 1.91E-01 7.95E-05 1.73E-04 2.30E-05 5.40E-05 9.32E-06 4.43E-05 0.45 0.82 After Snaking 1/29/03 10:30 3.04 2242 7.65E-05 1.70E-04 2.91E-05 6.90E-05 2.63E-05 7.71E-05 0.45 1.12 Telltale No. 2 Ave Before Snaking 4.74 2265 1.89E-01 1.07E-04 1.63E-04 1.41EE-05 1.79E-05 1.80E-05 2.64E-05 0.56 1.49 After Snaking 1/29/03 10:25 2.84 2229 1.97E-01 7 04E-05 1.50E-04 1E0 F 5 1.26E-05 1.46E-04 0.47 )/3]011/29/03 10:50 2.84 2230 1.76E-01 7.23E-05 1.49E-04 1.27E-05 2.450-04 0.48. 3 1/29/03 14:00 2.42 2237 2.01E-01 ' 7.60E-05 1.24E-05 1.95E-04 0.51 3,27 2/3/03 14:30 3.10 2241 2.OOE-01 9.33E-05 1.87E-04 403EI;. 8.27E-06 1.12E-04 0.50 Telltale No 3 Ave Before Snaking 3.44 2261 1.79E-01 3.59E-06 1.15E-05 4.75E-05 2.82E-05 3.29E-04 0.24 After Snaking 1/29/03 9:45 5.42 2217 3.36E-05 9,70E-05 8.44E-06 6.12E-05 1.46E-05 2.23E-05 0.35 0.36 Telltale No 5 Ave Before Snaking 3.3 2295 1.62E-01 2.92E-06 2.25E-05 7.35E-05 4.17E-05 2.75E-04 0.31 After Snaking 1/29/03 10:15 8.081 2349 4.26E-05 1.48E-04 1.00E-04 0.29 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)06 TABLE 3B (continued): SUMMMARY OF SPECIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL LINER DRAINS AFTER SNAKING (TELLTALE DRAINS), Sample Concentration, ppm Activity at Sample Time, pCi/mL Mode 6 piCi/mLJ Cs-134/1 Co-58/Sample Location Date/Time Fe Na J Cl [ Boron I H-3 1-131 [ Cs-134 ] Cs-137 1 Co-58 Co-60 JSb-125 1-131 ] Co.58 Cs-,371 Co-60 Telltale No 6 Ave Before Snaking 7.84 2312 1.63E-01 3.48E-05 1.17E-04 3.29E-06 7.65E-05 2.57E-05 7.OOE-04 5.54E-06 0.29 0.20 After Snaking 1/29/03 12:00 5.40 2206 3.98E-05 272E-04 8,48E-07 7.43E-05 7.23E-06 2.25E-06 0.15 0.03 Telltale No 8Ave Before Snaking 12.1 2297 1.71E-01 5.37E-06 7.37E-05 3.58E-04 1.69E-04 5.89E-05 5.06E-04 0.21 AfterSnaking 1/29/03 10:25 12.4 2123 6.28E-05 2.91E-04 3.25E-05 774E-06 0.221 Telltale No 9 Ave Before Snaking 9.16 2066 1.92E-01 4.24E-06 6.19E-05 3.11E-04 5.86E-05 6.62E-06 4.29E-04 0.20 AfterSnaking 1/29/03 10:35 2145 5.53E-05 3.23E-04 1.01E-041. 0.17 Telltale No 13Ave Before Snaking 48.4 2085 1.71E-0I 7.65E-05 3.48E-04 9.90E-O7 2.12E-06 .0.22 After Snaking .1/29/03 13:35 1806 1.93E-01 5.19E-05 2.44E-04 2 22E-06 4.30E-06 0l21 Telltale No 14 Ave Before Snaking 69.7 1684 1.35E-01 5.77E-05 2.02E-04 1.69E-05 1.39E-05 3.50E-05 0.29 3.54 After Snaking 1/29/03 9:08 .66.0 1637 .1.79E-01 3.78E-05 1.74E-04 2.18E-05 9.02E-05 2.52E-05 5.76E-05 0.22 0.64 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)46 TABLE 4: UNIT 1 TELLTALE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
(August 2003 to January 2004)Telltale No.LR, mL/min Na, ppm K, Ca, ppm ppm Mg, ppm Zn, Cr, ppb pp)b Ni, ppb Fe, Boron, ppb ppm Activity:
jlCi/mL 1 3 7 cS 6 0 co Date/Time pH 1, Cs 7CS I HCo""Co No. 1 8/27/03 8:30 6.18 1.50 15.4 32.3 0.689 288 <8.06 98.9 <7.15 2393 2.90E-01 1.86E-03 2.84E-03 2.68E-04 1.42E-03 0.65 0.19 9/24/03 9:19 5.60 4.06 28.2 0.574 312 <8.06 113 84.7 2371 1.67E-03 2.64E-03 2.24E-04 1.65E-03 0.63 0.14 10/22/03 2:20 6.19 0.94 1.55 220 0.548 316 12.2 139 395 2364 2.61E-01 1.67E-03 2.78E-03 1.88E-04 1.79E-03 0.60 0.11 11/20/03 10:30 6.06 0.65 .1.34 205 0.510. 414 106 36.7 657 2367 3.27E-01 7.51E-04 1.26E-03 3.67E-05 3.70E-04 0.59 0.10 12/22/03 9:00 No sample 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No. 2 8/27/03 8:30 6.84 4.52 9.35 62.1 1.70 -266 9.66 45,5 21.5 2264 3.06E-01 1.02E-03 1.64E-03 1.23E-04 6.99E-04 0.62 0.18 9/24/03 9:19 14.7 8.38 48.8 1.81 536 <8.06. 26.0 94.3 2278 6.17E-04 9.59E-04 5.12E-05 3.35E-04 0.64 0.15 10/22/03 2:20 6.74 2.70 8.25 53.6 1.50 71.0 11.8 53.7 2155 2310 3.26E-01 8.19E-04 1.33E-03 5.60E-05 6.54E-04 0.61 0.09 11/20/03 10:30 6.19 0.79 7.34 21.3 0.60 626 13.5 33.7 2668 2347 3.20E-01 6.72E-04 1.12E-03 ND 4.OOE-04 0.60 12/17/039:00 6.77 2.08 2274 3.21 E-01 3.46E-04 6.16E-04 ND 1.62E-04 0.561/6/04 12:20 6.67 1.60 2268. 4.36 E-01 ND ND ND ND ND -1/6/04 13:00 500 1/14/04 8:00 500 6.66 1.70 2319 2.45E-04 4.60E-04 5.50E-06 1.29E-04 0.53 0.04 No. 3 8/27/03 8:45 No sample 9/26/03 10:40 59.6 57.2 1.95 6196 <8.06 10.8 <7.15 2282 3.00E-04 5.62E-04 ND 3.48E-05 0.5310/23/03 0:50, 6.94 2.40 102 55.0 1.82 11,900 10.1 <10.0 53.5 2294 2.67E-01 5.33E-04 1.01E-03 ND 3.89E-05 0.53 11/20/03 10:30 6.78 3.39 18.3 70.5 2.08 534 11.4 <10.0 1132 2463 2.93E-01I 5.37E-04 8.86E-04 ND 8.68E-05 0.61 12/17/03 9:00 7.14 5.33 2210 2.38E-04 4.67E-04 ND 8.93E-05 0.51 -1/14/04 8:05 0.14 No. 4 8/13/03 13:00 Insufficient sample 9/26/03 10:40 250 61.9 2.30 113 <8.06 <10.0. 90.3 2279 4.05E-04 6.69E-04 ND 6.17E-05 0.61 10/23/03 0:50 7.05 4.30 15.0 83.8 2.91 954 9.91 <10.0 271 2378 2.80E-01 6.09E-04 1.03E-03 ND 9.27E-05 0.59 11/20/03 10:30 7.16 6.20 21.0 115 4.00 861 11.3 <10.0 13.5 2254 13.12E-01 2.5713-04 5.32E-04 ND 4.41E-05 0.48 -12/17/03 9:00 7.33 5.73 1 2224 3.21E-01 2.15E-04 4.62E-04 ND 5.85E-05 0.46 -1/14/04 8:10. 0.23 Units for concentrations of radionuclides are presented in microcuries per milliliter (?Ci/mL)0 2 February 24, 2003 TABLE 4: UNIT 1 TELLTALE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
, Continued Telltale LR, Na, .K, .Ca, Mg, Zn, Cr, Ni, .Fe, Boron, Activity: .Ci/mL " 4 Cs/ 58 Co/No. Date/Time mL/min pH1 ppm ppm ppm ppm ppb ppb ppb ppb ppm H 1. Cs 137 CS 5 8Co Co 17Ca 60 Co No. 5 8/27/03 8:30 6.90 4.01 11.7 67.5 2.36 52.8 8.71 <10.0 26.7 2296 2.93E-01 4 74E-04 8.52E-04 ND 6.55E-05 0.56 -9/26/0310:40. 24.5 15ý7 108 3.35 573 <8.06 <10.0 <7.15 2260 3,07E-04 5.95E-04 ND 7.92E-05 0.52 10/23/03 0:50 7.16 6.40 17.4 119 4.02 1253 10.1 <10.0 24.6 2054 2.25E-01 2,52E-04. 5.26E-04 ND 8.78E-05 .0.48 11/20/03 10:30 7.17 6.00 13.3 119 3.92 1514 9.62 12.2 16.4 2246 3.16E-01 2,18E-04 4.88E-04 ND 6.44E-05 0.45 -12/17/039:00 7.64 6.70 ....2203 3.18E-01 1/14/04 8:15 0.18 No. 6 8/27/03 8:30'. 7.16 7.03 153 99.0 3.72 <11.3 <8.06 16.7 19.3 2231 2.87E-01 2.83E-04 6.17E-04 2.14E-05 1.15E-04 0.46 0.19 9/26/03 10:40 30.8 223 220 3.82 31.6 <8.06 -<10.0 <7.15 2236 .2.05E-04 5.23E-04 .ND 6.02E-05 0.39 -10/23/03 0:50 7.21 6.40 19.6 130 3.73 59.4 11.8 10.1 19.8 2124 2.17E-01 1.69E-04 4.18E-04 ND 6.30E-05 0.40 -11/20/03 10:30 7.24 7.21 21.0 130 3.81 55.2 11.3 <10.0 22.0 2250 3.05E-01 2.13E-04 5.46E-04 ND 7.49E-05 0.39 -12/17/039:00 7.59 6.68 ' 2190 3.21E-01 1.86E-04 4.20E-04 -ND 5.80E-05 0.441/14/04 8:20 027 No. 8 8/27/03 8:30 5.56 13.6 108 3.27 534 8.28 15.5 170 2279 2.89E-01 3,33E-04 6.63E-04 ND 1.OOE-04 0.50 -9/26/03 10:35
- 8.05 135 2.99 453 <8.06 <10.0 16.6 2263 2.97E-01 2A41E-04 5.20E-04 1.43E-05 1.J51E-04 0.46 0.09 10/23/03 0:50 7.16 4.90 9.47 108 3.06 330 11.4 21.3 2114 2159 2.68E-01 2.66E-04 5.19E-04 2.22E-05 2.12E-04 0.51 0.10.11/20/0310:30 7.18 5.98 21.2 118 3.64 309 11.6 19.0 2561 2264 3.17E-01 2.96E-04 6.49E-04 ND 1.52E-04 0.46 -12/17/03 9:00 7.40 5.30 " 2110 3.37E-01 2.65E-04 5.54E-04 ND
- 1.62E-04 0.48 1/14/04 8:25 0.68 -No. 9 8/27/03 8:30 15.2 185 3.70 13,390 9.97 109 <7.15 1. 19E-01 7.58E-05 2.95E-04 ND 2.18E-04 0.26 -9/26/03,10:35 15.6 145 4.02 16,400 <8.06 91.9 19.2 2445 10/23/03 0:50 No sample.11/20/03 10.30 No sample ......12/17/03 9:00 No sample 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No. 10 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No. 11 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No. 12 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No.13 1/14/04 8:30 <1 No sample No. 14 1/14/03 8:35 <1 No sample No. 15 1/14/04 8:45 <1 osample No. 16 1/14/04 8:45 <1 No sample No. 17 1/14/04 8:45 <1 o0 sample.48 February 24, 2003TABLE'5: SALEM UNIT 1 SPENT FUEL POOL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
1.,. ~l.Boron,'ppm ActiVitv, jtCi/mL 1 3 4CS/S13.7Cs 5 8 Co/6 0 Co Date/Time 6 0 Co 58 Co60 Co 08/07/03 14:40 2349 2.90E-03 4.32E-03. 6.12E-04 2.86E-03 0.67 0.21 08/13/03 13:13 2.88E-03 4.40E-03 6.08E-04 2.85E-03 0.66 0.21 08/14/03 9:15 2353 08/20/03 8:00 2364 3.10E-03 4.80E-03 5.71E-04 2.86E-03 0.6.5 0.20 08/28/03 9:20 2374 3.28E-03 5.07E-03 5.36E-04 3.19E-03 0.65 0.17 09/04/03 8:00 2359 2.73E-01 3.07E-03 4.91E-03 4.75E-04 3.05E-03 0.63 0.16 09/18/03 8:45 2370 3.39E-03 5.29E-03 4.68E-04 3.28E-03 0.64 0.14 09/25/03 10:30 2350 3.08E-03 4.75E-03 4.04E-04 2.89E-03 0.65 0.14 10/02/03 9:55 2351 2.23E-01 3.12E-03 4.92E-03 4.26E-04 2.92E-03 0.64 0.15 10/09/03 0:55 2358 3.11E-03 4.83E-03 3.41E-04 2.92E-03 0.64 0.12 10/16/03 8:55 2366 3.53E-03 5.45E-03 3.48E-04 3.08E&03 0.65 0.11 10/22/03 22:15 2345 10/23/03 0:05 3.39E-03 5.45E-03 3.22E-04 3.10E-03 0.62 0.10 10/30/03 0:30 2348 3.20E-01 6.05E-04 1.06E-03 5.83E-05 5.69E-04 0.57 0.10 11/06/03 5:35 2357, 1.69E-04 3.06E-04 1.52E-05 1.79E-04 0.55 0.085 11/12/03 23:00 2375 11/20/03 8:15 2383 6.94E-05 1.26E-04 6.94E-06 1.09E-04 0.55 0.063 11/26/03 12:50 2370 3.02E-01 12/04/03 8:45 2339 6.01E-05 1.01E-04, ND. 1.11E-04 0.60 -12/11/03 9:15 2329 3.83E-05 7.53E-05 3.83E-06 6.94E-05 0.51 0.055 12/18/03 8:50 2325 , 3.50E-05 6.49E-05 ND 5.81E-05 0.54 -12/23/03 8:10 2336 3.74E-05 6.33E-05 ND 7.37E-05 0.59 01/01/04 8:30 2307 3.87E-05 7.34E-05 ND 7.44E-05 0.53 -01/08/04 8:05 2327 3.32E-01 2.97E-05 4.49E-05 ND 4.06E-05 0.66 01/15/04 8:05 2333 3.28E-05 4.74E-05 ND 7.89E-05 0.69 01/21/04 13:15 2298 01/21/04 17:10 2299 01/22/04 8:15 3.25E-01 2.76E-05 6.13E-05 ND 7.68E-05 0.45 01/29/04 8:10 2313 2.82E-05 6.36E-05 ND 9.14E-05 0.44 49 Appendix B Section C -ISRA Non-Applicability Application (Station Operational History) Exhibit C Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station Assessments 0 Salem Generating Station Assessment 0 0 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................. 1 2. Salem Generating Station Characteristics................................................. 2 2.1. Station Description and Setting .............................................................. 2 2.2. Station Processes and Operations .............................................................. 2 2.2.1.Nuclear Electric Generating Process .................. ............................. 2 2.2.2. Support Processes and Operations .................................................. 13 2.3. Environm ental Setting ............................................................................. 17 2.3.1. Surrounding Land Use and Surface Waters .................................... 17 2.3.2. Topography and Surface Drainage ................................................. 18 2.3,3.G eology ...................................... ........................ ..................... 182.3.4. H ydrogeology ................................................................................ 19 2.4. Environmental Characterization and Remedial Activities ......................... 20 3. Liability Screening, Characterization, and Valuation ................................. 21 3.1. Candidate Liability Screening and Identification ..................................... 21 3.2. Liability Characterization I .....................
- ................................
22 3.3. Liability V aluation .................................................................................. 22 3.3.1.D ecision Tree .............. ................................... 22 3.3.2. Remedy Probability Assignments and Remedy Cost Calculations ....... 22 3.3.3. Liability Expected Value Computation .......................... ........... 23 B ibliography ......................................................... ............................................... 24 Figures Figure 2-1: Map Showing the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station .............. 28 Figure 2-2: Major Operational Features Associated with the Salem Generating Station ................................................ ........................... ............................................ 29 Figure 2-3: Pressurized Water Reactor ................................................................... 30 Figure 2-4: Salem Generating Station Operations ...... I ........................................... 31 TablesTable 2-1: Hazardous Wastes On Site .................................... 32 Table 2-2: Current Hazardous Substances and Related Pollution Prevention Systems..34 Table 2-3: Historic Operations and Related Pollution Prevention Systems .............. 37 Table 2-4: Pollution Prevention Plans .................................................................. 39 Table 2-5: Summary of Discharge Investigations and Remediation Cases .............. 41 Table 3-1: ,Liability Screening-Salem Generating Station ... .......... ...... 42 Table 3-2: Liability Characterization-Salem Generating Station ......................... 44 Table 3-3: Liability Decision Tree-Salem Generating Station ................ 49 Table 3-4: Liability Valuation-Salem Generating Station..................................... 51.Appendix to Exhibit C Salem.09123/99 i Salem Generating Station 1. Introduction Public Service Electric and Gas Company ("PSE&G") is making an application to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") for a determination of the applicability of the requirements of the industrial Site Recovery Act ("ISRA")' with respect to PSE&G's transfer of generation-related assets to an affiliate. This application contains detailed information on PSE&G's generation-related assets, identifies potential environmental liabilities related to these assets, calculates the expected value of these liabilities, and presents relevant financial information concerning the affiliate. PSE&G's generation-related assets include steam electric generating units and combustion turbine electric generating units. The steam electric generating units use both fossil and nuclear fuels. The Salem Generating Station ("Salem") consists of two nuclear-fueled steam electric generating units and one combustion turbine unit fueled by distillate oil. Nuclear-fueled steam electric generating units preseni a potential for radioactivity to impact the environment. Because of this and other potential impacts,the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("USNRC") has been empowered to strictly regulate all aspects of Salem related to radiological controls. The Appendix to this Exhibit describes this strict regulatory program and how it applies to the design,construction, licensing, operation, monitoring, and decommissioning of Salem so as to ensure that potential radiological impacts are minimized and addressed in the unlikely event that this becomes necessary. This Exhibit describes all major aspects of Salem's electric generating processes, including those associated with radioactivity. This Exhibit presents the expected value of potential environmental liabilities associated with the non-radiological aspects of Salem's electric generating process. However, theexpected value of any potential environmental liabilities associated with radioactivity isnot calculated for the reasons discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit. Although unique features exist, steam electric generating stations that use nuclear fuel employ the same basic processes as are' employed by steam electric generating stationsthat use fossil fuels. Since many of the processes conducted at Salem are the same asthose 'conducted at PSE&G's other steam electric generating stations, the informationset forth in Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination provides a useful reference for understanding certain processes present at Salem. Based on the, station-specific information as supplemented by Exhibit B, Exhibit C to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination identifies potential environmental liabilities for the processes not.associated with releases of radioactivity and calculates their expected value using the methodology and approach described in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. 0 Salem.09123/99 I Salem Generating Station 2. Salem Generating Station Characteristics
2.1. Station
Description and Setting PSE&G operates and is a part owner of Salem which is located on Artificial Island inLower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey (see Figure 2-1). Salem is jointly owned as follows: PSE&G (42.59 percent), Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO") (42.59 percent), Atlantic Electric Company (7.41 percent), and DELMARVA Power and .Light Company (7.41 percent). Salem is situated adjacent to the Hope Creek Generating Station ("Hope Creek" and together with Salem, the"Stations"),. which is also located on Artificial Island. The Stations are located on the eastern bank of the Delaware River. Salem is approximately 26 acres in size. At any one time during the operational history of Salem, the electric generation and ancillary facilities occupied only a portion of the property.PSE&G owns and controls an approximately .600-acre area of Artificial Island that is situated adjacent to and surrounds Salem and Hope Creek. This area contains certain administrative and support facilities that are used by both Salem and Hope Creek, theHope Creek Switchyard, the Salem Switchyard, and certain undeveloped vacant land.With the exception of the Salem Switchyard, this area is evaluated as part of the HopeCreek Generating Station.The zoning classification for the Salem property is industrial. The land adjacent to Salem is zoned for industrial and residential or agricultural use, but falls under statutes that restrict development.
2.2. Station
Processes and Operations Salem is composed of two nuclear generating units and one combustion turbine unit fueled by distillate oil. Commercial operations of Unit 1 commenced in 1976 andcommercial operations of Unit 2 commenced in 1981. The combustion turbine unit commenced operations in 1972. The nuclear generating units operate as base load units and the combustion turbine unit is a peaking unit. Salem has a combined generating capacity of approximately 2,250 MW. Over its operational life Salem has experienced no significant changes in its operation. Figure 2-2 is a site plan showing the majoroperational features associated with Salem.Section .2.2.1 describes the nuclear electric generating process, while Section 2.2.2 describes the support processes and operations, including those associated with electric generation and those that support electric generation.
2.2.1. Nuclear
Electric Generating Process The primary difference between nuclear fuel electric generation and fossil-fueled electric generation is that a nuclear reactor replaces the boiler to generate heat for the production of steam to drive the turbine generator. Salem's reactors are Pressurized Salem.09123/99 Salem Generating Station Water Reactors ("PWR"), with a generating capacity of 1,106 MW each (see Figure 2-3)..Water used as reactor coolant in the production of electricity is obtained from on-site wells and demineralized using resins to remove impurities prior to introduction to the system. Reactor coolant is pumped at high pressure through the reactor core in a closed loop system called the Reactor Coolant System ("RCS"), described in further detail below. The reactor coolant is heated by the reactor core and is then pumped under high pressure from the reactor core to the steam generators, where it heats the water in the steam generator to produce steam in a second closed loop system, referred to as the secondary cooling system. The reactor coolant recirculates from the steam generators back to the reactor core to continue the cycle. Once the steam is produced in the steam generators, the nuclear generating unit processes are essentially the same as the fossil-fueled steam electric generating processesl The steam produced in the steam generators is- transferred to the turbine generator to generate electricity. Exhaust steam from the turbine passes into the condensers where it is cooled and condensed using Delaware River water as non-contact cooling water in the Circulating Water System ("CWS").The condensate is returned to the steam generators as feed to continue the cycle. After passing once through the condenser, the non-contact cooling water is returned tothe River.Gases are removed from the condenser to improve steam cycle efficiency. There arestationary radiological monitors at the condenser, which continuously monitor the removed gases for radioactivity. This monitoring is described in the Appendix to this Exhibit.Reactor coolant becomes radioactive during this process as a result of fission products from fuel rods, activation of corrosion products, and radiolytic decomposition of thereactor coolant. Salem is designed to control this radioactivity and to provide for itsappropriate management. A portion of the reactor coolant is continuously let down and treated in demineralizers to remove both radioactivity and impurities in order to maintain reactor coolant quality. Most of this reactor coolant is returned to the system, but the letdown process does generate certain liquid, solid, and gaseous radioactive wastes. Radioactive and other gases accumulate in the reactor coolant and are removed by degassing during the letdown process. These gases are managed as gaseousradioactive wastes. Small amounts of the reactor coolant are also periodically removed from the system to maintain equilibrium and are managed as a liquid radioactive waste.The management of these and other solid, liquid, and gaseous radioactive wastes is discussed below.Nuclear generating stations are designed and constructed to incorporate a series of overlapping physical barriers and boundaries to contain radioactivity to protect public safety and the environment. This overlapping system of barriers and boundaries embodies the "defense in depth" principle that constitutes the foundation for the USNRC licensing requirements for nuclear generating stations. Barriers are physical containments. These physical containments include various components of the Nuclear Salem.09/23/99 3 Salem Generating Station Steam Supply System ("NSSS"), including but not limited to the fuel rods and the RCS; the reactor containment; and the Radiologically Controlled Area ("RCA"). The boundaries, which are defined areas within which specified radiological controls are required, are the Protected Area and the Owner Controlled Area ("OCA").These barriers and boundaries are discussed below.2.2.1.1. Nuclear Steam Supply System The NSSS is the system by which steam is generated at Salem to produce electricity. It consists of the fuel rods and the RCS, and is designed to function as a barrier to contain radioactivity, and thereby prevent any unplanned releases. The function of the fuel rods and the RCS and associated systems as barriers is described below.2.2. 1. 1.1. Fuel Rods The PWR uses uranium dioxide as fuel. Pellets of uranium dioxide in a ceramic matrixare sealed inside 12-foot-long zirconium-alloy tubes called fuel rods, which are arranged in bundles called fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are inserted vertically into the reactor vessel (which is a large carbon steel tank approximately seven inches thick with a stainless steel liner, filled with water) in a precise grid pattern known as the reactor core.The ceramic matrix provides voids that allow for thermal and gaseous expansion within the fuel rods during the fission process without deforming the fuel rods. The zirconium alloy is used for the fuel rods due to its strength and corrosion resistance. The fuel rods are designed to contain fission gasses generated during the fission process and,therefore, most of the radioactivity. The fuel rods prevent the contact of the reactor coolant water with the fuel and limit the release of fission products to the reactor coolant water. The small amounts of radioactivity released to the reactor coolant are managed as described below in connection with the letdown process for maintaining reactor coolant quality and RCS equilibrium. Thus, the fuel rods provide the first barrier for the control of radioactivity. 2.2.1.1.2. Reactor Coolant System The RCS includes: the reactor vessel; four coolant loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel, each of which contains a circulating pump and a steam generator; and a pressurizer. The pressurizer includes relief valves and a relief tank and appurtenant piping. These elements compose the closed loop system, in which heat is transferred from the reactor to the reactor coolant for the steam generation process. Thus, this system contains or transports all fluids coming from, or going to, the reactor core. All components of this system. are constructed of or lined with corrosion-resistant stainlesssteel and are designed to contain the pressure of the system. The RCS is designed to accommodate water volume, temperature, and pressure changes. Protection from overpressure of the RCS is provided. by the pressurizer relief system. The pressurizer relief system releases steam from the top of the pressurizer, which is quenched and directed to the pressurizer relief tank. The resultant liquid in the pressurizer relief tank is managed in the radioactive liquid waste system. Salem.09/23/99 4 Salem Generating Station The RCS is a closed.loop system, 'located entirely within the Reactor Containment Building, and constitutes the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary ("RCPB"), the: second barrier for the control of radioactivity. 2.2.1.2. Reactor Containment Building The Reactor Containment Building contains the NSSS, which as .indicated above includes the fuel rods and the RCS. It is a domed, reinforced concrete structure and extends about 190 feet above grade. The Reactor Containment Building has a 16-foot-thick concrete base, which is constructed atop a 30-foot-thick concrete foundation. The containment building is constructed of reinforced concrete; the walls are 4.5 feet thick and the hemispherical dome is 3.5 feet thick. A steel liner, ranging from 0.25 to 0.75 inches thick, is attached to the interior wall of the containment building for impact protection. The underground portion of the containment building is waterproofed with an impervious membrane to prevent seepage of groundwater. The Reactor Containment Building, its access openings and penetrations, and related safety systems are virtually air-tight. The Reactor Containment Building is designed, consistent with applicable USNRC regulatory requirements, to contain the energy released and the, resultant pressure build-up following a loss-of-coolant accident ("LOCA") as wellas to contain the atmosphere of the' building under normal operatingconditions. Under operating conditions, it'is isolated from the ambient atmosphere, and there are no gaseous releases from the Reactor Containment Building. Periodic grab samples of the air within the Reactor Containment Building are collected and analyzed.The Reactor Containment Building contains systems to filter the air, if necessary, andthen to purge the air through the Plant Vent. Releases from the Plant Vent arecontinuously monitored by Salem's Radiation Monitoring System, and periodic grab samples are collected and analyzed pursuant to Salem's radiological effluent release program, as described in the Appendix to this Exhibit. The Reactor Containment Building is specially controlled and monitored to ensure the integrity of the equipment, processes, and structures it contains, to control exposure to radioactivity, and to prevent unplanned releases of radioactivity. It has secured ingress.and egress points to.help achieve these objectives. Prior to leaving, personnel and equipment are monitored for radioactive contamination. This monitoring is conducted using portable survey meters. In the event of an elevated reading; the source of the contamination would be identified and the individual or equipment would bedecontaminated prior to leaving the Reactor Containment Building.The Reactor Containment Building constitutes the third barrier for the control of radioactivity. 2.2.1.3. Radiologically Controlled Area The Radiologically Controlled Area ("RCA") is an area at Salem that is speciallydesigned, controlled, and monitored to ensure the integrity of the equipment, processes, and structures it contains; to control exposure to radioactivity; and to prevent transfer of radioactivity beyond the RCA. While all areas of the RCA are subject to control, most Salem.09/23/99 5 Salem Generating Stationareas within the RCA do not have elevated levels of radioactivity. Those areas within the RCA that have elevated levels of radioactivity are subject to special controls related to access, as discussed below. Radiation monitoring conducted in the RCA is discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit.Salem.09/23/99 6 Salem Generating Station All of the equipment, processes, and structures discussed above in Sections in 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2 are located within the RCA. The RCA also contains other equipment, processes, and structures. In addition.to the Reactor Containment Building, the structures within the RCA include the auxiliary buildings and the fuel handling buildings. These buildings are constructed of reinforced concrete. The auxiliarybuildings house radioactive waste handling and management systems and certain safetysystems, which are discussed, below. The RCA also houses other auxiliary systems such as fire protection systems, component cooling systems, and ventilation systems. The auxiliary and fuel handling buildings' ventilation systems are designed to maintain a slight negative pressure within these buildings to ensure that no unmonitored releases of airborne radioactivity will occur. All areas within the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings that potentially have radioactivity.have ventilation systems that route ambient air to the.Plant Vent (located at the top of the containment building) for controlled and monitored release to the environment. There are stationary radiological monitors at the Plant Vent that continuously monitor for radioactivity. Periodic grab samples are also collected from* the Plant Vent and analyzed for radioactivity. These monitoring programs are described in the Appendix to this Exhibit. The fuel handling buildings contain the new fuel storage areas and the spent fuel pools.New fuel is stored in strategically located, separate dry concrete storage vaults in specially designed fuel storage racks. The concrete storage vaults protect the fuel from any design basis accidents. The storage racks are configured to prevent a fission chain reaction of the stored fuel. As stored, the new fuel has very low levels of natural radioactivity. Similar to new fuel, spent fuel is stored in the strategically located pool with concrete walls that protect the spent fuel from any design basis accidents. The spent fuel is stored in a pool of borated water in specially designed storage racks configured to prevent a fission chain reaction of the stored fuel. Boron is added to the water as an additional means to absorb neutrons, further reducing the potential for fission to occur in the spent fuel pool The borated water is recirculated to cool the spent fuel. The water from the spent fuel pool is routed to demineralizers and heat exchangers and then returned to the pool. Fuel is placed in and removed from the reactor in accordance with the operating license Technical Specifications and Station operating procedures. Approximately every 18 months, 30 to 50 percent of fuel rods are removed from each reactor vessel and transported within enclosed structures within the RCA for storage in the spent fuel pool. Following safe shutdown of the reactors, the removal processinvolves the following steps: (1) the reactor vessel head is removed and stored inside*the Reactor Containment Building using a specially designed, in-situ crane; (2) the reactor vessel cavity is filled with borated water; (3) the spent fuel rods are removedfrom the reactor vessel using the in-situ crane and placed in borated water in a specially designed canal, which is equipped with rails; (4) the spent fuel rods are directed via rail through the canal to the spent fuel pool in the fuel handling building; and (5) the spent Salem.09/23/99 7 Salem Generating Station fuel rods are removed from the canal in the fuel handling building using a specially designed in-situ crane, which places them in the spent fuel pool. A similar process is used to move new fuel from the new fuel storage area to the reactor vessel.Once the refueling process is complete, excess water from the reactor vessel cavity andthe water from the canal are drained and stored for reuse in the fuel handling process. Enhanced radiological controls, including enhanced radiation monitoring, are implemented throughout the refueling process pursuant to USNRC requirements. The RCA has a single, monitored ingress and egress point (the control point) to control normal access to the RCA and to prevent the transfer of radioactivity beyond the RCA.Controls on the ingress are discussed below. Prior to leaving, personnel and equipment are monitored for radioactive contamination. This monitoring is conducted by both radiation protection personnel and stationary electronic monitoring devices. In the event of an elevated reading, the source of the contaminationwould be identified and the individual or equipment would be decontaminated prior to leaving the RCA. This monitoring is discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit.The RCA constitutes an additional barrier for the control of radioactivity from Salem.2.2.1.4. Protected AreaThe Protected Area is an area, common to both Salem and Hope Creek, inside the established security fence line. It encompasses the entire RCAs for both Salem and Hope Creek, as well as a designated area surrounding the RCAs. The security fence line consists of two separate fences: an inner fence and an outer fence. Each fence is constructed of seven-foot-high steel chain link fencing topped with one foot of barbed wire. The two fences are separated by a 25-foot area known as the "Isolation Zone." No personnel or equipment is permitted in the Isolation Zone. There are motion sensitive detectors located in the Isolation Zone to provide a continuous alarm function. The entire Protected Area, including the Isolation Zone, is monitored by roving security patrols and a continuously operating closed-circuit television system, which provide information on movements of individuals and vehicles to the security force, which is on duty 24 hours a day. Stationary radiation monitoring devices are located throughout theProtected Area. These are discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit.The Protected Area has a single, secured ingress point, the primary purpose of which is to prevent unauthorized access to the Stations. This single ingress point also serves as the sole egress point to prevent the transfer of radioactivity beyond the Protected Area.Controls on ingress are discussed below. Prior to leaving, personnel and equipment are monitored for radioactive contamination. This monitoring is conducted by stationary electronic monitoring devices. In the unlikely event of an elevated reading, the source of the contamination would be identified, appropriate corrective action taken, and the incident reported to the USNRC.Salem.09/23/99 8 Salem Generating Station 0 2.2.1.4.1. Protected Area AccessAs indicated above, the Protected Area is the area inside an established*security fenceline, which encompasses the entire RCAs for both Salem and Hope Creek, as well as a designated area surrounding the RCAs, and which has a single, secured ingress and. egress point: Personnel and vehicle access for the Stations is provided through a common point, the Security Center. Access is limited and strictly controlled in accordance with USNRC requirements. Personnel granted access to the Protected Area must be specially trained and have a security clearance or must be escorted by.personnel with the required training and clearance. Escorts must remain with visitors at all times. All personnel entering the Protected Area must pass through a metal detector, an explosives detector, and sensitive radiation monitors. These devices ensure that no unauthorized materials are brought into the Protected Area..Drivers of vehicles seeking access to the Protected Area must pass through the same security systems as visitors onfoot after which their vehicles are appropriately processed for entry and escorted to their destination by security personnel. As indicated above, movements of individuals and vehicles within the Protected Area are monitored by security cameras and roving patrols.As also discussed above, ingress to the RCA is through a single point of entry (the"Control Point"). Individuals seeking access to the RCA must have first passed through the controls associated with entry to the Protected Area, *discussed above. RadiationProtection Personnel are stationed at the entrance to the RCA and ensure that only authorized individuals gain access.Individuals seeking access to the RCA must have been issued a Radiation Work Permit by Salem's Radiation Protection Department. Radiation Work Permits are issued only for specific tasks and activities and limit access to specified areas, all of which are indicated on the Permit.Each individual entering the RCA must be equipped with a personal radiation monitoring device, the sophistication of which is dependent upon the work being performed and the areas being accessed. These monitors measure, record, and indicate a total radiation dose to which an individual is exposed while in the RCA. Certain ofthese monitors are equipped with an alarm function that activates when predetermineddose limits are approached. 2.2.1.5. Owner Controlled Area The area owned and controlled by the Company outside the Protected Area is known asthe Owner Controlled Area ("OCA"). The OCA contains a number of support operations, including the Stations' administrative support building, employee and visitor parking areas, contractor trailer facilities, and a network of roads. The area of the OCA immediately outside of and adjacent to the outer security fence is maintainedas an "exclusion zone" by security personnel and is continuously monitored by security cameras. The OCA is also monitored by roving security patrols. This area provides anadditional buffer between the Stations and the public at large.Salem.09/23/99 9 Salem Generating Station 2.2,1.6. Station Safety Systems Salem has several systems that are designed to safely shut down the reactor, maintain adequate reactor cooling after shutdown, and contain radioactivity primarily for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the public and the environment in the event of a design basis accident. Salem has never experienced a design basis accident. Certain ofthese systems may be used to support safe, normal, shutdown operations. 2.2,1.7. Radioactive Waste Management Systems Gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes are generated within the RCA. These wastes are managed as radioactive unless and until measurements demonstrate otherwise. Salem's radioactive waste management systems, typically referred to as "radwaste systems," provide for the collection, processing, monitoring, and release or disposal of radioactive material in liquid, gaseous, and solid form from Salem. Salem's Operating License requires that the radwaste systems be operated and maintained to ensure that the release of radioactivity is kept as low as reasonably achievable,("ALARA"). Salem's Operating License imposes limitations on all radiological effluents, compliance with which will ensure that the ALARA standard is met. Salem's effluents are managed, monitored, released, and documented in accordance with Salem's operating procedures and the USNRC's requirements, as discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit. A report of the monitoring results is filed with the USNRC and the BNE semi-annually. The radiological waste management system, in concert with Salem's radiation monitoring programs, ensures that any release of radioactivity is protective of public safety and the environment. 2.2.1.7.1. Gaseous Waste Gases accumulate in the reactor coolant, are removed in the letdown process, as discussed above, and are then managed as a gaseous radioactive waste via the radioactive gaseous waste system. This system consists primarily of piping, waste gas compressors, and waste gas decay. tanks. The gases removed in the letdown process are compressed and directed to the decay tanks, where they are stored for a discrete period of time to allow for decay of radionuclides. The gases in the decay tanks are sampled and analyzed pursuant to the radiological effluent release program to determine when appropriate radioactive decay has occurred. Once appropriate decay has occurred and requisite Station approvals have been received, the gases are released to the Plant Vent. Gaseous releases from the tank are monitored continuously, and an automatic shutoff valve will activate to terminate the release if predetermined setpoints are reached. All gaseous releases are also continuously monitored at the Plant Vent for gross radioactivity pursuant to Salem's Radiation Monitoring System. Salem's radiological effluent monitoring program and Radiation Monitoring System are described in the Appendix to this Exhibit.As previously discussed, the Reactor Containment Building purge system, and the auxiliary building and the fuel handling building ventilation systems, route and manage exhaust air (which may contain radioactivity) for release through the Plant Vent. These purge and ventilation systems include HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) and Salem.09/23/99 10 Salem Generating Station charcoal filtration, as necessary, to remove airborne particulates and certain gases prior to release of any gaseous effluent to the atmosphere. The management of the exhaust.0 Salem.09/23/99 11 Salem Generating Station air through the Reactor Containment Building purge system and the auxiliary building and fuel handling building ventilation systems includes radiation monitoring which is described in the Appendix to this Exhibit.2.2.1.7.2. Liquid Waste Salem generates liquid radioactive wastes in the course of ordinary operations. These wastes are generated by leakage from equipment, system water sampling, intentional system bleeds, drainage, and dewatering of solid radioactive wastes. All liquid wastes generated within the RCA are handled as radioactive and managed through the Radioactive.Liquid Waste System ("RLWS"). This system collects liquid wastes through a network of drains and pipes which direct the wastes to stainless steel holding tanks for management prior to reuse or discharge. The liquid wastes in these RLWS tanks are sampled and analyzed for levels of radioactivity. If appropriate, the liquid wastes are treated to reduce radioactivity, using primarily filtration and/or demineralization. When treatment is complete, the wastes are transferred to stainless steel monitor tanks. The monitor tanks are isolated (to prevent the addition of more wastes), recirculated to mix the contents, and sampled to measure for radioactivity. The radioactivity level is evaluated against the radioactive effluentlimitations contained in the Technical Specifications. If the radioactive effluent*limitations are met and requisite Station approvals are received, the radioactive liquid waste may be manually released in a controlled manner from the monitor tanks to Salem's cooling water for discharge to the Delaware River. If the effluent limitationsare not met, the wastes are subjected to further treatment. The RLWS discharge piping contains radiation monitors that will activate automatic isolation valves to terminate the discharge if predetermined setpoints are reached. As discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit, the results of this liquid effluent sampling are reported to the USNRC and the BNE semi-annually. 2.2.1.7.3. Solid Waste Solid radioactive wastes are generated from either dry or wet processes. Dry, solid radioactive wastes include materials such as removed components, anti-contamination clothing, ventilation filters, rags, and debris. These materials are collected throughout the RCA and accumulated in the radioactive waste handling area in the auxiliary building, These materials are then placed in USDOT-specification shipping containers (e.g., 55-gallon drums) that have been approved by the USNRC. Solid radioactive wastes generated from wet processes (e.g., demineralizer resins, water filters) are dewatered and placed in special USNRC and USDOT-specification shipping containers (e.g., casks). The area in. which solid radiological waste is packaged and stored on site contains stationary instrumentation installed as part of the Radiation MonitoringSystem area-wide monitors that continuously measure ambient radioactivity levels, The results of this monitoring are displayed, recorded, and alarmed in Salem's Control Room. Documentation of these results is made available for USNRC inspection. The outside of the solid radioactive waste shipping containers is surveyed for radioactive materials and radiation levels before transfer to a licensed radioactive Salem.09/23/99 12 Salem Generating Station material transporter for delivery to the USNRC-licensed disposal site (e.g., Barnwell, S.C.). As discussed in the Appendix to this Exhibit, the volume of, and the quantity of radioactivity in, the. radioactive solid waste sent off site for disposal are reported to the USNRC and the BNE semi-annually. .2.2.2. Support Processes and Operations There are a number of processes and operations that support the nuclear electricgenerating process in addition to those described above. These additional processes and operations, for the most part, are located outside the RCA. Salem is designed, and operated so that these, additional processes and operations are, not exposed to radioactive materials. Support processes and operations began at Salem circa 1970 in connection, with construction activities. The function of these operations shifted from construction support to operations support when the nuclear unitsbegan commercial operation. Other support processes and operations that were, not required for construction supportbecame operational in 1976. There have been relatively few modifications to these processes and operations since 1976.Sections 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.7 of this Exhibit describe the various auxiliary andsupport processes and operations employed at Salem. Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination contains a more detailed review of certain aspects of these processes and operations. Representative inventories of hazardous waste generated at Salem and Hope Creek are presented in Table 2-1 (PSE&G jointly manages hazardous wastes from both Stations). The current inventory of hazardous substances at Salem is presented in Table 2-2.Table 2-3 describes relevant information regarding Station facilities and their historic operations for each relevant potential candidate liability issue identified in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. Table 2-4 provides information regarding the various pollution prevention plans developed and implemented at Salem. Figure 2-4 summarizes major operating components of Salem relative to fossil fuel use and wastewater effluents. Radioactive wastes are managed separately, as discussed above and in the Appendix to this Exhibit.2.2.2.1. Auxiliary Boilers (1972-Present) Salem has two auxiliary boilers that commenced operations circa 1972. Distillate oilhas been the only fuel source for the boilers for the life of Salem. The auxiliary boilers are located in the house heating boiler building north of the turbine building. The boilers have been used as a general steam source and for building heating.2.2.2.2. Emergency Generators (1976-Present) Salem has six emergency generators that were made available for operations in 1976.Distillate oil has been the only fuel used in the generators. The generators are located in 0 the auxiliary building. Generally, the electricity needed for normal operations of Salem Salem.09/23/99 13 Salem Generating Station is generated by the Station itself. When Salem is not generating electricity, it obtains power from off-site sources. In the unlikely event that off-site power were not available Salem,09/23199 14 Salem Generating Station when Salem was not generating electricity, the emergency generators Would provide electricity to Salem to maintain safe shutdown conditions. These unitshave not been operated other than for periodic testing to ensure operability. 2.2.2.3. Combustion Turbine Unit (1972-Present) There is one combustion turbine unit at Salem .to provide peaking capabilities during periods of high demand.. The unit was installed in a metal housing on a concrete foundation. Distillate oil is the only fuel source for the combustion turbine unit. The fuel is stored in the 840,000-gallon above ground, diked storage tank that was installed in 1970, as discussed below., The .combustion turbine unit has a purge oil collection system to collect unburned fuel that remains in' the engine each time a unit is shut down. The system typically collected less than five gallons of fuel each time the unit shut down. As originally constructed, the purge oil tanks for this unit were underground. The system consisted of two 55-gallon tanks and associated valves and piping. In the early 1990s, these purge oil tankswere -replaced with sumps that are routed to the high-volume oil/water separator system. Separated oil is managed in accordance with applicable regulations. 2.2.2.4. Distillate Oil Storage and Handling The primary fossil fuel used at Salem has been distillate oil. This fuel is used to generate electricity at the Unit 3 combustion turbine, to power the emergency diesel generators, and in the auxiliary boilers. The distillate oil is stored in an 840,000-gallon above ground, diked storage tank, which was constructed in 1970 and remains in use.This tank was constructed consistent with the design criteria for distillate oil tanks described in Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. Distillate oil was initially delivered to Salem by barge. Since circa 1972, distillate oil has been delivered by tank truck. Distillate oil is unloaded from tank trucks at a designated area and is pumped via underground pipeline to the storage tank. The designated tank truck unloading area is currently curbed and has secondary containment. Piping from the storage tanks to the emergency generators, the boilers, and the combustion turbine unit is also underground. 2.2.2.5. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Salem uses a switchyard that is located on property immediately adjacent to Salem property. It became operational in 1976 when Salem began commercial operation. The switchyard occupies approximately eight acres, as shown in Figure 2-1. These facilitiescontain mineral oil-filled transformers and other miscellaneous mineral oil-filled equipment. The switchyard has been expanded and upgraded overthe life of Salem;specifically, eight of its 16 transformers were added in 1992. There arealso a number of mineral oil-filled transformers located outside the switchyard, some of which are located adjacent to Salem's electric generating units. The design andoperation of the electrical equipment is consistent with that discussed in Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. Salem.09/23!99 15 Salem Generating Station There are approximately 70 pieces of mineral oil-filled electrical equipment (e.g., transformers) at Salem. PSE&G implemented a survey of certain mineral oil-filled equipment at Salem inthe late 1980s. This survey indicated that some of the mineral oil-filled equipment was PCB-contaminated. Based upon the results of this survey, in 1990, Salem initiated a comprehensive program to retrofill any mineral oil-filled electrical equipment that contained mineral oil with PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm, and to label the mineral oil-filledequipment pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements. This program was completed circa 1993, and currently there is no mineral oil-filled electrical equipment at Salem containing mineral oil with measured PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.Mineral oil in the electrical equipment is maintained using mobile filtering equipment, as described in Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. 2.2.2.6. Wastewater Effluents Liquid radiological waste management is discussed above and in the Appendix to this Exhibit. Management of liquid radiological effluent releases including monitoring is discussed in the Appendix to the Exhibit.The primary wastewater effluent generated at Salem has been and remains non-contact cooling water. Non-contact cooling wateris discharged to the Delaware River in accordance with Salem's National or New Jersey Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System ("NJPDES") permit. Other wastewater effluents at Salem include non-radioactive liquid waste, discharges from the high-volume oil/water separator system, and stormwater. The volumes of these other effluents are significantly lower than those of the non-contact cooling water flow. All wastewater discharges from Salem have been authorized by Salem's NJPDES permit since 1975, before Salem began commercial operation. Wastewater treatment systems for the effluents discussed in this section were constructed at different times during the life of Salem to enable Salem to comply with the effluent limitations contained in applicable NJPDES permits. Non-radioactive liquid wastewaters include those from dernineralizers, condensate polishers, the non-radioactive wastewater treatment system laboratory, building sumps, and roof drains.Non-radioactive liquid wastewaters have always been -treated in a wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to the river in accordance with Salem's NJPDES permit. Prior to 1988, the non-radioactive liquid waste was routed to an equalization basin where the pH was increased with caustic to facilitate precipitation. Decant water from this basin was discharged with the non-contact cooling water to the river in compliance with Salem's NJPDES permit. In 1988, the non-radioactive wastewater treatment plant was upgraded and expanded. The wastewater is collected in an equalization basin where sodium hypochlorite may be added to reduce total organic carbon. The effluent from the equalization basin is routed to clarifiers for settling. If necessary, caustic may be added to promote settling. The final effluent is discharged with the non-contact cooling Salem 09/23/99 16 Salem Generating Stationwater to the river in compliance with Salem's NJPDES permit. The wastewater treatment plant is operated by a licensed operator.Prior to 1994, process water with the potential to contain oil was treated in three skim tanks. In 1994, the oil/water separator was installed. Treated water from the skim tanks and, subsequently, from the oil/water separator has been discharged to the river in accordance withSalem's NJPDES permit.Stormwater is managed in accordance with Salem's NJPDES permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Stormwater is collected in storm drains and routed to the river for discharge in accordance with Salem's NJPDES permit. Stormwater-from the major petroleum storage and handling areas is routed to the oil/water separator prior to discharge. Prior to 1990, Salem sanitary wastewater was treated in a 10,500-gallon extended aeration tank and a 20,000-gallon rotating biological contactor. In 1990, a sewage treatment plant was constructed at Hope Creek, which began receiving Salem's sanitary wastewater. All solids were removed from the sanitary treatment system and disposed in accordance with applicable regulations. The treatment system structures were removed, soil samples were collected and analyzed, and the area was graded. Closure documentation was submitted to the NJDEP in accordance with applicable regulations. 2.2.2.7. Auxiliary and Maintenance Processes The auxiliary and maintenance processes associated with Station operations andconducted outside the RCA are generally the same as those processes described in Exhibit B to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination for steam generating units. For the nuclear electric generating unit, these processes include water conditioning, non-contact cooling, equipment cleanings, and equipment lubrication. For the combustion turbine unit, these processes include engine cleanings, purge oil collection, and equipment lubrication.
2.3. Environmental
Setting 2.3.1., Surrounding Land Use and Surface Waters Salem is located on the Delaware Estuary. The Estuary, in the location of Salem, is a tidal, brackish river, located in an area designated as Zone 5 bythe Delaware River Basin Commission.Artificial Island was created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, beginning early in the twentieth century. Hydraulic dredging spoils were deposited within a diked area established around a natural bar that projected into the river. Prior to construction of Salem, the property, was vacant, undeveloped,. low-lying land.The zoning classification of the property is industrial. The land adjacent to the property on which' Salem is located is zoned for industrial and residential or agricultural use, but Salem.09/23/99 17 Salem Generating Station falls under statutes that restrict development. The nearest resident in New Jersey is three miles away.2.3.2. Topography and Surface Drainage The topography at Salem is nearly flat. Stormwater management is as described above.There are no permanent bodies of surface water on the property.2.3.3. Geology Salem and Hope Creek are underlain by approximately 25 feet of engineered fill composed mainly of dredge spoils (PSE&G, 1987; PSE&G, 1999). The engineered fill consists of silt, silty clay, sand, and gravel (Dames & Moore, 1974). Due to the composition of the engineered fill, the hydraulic conductivity of this material is very low, severely limiting the extent and rate of vertical movement of liquids through the medium. Below the engineered fill there is five feet of tidal marsh deposits, consisting of silty peat and organic silt and meadow mat (Thor, 1982; Warren George, 1970). Thetidal marsh deposits are semi-confining. Beneath the tidal marsh deposits are approximately ten feet of discontinuous Quaternary Age riverbed deposits of sand and gravel (Davisson, 1979; Thor, 1982). The discontinuous riverbed deposits occur from 30 to 40 feet below ground surface ("bgs"). Below the ten-foot-thick discontinuous riverbed deposits is the Miocene Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood Formation is dark gray clay with some silt and layers of fine-grained micaceous quartz sand. TheKirkwood Formation is approximately 15 feet thick at the property and occurs from approximately 40 to 55 feet bgs (Dames & Moore, 1970; Rosenau and others, 1969;PSE&G 1987).Below the Kirkwood Formation, the Paleocene-Eocene Vincentown Formation is encountered at 55 feet bgs to a depth of approximately 135 feet bgs (Dames & Moore, 1970; Dames & Moore, 1974). The Vincentown Formation is a competent, greenish-gray, fine to medium sand with some silt and shell fragments and some feldspar and glauconite (Dames & Moore, 1970; PSE&G, 1987). Beneath the Vincentown Formation lies the Paleocene Hornerstown Formation. The Hornerstown Formation is primarily a glauconitic sand and occurs from 135 feet bgs to approximately 145 feet bgs (Davisson, 1979).Beneath the Hornerstown Formation lies the Upper Cretaceous Navesink Formation,which consists of glauconitic sand. The Navesink Formation is encountered from approximately 145 to 170 feet bgs. Beneath the Navesink Formation lies the Upper Cretaceous Mount Laurel-Wenonah Formation, which is clayey medium sand with.some gravel, feldspar, and glauconite (PSE&G, 1987). At the property and regionally, the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Formation is approximately 100 feet thick and occurs from approximately 170 to 270 feet bgs (Rosenau, 1969; Dames & Moore, 1974).Regionally, over 1,000 feet of Upper Cretaceous sediments lie beneath the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Formation. These formations collectively overlie crystalline bedrock and include in descending order: the Marshalltown Formation (gray fine sand), the Englishtown Formation (yellow-brown fine sand), the Woodbury Clay (dark gray, stiff, Salem.09/23/99 18 Salem Generating Station 0 silty clay), the Merchantville Formation (dark green clay), the Magothy Formation (coarse to fine silt with little, fine sand), and the Raritan and Potomac Formations(interbedded sand, gravelly sand, and clay) (Dames & Moore, 1974; Rosenau, 1969).Bedrock at the.property is the Late Precambrian Wissahickon Schist, which underliesthe entire Upper Cretaceous sedimentary package in the region. The Wissahickon Schist is encountered at depths up to 1,500 feet bgs at the property (Rosenau, 1969).2.3.4. Hydrogeology There are four aquifers directly beneath the property: a shallow aquifer and .three deep aquifers. The shallow aquifer occurs from 10 to 40 feet bgs. The shallow aquifer is within the engineered fill, tidal marsh sediments, and discontinuous Quaternary riverbed deposits (Dames & Moore, 1974). In general, the engineered fill and tidal marsh deposits have low permeabilities (Dames & Moore, 1974;, PSE&G, 1987).Occasional lenses of sand within the engineered fill may contain perched water within a few feet of the ground surface (Dames & Moore, 1974). The groundwater in theshallow aquifer is generally brackish, with flow to the southeast and a gradient of approximately 0.007ft/ft (Rosenau, 1969; Dames & Moore, 1974). The KirkwoodFormation, which is composed of Miocene clays, occurs from 40 to 55 feet bgs and is considered a confining layer which separates the shallow aquifer above from the first deep aquifer (PSE&G, 1984).The first ofthedeep aquifers beneath the property occurs from 55 to 135 feet bgs and is the Paleocene-Eocene Vincentown Formation. The Vincentown Formation is a semi-confined to confined aquifer under artesian conditions (Dames & Moore, 1974) and is underlain by the leaky confining units in the Hornerstown and Navesink Formations.The confining units of the Hornerstown and Navesink Formations occur from 135 to 170 feet bgs (Dames & Moore, 1974). Groundwater in the Vincentown aquifer generally flows from north to south with a gradient of approximately 0.003 ft/ft(Dames & Moore, 1974). Regionally, the Vincentown aquifer is a water-producingaquifer, which supplies some of the domestic Wells within Salem County (PSE&G, 1984; Rosenau, 1969). Groundwater in this aquifer is moderately hard with a high ironcontent (Rosenau, 1969; Dames & Moore, 1974). However, salt-water intrusions occur within this aquifer near the Delaware River, where water quality is brackish and non-potable (Rosenau, 1969).The second deep aquifer is confined and occurs in the Upper Cretaceous Mount Laurel-Wenonah Formations at depths from 170 to 270 ft bgs. The Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer is bounded above by the confining units of the Hornerstown and Navesink Formations. Two potable and fire-water supply wells at the property can produce from this aquifer, although these wells are not typically used. Below the Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer lies the Marshaltown Formation (Rosenau, 1969).The third deep aquifer is confined and is the Cretaceous Potomac-Raritan-Magothy(PRM) Aquifer System, which is the primary water-producing aquifer in the State of New Jersey. In Salem County, the PRM Aquifer System occurs at. depths in excess of Salem.09/23/99 19 Salem Generating Station 500 feet bgs. At the property, four potable and fire-water supply wells produce from this aquifer system at depths ranging from 800 to 1,100 feet bgs. This aquifer system is bounded above by the Merchantville Formation and below by the crystalline basement of the Wissahickon Schist.The crystalline basement rock of the Wissahickon Schist is not considered a productive aquifer and only locally transmits water along fractures and faults (Rosenau, 1969).Salem County has no known wells that produce water from this formation (Rosenau, 1969).2.4. Environmental Characterization and Remedial Activities Table 2-5 summarizes the nature of and results from environmental characterization and remedial activities conducted at the property. Salem.09/23/99 20 Salem Generating Station 3. Liability Screening, Characterization, and Valuation The liability estimation process applied at each generation-related asset followed astep-wise procedure, as shown schematically below. This process is discussed in detail in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. Liability Liability ~ Liability.Screening Characterization Valuation~ and Identification The liability estimation process produces a quantitative estimate of the expected value for Salem's potential remediation liabilities. This section presents the results of the liability screening, characterization, and valuation for this Station.3.1. Candidate Liability Screening and IdentificationCandidate Liability Issues and associated Liability Elements that are potentially applicable to all generation-related assets, were developed as discussed in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. Each Candidate Liability Issue and Liability Element was evaluated based on the asset-specific data collected pursuant to the data collection protocol described in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination to determine:
- 1. Whether the activity or source existed at this generation-related asset;2. Whether an environmental investigation has been conducted or chemical data were collected that demonstrate that contamination is not present at this generation-related asset with respect to a particular activity or source; or 3. Whether structural or engineering systems, such as full secondary containment, could have prevented a liability from arising at this generation-related asset.Liabilities were screened out for this generation-related asset if: (1) an activity never existed at the property; (2) there is convincing documentation that issues never existed or have been eliminated through remediation or other corrective action; or (3) there have been structural or engineering systems that would have prevented a liability issue from. arising. If any of a Candidate Liability Issue's Liability Elements was determined to be applicable to this generation-related asset, it was retained for characterization and valuation.
Table 3-1 provides the results of the liability screening for this generation-related asset and the rationale for the screening decisions. Salem.09/23199 21 Salem Generating Station 3.2. Liability Characterization For each retained Liability Issue and Liability Element,. pertinent information collected using the data collection protocol was used to determine the number of Liability Units ("Liability Enumeration"), the aggressiveness of remedial effort (i.e., high, medium, or low intensity) ("Remedy Intensity"), and the physical extent of remedial effort ("Remedy Scale"). These were each determined employing the standard decision rulesset forth in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination.The results of the liability characterization are presented in Table 3-2.3.3. Liability ValuationAs described in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination, the Liability Valuation step consists of three activities: decision tree configuration, liability evaluation, and expected value computation. This step produced a quantitative estimate of this generation-related asset's potential remediation liabilities.
3.3.1. Decision
Tree Table 3-3 is the remediation decision tree for this generation-related asset. This decision tree incorporates all Candidate Liability Issues retained for this generation-related asset as well as the investigation and monitoring activities. The decision tree is composed of a series of columns, each of which represents a Candidate Liability Issue.Remedy scenarios available to address each Issue are arrayed vertically in each column.Remedy scenarios consist of a number of remedial technologies. The remedy scenarios included in the decision tree for each Liability Issue are those that we determined, based on our professional judgment, to best reflect the feasible choices available to remedy that particular Liability Issue. Remedial scenarios were considered for each Liability Issue retained to address all media of concern through either institutional controls, engineering controls, or active treatment. The selection of remedy scenarios and remediation technologies is detailed in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination.
3.3.2. Remedy
Probability Assignments and Remedy Cost Calculations For each retained Liability Issue, a probability was assigned.to each remedy scenario that represents the probability that, following a site investigation, the remedy scenario would be selected and approved by the NJDEP. These probabilities were determined employing the standard decision rules set forth in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. The decision rules identify the probability allocation for each Liability Issue first by reference to investigation effort, remedial alternative, or monitoring effort, as appropriate, and then by reference to Remedy Intensity. The remedy probability allocations for this generation-related asset are presented in the decision tree, Table 3-3.Salem.09/23/99 22 Salem Generating StationThe capital and operating costs of each remedy scenario in the decision tree were determined following the procedures outlined in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination. The remedy scenario costs were calculated using the scale inputs set forth in Table 3-2 and Arthur D. Little's in-house remediation cost database, which is based on standard remediation engineering cost assumptions. The present value of each remedy was calculated using accepted financial analysis principles and incorporating assumptions about the timing of remedial actions as well as discount and inflation rates. Key assumptions incorporated into the cost calculations are set forth in Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of Applicability Determination.
3.3.3. Liability
Expected Value Computation The liability valuation expected value computation was performed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet-based cost-estimating model for the decision tree shown in Table 3-3. The model calculated the expected value for this generation-related asset by multiplying the probability assigned to each remedy alternative by the cost of that alternative and adding the calculated probability-weighted cost of all the remedy alternatives for that Liability Issueý The total expected value for this generation-related asset is the sum of the expected values for each Liability Issue.The summary spreadsheet tabulating the remedy scenarios in the decision tree, present value costs, probabilities, and expected values is shown in Table 3-4. The total expected value cost estimate for this generation-related asset is $1,901,055. 0 Salem.09/23/99 23 Salem Generating Station Bibliography Audits 1. Internal PSE&G Corporate Audit Report, October 1989.2. Internal PSE&G Corporate Audit Report, July/August 1993.3. Internal PSE&G Corporate Audit Report, July/August 1998.Environmental Permits and Related Documents 1. Dredge and Fill Permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. NAPOR-R-970, June 23, 1975.2. Dredge and Fill Permit, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, No. 85-0938-1.
- 3. Water Discharge Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), No. NJ0005622, March 31, 1975.4. Water Discharge Permit, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES), No. NJ0005622, March 6, 1981.5. Water Discharge Permit, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES), No. NJ0005622, December 1, 1985.6. Water Discharge Permit, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES), No. NJ0005622, September 1, 1994.7. Waterfront Development Permit, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1704-90-0001.8, Exp. February 22, 2000.8. Riparian License, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 69-80.9. Maintenance Dredging and Desilting Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CENAP-OP-R-199501755-45, April 15, 1996 Agency Enforcements
- 1. Citation from NJDEPE for water discharge violations, August 1988.2. Citation from NJDEPE for water discharge violations, November 1988.Salem.09/23/99 24 Salem Generating Station 3. Citation from USCG for spill discharge violations, November 1988.4* Citation from NJDEPE for water discharge violations, March 1989.5. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations, June 1989.6. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations, July 1989.7. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations, September 1989.8. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations, February 1990.9. Citation from USEPA forwater discharge violations, April 1990.10. Citation from USEPA for spill violations, February 1991.11. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations,.January 1991.12. Citation from USEPA for water discharge violations, March 1991.13. Citation from NJDEPE for water discharge violations, August 1992.14. Citation from USCG for spill violations, December 1992.15. Citation from NJDEPE and USCG for spill violations, February 1993.16. Citation from NJDEPE and USCG for spill violations, May 13, 1993.17. Three citations from USCG for spill violations, September 1993.18. Citation from USCG for spill violations, May 24, 1995.19. Citation from USCG for spill violations, October 1, 1995.20. Citation from USCG for spill violations, April 1997.21. Citation from USCG for spill violations, June 13, 1997.Pollution'Prevention Plans1. Discharge Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan; Discharge Cleanup and Removal Plan; Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan (DPCC/DCR/SPCC), 1978; last updated July 1999.Salem.09/23/99 25 Salem Generating Station 2. Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan, 1985.3. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, 1998.4. Facility Response Plan, February 1993.5. RCRA Contingency Plan, February 1998.6. Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Manuals, 1996.7. Regulatory Reporting Guide, January 1997.Spills and Discharges
- 1. Spill Incident Reports: 1973 to 1985 reported to U.S. Coast Guard.2. Spill Incident Reports: 1988 to Present reported to NJDEP.Maps and Photos 1. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 11, 1940. (1":1667').
- 2. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, February 18, 1951. (1":1667').
- 3. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 1, 1962. (1":1500').
- 4. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 14, 1974. (1":1500').
- 5. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 6, 1987. (Scale not available.)
- 6. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 13, 1996. (1":1000').
- 7. Aerial Viewpoint.
Photograph, March 16, 1996. (1": 1000').Geology and Hydrogeology1. Dames & Moore, 1970. Circulating Water Intake Structure, Service Water Intake Structure, And Circulating Water Discharge Piping for Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units No. I and No. 2., Detail Specification No. 70-7272. 67 borings.2. Dames & Moore, 1974. Report: Foundation Studies for Proposed Hope Creek Generating Station, Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ. For PSE&G. 43 pp.Figures.Salem.09/23/99 26 Salem Generating Station3. Davisson, M. T. and Rempe, D. M., 1979.Report on Pile Load Test Program and Recommendations for Installation of Piling at Miscellaneous Structures Hope Creek Generating Station for-PSE&G, Champaign, IL., July. 16 pp. Figures.4. Thor Engineers, P.A., 1982. Report on Soils Investigation Hope Creek Generating Station Access Road Widening, Salem, New Jersey. Project No. 03682. 8 pp.Figures.5. PSE&G, 1984. Hope Creek Generating Station Final Environmental Statement.
- 6. PSE&G, 1987. Salem Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Controlled Document, December 4 (last update) to Nuclear Regulatory Agency.7. PSE&G, 1999. Groundwater Conservation Plan and Drought Emergency WaterSupply Plan.
- 8. Richards, H. G., Olmsted, F. H., and Ruhle, J. L., 1962. Generalized Structure Contour Maps of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, NJ, Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Geological Report SeriesNo.
4.* 9. Rosenau, J. C., Lang, S. M., Hilton, G. S., Ronnie, J. G., 1969. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Salem County, New Jersey, U.S.G.S., Special Report No. 33, 142.10. Warren George, Inc., 1970. Test Borings for Salem to New Freedom South Transmission Line. Test Boring Logs for PSE&G.Other 1. PSE&G database. of underground storage tanks and related files of registrations and/or removal.0 Salem.09/23/99 27 Salem Generating Station Figure 2-1: Map Showing the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station Salem.09/23/99 28 Salem Generating Station Figure 2-2: Major Operational Features Associated with the Salem Generating Station 0 Salem.09/23/99 29 Salem Generating Station Figure 2-3: Pressurized Water Reactor Salem.09/23/99 30 C Salem Generating Station Figure 2-4: Salem Generating Station Operations Auxiliary Boilers and Combustion Turbine Units Point Sources Oil/Water Separator Skim Tanks Sanitary Waste Treatment System Salem and Hope Creek Non-Rad Waste Treatment 1910I I I I I I I I " 1 5 19 I I I I I 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940" lg45 1950 1955 1960 "1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Salem.09/23/99 31 Salem Generating Station Table 2-1: Representative Hazardous Wastes for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations~Amount (1997)Contaminated solids and debris (toxic) containing benzene (D018)413 lbs.Contaminated solids and debris (toxic) containing chromium (D007) 1,614 Ibs.Contaminated water (toxic), containing chromium (D007) 5,572 lbs.Oil and other liquid hydrocarbon waste (toxic), containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane (FO01) 434 lbs.Oil and other liquid hydrocarbon waste (toxic), containing oil, benzene, and tetrachloroethylene (D018, D029, D039, D040, F001) 20,627 lbs.Paint-related waste (ignitable) containing petroleum hydrocarbons (DO01) 739 lbs.Paint-related waste (ignitable) debris, containing petroleum hydrocarbons (DO01) 11,169 lbs.Paint-related waste (ignitable) labpack, containing petroleum hydrocarbons (DO01) 1,485 lbs.Paint-related waste (ignitable, toxic), containing mineral spirits and methyl ethyl ketone (DO01, D035) 9,025 lbs.Photography development (reactive) waste, containing reactive sulfides (D003) 3,869 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive) in labpacks containing acid and amine solutions (D002) 208 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive) in-labpacks containing hydroxides or various acids and bases (D002) 304 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, ignitable) containing methanol and potassium hydroxide (D001, D002, F003) 125 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, ignitable) in labpacks containing, amine solutions or petroleum acids and acid (DO01, D002) 134 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, ignitable, toxic) containing acetic acid and formic acid (DO01, D002, U123) 125 Ibs.Process chemicals (corrosive, ignitable, toxic) containing sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and silver (DO01, D002, D011) 175 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, ignitable, toxic) in labpacks containing sodium dichromate and sulfuric acid (DO01, D002, D007) 40 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, toxic) containing mercuric nitrate and sodium hydroxide (D002, D009) 8 lbs.Process chemicals (corrosive, toxic) containing organic acids, inorganic acids, and chromium (D002, D007) 58 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing ammonium persulfate (DO01) 2 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing benzyl peroxide (DO01) 18 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing iron and copper (DO01) 25 lbs.Salem.09/23/99 32 Salem Generating Station Table 2-1: Representative Hazardous Wastes for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations (continued) Process chemicals (ignitable) containing permanganates (UUU1)I IbS.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing peroxides (D001) 15 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing petroleum distillates (D001) 1,237 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable) containing sodium nitrite (D001) 20 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable, toxic) containing acetone and benzene (D001, D018, F003) 70 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable, toxic) containing mercuric nitrate (DO01, D009) 7 lbs.Process chemicals (ignitable, toxic) containing sodium hypochlorite and silver (D001) 8 lbs.Process chemicals (toxic) containing arsenic (D004) 125 lbs.Process chemicals (toxic) containing barium, chromium, and silver (D005, D007, D011) 41 lbs.Process chemicals (toxic) containing mercuric acetate (D009) 5 lbs.Process chemicals (toxic) containing mercury (D009) 16 lbs.Process chemicals (toxic)in labpacks containing silver (D011) 5 lbs.Solvent waste (ignitable) from cleaning and degreasing, containing mineral spirits (D001) 2,758 lbs.Solvent waste (ignitable) from laboratory samples; containing isopropanol (D001) 826 lbs.Solvent waste (toxic) from cleaning and degreasing in labpacks containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane (F002) 8 lbs.Note: Hazardous wastes reported in this table are the total types and quantities of hazardous waste generated on Artificial Island. Data were obtained from the annual hazardous.waste report submitted in February 1998 to the NJDEP for Calendar year 1997..Salem.09123/99 33 Salem Generating Station Table 2-2: Current Hazardous Substances and Related Pollution Prevention Systems Hydrocarbon Sources Main fuel oil storage tank Steel tank Distillate oil 840,000 gallons Gravel dike with and truck unloading area, impermeable membrane liner 70 pieces of (active) Steel housing .Mineral oil 172,647 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete outside mineral oil-filled pad and curbed with electrical equipment crushed rock bottom;diversion to oil/water separator 4 storage tanks Steel tank Distillate oil 120,000 gallons total Concrete room encloses each tank 13 lube oil storage tanks Steel tank Petroleum lube oil 101,800 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete and associated truck floor; diversion to oil/water unloading areas separator 2 oil/water separators Steel tank Oil/water mix 80,000 gallons total Concrete containment 3 tanks Concrete tank Oil/water mixtures 30,000 gallons Housekeeping 2 pieces of (inactive) spare Steel housing Mineral oil 22,500 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete mineral oil-filled pad transformers Sludge storage tank and Steel tank Oily. sludge 5,000 gallons Concrete containment transfer area 2 storage tanks and Steel tank Waste oil 4,000 gallons total Integral steel inside associated transfer area concrete 6 smaller day tanks Steel tank Distillate oil 3,300 gallons total Concrete curb/floor Salem.09/23/99 34 0 Salem Generating Station Table 2-2: Current Hazardous Substances and Related Pollution Prevention Systems (continued) ource Container Type Hazardous Product Quantity Containment Type_____ _____ _____ __ __ _____ _____ _____Substance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _5 smaller storage tanks Steel tank Distillate oil 1,600 gallons total Concrete curbing; pad located in the boiler diversion to oil/water building and the pump skimmer house Chemical Sources Clarifier No. 1 and 2 Coated carbon steel tank Process wastewater 880,000 gallons Housekeeping; concrete floor Waste equalization basin Fiberglass-lined concrete Process wastewater 240,000 gallons Housekeeping; concrete tank -*floor 4 waste tanks (low and Coated concrete tank Process wastewater 195,000 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete high conductivity) floor; diversion to chemical*
- waste tank 2 storage tanks (Unit Durakane fiberglass-lined' Sodium hypochlorite 176,000 gallons Earth dike (sand, gravel, Nos. 1 and 2) and truck steel tank (15%) solution
- and clay); asphalt sprayed;unloading areas concrete/asphalt floor 5 caustic storage tanks Durakane fiberglass-lined Sodium hydroxide (50%) 17,500 gallons Caustic-resistant concrete and associated truck steel tank, epoxy enamel- solution dike/floor; diversion to unloading areas coated steel tank chemical waste tank 4 storage tanks and truck Lined or resin-coated steel Sulfuric acid (98%) .12,500 gallons total Acid-resistant dike/unloading areas .tank flooring; diversion to chemical waste tank 4 smaller tanks Fiberglass tank, coated Process wastewater 12,250 gallons total Housekeeping; concreteconcrete tank, lined steel .flooring divertedto larger tank process waste tanks 2 spray additive tanks and Steel tank Sodium hydroxide 8,000 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete truck unloading areas building and floor Salem.09/23/99 35 Salem Generating Station Table 2-2: Current Hazardous Substances and Related Pollution Prevention Systems (continued)
Source , Container Type .Hazardous .Product Quantity)Substance 1 ethylene glycol storage Steel tank Ethylene glycol 5,200 gallons tank (antifreeze) Containment Type Steel 3 storage tanks at Unit Steel tank. Ammonia hydroxide 4,000 gallons total Concrete curbing;No. 1 turbine, and truck (<28%) solution diversion to chemical unloading areas waste tank 2 component coolant Steel tank Potassium chromate. 4,000 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete system surge/mix tanks floor (Unit Nos. 1 and 2)4 storage tanks for the Steel tank Hydrazine (5-35%) 850 gallons total Housekeeping; concrete Unit No. 1 turbine solution floor; diversion to chemical waste tank Salem.09/23/99 36 Salem Generating Station Table 2-3: Historic Operations and Related Pollution Prevention Systems Hydrocarbon Sources USTs One removed fiberglass distillate oil 2,000 gallons Unknown- None N/A storage tank, located at the TSC 1989ASTs Salem Main Fuel Tank: Distillate Oil 840,000 gallons 1970- Concrete dike on Impermeable liner on gravel Present Delaware River dike added in 1990..side of containment, gravel dike;periodic integrity testing Transfer All fuel oil piping from distillate oil N/A 1971- None None Pipelines tank to day tanks, generators, and Present combustion turbine unit is underground, single-walled and has no leak detection. Combustion Unit No. 3 combustion turbine has 55 gallons 1971- Two underground Tanks replaced in 1991 with Turbine Units underground purge oil collection Present 55-gallon steel* sump directed to high-volume tank that. collects unburned oil when tanks oil/water separator. engines are shut down.Salem.09123/99 37 Salem Generating Station Table 2-3: Historic Operations and Related Pollution Prevention Systems (continued) Oil-Containing Electric T&D Equipment One 500kv switchyard at each generating station; mineral oil-filled containers that require regular mineral oil changeouts via mobile filtering equipment. 7.5-8 acres 1976-Present Traprock;inspection/ housekeeping; generally concrete containment, drain to treatment system None Salem.09/23/99 38 Salem Generating Station Table 2-4: Pollution Prevention Plans Discharge Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures PlanDischarge Cleanup and Removal Plan (DPCC/SPCC/DCR) Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan Management of petroleum and other hazardous substances.The plans include provisions for spill prevention, spill response, inspection of storage and containment areas, training ofpersonnel, etc. 1978 July 1999 Approximately 1978Best Management Practices (BMP) Management of hazardous substances to prevent unauthorized 1985 1999 Plan discharges to ground and surface waters.Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Management of stormwater runoff to prevent contamination. September 1998 Facility Response Plan Management of major sources of oil storage and transfer on February 1993 February 1998 navigable waters.Underground Storage Tank Release Management of response to releases from underground storage. No underground Response Plan .tanks. storage tanks on site RCRA Contingency Plan.. Management of releases of hazardous waste. This information .February 1998 is shared with Local Emergency Planning Committees. Non-Radioactive Waste Operations Procedures for operations and maintenance of the treatment 1985 July 1996 and Maintenance Manual facility under routine and emergency conditions. Low-Volume Oily Waste Operations Procedures for operations and maintenance of the treatment 1985 July 1996 and Maintenance Manual facility under routine and emergency conditions. Cooling Tower Manual Operations Procedures for operations and maintenance of the treatment 1985 July 1996 and Maintenance Manual facility under routine and emergency conditions.. Sewage Treatment Plant Operations Procedures for operations and maintenance of the treatment 1985 March 1999 and Maintenance Manual facility under routine and emergency conditions. Emergency Response Guide Substance-specific procedures for responding to releases and November 1992 ND.FP-EO.ZZ-0002(Z) spills of hazardous substances. Salem.09/23/99 39 Salem Generating Station Table 2-4: Pollution Prevention Plans (continued) Date Status/1 Last Update January 1997 Regulatory Reporting Guide ECG Aft. 16 Reference guidelines for reporting and documenting environmental incidents. Operations Manual for Fuel Transfer Management of fuel transfer operations from barges. N/A Operations By Barge Salem.09/23/99 40 0 0 Salem Generating Station Table 2-5: Summary of Discharge Investigations and Remediation Cases L.ocationi .. Case Nu.mber Issue * " > Outcome Unit No. 3 Gas 91-01-23-1549-05
- Discharge MOA executed 4/93.Turbine discovered during rembinediscoval of tSoil remediation and RAR completed.
removal of two 55.gallon oil collection
- NJDEP issued No Further Action letter 11/5/94.
USTs.Investigation concluded that soil contamination was result of historic discharges from Gas Turbine Unit.Auxiliary Building 95-11-15-1210-31
- Historic leaks of Determination that none of the impacted area had a concentration of No. 2 fuel oil line to TPH exceeding the 10,000 ppm cleanup level..the Auxiliary Building between 1978 and B Groundwater was tested in the area of the leak and no VOCs or 1980. 1SVOCs were detected.1980.Based on TPH concentrations and the absence of impacted water, no soil was removed from the area.Results were submitted to the NJDEP in December 1996 and the NJDEP determined that N.J.A.C. requirements were satisfied.
Salem.09/23199 41 Salem Generating. Station Table 3-1: Liability Screening-Salem Generating Station investigation Yes i Investigation is retained as an issue at all sites wnere any candidate liability issue is retained.Ash Ponds No X Issue does not exist at Salem.Coal Pile No X Issue does not exist at Salem.Hydrocarbon Sources Yes , One or more elements were retained. USTs Yes V One UST was removed from Salem in 1989. There are insufficient data towarrant exclusion as an element, ASTs-distillate oil Yes / Salem has one distillate oil AST. There are no site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element.ASTs-heavy oil No X Element does not exist at Salem.Transmission pipelines No X Element does not exist at Salem.Transfer pipelines Yes V Underground transfer pipelines exist at Salem. There are no site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element.Combustion turbine units No X One combustion turbine unit exists at Salem. Two former underground purge oil collection tanks were removed in 1990. Soil remediation related to purge oil tanks occurred in the area of the former tanks. In November 1994, the NJDEP issued an NFA letter for soil and groundwater at the combustion turbine unit. The existing purge oil collection tanks are contained inside a concrete vault. Therefore, the element is not retained.Oil-containing electric T&D equipment Yes V Element exists at Salem. There are no site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element.Miscellaneous spills Yes V Spill records date back to 1986. There are no records of spills prior to 1986 to warrant exclusion as an element.Salem.09/23199 42 Salem Generating Station Table 3-1: Liability Screening-Salem Generating Station (continued) ~Candidate Liability Issue I~ ssue, ~Element* Retained Retained~ Chemical Sources Boiler operations and maintenance processes Bulk storage and handling areas Yes No Yes Yes Yes V One or more elements were retained., X The auxiliary boiler building foundation is poured concrete that provides containment for operations and maintenance processes. V Element exists at Salem. There are no site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element. V There are no site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element.V Spill records date back to 1986. There are no records of spills prior to 1986 to warrant exclusion as an element..Waste disposal Miscellaneous spills PCB Sources Yes V One or more elements were retained.Oil-containing electric T&D equipment Yes V Salem has oil-filled equipment that was in service when PCBs were in use.There are insufficient site-specific data to warrant exclusion as an element.Gas condensate blowdown No X Element does not exist at Salem.On-Site Fill No X No elements were retained., Historic fill No X The property was made by deposition of hydraulic fill from USACOE dredging at depth of the Delaware River channel. The majority of the filling occurred prior to 1940. Therefore, it is not retained as an element.Ash fill No X Element does not exist at Salem.Dredge spoils No X Element does not exist at Salem.On-Site Surface Water, Drainages, Yes V Element exists at Salem and there are potential upgradient sources and Wetlands associated with Station operations. Monitoring Yes V Monitoring is retained as an issue at all sites where any candidate liability issue is retained.Salem.09/23/99 43 Salem Generating Station Table 3-2: Liability Characterization-Salem Generating Station Investigation N/A I N/A N/A M (16 liability units)N/A NIA.1N/A Ash Ponds N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Coal Pile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydrocarbon'Sources USTs 1 Potential UST removed in 1989 in M Default scale 200 600 pathway to accordance with of 200 cy/tank.groundwater applicable regulations. Assume depth and Delaware of 9 feet and River and Total: 1 surface area wetlands of 600 sf/tank.ASTs-- 1 Potential The AST has had an M Default scale 400 3,600 distillate oil pathway to earthen dike or other of 400 cy/unit.groundwater containment throughout Assume depth and Delaware its history, has been of 3 feet, and River and Upgraded to meet API surface area wetlands requirements, and an of 3,600 sf/impermeable liner has unit.been installed. Total: 1 ASTs-heavy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A oil Transmission N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pipelines Salem.09/23/99 44 0 0 0 Salem Generating Station Table 3-2: Liability Characterization-Salem Generating Station (continued) Transfer Pipelines 1 Potential pathway to groundwater and Delaware River None M Default scale of 400 cy/unit.Assume depth of 3 feet and surface area of 3,600 sf/unit.4oo 3,60UU Combustion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Turbine Units Oil-Containing 1 Potential
- Presence of traprock or M Default scale 200 1,800 Electric T&D pathway to containment limits impact of 200 cy/ unit.Equipment groundwater to soil. Assume depth and Delaware Total: 1 of 3 feet and River surface area of 1,800 sf/unit.Miscellaneous Spills 1 Potential pathway to groundwater and Delaware River I None M Default scale of 200 cy/station.Assume depth of 3 feet and surface area of 1,800 sf/station.200 1,800 Total [-__ .[ M I __.1,4001 11,400 Salern.09/23/99 45 Salem Generating Station Table 3-2: Liability Characterization-Salem Generating Station (continued)
Chemical Sources Boiler Operations and Maintenance Processes N/A I N/A N/AN/AN/A N/A N/A Bulk Storage 1 Potential
- Areas have been M Default scale 100 900 and Handling pathway to contained since circa of 100 cy/Areas groundwater 1990. station.and Delaware Total- 1 Assume depth River of 3 feet and surface area of 900 sf/station.Waste Disposal.1 Potential pathway to groundwater and Delaware River None M Default scale of 100.cy/station.Assume depth of 3 feet and surface area of 900 sf/station.100 9001 Salem.09/23/99 46 Salem Generating Station Table 3-2: Liability Characterization.-Salem Generating Station (continued)
Miscellaneous Spills 1 Potential pathway to groundwater and Delaware River None M Default scale of 100 cy/station.Assume depth of 3 feet and surface area of 900 sf/station.100 900 Total [ _31 1 M 1 300[ 2,700 PCB Sources Oil-Containing 7 Potential Presence of traprock or M Default scale 420 3,780 Electric T&D pathway to containment limits impact of 60 cy/Equipment groundwater to soil. station.and Delaware T 1 Assume depth River and to of 3 feet and Station surface area personnel of 540 sf/station.Gas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Condensate Blowdown Total 7 M 420 3,780 Salem.09/23/99 47 Salem Generating Station Table 3-2: Liability Characterization-Salem Generating Station (continued) On-Site Fill Historic Fill N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ash Fill N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dredge Spoils N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total N/A N/A N/A N/A On-Site 1 Potential
- No visual indication of L 100% of on- 32 4,375 Surface Water, pathway to stress or impact. site water, Drainages, and wetland* drainage, and Wetlands ecological wetlands area communities Total: 2 downgradient from potential sources.Assume depth.of 2 feet and 10% of total volume for remediation.
Monitoring N/A N/A N/A M 12 wells (4 N/A N/A Average liability issues)remedy intensity is medium.Salem.09/23/99 48 Salem Generating Station Table 3-3: Liability Decision Tree-Salem Generating Station 1 2 3 Investigation Hydrocarbon Sources Chemical Sources (PA/SI/RI/RAWP) 4 PCB Sources*Institutional controls are also assumed as a component of all engineering controls and active treatment remedies.Salem.09/23/99 49 Salem Generating Station Table 3-3: Liability Decision Tree-Salem Generating Station (continued) 5 6On-Site Surface Water, Monitoring Drainages, and Wetlands*Institutional controls are also assumed as a component of all engineering controls and active treatment remedies. Salem.09/23/99 50 0 Salem Generating Station Table 3-4: Liability Valuation-Salem Generating StationItem I -Investligatin tern 4. Hydrocarbon Sources Scenario CoSt Prob. Expected Scenario Cost Prob. Expected Value Value U.S.$ M U.S.$ S,$ M U.S.$Low Effort $ 23M318 0.30 $ 71.495 Inltuional Controls $ 11.396 0.20 $ 2,279Soil Rerovl/Off-SgeDisposal or On-SeeMediu, Effort $ 476S636 0.40 $ 190.654 Treatment $ 214.070 0.40 $ 85,628Soil Removal and NAPIHigh Effort $ 1,429.907 0.30 $ 42B,972 Recouery $ 270.362 0.30 $ 81,109Soil R-1oval. NAPL necovery. and Groundoelr Efracfion_reanent e Carlbon) 1 $ 1.556.661 0.10 $ 155666 r If S, 691,121 1100 3 Item 5 -Chemical Sources hem 6 -PCB Sources Scenario C-t Prob. Expected Scenario Cost Prob. Expected Value Value oU.S.f$ M U.SS.$ U.S.$ M U.S.S instnrtiolControls $ 1' .3 0.40 $ 4,558 Insbtutional Controls $ 11t396 0.10 $ rIS40Sog Remowvl/Off-SiReDisposal or "ret.ent. $ .173,16, 0.30 $ 51.949 FeninrfCapir S 410f25 0.20 $ 8,205Grounduste, Exffacon t Soil R--emoff-Sten and Treatment $ 1.276,75.5 .0.20 $ 255.351 Disposal $ 11.278 0.60 $ 69,167 Soil Renovi end ; Capping and Sroundtenr -. -rcundoter E.trecion/Treratent 1$ 1,450,085 0.10 0 EractioinTreatment $ 1,317,781 0.05 $ 65.A89 Excavaion/Off-SdeDisposal and Grounddwr, 0.05i s 1.392.198$ 69.610 I I_1.W Is 456,867 214 0 v hem s -On-Site Surface Water, Drainages, and Wetlands Item 9 -Monitoring Totalo Expected>-~Value Scenario Cost Prob. Expected Scenario Cost Pros. Expected -Value Value U.0..$ L U0.. .U.S.$ M U0.S.$ $ 7517 0.40 $ 3007 M ounrorin.- 5 sm $ 97,500 030 $ 29,274Access Contols/ Runoff Controls $ 127.006 0.30 S 38.102 Monitorino-10 learns $ 147.096 0.40 $ 5883Lrimnid Sedinent R,,ova -Off-Sit. Diopole cr OnS Soil Treatment $ 67w006 0,30 $ 20.126 Monitodnn -20 years $ 216.759 0.30 $ 65,028Assesrnent. Iredling. ano Off-Sin Sediment Dispoco $ 341 780 50. _1.E0 61,235 10O $ 163,140 $ 1,901,055 Discount RateInflation Rate Start Year of Remediation 7%21/6 4 Salem.09123199 ' 51 Appendix C Well Details (Boring Logs, Well Completion Details, Well Completion Details, Well Completion Records, and Survey Form Bs) 0 Sample/ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well M P.Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 5/3/2003 Completed .5/3/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device NA Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 20.0 Feet Hole Diameter 5.25 5.25 inches by 5.0 feet hollow-stem augers 99.26 feet None Sampling Interval NA feet D Estimated Datum Plant Datum M-' Surveyed Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Jon RutledgeDriller Nick Helper Larry Hammer Hammer Weight NA Drop NA inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 10.0 " Borehole advanced to 10.0 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 11.5 20.0 -- SAND, medium, brown, some Silt, wet, slight hydrocarbon odor.Description from cuttings.20.0 End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well M.Soil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well R P1 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/ NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 19.0 Feet.Hole Diameter 3.25 Drilling Drilling Started 6/3/2003 Completed 6/3/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device NA Sampling Interval NA feet IEstimated Datum Plant Datum 3.25 inches by 4.0 feet 99.82 feet None'xSurveyed F1 1-1 Drilling Method Direct Push CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Driller Jeff Helper Steve Hammer Hammer Weight NA Drop NA inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 3.0 ..... Description from cuttings: SAND, reddish to yellowish orange, some silt, clay and gravel.3.0 12.0 .... " -Description from cuttings: CLAY, yellowish orange, some sand (fine to medium). Borehole advanced-to 12.0 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation.12.0 19.0 Boring advanced from 12.0 feet to 19.0 feet using direct push process.A sample/core desription was unable to be observed between 12.0 and 19.0' due to the nature of the direct push process.19.0 End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well R.F + F i i + + i+ F S +/- F F + + F+/- -F 4 4- F 4- F 4 4- F-.4- F + + F+ F S F +/-Soil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well S Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Drilling Drilling Started 5/29/2003 Completed 5/29/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 36.0 Feet Hole Diameter 2 2 feet by 2 inches None Sampling Interval U-Estimated Datum Plant Datum 5 feet feet s urveyed Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Jon Rutledge Driller Marc Helper Steve Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feetf PID Reading foomt Samole/Core Descriot ion 0 0.0 -9.5' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 9.5 11.5 2.0 7-9-11-15 0.0 9.5 -14.0' orange, silty medium SAND with gravel 14.0 16.0 1.9 12-15-16-17 0.0 14.0 -19.0' tan, clayey medium SAND with gravel 19.0 .21.0 2.0 8-9-13-15 0.0 19.0 -20.7' light brown, medium SAND with gravel"_ 20.7 -24.0' gray, medium SAND with gravel 24.0 26.0 2.0 140 lbs/0.9'-2-3 0.0 24.0 -25.7'r gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 25.7 -26.0' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica 29.0 31.0 2.0 140 lbs/0.5'-2-1-2 1.0 26.0 -34.4' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 34.0 36.0 2.0 2-2-8-14 0.0 34.4 -36.0' gray, medium SAND with gravel and trace mica 36.0' End of Boring+ 4 4 + 4 Soil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 C ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well T Project/Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Total Depth Drilled 35.5 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 2 feet by 2 inches Land-Surface Elev. 100.97 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Prepared By Jon Rutledge No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page .1 of 1 Drilling DrillingStarted 6/5/2003 Completed 6/5/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Hole Diameter 2 Sampling IntervalDatum Plant Datum 5 feet[]Surveyed DEstimated Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Driller Marc Helper SteveHammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -9.5' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities9.5 11.5 2.0 2-2-2-2 0.0 9.5 -14.9' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica14.5 16.5 2.0 5-4-3-3 0.0 14.9- 15.4' gray, medium SAND with trace clay andmica 19.5 21.5 2.0 1-2-2-3 0.0 15.4 -26.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand.and mica24.5 26.5 2.0 1-2-2-4 0.0 26.0.- 26.5' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica 29.5 31.5 2.0 3-3-21-50 0.0 31.5 33.5 2.0 25-30-20-15 0.0 26.5 -33.2' gray, medium SAND with gravel and trace mica33.5 35.5 0.0 140 lbs/2.0' NA 33.2- 33.5' gray, CLAY with trace mica 35.5' End of Boring F + +F + +F I +/- I +F I + I +F I + I +F + +Soil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well U Project/i Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 5/28/2003 Completed 5/28/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon TotalDepth Drilled Length and Diameterof Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used, Drilling Contractor Prepared By ..36.0 .Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 2 99.54 None Sampling Interval Datum Plant Datum 5 feet feet ' I] Surveyed D Estimated Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Jon Rutledge Driller Marc Helper SteveHammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PlO Reading (Domi Samole/Core Description 0* " _0.0 -9.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 9.0 11.0 2.0 7-3-4-4 78.1 9.0- 9.7 black,tfine sandy SILT with trace mica; hydrocarbon odor 9.7 -14.0' gray, silty fine SAND with trace mica; hydrocarbon odor 14.0 16.0 2.0 5-4-3-3 38.5 14.0 -20.0' gray, fine SAND with trace silt and mica; hydrocarbon odor 19.0 .21.0 2.0 1-2-1-2 7.6 20.0 -29.0' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica24.0 26.0 2.0 2-2-1-2 7.2 29.0 3i.0 2.0 16-20-28-30 20.2 29.0 -32.0' gray, medium SAND with gravel 34.0 36.0 1.7 11-7-6-8. 8.6 32.0 -36.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 36.0' End of BoringSoil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well V Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 2 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 80.0 Feet Hole Diameter 2 Drilling Drilling Started 6/6/2003 Completed 6/12/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Sampling Interval Continous D Estimated Datum Plant Datum 2 feet by 2 inches 99.16 None feet -]Surveyed Drilling Method Mud Rotary CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Driller Marc Helper SteveHammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Jon Rutledqe Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery Prom To /feetl Blow PID Counts Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0- 10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities10.0 12.0 2.0 1-1-3-2 0.0 10.0 -12.0' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica12.0 14.0 2.0 3-1-1-2 0.0 12.0- 14.0' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica 14.0 16.0 2.0 3-3-1/1.0' 0.0 14.0 -16.0' gray, CLAY with trace medium sand and mica 16.0 18.0 2.0 3-1-1-3 0.0 16.0 -18.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 18.0 20.0 2.0 140 lbs./1.0'-2-1 0.0 18.0 -20.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 20.0 22.0 2.0 1-2-2-2 0.0 20.0 -22.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 22.0 24.0 2.0 140 Ibs./1.0'-3-3 0.0 22.0 -24.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 24.0 26.0 2.0 3-2-3-2 0.0 24.0 -26.0' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 26.0 28.0 2.0 140 Ibs./1.0'-3-3 0.0 26.0 -28.0'. gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica28.0 30.0 2.0 3-2-2-3 0.0 28.0 -30.0' gray, fine sandy CLAY with trace mica30.0 32.0 2.0 8-9-11-15 0.0 30.0 -31.3' gray, fine sandy CLAY with organic material 31.3 -32.0' gray, medium SAND 32:0 34.0 2.0 15-20-25-23 0.0 32.0 -33.5' gray, silty medium SAND 33.5 -33.6' purple, fine SAND with gravel 33.6 -34.0' brown, medium to coarse SAND with gravel 34.0 36.0 1.0 20-18-15-9 0.0 34.0 -36.0' gray, medium to coarse SAND with gravel 36.0 38.0 2.0 6-6-8-15 0.0 36.0 -36.8' gray, medium to coarse SAND with gravel 36.8 -38.0' gray, CLAY38.0 40.0 0.5 7-8-8-10 0.0 38.0 -40.0' gray, GRAVEL with trace claySoil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER Sample/Core Log (Cont.d)BoringtWell Well V Page 2 of 2 Prepared by Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 40.0 2.0 40.0 -42.0' arav. CLAY with trace silt and qravel 42.0 7-7-8-12 0.0 0 42.0 44.0 2.0 5-7-9-12 0.0 42.0- 44.0' gray, CLAY with trace silt 44.0 46.0 2.0 7-9-12-12 0.0 44.0-44.6' gray, GRAVEL (cave-in)44.6-46.0' gray, CLAY with trace silt46.0 48.0 2.0 9-9-10-13 0.0 46.0 -46.2' gray, GRAVEL (cave-in)46.2 -48.0' gray, CLAY with trace silt 48.0 50.0 2.0 16-8-9-10 0.0 48.0 -50.0' gray, CLAY with trace silt*50.0 52.0 2.0 5-5-6-10 0.0 50.0 -52.0' gray, CLAY withtrace silt 52.0 54.0 2.0 10-11-12-13 0.0 52.0- 53.6' gray, CLAY" 53.6 -54.0' dark purple, silty sandy CLAY with trace mica54.0 56.0 2.0 .10-13-17-17. 0.0 54.0 -56.0' red, clayey fine SAND with trace mica 56.0 .58.0 2.0 8-11-25-22 0.0 56.0 -57.5' reddish gray, clayey fine SAND with trace mica 57.5 7 58.0'. reddish gray, fine SAND with trace mica 5 0 60.0 2.0 12-12-9-9 0.0 58.0 -60.0' gray, fine.SAND with trace mica 60,0 62.0 1.7 8-11-20-21 0.0 60.0 -62.0' gray, fine SAND with trace mica62.0 64.0 2.0 .8-10-15-25 0.0 62.0 -64.0' gray, fine SAND with trace silt and mica 64.0 66.0 0.9 24-24-18-10 0.0 64.0 -66.0' gray, medium to coarse SAND with gravel 666.0 68.0 1.4 4-4-6-12 .0.0 66.0 -67.2' gray, medium to coarse SAND with gravel 67.2 -68.0' green, fine SAND with trace silt68.0 70.0 1.5 15-15-13-23 0.0 68.0 -70.0' grayish green, fine SAND with trace silt 70.0 72.0 .2.0 16-16-20-22 0.0 70.0 -72.0' green, fine SAND with trace silt and gravel 72.0 74.0 2.0 20-20-31-20 0.0 72.0 -74.0' greenish black, fine to medium SAND with fragments of seashells 74.0 76.0 1.5 48-50/0.3' 0.0 74.0 -76.0' dark green, fine SAND with trace fragments of seashells*"76.0 78.0 2.0 30-18-23-30 0.0 76.0*- 78.0' olive green, fine SAND with trace silt 78.0 80.0 1.0 30-70-50/0.2' 0.0 78.0 -80.0' olive green, fine SAND with trace silt 80.0' End of BoringSoil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 0 P ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well W Pro Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey ject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generrating Station/NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 6/2/2003 Completed 6/3/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 36.0 Feet Hole Diameter 2 2 feet by 2 inches 99.36 None feet 'Surveyed Sampling Interval DEstimated Datum Plant Datum 5 feet Drilling Method Hollow.Stem Auger CT&E Environmental Services, Inc.Driller Marc Helper SteveHammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -9.5' Vacuum excavation to identifysubsurface utilities 9.5 11.5 1.6 15-20-22-22 0.0 9.5 -16.2' brown, medium to coarse SAND with gravel14.5 16.5 0.3 1/0.9'-2-2 0.0 16.2 -18.0' gray, medum sandy CLAY 18.0 20.0 2.0 1/1.5'-2 0.0 24.0 26.0 2.0 140 lbs/0.5-1-1-2 0.0 29.0 31.0 1.9 140 lbs/2.0' 0.0 18.0 -34.3' gray, CLAY with trace fine sand and mica 34.0 36.0 2.0 6-8-3-4 0.0 34.3 -36.0' gray, clayey fine SAND 36.0' End of Boring Soil Boring Logs -Wells M and R through W.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well Y P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge. New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page- 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 9/27/2003 Completed 9/27/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 40,0 Feet Hole Diameter 9.0 9.0-inch by 5.0-feet hollow-stem augers.99.20 feet None FX-Surveyed Sampling Interval 5.0 feet D Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger A:C. Schultes, Inc.Driller C. Warren Helper W. PowersHammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches Christopher Sharpe Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feetl PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 10.0 ...... Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation.14.0 16.0 2.0 110/1/0 -- SILT, dark gray, trace sand, fining with depth, wet.19.0 21.0 2.0 ,0/0/111 -- SILT, dark gray, trace sand, stiffening with depth, wet. 24.0. 26.0 1.5 1/3/4/5 -- SILT, dark gray, trace sand.29.0. 31.0 2.0 112/1/2 -- First 1.0 feet: SILT, dark gray; Next 1.0 feet: SILT, with clay and some sand,--- -.. .... -- sand increasing with depth.34.0 36.0 2.0 2/3/5/6 --
- First 1.0 feet: SILT, dark gray; Next 1.0 feet: CLAY, gray, stiff.37.0 39.0 1.5 3/1/0/1 * -- First 1.0 feet: SILT, dark gray; Next 0.5 feet: CLAY, gray and tan, stiff.40.0 .. .. -- -- End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well Y.: 0 Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well Z Site Project/No.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page 1 of I Drilling Drilling Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Started 9/30/2003 Completed 9/30/2003 Type of Sample/Coring DeviceTotal Depth Drilled 38 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 9.0-inch by 5.0-f Land-Surface Elev. 99.3 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Hole Diameter 9.0 inches Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)feet hollow-stem augers.Sampling Interval 5.0 feet Datum NAVD 1988[X-Surveyed D Estimated Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Prepared By A.C. Schultes, Inc.Christopher Sharpe Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0 10 .... Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 15 17 2 2/11111 -- SILT, dark gray with trace fine sand (diesel odor). 20 22 2 0/1/0/1 -- SILT, dark gray with trace fine sand.25 27 2 0/0/2/1 -- CLAY, dark gray with some silt and trace fine sand.27 29 2 1/2/2 -- SILT, dark gray with some clay and fine to medium sand,... .. ... * -- coarsening with depth.29 31 2 2/1/1/1 -- SILT, dark gray with some clay and trace sand... .. .... ... (Distict 0.05 to 0.1 foot organic horizon @ 1.2 ft)31 33 2 15/20/44/33 -- First 1.5 feet: SILT, dark gray with some clay and trace sand... .. ......- Next 0.25 foot: SAND with gravel.-- -..... -. Next 0.25 foot: SAND, brown, medium-fine. 33 35 2 10/11/29144 -- First 0.25 foot: SAND, cemented gray S-- -. ......- Next 1.75 feet: SAND, dark gray with gravel.35 37 2 2/9/15/25 -- First 1.2 feet: SAND, dark gray silty... .. ......- Next 0.8 foot: SAND, brown with gravel.37 .. ...... End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well Z.Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 P ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AA P Site (Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 9/30/2003 Completed 9/30/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Total Depth Drilled 36.5 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 9.0-inch by 5.0-f Land-Surface Elev. .99.20 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, It Prepared By Christopher Sha Hole Diameter 9.0 eet hollow-stem augers.[ Surveyed Sampling. Interval 5.0 feet D Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger nc.Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches irpe Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0 10 -- -- Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation.15171.5 4/8/12/19 SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.W 20 22 1.9 3/7/14122 SAND. tan. with aravel and silt.25 27 2 5/12/16/33 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.30 32 1.8 1/2/6/14 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.35 37 .2 8/6/7/8 -- First 1.0 foot: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt... .. ..- -- -- Next 1 foot: CLAY, stiff gray (Kirkwood). 36.5 .. .... End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well AA.Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AB PI Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571 .000Z Page 1 of 1 Total Depth Drilled 43 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 90-inch by 5.0-f Land-Surface Elev. 99. 10 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling*Contractor A.C. Schultes, Ir Prepared By Christopher Sha Hole Diameter 9.0 Drilling Drilling.Started 10/2/2003 Completed 10/2/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Sampling Interval 5.0 feet-Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 eet hollow-stem augers.'Surveyed/q F--.1 ... ..nrpe Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches irpe Sample/Core Depth (feet below lan nd surface) Core Recovery Blow Counts PID Reading Inm', 0 10 ...... Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 15 17 1.2 314/4/5 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.20 22 2 7/7/12/24 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.25 27 2 4/12/5/7 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.30 32 1.2 5/4/5/3 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.35 37 2 5/7/7/13 -- First 1.8 feeet: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt... .. ...... Next 0.4 foot: SAND, dark gray, medium (petroleum odor).37 39 2 13/27/13/15 -- First 1.6 feet: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt... .. ......- Next 0.4 foot: SAND, dark gray, clayey.39 41 2 8/8/8/11 -- First 0.3 foot: SAND, gray.... .. ..... .- Next 1.4 feet: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt....... .. .. .--N e x t 0 .3 f o o t : S A N D , g r a y .41 43 2 7/5/3/5 First 1 foot: SLOUGH... .. ......- Next 0.6 foot: SAND, gray, medium... .......- Next 0.3 foot: CLAY, gray, stiff.43.0 .. ...... End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well AB.Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AC Pi Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey rojectiNo. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 9/26/2003 Completed 9/26/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Hole Diameter 9.0 Total Depth Drilled 24.5 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 13.0-inch by 5.0 Land-Surface Elev. 99.00 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Ir Prepared By Christopher Sha-feet hollow-stem augers.Sampling Interval 5.0 feet FlEstimated Datum NAVD 1988" Surveyed Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger lc..rpe Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0 10 .Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 10 12 1.6 5/7/6/6 SAND, tan, with qravel and silt.15 17 1.6 4/13/10/17 SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.20 22 2 3/5/8/10 -- First 1.8 feet: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt... .. .......- Next 0.2 foot: SAND, gray, coarse-medium with red-brown clay.22 24 2 4/3/5/6 -- First 1.5 feet: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.-- .. .. -.... Next 0.5 feet: SAND, gray to brown, with gravel and silt.24 24.5 0.2 NA -- First 0.2 foot: Tan silt & sand w/ gravel.-- -- " -- -- -- Refusal.24.5 ... ..... End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring W ell AC.0 Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AD P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 10/3/2003 Completed 10/3/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Total Depth Drilled 44 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 9.0-inch by 5.0-f Land-Surface Elev. 99.10 feet.Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, I Prepared By Christopher Sha Hole Diameter 9.0 feet hollow-stem augers.FSurveyed Sampling Interval 5.0 feet LlEstimated Datum NAVD 1988 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger nc.Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer .Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches arpe Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (DOm)Samole/Core Description 0 10 ...... Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 15 17 2 1/0/0/1 -- CLAY, dark gray with silt and organic material.20 .22 2 0/0/0/0 -- CLAY, dark gray with silt and organic material.25 27 2 1/0/1/1 -- First 1 foot: CLAY, dark gray with silt and organic material... .. ..- -.... .Next 1 foot: SAND, dark gray with silt.30 32 2 0/1/2/1 -- CLAY, dark gray with silt and organic material (phragmites). -- .. ......- First 1 foot: SILT, dark gray with sand... .. ......- Next 1 foot: SAND, dark gray, with silt.37 39 2 3/7/8/5 -- First 1 foot: CLAY, dark gray, sandy... .. .. ...- Next 1 foot: SAND, gray to brown with gravel.39 41 -2 9/12/6/5 -- First 0.5 foot: SLOUGH... .. ....- -- " Next 0.5 foot: SAND, gray, interbedded with dark gray organic material.. .. .... .. ..- (rhythm ites)... .. -...... Next 0.5 foot: CLAY, dark gray. .. .. -- ..... Next 0.5 foot: SAND, tan, medium.41 43 2 3/5/5/5 -- First 1 foot: SAND, gray to brown with gravel... .. -...... Next 1 foot: CLAY, dark gray, stiff.44.0 .. ...... End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well AD.Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 SampleARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AE Pt Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.000Z Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 10/2/2003 Completed 10/2/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Total Depth Drilled 28 Feet Length and Diameter of Coring Device 9.0-inch by 5.0-f Land-Surface Elev. 99.30 feet Drilling Fluid Used None Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Ir Prepared By Christopher Sha Sample/Core Depth Hole Diameter 9.0 eat hollow-stem augers.X Surveyed Sampling Interval 5.0 feet DEstimated Datum NAVD 1988 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger nc.rpe Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 inches feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0 10 -- ' " -- lBorehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 15*17.-2 8/9/18/20 SAND, tan, with qr6vel and silt.20 22 2 14/14/25/32 SAND, tan, with gravel and silt..22 24 2 10/7/13/18 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.24 26 2 6/13/21/20 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.26 28 1.5 15/16/34/30 -- First 1:6 feet: SAND, tan, with gravei and silt.--- -- -..... Next 0.1 foot: CONCRETE chips, w gravel.28.0 -- End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well AE: , .' ,q 0Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core LogBoring/Well Well AF P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0002 Page 1 of .1 Drilling Drilling Started 10/1/2003 Completed 10/1/2003 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-spoon (2-inches by 2-feet)Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 49.0 Feet Hole Diameter 9.0 9.0-inch by 5.0-feet hollow-stem augers.99.20 feet None lx-Surveyed Sampling Interval 5.0 feet r-Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger A.C. Schuftes, Inc.Driller C. Warren Helper W. Powers Hammer Hammer Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 inches Christopher Sharpe Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PID Reading (olm)Samole/Core Descriotion 0 10 ...... Borehole advanced to 10 feet below ground surface using vacuum excavation. 15 17 1.4 0/4/4/2 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.20 22 1.5 4/3/8/14 -- SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.25 27 2 3/6/10/9 -- First 0.6 foot: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt... .. ......- Next 0.6 foot: SAND, gray, with gravel and clay... .. ......- Next 0.6 foot: SAND, tan, with gravel and silt.30 32 2 2/1/2/2 -- First 0.33 foot: Tan silt & sand w/ gravel. Next1 foot gray clay,.Next 0.66 foot gray silty sand.32 34 2 4/9/13/13 -- First 0.66 foot: CLAY, gray with sand... .. ......- Next 0.6 foot: SAND, dark gray, clayey... .. ......- Next 0.6 foot: SAND, gray.34 36 2 5/6/5/37 -- SAND, gray with red gravel at the tip.36 38 2 16/16/13/22 -- SAND, gray, medium.38 40 2 7/6/9/20 -- SAND, gray with greenish sand at tip.40 42 2 10/13/24/24 -- SAND, gray with greenish sand at tip.43 45 2 8/8/8/6 -- SAND, dark gray with gravel.45 47 2 3/5/5/7 -- First 1.5 feet: SAND, silty with some gravel... .. ......- Next 0.25 foot: SAND, greenish... ..- ---... Next 0.25 foot: CLAY, gray.47 49 2 5/4/5/6 -- First 1 foot: SLOUGH (loose sand, silt & clay). Next 1 foot: CLAY dark gray. 49.0 End of boring. Boring completed as Monitoring Well AF.Soil Boring Logs -Wells Y through AF.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/well Well AG-Shallow and Deep Project/No. Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridle, New Jersey PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 2/912004 Completed 02/09/04 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-SpoonTotal Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 40.0 Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 7"_ -Sampling Interval FEstimated Datum NAD 83 5 feet feet .-Surveyed None Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Driller' Joe A. Helper Bill B.Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface)From To Core Blow Recovery Counts (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 10.0 12.0 NR 4-2-3-3 NA 10.0 -18.0' Tan, fine to medium SAND, well sorted, wet 13.0 15.0 .1.2 4-3-3-3 0.0 18.0 20.0 1.0 7-5-4-3 0.0 18.0 -24.7' Tan, fine to medium SAND, well sorted,trace silt, wet 23.0 25.0 0.8 3-2-1-2 0.0 24.7 -28.0' Black, silty fine SAND, well sorted, wet 28.0 30.0 2.0 1-2-1-2 0.0 28.0 -29.1' Grey, fine SAND, well sortedl, trace silt, wet29.1 -33.0' Black to grey, fine sandy, well sorted, SILT with gravel, wet, organic odor 33.0 35.0 NR 5-5-6-5 NA 33.0 -38.0' Black, fine SAND and SILT with GRAVEL, wet 38.0 40.0 1.5 6-6-5-5 0.0 38.0 -39.2' Dark grey, fine SAND, well sorted, tracesilt, wet* 39.2 -39.6' Grey, silty fine to coarse SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel, wet 39.6 -40.0' Grey, silty fine sandy CLAY with gravel, wet 40.0' End of boring 0 Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 & ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AH-Shallow and Deep Project/No. Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Drilling Drilling Started 2/4/2004 Completed Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Page 1 of 1 02/04/04 Split-Spoon terval 5 feet Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 40.0 Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 7 feet n Surveyed Sampling In--Estimated Datum NAD 83 None Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Driller Joe A. Helper Bill B.Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 36 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 10.0 12.0 0.9 2-2-2-2 0.0 10.0 -15.0' Tan, medium SAND, well sorted, trace silt, wet15.0 17.0 1.5 3-2-1-2 0.0 15.0- 25.0' Tan, medium SAND, well sorted, wet 20.0 22.0 0.8 2-2-2-140 lbs./O.5' 0.0 25.0 -30.0' Light grey to tan, fine to medium SAND, well sorted, trace gravel, 25.0 27.0 0.7 3-2-140 lbs./1.0' 0.0 wet30.0 32.0 2.0 Rods/0.5'-8-11-20 0.0 30.0 -32.7' Grey, fine to medium SAND, well sorted, trace silt, wet 32.7 -33.0' Black, GRAVEL, trace fine sand and silt, wet33.0 35.0 0.2 4-1-2-1 0.0 33.0 -39.5' Black, fine sandy SILT with gravel, wet 35.0 37.0 NR Rods/2.0' 0.0 38.0 40.0 1.5 3-5-6-6 0.0 39.5 -40.0' Grey to black, medium to coarse SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel, trace silt, wet 40.0' End of boring-I- + +i 4 + +Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well Al Pr Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey oject/No. PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 1/20/2004 Completed 1/20/2004 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameterof Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 22.0 Feet Hole Diameter 10 2 feet by 2 inches-Sampling Interval DEstimated Datum NAD 83 5 *feet feet iXISurveyed None Drilling Method Hollow'Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Jon Rutledge Driller Joe A. Helper Joe K.Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 inches Sample/Core (feet below lar Depth nd surface) Core Recovery To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)From Sample/Core Description I T [0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 010.0 12.0 1.2 9-16-19-18 0.0 10.0 -15.0' Brown, fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel and trace silt, wet 15.0 17.0 1.0 4-9-12-12 ,88.2 15.0 -20.0' Brown, silty fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, wet, 20.0 22.0 1.3 7-8-9-15 5.1 diesel fuel odor, sheen from 16.5 -17.0'20.0 -22.0' Brown, fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with trace silt, wet diesel fuel odor, sheen from 20.9 -21.1'22.0' Auger refusal on lean concrete 0Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 0ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AJ P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridoe, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Drilling Drilling Started 1/22/2004 Completed Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Page 1 of. 1 1/22/2004 Split-Spoon terval 5 feet Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameterof Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 38.0 Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 10 feet nXSurveyed Sampling In D Estimated Datum NAD 83 None Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Driller Joe A. Helper Not ApplicableHammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities10.0 12.0 1.1 6-9-12-12 0.0 10.0 -15.8' Orange to tan, fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel and trace silt, wet 15.0 17.0 1.5 2-2-2-3 0.0 15.8 -25.0' Black to grey, clayey fine sandy SILT with trace mica, 20.0 22.0 1.0 5-5-7-4 0.0 organic odor, wet 25.0 27.0 2.0 1-1-2-2 0:0 25.0 -28.0' Black to grey, fine sandy clayey SILT with trace mica,27.0 29.0 2.0 3-4-4-5
0.0 organic
odor, wet 28.0 30.0 2.0 1-1-2-2 0.0 28.0 -28.4' Brown, silty fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel, wet30.0 32.0 2.0 6-6-7-6 0.0 28.4 -32.0' Grey, fine sandy silty CLAY with trace mica, wet32.0 34.0 1.1 5-5-3-3 0.0 32.0 -34.0' Grey, fine sandy silty CLAY with trace mica and gravel, wet34.0 36.0 2.0 6-7-8-7 0.0 34.0 -34.9' Grey, fine sandy silty CLAY, wet36.0 38.0 2.0 7-7-8-10 0.0 34.9 -35.2' Grey, silty Clayey fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel,_Wet 35.2 -38.0' Grey to brown, very stiff CLAY with trace mica, (Kirkwood Formation), wet 38.0' End of boring+ 4 + +Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AL P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey'roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 1/21/2004 Completed 1/21/2004 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 26.0 Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 7 Sampling Interval D Estimated Datum NAD 83.5 feetfeet [] Surveyed None Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Driller Joe A. Helper. Not Applicable Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Recovery From To (feet)Blow Counts PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities 9.0 11.0 0.5 2-2-4-5 0.0 11.0 -21.0' Orange to brown, fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with gravel 15.0 17.0 1.2 9-7-6-5 0.0 and trace silt, wet17.0 19:0 0.4 .5-5-4-3 0.0 19.0 21.0 0.8 7-8-9-11 0.024.0 26.0 1.4 9-13-23-24 0.0 21.0 -'26.0' Orange totbrown, silty fine to medium SAND, poorly sorted, with__gravel, wet 26.0' End of boring______ t ______*1 _____ I ____________ _______ I _____________________________________________________ + ____ ..t I Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 ARCADIS Sample/Core Log Boring/Well Well AM P Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey roject/No. PSEG Nuclear, Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Page 1 of 1 Drilling Drilling Started 1/152004 Completed 1/15/2004 Type of Sample/inches Coring Device Split-Spoon Total Depth Drilled Length and Diameter of Coring Device Land-Surface Elev.Drilling Fluid Used Drilling Contractor Prepared By 20.9 Feet 2 feet by 2 inches Hole Diameter 10 Sampling Interval Datum NAD 83 5 feet feet ESurveyed. D Estimated None Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Talon Drilling Company Driller Joe A. Helper Joe K.Hammer Hammer Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 inches Jon Rutledge Sample/Core Depth (feet below land surface) Core Blow Recovery Counts From To (feet)PID Reading (ppm)Sample/Core Description 0.0 -10.0' Vacuum excavation to identify subsurface utilities10.0 12.0 112 " 9-13-12-8 0.0 10.0 -16.5' Tan to orange, medium to coarse SAND, poorly sorted, with 15.0 17.0 1.1 4-16-17-34 0.0 gravel, wet 20.0
- 20.8 0.5 " 9-50/0.3' 0.0 16.5 -20.0' Tan fine to medium sandy, poorly sorted, SILT, wet 20.0 -20.9' Grey, silty medium to coarse SAND, poorly sorted, wet 20.9' Auger refusal on lean concrete_____ t _____ I ____ ] * *I. .1 ____________________________________________
4 4 -I- 4 4 4 4 + 4 1 4 4 4- 4 4+ 4 + 4 .I__ __ _ I ___ __ _______________ Soil Boring Logs -Wells AG through AM.xls 3/9/2005 r ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well M Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006990 Land-Surface Elevation 99.26 feet W Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 102.17 feet Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) May 5, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Dnlling Fluid Not Applicable (NA),-,Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Peristaltic pump on May 5, 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 10 gallons Static Depth to Water: 'NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.ý*Pumping Duration: 0.75 hours Yield NA gpm Date: NASpecific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Jon Rutledae M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface .ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well R Lockable Expanding Well 6 inch diameter vacuum excavation hole Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571 .0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006991 Land-Surface Elevation 99.82 feet [ Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 102.35 feet Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) June 6, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Perstaltic pump on June 6, 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Well Casing 1 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC-5% Bentonite Grout 7 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite GroutXX ft*t I--- Top of Pre-packed Well Screen 16.0 ft- Bottom of Vacuum Excavation Pre-packed Well Screen 1 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC 3.25 inch diameter drilled hole Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 10 gallons Static Depth to Water: 6.91 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water. NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
0.5 hours
Yield: NA gpm Date: NASpecific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGEND Overburden == No. 1 Mone Sand= = 5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Prepared by: .Jon RutledgeNot to Scale.19 ft* Bottom of Well M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Land Surface Well Identification Well S Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem .State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006999 Land-Surface Elevation 99,61 feet 7 Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 102.5 feet " Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) May 29 and 30, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Pedstaltic pump on June XX, 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 22 gallons Static Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.Pumping Depth to Water: 9.77 feet below M.P.Pumping Duration:
0.9 hours
Yield: NA gpm Date: NA Specific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: dull rXULI~U~~M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated)Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well T Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006992 Land-Surface Elevation 100.97. feet [X Surveyed -Top-of-Casing Elevation 104.13 feet = Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) June 5, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Whale pump on June 13, 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 35 gallons'Static Depth to Water: 11.33 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
0.5 hours
Yield: NA gpm Date: NA Specific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose .Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities, Prepared by: Jon Rutledge**M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well U-U'.-alt -xp-H."y W.- -Yg 8 inch diameter vacuum excavation hole Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006994 Land-Surface Elevation 99.54 feet X Surveyed Top-ot-Casing Elevation 101.54 feet Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) May 28 and 29, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger.Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Drilling Pluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Whale pump on June 10, 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Well Casing 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC"- 5% Bentonite Grout 0 I10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 7.25 inch diameter drilled hole Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 55 gallons Static Depth to Water: 8.53 feet below M.P.*Pumping Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 1 hours Yield: NA gpm Date: NA Specific Capacity: NA. gpm/ft Well Purpose Wel installed to monitor groundwater quality.7/25.2 ft Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 7.2 ft* Top of Well Screen Well Screen 2 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identity potential utilities. LEGEND Overburden No. I Mode Sand 5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Not to Scale.!.2 ft* Bottom of Well M -End of Boring Prepared by:.Jon Rutledge MP. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless other/wise noted.Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well V PSEG N Project/No. PSEG Services Corporation Salem G Site Location Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No 3400006993 on Land-Surface Elevation 99.16 feet Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 102.48 feet Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) June 6 through June 12, 2003 Drilling Method Mud Rotary Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, IncDrilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): 2-inch Grundfos submersible pump on June 13, 2003 Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 40 gallons Static Depth to Water. 11.47 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 0.75 hours Yield: NA gpm Date: NA Specific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Jon Rutledge M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface
- ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated)
Outer Protective Steel Well Casing Well Identification Well W Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0002 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400006995 Land-Surface Elevation 99.36 feet i7 Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.67 feet, -Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane CoordinatesNAD 83 Installation Date(s) June 2 and 3, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor CT&E Environmental Services, Inc Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Whale pump on June 11 2003.Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. 0 Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 15 gallons Static Depth to Water: 9.03 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: NA feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
0.2 hours
Yield: NA gpm Date: NASpecific Capacity: NA gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify ootential utilities. Prepared by:-I --UyýM.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface
- ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated)-Ouer Protective Steel Well Casing I F ff -, 3... .....Well Identification Well Y-LcKable Lxpadaing vv I 8 inch diametervacuum excavation hole Project/No.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Brdge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007078 Land-Surface Elevation 99.20 feet X Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.81 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) September 27, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Well Casing 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC--5% Bentonite Grout 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 6.25 inch diameter drilled hole 25.0 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 50 gallons Static Depth to Water: 10 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water. 27 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
2.9 hours
Yield: 1 gpm Date: October 7, 2003 Specific Capacity: 0.06 gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. 27.0 ft* .Top of Well Screen Well Screen 2 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand LEGEND Overburden No. 1 Mode Sand 5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Not to Scale.37.0 ft* Bottom of Well 40.0 ft* End of Boring Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well ConstructionLog (Unconsolidated) S Outer Protective Steel Well Casing I 3 Feet Well Identification Well Z Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station I NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007079 Land-Surface Elevation 99.30 feet X Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.86 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) September 30, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid -Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 50 gallons Static Depth to Water: 10.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 24.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 1 hours Yield: 2 gpm Date: October 7, 2003 Specific Capacity: 0.14 gpm!ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing 3 Feet Well Identification Well AA Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007080 Land-Surface Elevation 99.20 feet Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.56 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) September 30, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 50 gallons Static Depth to Water: 10 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 21.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 1 hours Yield: 1.8 gpm Date: October 7, 2003Specific Capacity: 0.16 gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.* Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing 3' Feet Well Identification Well AB Lockable Expanding Well Plug 8 inch diameter vacuum excavation hole Well Casing 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC--5% Bentonite Grout 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 6.25 inch diameter drilled hole Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station I NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State* New Jersey Permit No. 340007081 Land-Surface Elevation 99.10 feet Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.83 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) October 2, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated.. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 50 gallons Static Depth to Water: 9.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 19.7 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
1.3 hours
Yield: 1.25 gpm Date: October 7, 2003Specific Capacity: .0.12 gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.4 30.0 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 32.0 ft Top of Well Screen Well Screen-.__ 2 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGEND" Oerburden1 Mode Sandý=.5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Not to Scale.42.0 ft* Bottom of Well 43.0 ft* End of Boring Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) iuOuter Protective Steel Well Casing 3 Feet Well Identification Well AC-- cOxKa..'e tpanoeng 15 inch diameter vacuum excavation hole Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007082 Land-Surface Elevation 99.00 'feet FT] Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.25 feet, [ Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) September 26, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Well Casing 6 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC-- --5% Bentonite Grout 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 13.00 inch diameterdrilled hole Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed During Development: 50 gallons Static Depth to Water: 8.2 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 19.8' feet below M.P.-*Pumping Duration: 1 hours Yield: 1 gpm Date: October 7, 2003Specific Capacity: 0.09 gprn/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.4 12.0 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 14.0 ft* Top of Well Screen Well Screen 6 inrch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGEND Overburden No. I Mode Sand o5%Y Bentonite Grout SCALE Not to Scale.24.0 ft* Bottom of Well 24.5 ft* End of Boring Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated)( lOuter Protective Steel Well Casing t 3 Feet Well Identification Well AD 8 inch diameter* vacuum excavation hole Well Casing 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC"-- % Bentonite Grout 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 6.25 inch diameter drilled hole Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station t NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007083 Land-Surface Elevation 99.10 feet X Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.35 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) October 3, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A:.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Development was halted several times as a result of a lack of water in the well.Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallonsWater Removed Durng Development: 64 gallons Static Depth to Water: 7.5 feetbelow M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 35.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 5.15 hours Yield: NA gpm Date: October 7, 2003 Specific Capacity: NA gpm/ff Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.7 30.0 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 33.0 ft* Top of Well Screen Well Screen 2 inch dia meter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand LEGEND Overburden No. 1 Morie Sand 5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Not to Scale.43.0 f6* Bottom of Well 10.0 F End of Boring Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing t 3 Feet IFP1 .~Well Identification.Well AE Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0003 Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge,New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem .State New Jersey Permit No. 340007083 Land-Surface Elevation 99.30 feet X Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.54 feet Estimated Datum NAVD 1988 Installation Date(s) October 2, 2003 Drilling Method Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): Submersible pump on October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharoe was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: 0 gallons Water Removed During Development: 25 gallons Static Depth to Water: 7.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: 22.5 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 1 hours Yield: 0.8 gpm Date: October 7, 2003 Specific Capacity: 0.05 gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet.below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log Well Ide'ntification Well AF (Unconsolidated) Outer Protective Steel Well Casing 3 Feet Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station / NP000571.0003 4' Land Surface Site Location Artificial Island, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Town/City Hancock's Bridge Lockable Expanding Well Plug County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 340007085 Land-Surface Elevation 99.20 feet
- Surveyed 8 inch diameter Top-of-Casing Elevation 101.61 feet Estimated-vacuum excavation hole Datum NAVD 1988 Well Casing Installation Date(s) October 1, 2003 2 inch diameterSchedule 40 PVC Drilling Method .Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Contractor A.C. Schultes, Inc.ol Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s)> Submersible pump on 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation October 7, 2003. Development was considered complete when Al turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated.
Fluid Loss During Drilling: .0 gallonsWater Removed During Development:. 50 gallons 6.25 inch diameter. Static Depth to Water: 10 feet below M.P.-drilled hole Pumping Depth to Water. 1315 feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 0.75 hours 30.0 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout Yield: 2.5 .gpm Date: October 7, 2003Specific Capacity: 0.71 .gpm/ft 35.0 ft Top of Well Screen Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Well Screen 2 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet No. 1 Mode Sand below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities.
- ~LEG'END, Oerburden
,No. 1 Mode Sand_77 5% Bentonite Grout SCALE Prepared by: Christopher Sharpe Not to Scale.45.0 ft* Bottom of Well M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. 48.0 ft* End of Boring .Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log Well Identification Well AG Shallow and Deep (Unconsolidated) 8-inch Diameter Standard Flushgrade Well Vault Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Land Surface Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Lockable Expanding Well Plug Permit No. 3400007135 (Shallow) and 3400007153 (Deep) Land-Surface Elevation feet F'JSurveyed 10 inchdiameter Top-of-Casing Elevation feet Estimated vacuum excavation hole Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Well Casing Installation Date(s) February 9 and 10, 2004 1 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company%Bti o Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)10 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 12.5 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout Development Technique(s) and Date(s): February 11, 2004 1 13 Bottom of No. 00 More Sand Surging with 0.75-inch surge block and pumping with peristaltic pump. 14.2 ft* Top of Well Screen Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. --No. 1 Mode Sand-- Well Screen Fluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallons 1 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC Water Removed During Development: 16 gallons 7 inch diameter Static Depth to Water: 9.52 (shallow) and 9.71 (deep) feet below M.P.-drilled hole Pumping Depth to Water: Not Applicable feet below M.P.-24.2 ft* Bottom of Well/Top of 5% Pumping Duration: 0.75 hours Bentonite Grout Yield: Not Applicable gpm Date: February 10, 2004 Specific Capacity:
- Not Applicable gpm/ft 28.4 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 29 ft* Bottom of of No. 00 More Sand Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.30 ft* Top of Well Screen--Well Screen 1 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet No. 1 Mode Sand below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities.
LEGEND Overburden -5% Bentonite Grout No. 00 Modie Sand No. 1 Mode Sand Prepared by: Jon Rutledge M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 1-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log Well Identification Well AH Shallow and Deep (Unconsolidated Outer Protective Steel Wall rasing Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Land Surface Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Lockable Expanding Well Plug Permit No. 3400007136 (Shallow) and 3400007154 (Deep)Land-Surface Elevation feet EX Surveyed 10 inch diameter Top-of-Casing Elevation feet Estimated vacuum excavation hole Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Well Casing Installation Date(s) February 4 and 5, 2004 1 inch diameter S Schedule 40 PVC Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company 5% Bentonite Grout Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)10 Wt Bottom of Vacuum Excavation f13 t Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout Development Technique(s) and Date(s): February 11,2004'13.5 ft* Bottom of No. 00 Mode Sand Surging with 0.75-inch surge block and pumping with peristaltic pump.14.5 ft' Top of Well Screen Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. No. 1 Mode Sand Well Screen Fluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallons 1 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC Water Removed During Development: 20 gallons 7 inch diameter Static Depth to Water .13.58 (shallow) and 12.92 (deep) feet below M.P.-drilled hole.Pumping Depth to Water: Not Applicable feet below M.P.24.5 ft* Bottom of Well. Pumping Duration: 1 hours 25.2 ft* Top of Bentonite Grout Yield: Not Applicable gpm Date: February 10, 2004 5% Bentonite Grout Specific Capacity: Not Applicable gpm/ft 28.5 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout Bottom of of No. 00 Mode Sand Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.30 ft* Top of Well Screen Well inch diameter, 0.01 SlotS " 1 Schedule 40 PVC Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet No. 1 Mode Sand below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGENDverburden = 5% Bentonite Grout= No. 00 Mode Sand No. i.Mone Sand Prepared by: Jon Rutledge SCAL.. E ....Not to Scale.40 ft* Bottom of Well M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 1-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface 0 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Well Identification Well Al 2 Feet by 2 Feet Flushgrade Well Vault SurfaceLockable Expanding Well Plug 16 inch diametervacuum excavation hole Well Casing 4 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC% Bentonite Grout 9 ft* .Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 10 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavationand granular bentonite seal 11 ft* Bottom of No. 00 Morie Sand 12 ft* Top of Well Screen 10 inch diameter drilled hole Well Screen 4 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County .Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400007137 Land-Surface Elevation feet X Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation feet Estimated Datum New.Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) January 20, 2004 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): February 2 and3, 2004 Surging with 4-inch surge block and pumping with 4-inch submersible. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallonsWater Removed During Development: 90 gallons Static Depth to Water 7.61 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water: Not Applicable feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration: 2 hours Yield: 0.5 gpm Date: February 3, 2004Specific Capacity: Not Applicable gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. -LEGEND Overburden =5%Y Bentonite Grout Granular Bentonite Seal=No. 00 Mode Sand No. I Mode Sand SCALE Not to Scale.2 ft* Bottom of Well Prepared by: Jon Rutledge M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 4-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.* Depth Below Land Surface ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Well Identification Well AJ 2 Feet by 2 Feet Flushgrade Well Vault Land Surface Lockable Expanding Well Plug 16 inch diametervacuum excavation hole Well Casing 4 inch diameter* Schedule 40 PVC-- 5% Bentonite Grout 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation 10 inch diameter drilled hole 12 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 13 ft* Bottom of Granular Bentonite Seal:14 ft* Bottom of No. 00 Mode Sand 15.3 ft Top of Wel! Screen Well Screen 4 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand LEGEND= Overburden = 5% Bentonite Grout= Granular Bentonite Seal= No. 00 Mode Sand= No. 1 Mode Sand SCALE Not to Scale.,35.3 ft* Bottom of Well M Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Permit No. 3400007138 Land-Surface Elevation " feet = Surveyed Top-of-Casing Elevation feet = Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) January 23, 2004 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): January 29 and 30, 2004 Surging with 4-inch surge block and pumping with 4-inch submersible. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallonsWater Removed During Development: 130 gallons Static Depth to Water. 8.14 feet below M.P.-Pumping Depth to Water. Not Applicable feet below M.P.-Pumping Duration:
3.5 hours
Yield: 0.25 gpm Date: Janauary 30, 2004 Specific Capacity: Not Applicable gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. Prepared by: Jon Rutledoe.P. Measuring Point. Top of 4-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. epth Below Land Surface UI K ARCADIS Well Construction Log Well Identification Well AL (Unconsolidated) z 8-inch Diameter Standard Flushgrade Well Vault Project/No. PSEG Nuclear, LLC -Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Land Surface Site Location Salem Generating Station -Artificial Island ATown/City Hancock's Bridge County Salem State New Jersey Lockable Expanding Well Plug Permit No. 3400007140 Land-Surface Elevation feet Eý Surveyed 10 inch diameter Top-of-Casing Elevation -feet Estimatedvacuum excavation hole Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Well Casing Installation Date(s) January 21, 2004 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company Drilling Fluid Not Applicable (NA)Development Technique(s) and Date(s): February 3 and 4, 2004 10.0 ft* Bottom of Vacuum Excavation Surging with 2-inch surge block and pumping with 2-inch submersible. Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. Fluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallons Water Removed During Development: 80 gallons 7 inch diameter Static Depth to Water: 7.09 feet below M.P.*-drilled hole Pumping Depth to Water: Not Applicable feet below M.P.-12 ft* Bottom of 5% Bentonite Grout 13 ft* Bottom of Granular Bentonite Seal Pumping Duration:
1.5 hours
13.5 ft* Bottom of No. 00 Mode Sand Yield: 1 gpm Date: February 3, 2004Specific Capacity: Not Applicable gpm/ft15.3 ft* "Top of Well Screen Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Well Screen 2 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Sýchedule 40 PVC Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet No. 1-Mode Sand below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGEND = 5% Bentonite Grout Granular Bentonite Seal No. 00 Mode Sand:= No. 1 Mode Sand Prepared by: Jon Rutledge M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 2-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted. Depth Below Land Surface 01 ARCADIS Well Construction Log (Unconsolidated) Well Identification Well AM 2 Feet by 2 Feet Flushgrade Well Vault Land Surface 7 -Lockable Expanding Well Plug.16 inch diameter-vacuum excavation hole Well Casing--4 inch diameter* *chedule 40 PVCBentonite Grout 8.5 ft* Bottom of 5%Y Bentonite Grout 9.5 ft* Bottom of No. 00 More Sand 10.0 ft* ..Bottom of V/acuum Excavation 10.9 ft* -Top of Well Screen 10 inch diameter dr~illed hole Well Screen 4.4 inch diameter, 0.01 Slot Schedule 40 PVC No. 1 Mode Sand Project/No.
- PSEG Nuclear, LLC.- Salem Generating Station/NP000571.0003 Site Location Salem Generating Station.
Artificial Island Town/City Hancock's Brddge County Salem State New Jersey*Permit No. 3400007141
- ".Land-Surface Elevation feet F_ Surveyed.Top-of-Casing Elevation feet = Estimated Datum New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 Installation Date(s) January 15, 2004 Drillinlg Method Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor Talon Drilling Company.Drilling Fluid " Not Applicable (NA) "*Development Technique(s) and Date(s): February 2 and 3, 2004 Surging with 4-inch surge block and pumping with 4-inch submersible.
Development was considered complete when turbidity in discharge was reduced/eliminated. SFluid Loss During Drilling: Not Applicable gallonsWater Removed During Development: 60 gallons Static Depth to Water. 6.91 feet below M.P.**Pumping Depth to Water: Not Applicable feet below M.P.~*Pumping Duration: 2 hours Yield: 0.25 gpm Date: February 4, 2004 Specific Capacity: Not Applicable -gpm/ft Well Purpose Well installed to monitor groundwater quality.Remarks Vacuum excavation was performed to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface at the location of the monitoring well to help identify potential utilities. LEGEND Overburden 5% Bentonite Grout No. 00 Morie Sand No. 1 Monae Sand SCALE .Not to Scale.1.9 ft* Bottom of Well Prepared by: Jon Rutledae**M.P. Measuring Point. Top of 4-inch PVC well casing unless otherwise noted.
- Depth Below Land Surface 0 MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION I Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generatiniz Facility 0 T mxjpr A1Im~i~ovv C'rpplt ~olpm flAndv Location T ýý- A now. rreAv Salem Colinty UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Well K Longitude:
West .750 32' 08.95" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 231,435 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 51.08" East 199,697 Rim 102.36 PVC 102.00 ground 99.71 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used,. identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation Significant observations and notes: 0 AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and'that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I rnake a false statement that I d o not believe t o b e true. I am a Iso a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. 4 /_____________________________ 6/16/2003 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET. SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER S MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION I Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&GSalem Generatin Facility LocationLower Alloways Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Well L Longitude: West 750 32' 14.41" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,933 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 39* 27' 46.07" E-ft i 00 1411 1oo~,'~Rim 101.74 PVC 101.46 vround 9134 a Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the Well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based o n my inquiry of those, individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353.PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH.STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 6/16/2003 DATE , I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner PSE&G Salem Generating FaciliV Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Location Lower Alloways Creek, Salem Co UST Number. SRP C.LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.untv ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW-M Longitude: West 750 32' 10.79" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,843 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on~site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 45.20" East 199.546 Rim 102.37 PVC 102.17 ground 99.26 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 I Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do notbelieve to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 7/0/2003 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 0 I Name of Owner Name of Facility MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Locatirin T __rp A1nru (rrp.le ', 1pnlF r~nint Location UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Well N Longitude: West 750 32' 09.31" New Jersey State PlaneCoordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 2303777 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 44.57" East 199661 Rim 102.00 PVC 101.65 .ground 99.41 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site MonumentN 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 SI Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL-LANDSURVEYOR'S SIGNA E 6/16/2003 PROFESSIONAL LAN) SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generatin Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility I cnxpr A11nw2v~ Cr~~k ~,lv'~m flnmitv Location T nufýr All Creel- Salem Cni-tv UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NA] 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Well 0 Longitude: West 750 32' 07.05" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,804 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off), at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 44.85" East 199-R3;9 Rim 101.76 PVC 1.01.33 ground 99.20 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I don ot believe t o b e true. I am also a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 6/16/2003 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facilit Name of Owner Name of Facility Location T nwer Allnwavs Creek- Salem County UST Number: SRP LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casinI (',,e Nn Case No: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) .Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 04.93" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,336 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Well P Latitude: North 39* 27' 40.25" T.a~t 9AA Ann Rim 101.56 PVC 101.13 ground 99.00 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/daturm. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaledactual elevation 10 a Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree ifI make a false statement that I do not believe tobe true. I am also aware that ff I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER-6/16/2003 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facilit PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Lower Allowavs Creek, Salem Count UST Number: SRP Case No.: LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NA) 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 31' 49.72" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,645 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)WellO Latitude: North 390 27' 43.45" East-- .-2--1 6 2019* Rim-107,03 PVC 106.59 ,round 104.45 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 I Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATIONI certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe t o b e t rue. I a m also a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 7/1/2003 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAN'D SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner I Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Lower Allowavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP Ci LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No : Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 09.60" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet:.North 230,906 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)MW-R Latitude: North 390 27' 45.84" East 199,640 Rim 102.42 PVC 102.35 Lround 99.82 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.).Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 S Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement thattI do notbelieve to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation.of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 7/GB/2003 DATE 'I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Name of Owner Name of Facility Location Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number:This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW S Longitude: West. 750 32' 09.92" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,711 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 43.92" P.n~t 199 t61-East 199613 PVC 99.04 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 I 0Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those 'individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,' I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET. SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE' MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION I Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facfiiy PSE&G Salem Generatine Facility Location Lower Alloways Creek. Salem CopntY UST Number: SRP LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION. Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans).Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 10.53" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 231,575 Elevation of Top of Inmer Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Well T Latitude: North 390 27' 52.45" East 199,575 Rim 104.39 PVC 104.13 ground 100.97 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datur. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 8* Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law .that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware -that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree ifI make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 6/16/2003 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating FacilityPSE&G Salem Generating Facility Name of Owner Name of Facility Location Lower Allowavs Creek. Salem Count-y UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.:.Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW U Longitude: West 750 32' 09.95" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 231,370 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 50.43" 199 61R East RIM 99.19 PVC 98.57 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datun. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+_0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.7 8 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false s tatement that I d o not believe t o b e t rue. I a m also a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL.,'PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Tonwpr Alinwayv Creek_ Salem County UST Number: _. SRP C: LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION. Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.a No: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1 / 10 of second)MW V Longitude: West 750 32' 10.83" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 231,355 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 50.27" East 199,548 RIM 99.03 PVC 98.74 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I d o not believe to be t rue. I a m a Iso a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PA L SE AL/S PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 2/23/04 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353: PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 'I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility-PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Location Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second).Longitude: West 750 32' 12.01" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest .10 feet: North 230,777 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)MW W Latitude: North 390 27' 44.55" East 199.450 RIM 98.99 PVC 98.69 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the' EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0. E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 I Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I d o n ot b elieve t o b e t rue. I am also a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties.) 4 / SEAL/PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION I Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generatinp, Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Location I AWPT A11nwov~ C~rpe~k ~hmi flountv Lower Allowa- CreAr Sale County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest1/10 of seconr MW-Y Longitude: West 750 32' 13.36" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,771 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 39* 27' 44.47" East 199-34';East 199343" Casing 102.31 PVC 101.81 Ground 99.2 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5 + 0, E 2 + 0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 N Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the. submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 10/22/03 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G~~~ ~ Sae enrtn Fclt LAý 0UU LoweIjfdUoways Cie S4I e '.uIEUy UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW-Z Longitude: West 750 32' 12.64" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,681 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 39* 27' 44.59" East 199.399 Casing 102.39 PVC 101.86 Ground 99.3 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5 + 0, E 2 + 0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 I Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incox rplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 10/22/03 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facili!Y Location Lower Allowavs Creek. Salem Count-v Location Lower Allowavs Creek Salem Countv ýUST Number: ._. SRP Case 1 LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 10.81" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,603 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)MW AA Latitude: North 390 27' 42.83" East 199,541 RIM 99.30 PVC 99.07 I Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', andgive approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant: penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also awarethat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 2/23/04 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generatine Facility I.ower Allowavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW AB Longitude: West 750 32' 09.08" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,623 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 43.05" East 199,677 PVC 98.93 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that lam committing a crime in the fourth degree if I mn ake a false statement that I do not believe, to be true. I am also a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL.PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generatingt Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility I.nwer Allnwavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: __SRP C;LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW AC Longitude: West 750 32' 08.49" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet:North 230.724 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 44.05" F.At lqq 1 9q725 PVC 98.77 a Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a f alse.s tatement t hat I d o n ot believe t o b e t rue. I a m also a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SE ;, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS'AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORiNG WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATIONn. Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generatinp Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility I nuer A l1nu~v~ C'rpplc 1Pm r~iinf-v T -Wer A 11-wa s Creek Sale Count-UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: .This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW AD Longitude: West 750 32' 09.99" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,684 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 43.64" East 199,607 PVC 98.99 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manualspecifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe t o b e true. I am a lso a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE ' Name of Owner Name of Facility Location MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility I rnxpr A1lnwav~ C~r~pk ~ah~yn flnunN Lower Allow-s Cret-1c Salem Cnuntv UST Number: .... SRP C: LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW-AE Longitude: West 750 32' 06.97" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,829 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 39' 27' 45.11" Eas t 10 QA4 100 ~Casing 102.07 PVC 101.54 Ground 99.3 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5 + 0, E 2 + 0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LA 'SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 10/22/03 DATE'RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generatinp, Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Lower Allowavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP Case No.:.LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW-AF Longitude: West 750 32' 08.75" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,491 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North
- 390 27' 41.74" East 199.702 Casing 102.00 PVC 101.61 Ground 99.2 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum.
If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5 + 0, E 2 + 0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: 0 AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 10/22/03 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER I Name of Owner Name of Facility MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION PSE&G Salem Generating FacilityPSE&G Salem Generating Facility Location T All r' 1, Q I -i, -LA -L.A -.Ifl Y. -... A.E. 3L..l , t flA !6 UST Number: LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well Owners Well Number (As shown on application or p]Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/IC Longitude: West 750 32' 11.23" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to near.SRP Case No.: casing.lans) MW AG-S Latitude: North 390 27' 41.77" North 230,496 'Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)East 1 VC99.29 199.508.PVC 99.29 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if 1.knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. /( SEAL.PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating FacilityLower Allowavs Creek. Salem County Location UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.3ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of secont MW AG-D Longitude: West 750 32' 11.23" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,496 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 41.77" East 199,508 PVC 99.20 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have -personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement t hat I d o not believe t o b e t rue. I a m a lso a ware t hat if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. { AL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE I MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generatinie Facility Lower Alloways Creek, Salem.County UST Number: SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.;ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of secon MW AH-S Longitude: West 750 32' 10.10" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 0. feet: North 230,450 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 41.33" East 199,596 PVC 102.58 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from~tbe well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA-manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0. E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of.those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am. committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I arm also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. / > SEAL, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION:
- 0 Name of Owner Name of Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Location Lower Alloways Creek. Salem Count UST Number: SRP LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW AH-D Longitude: , West 750 32' 10.10" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: E North 230,450 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude:
North 390 27' 41.33" East 199,596 PVC 102.70 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0. E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree ifI make a false statement thatI do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generatinpifacility-PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Lower Allnwavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.se No: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 11.11" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,798 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)MW Al Latitude: North 390 27' 44.76" East 199,521 PVC 98.79 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an.accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree ifI make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility l.ower Allowavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: ._SRP C LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No.: Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans) -Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)MW AJ Longitude: West 750 32' 09.24" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,670 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum).Latitude: North 390 27' 43.51" East PVC98.65 I 99.665 PVC 98.85 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0:2'.)Site Monument N 5+0. E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes;AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth-degree if I make a false statement that I d o not b elieve to b e true. I a m also a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE 2/23/04 DATE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND L1CENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER Il 0 MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Loe A~lnljwv' C'reek Sale Coun-rt UST Number: SRP C;LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.ase No: No.:-Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 07.44" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: North 230,594 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)MW AL Latitude: North 390 27' 42.78" East 199,806 RIM 99.42 PVC 99.13 S1 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all. attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those 'individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to be true. I am also a ware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the, penalties. A SE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE, RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE. NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER D2/23/04 DATE' MONITORING WELL CERTIFICATION FORM B". LOCATION CERTIFICATION Name of Owner Name of Facility Location PSE&G Salem Generating Facility PSE&G Salem Generating Facility Lower Allowavs Creek. Salem County UST Number: SRP Case LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION Well Permit Number: This number must be permanently affixed to the well casing.Owners Well Number (As shown on application or plans)Geographic Coordinates NAD 83 (to the nearest 1/10 of second)Longitude: West 750 32' 09.07" New Jersey State Plane Coordinates NAD 83 to nearest 10 feet: MO.: MW AM North .230,762 Elevation of Top of Inner Casing (Cap off) at Reference mark (to nearest 0.01' in relation to permanent on-site datum)Latitude: North 390 27' 44.42"East 199,680 PVC 98.55 Source of elevation datum (benchmark, number/description and elevation/datum. If an on-site datum is used, identify here, assume datum of 100', and give approximate actual elevation. Please note that, if information from the well is to be submitted electronically, the EDSA manual specifies the well elevation to be reported according to NAVD 1988 to an accuracy of 0.2'.)Site Monument N 5+0, E 2+0 Elevation 102.78 scaled actual elevation 10 Significant observations and notes: AUTHENTICATION I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those'individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false, inaccurate, and incomplete information and that I am committing a crime in the fourth degree if I make a false statement that I do not believe to betrue. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties. SEAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE RICHARD C. MATHEWS GS29353 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER 43 WEST HIGH STREET, SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY 908 725 0230 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 2/23/04 DATE EI j -i4L97/2DO~ 15:52 F4~ 351 345 1535 ZOOs/OO9 r 38 M NewQe~y lgepallnent of EnvjrongrmOfltU Prj~BUrsau of Water Alocati MONITORING WELLBXECCRD-WO eriPWItINo. 34 1h,41.OWNER IDENTIRiCATION -OWWe Addres pm WELL. LOCATIN -i ro~t the sami as Owner please WGt address. Owns~r3 WePlNG. , h~4 (p~L\r county slmMruncipaity IJA LLWYS Lt 4-02 lc N .L Address i n ip~l& rdF NR¶iR DATE WELL. STARTEM TYPE OF WW.L (as per Wedl Puman~ Ctegorif) ~vmiDATE Wal. COMPLE1M !1 VAeg~atoy "mm PanIFfqLdflf Well -OML~CONSULlI-NG FIRWlELD SUPERVISOR (9~ a~pr*&oble) -'row Oplesd ~Wei f~nshed~ 10 ALJI Borehole mmmeft Wel w as fmtsheck toove uiwle r oIfished abee graft, cmkqi hugh ,.c*'Wu) aboe land muftm se _f StaIc wateklvel adffter- ft.Ik!Notumecasur aI depth Deht -e to D Olaele MKknk I IW Wgtj~tadr immn lard suifac lbp (f.) Elotom (IL) 'Orohes) ~ 35n.meat Co0i&W~s lwel was measuredvf 11ln -.9Lh~A Wei was dmlopied far how Method I dewiopm sr_____________ Wa emanent Pumptr equiment intoted? Omeu1,:kN yI DiiVn !1W .tp d Ri4 Heafth and Safety Plan cumilimS0 Yes'UýMIr c hegifyat i hove c efruct~O.Me abmv rvf~enca1 wvN inl amoodnw~o IWlh 0l wedl Perift wqulWmmeM nls d *PfkltSD 5tats nsev anid reqL~alkzns firling )AetIw -GEOLOGIC LOG Note each 0"p where Water was m =a Wemd In cor"Ictoed MCI S kko Dnllrig Oonipun ;P Well Dn~lW (P"n~C i~i~onhIers Signature -.-' 1 Ftog'ivnton No- U~~ DAI La D .ate.Q'i -AS-BILT WELL WOCAION (NAD 13 H0Rwr0NTkLDA7UM) NJ bITAh 1'LAZ{E-CXK)eD"INF IN US SURVEY FM LATIT~M*.-- 014CM COPIE& Wme -6EP calsw -I)rftr COPES I~i. Caay Dr~r Pink -Owner .Oddenrod -NeaWfDept. 04/07/2003 14:32 FAX 8s9 $4S 1338 Q00e/009 DVF-138 M New(:D~ey Department o? EnvironmafltWl PrQ~n Bureau of Water Allocalimn MOITORING WELL iRE:-CORD Wel1 Permi No. .. -OI92 OWNER IDENTIFICATION! OWne ..Addrms fZrn 3,16 cliv r. -M~~a All~hes trCoaffnates ld -.2... 1 it, I' Iyn!I State.____________________Zip Cdods______ WELL LOCATION -If, not fi ~fi can e owner pleaws gýve addreu Owner's Well No.cc"urtly S ~ l j- Mun~cpamy t~ P 'M : -Lek Na. 4.01 SIodCN o Addrem VMa ne At fmui cr rmI ? IM, tf i ...... _ -.... .......... DATE WELL STARTED f. J..2Lj tG DATE WELL. COMPLErED I LJaa..j. 4M TYPE OF WEL.L-(as per wcAi Prmit Categot~es) Resulatory Prog=w Req~rfr Won U LUW lill CONSUMING flRWFIMELD SLIPCRVISOR (if applbiqal) Wal tmldd to !50 A Borehole claneW.Tap- A n BonTfj,. ii WARl UMs trshod Raw"~v 9asd[Ifllmh montod It finlzhdabod v~e grd., casng heotl lscolk up) aove lrd sudee~-Sinhc WOWe level aft erk 111 Wfatr level vm n Msammd luV"~q Wgwas developed for ...,. hamr cM .. 93 Nele: Measure oil depths tpthto DepItit Driametar Moe Wtalaing bonI"i sujilso -Top (kL) BO~OMN Oct")~a) (ls/ w o F(tar bil* cased wells oni___________ outer coaft Qw~gestd Motoi -- -Open Hole rat w -S crem -Blin ca~s-ig (No. Used Telvv Pla*Neat CQmGM -f._________ ____ ur~tgl Got.I *(~rodnifg Method.Method of d~onn ýwas perrnarwmu pumping eqimeud Inswi~ed? Oyes~ft Drffkin FluiM -Tp of Rig M .$L H~amt and Saely plan siriite?Level of Protedntmwj sd ~ mi (grcle oft) N,%nCDC -8 A I wtbI, that Ihavce Wnshxewfme abovo ffikmma wed in accordonce wilh oil well pen* ,equilMemr 8)7d HPP~kS*~S"a~ roWD and feguisU -j W61IF YIFTUWU -ý 1 rEbLOGIC LO Note oaoh deplh where waterwwas erw*Mr9 In cegwokdeM U0 so -!% I~A tb -%Aý&KONT& DS UATUM'NJ SIATh IA COORDMUT IN U3 S(JRVEYMIr Dr~iikg Compeny Well Driller(P"in --C ,-Registratin No. '"'-~ Date 4 .S COPIES. Whft -DEPCOPIE: Wh~e DEP canary -VrW -e Puik -Owner olfvc-eatDp 00MMW -Heab DepE 04/07/200z M3:32 PAlZ 856 1i 1/'A Gel/cog' 138 M New~sy Depaft Imernt ofetronmnenta P o Bureau of Water Alocation " MONITORIN Wa LL RECORD3 Web Pemit NIL ~ __ _ _ _ _OWNER IDENTIFICATION.OwnI pr_=rm. .avv TUP Addmsa s- i.,g , 'mr ,, ,, RI~T~~U Stake Zip Code_ _____WELL LOCATION -It not fte sarne as owner pkAaes U) ve addtra. Ownersa Well NO.-Oourdy S433 Wr~l~dpf~ty LW- ~OA8 LotwN. 4.U17 WocN Addrs PFm1 CF AT iJaY CgFFX t=E FPD PACTE WELL S I AM11 _u1 +/-W DATE WELL OOMPLEED3.13 (9ý5 TYPE OF WELL (as OrvwPermit ategories) Aeyp .rygmr wVi .Wll M=)RIND-- " .. .. .. iiI , i 0"Se ID.# 1 iii m CONSULTING RRWFIELD SUP.V1SOR VI aioble)*Telle. #_ "- _TroW dpth ddled2 nIo L WWN finihed Ic Borethe dlmnaetur* Boaom _ in.WOO -.a aff-hei )flm&b warfd~ C ..,,. m,, r r,." d-V? finWW abrw gade, cor'k hoelghl (ck up) abo__ lad s_ Il IL&Wus *tel imrtedhjv mfngtded?izabc wanter low after dI11II-g.-L WAWe levt was tnebpged wkg
- Sz .WeOd oe de'elomdfor I f,.,, at tram lard aur,,, TOP (k.) .o , ) (o.ld")"-Siwhrercmpn
.. 'OL ,a. 4 -'0 , u .' ' ... .. ... ..(for tripl cavned vmUl oi4 -Oiutc Oeaf 03re idntisi -Open Hole cm Se".(o. U ,sed .o ) S S , .._____________ --~p'No. },,... -__ ---_ ,'tU P, , ..Grui4 Ll~md~ c~enm~t l (.,,G.. rm eMod~~ ~ Drilng Me~hrd.~eD -~., Was .mmswt p.rN;V ' ~Snstallak¶? w PUNP eft"~y gpm DriliV Flui -Type a! KS~ 2~.Health and WSeVty~ subartVmit 0 Yes$(No L Avelofpw~tw~ft used ns (dies one) Nons(2) C U A I Jertffy fth hav oonmroulaje ft abom mJfermwdwmtw In aomdanoe tdM ant wapmir maq,*,ne, and aPPLkaMl Sh*i ndw and iwg~a~aton v GEOLIOGICL-- INoteeflh, de .wher ....a4w qf~edi m o ue F.~. 4 ~ -~m~Drilling ComPnr SOP=$ 1W Well Driller (Pdrito !C)W$4 V FJ-~ '.AS-,ILT WL LOCA1ION_ .A HOIONTALDATU,,M
- _ ---Druller 81grnwn.( ~rt~pagitkatio No. ,~5I L41 zJJ..~L INJ SWXU ILA1M3 kVV.LM.DINA~
Wi W*USKSjri~l I4OU.--------- L4__D(.__LA "TOm .- -COMM~~ Wh.oDE aim-D*cOPJ& W~le- ZEP O~wa-DR~r Pink -Oiwwe ftkIden1-Heftih DedL Water Supply Element -Bureau of Water Allocation WELL ABANDONMENT REPORT Al T Bureau of Water Allocation WELL PERMIT s 34-06028 P C B ox 426 .of w ell sealed PO Box 426 Trenton, NJ 08625-0426 DATE WELL SEALED 5/6103 PROPERTY OWNER PSE&G Serices Corp ADDRESS 80 Park Place Newark, NJ 07102 WELL LOCATION Artificial Island Lower Alloway Twp., NI Salem-Street & No., Township, County Well M 4.01 26 Well No. Lot No.. Block No.USE OF WELL PRIOR TO ABANDONMENT: Monitoring REASON FOR ABANDONMENT: Deconmnission WAS A NEW WELL DRILLED? BYES O NO PERMIT # OF NEW WELL 3400006990-Cross-section Draw a sketch showing distance and relations of well site to TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL 20 ot sealed well nearest roads, buildings, etc.DIAMETER CASING LENGTH 10-SCREEN LENGTH 10' .-NUMBER-OF CASINGS 1 101 K3idI tA P MATERIAL USED TO DECOMMISSION WELL:5-'KNA Gallons of Water 1p, Lbs. of Cement (HA Lbs. of Bentonite Lbs. of Sand/Gravel
- .1 I-lrods 4- r-,,t so+ Scr-n ovedr;11.4 (none Ri well is, contaminated)
~ ~+ tpL.l'poei,4+~ W~tDJOX 10 FORMATION: Unconsolidated .4 4 N TO permit adequate grouting, the casing should remain in place, but ungrouted liner pipes or any other obstructions must be removed. Pressure grouting is the only accepted method.WAS CASING LEFT IN PLACE? D YES 0 NO CASING MATERIAL: WERE OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS LEFT IN WELL? []YES 0 NO WHAT WERE THE OBSTRUCTIONS: IF "YES", AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ON (NJDEP Official) (Date)Was an alternative decommissioning method used? 0 YES ONO IF 'YES", authorization granted by ON (NJDEP Official) (Date)I certify that this well was sealed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:9-9.1 et seq.Nicholas A. Fallucca PO Box 423 West Creek, NJ 6/26/03 Performing Work (Print oWr Type) d Mailin Date Name of NJ Certified Well Sealer L _a7AJ1527 Signature of NJ Certified Well Sealer Performing Work Yellow -Owner Pink -Health Dept.Registration
- Goldenrod
-Driller 4 COPIES: White -Water Allocation Bureau oi water Puocauon MONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006990 AtlasgSheet Coordinates 3401635.OWNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp I ss 80 Park Place Newark State New Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address County Salem -Municipality Lower Alloway Twp.Zip Code 07102 Owner's Well..No., Well M Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED 5/6/03 DATE WELL COMPLETED 5/6103 eph to _Depth to ]Diameter Material [ W op (ft.) Bottom (ft.) (inches) (I (Ibs/sch no.)WELL CONSTRUCTION Total-Depth Drilled__20 , ft, Finished Well Depth 20 ft.Borehole Diameter: Top 6 m.Bottom 6 M.Well was finished: above grade"-'-[]flush mounted If finished above grade, casing height (stick up) above land surface 3 Steel protective casing installed? Yes [:]No tic Water Level after drilling 6 ft.Note: Measure all depths from land surface T I Singlellnner Casing 1[+3 10 PVC Fsch40oMiddle Casing (for tinple cased wells only) 1 l _______ _____ I__________I Outer Casing l (agsdimeter) f ____ ______ _____ _________ ______(N0Used .010 10 F20 1
- PVC/s.s. ch40 Blak~aing
_____ _______[ ___ I ________ _____I[ jj T il Pie e _ II !I ..... 1 Gravel Pack **"'7.5' 20 6 # 1 well g200 lbs 0 I I I lcmntbnntip' b Grout 1 7.5 6 lbs-Water Level was Measured Using Tape Well was developed for 1 hours at 3/4 gpm Method of development Peristoltic Pump Pump Capacity gpm Pump Type Drilling Fluid __ Type of Rig Geoprobe 66DT Health and Safety Plan Submitted? 0Yes "[No Level of Protection used on site'(circle one) None .C B A I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company C T & E ENVIROVNMEN.TAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print) NichWlas Fallucca Driller's Signature Legistration No. J1526 Date 16.3 3550 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES'. DRILLER e Grouting Method Drilling Method TreOOie HSA GEOLOGIC LOG1 Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated tons 0-20' fine to reed orange sand, trace gravel 0-20' fine to med orange sand, trace gravel* 1" PVC w/staindess steel mesh wrap (2.5" OD sand pack)**install sand pack around pre-packed screen 0 WNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT 04/07/2003 13m~ PAX 651 645 1336 O003/009 I IwR-ma M Nm~eryDepartment ot Ervvironrnental Pro-on Bureau of Water Aloat~ion MpbIflORIt4Q WIELL RlECORD Well Permit Mo. nce __________ OWNER IDENTIFICATION -Owner, Acdd~~Allas Shieet Coartfia-eW fU__:_ -, *10%6 wl-ý 'P'ý i SEM1 WELL LOCAllON -Inot fte sarne as owner -please glve address. OVA-Art Well No. rMQ7 01- \V-J CoiMV *-_=ELL Municpliyawe iyj my Lot No. 4 n C e. look Na.-Addren END MT MIpWAY -PM N FrM21* _ ---- ,,, o TYPE- OF WELL (as per well permit 08Weg0062 FPeVIgatmw Program Rert~lng won____-CBS DATE WELL S1ARTH I UT 3 DATh WRLLCOMPLETE I I4 k CONSULTiNG FFIR~~ELD SUPERVISOR~ (If appkiaab)e I Telia. #"row 00At dried !7tL-1 WdM Iffthot to. -rA L Well wet fir****. Mabou grade Vf ftrshed abaft cirkde 5 endris ho~t (ftck up) at~va m~d wriew . IL Wa* u 'reda WigistI vrw No Sttcwatr Wgvsl ghwe thflin I Water was e meaaured wzing~u Wet Was daekigpd to r MI iure 14- !1 .gMM MOUV4 oldeyb orM-~ -~ r --*~ _____________________________ ______________________ Kota: M.%sure all dePths Depth to -Depthi to j~iamuwejWLR~n from lam Unme ITop (fL) BOaMM VL)I[.Ch.%) I Matarl Wq%./R*" obshch R0.1 9S Wtid n e C.9 m g C (lat"rtiC1,ed Wells Oy)0UW (No. Used Tall Psece Gravel PacK G~mftNeed C80nK eft __e -B.Groulng Methd 7 ,,Method_ _________________ WaS permnsmr pwryzvg equoya~t Installml? EDYes 'ptl PURF COP&*y Punt,1 ro Wrina kW -Tpe ut ig CN- IE~fivlt Wi 60d ftV~ Plan~ submMadi 03 Y'wivio Levelof t Nvwjn Ludnd sue 5 (cilcla owi) Ncm<()C. B A I er*r~ that I have Constructed the abOve referened 06l inl aocofdwioe wfth a# we v.iperrt requfiremenft " nd applieablo Stat Mides and Mplti GEOLOGIC LOG Nft n ch dph where wate w mnmurituwd In consolidaed I I 0- U_D04ln Cornpany, w p w .........-Mo fffr WellDrifer (PdrfrilW 11 A,~A JP.APJ Offi1ert %~gnature Q~.~ .TflegitrMtin 141. 11\F~ 0"L,_ Da% e1 J.JJ2i ASJUIL %=L LOCATIN (NAD 33 H0RIZNTAL DAT(W~rC MM~F flAMl WORkDDMAltIN4 $UM UvYTMT--0x OOPIE& Wbbt -DEP Canary -Driler we ~k~ndHai p Ph* -owner 60klenrod -HWA Dog 04/07/2003 13:32 PAX 858 845 1335 Wr Isom Ne y Q 8 I)patet ol Er~onmental PrmOon MOIOIG LLLEO_OWNERl IDENTIFICATION -Owner t'v~ ~L~U Address ~ ~ v~______COtY ~ ttvzip code_______ WMIL wC~~roH omt the "e arns owner Pless give ad4.mm.ree, OwiievW W ell No. 2(J\ %Address fM tr Pa I OM -CF tw " OhWELL vTAmfTm i hJ gn TYPE OF WELL (as pet Well Perrut CatqvTes)DAEW4 OPID FieguLdlory Program tiequiring Well .C-. -- -- -- -- --, CONSULTING FIRAMFIRIL SUPEHVISR (Vif pprwewab) --...--.--- '_______1MW depth drillod -f W.ftl rished tD !2 -t~Dewdiarneter. Wenl VMS &fthocl Vabove grade.hwsh 1nounrde I fitniuhod abaft grstik casinq hsagl 4t d up,) above Wind pzifv* -3.fL.'Winier leve .a I~~ftlUTvd usingSL-We$ was dwvvloped fr..L~.hi ofgi Note,' Measurelli dePVf Dpt to Do*~ to DianGO, Wa~ WJl~ig from land wiltace reP tom) Bomtm (fI)tNcts) ~s no.go ort caue-whM -_6_OWe Hole or screew (No. Uved~) j j .Slunk Casing (Nm Umd Gravel POd('7 0 (40 bfitL~b I ~-~- ~ I -I -~---~---- I -~6=1*C3 WOW %AM=~Grouting Methodl DrIlIng Meftho -b I*.Modiod dl developMer Wee p~m"Tem pumpirv eqawmuirikale hutudDLef Punp capacky........ 5W?.I, , v ftump typ DUrifting .. Type 0169 M Health and Safety Plan aubmied? 0 YAKbN Level at Pratcdn u sed an sille (cmii 0ng) NoneCZ C 0 A I vertf thau I have consm~letd Nw abov rdeteieoa mOe )VI aczvrdtnv with 81 *VePpemot eqjjft~fltS and OX&Ial*S"i nLe4 ancf roodiaffons. Nole enoti deAt whem water was Sfleourtere ill corsoflloal Demrui Conipaty'r U~-~.- U_______________________________________ Well Dtiner{Prmno) CV x A-CZ c'-)Lrillers Signature fA u 4 Kim-AS-BLW. WELL LOCATION (MAD 83 13 ORIZNTAL ])ATM)I NJ STAUi P!ANI CiOR RIMIX!N US SURVEYrn=Pinkr -Owner GOWdelld -Hsafit Dept COWIES: Whte .DEP Cnq-Dir Conm- ZDa~r S4/07/2003 13:D -AX 651 8. 1335 DW1R138M r=Ne(ey O~eyaflmeot of Erwironmental Pr0 Bureau of Water AIocation M0NITfGRING LL RECORD Well Parm* Vic. ...",- n,,)-34 *- 01 .ý--OWNER IDENTMATION -Owner Ag ors -:, ;- ,-V VIrb i Af5vto ,cy %,Qm : _ .WELL LOCATION -i w not the sam a. owner give address. Owner's Well No.County AI Municipalfty_ ir i 0= t fAr3y Lot No. 4.-m1 BkK:ok 'o,2 Address _ F, F ,t ' .-.. ... .I ..9x m DAI-TYPE OF WELL-(as per Wall Permit Vegodm) ...
- Regulsiory Pogm RequiWng e OCase IDA WELL OMPLE7E J3 1 Id .J4 CONSULTING FIRMIFIELp SUPMWSOR Of Opp"lcl)*1ela.E____________
BoBto Kmidein fI-e ~IIo', -.If fifhed above 0 du, aing heigN (id*up) awov larx Wacerz -Z--&W*9 steei Proltw~e cWg ftftwd 13* LlNo SoftWair W,* lb ftw dI&-tILJ Meau4e C to Depth to Oaimetr .WgtJ'Ft',g 1rom l u~andsi mte Tp I Bottem (21) (indies) _ _ _ _ _ l.Ifo)° -"
- t~ein -' ,i qc Middla cwk., (fortipde
~aed wells w Out Ga-n*- , --Open hql or Soue* .(Ni.Uai \ I,. f "I Z Blank Ouia (No- ), ..,VL mad oj!, Grlvw eaR1* __-Wate -ee wa. meaejted usw M "e Wei was developed for h tom:2 IGrotmqg MgmmO '_riR Driling Method " Was pumping "-Amewi h' .d? L"YS .-- n -.- -., DTnfng Khid ~ .type ol riS1 '75 Heanh anid Safat PlanmisbatDV:[] UYes"R4No Level of Protegaion used an uft (dide onme) N&e(3)C' .B: A!I AlcerM fltlWt I twv cns tnixecl the above ,n99m=9d'Wm~eV In&Gcmkrtlnc wiMt ONt wvg pem*l reqgupehMei an ppgcabfe-.,a ..* ,an d w. g a c , : ..hlvinn fhv J t.I I IIl/J m L , , T ! I.GEOLO(iC;rL Now 0a81 depUh wnare *t tr wim encounufed In consmlida=d..0. Aj .1..a--,_I Z" L- ,Z,-',VE o:=.n v**n * *31-XC t .j 2"1. 4' &;;-" 1 , --m ; -." Well Dnflar (PrnnQ C)\2- t;_VRP WE. WCATIO".NAD 83 BORNTAL1Wr._ llll I Drileft Signatur -,C , _ _k ~Registration No. to DY 1"o Ie_ I?Q rUM2PL&NE COOUDINAIE M US 9UAVE!jW NOuRTRMIG,-
EAMRGO LArXM _ __ __ " 0 , 711¶DU~ W LTIU-._--~6 COP*-&- WWile .DEPnr m -GG.WenMd-H"Iftl 0@0., 04/07/2003 10 32 FAX *4 143. Is8/OO9* 138 M Ne v Department ol Ermronmentau Pro,=Bureau of Water Ao01tion1 MONIQTRINQGELL RECOR_Wet PeJmhNo. ..+/- , F_'__ ..... .. OWNER IDENTIFIGA11ON -Owner 4mu' r a r city S tm~ ~ ZIP cods WELL LOCATION -If not the swn e as iDww p*ese give eaddram,. Owner's Well No. L _. -_CounOty F _ -MunIpa~Ity
- 3 A11,AT Lot No, 5 Blook No._ _z_Add,~e MI ~UY ~ ~DATE WFLL STAIMr TYPE OF WELL tas pewelPmiCaeoe4L4ODATE WELL COMPLETED J- 2 Ragultor Progtrn Requiring Wel ______C__i__
_______CONSULTNG FIRM/RELD SUPERVISOR ('d &poiatbl) avow.Je, __ ___""___* W1M dtpl, u Depth to Dep to Drimtu) , , lowl~ed dq* ~ g tts ILMI Iw~ swtom TOP Mft) Bottom (ft (hicte)I MOW"___WA~l frishiid tosivtnnner c""n 2~J. ~i..BoruhO*e MNlo Cafng T OP ..L.Il (for tVipl cased wels aid _____ _L,. -.- .-.-W.1.wd. flnichgd 1w vm* (tar,2 mw T..0 flmbh mwnrefd Opon Hole or Sceen , up I]had abov, gruc graft, a.. h. **. (No. Used -wa x l P ro w s ,, (N Ue d Ct _g.PXM El No TaA di 3 Dm S --ae ee l er dntt JA -: _ater level was wexurd. Next Cement.... We. was developed Wa I hems _______DLe J m Meftod of devuevpmrnt !*A=4 D~t Mei w.GEOLIC LOS_____up"___ N06 eac Oeph wtwe waftr Was ewmturud i coldid nDv 'Dngaid Type of Rig C rIEZ1n-HOOMl said Safey Plan~ pAstied 0ina~Lwe~cPaVtoonusadnx*(wad.9mn) Nofie(q>C B A L to K- M 5I.J&f cer1ffy fthtIIhave vorsmxIred ft-a bove iafrenoe weff in f~ %L .~.~~&acnitance WIt all wag prM~ mpquWrM7)m and applk.sbI j ~swte nAuis *Ad wqL&4m~ow Drilling Comrpany ~ v ~ __________________ Well Dfiller (Plint) C'~ ~AS-IUILZ WflLL OCATINr CqAD 33 HORfZONTALIDAT7M) Dnwi~er'aionsturs Regstration Nlo cleftG- PRI COPlE6- Whde -DEP Canary -D4ller Pik* -Owner. Goxionroa -Health DepL --DAI7/!004 13:3; Pkl 46S 845 133509/0 19009/009 DWH-i-fs M Woo 0 New -,.ey Department df E uiromeritul Prok-6oii Bureau of Water AilOcati MONITORING WELL RECORD2 Wei Permit No. ~ 4 06(942 OMNER IDENTIFICATION -Owner Addrs Ma MtCoordiriata I.: t rt T1fNyO lm= -P~ ftt zip Code_______ WELL LOCATION -l rIfot the samn as owner pleas-egmiveAddree Owneri'WellfN.t-' '4~~ ~count IrAlTm- -- municipavly if1~m A1~1-'JAYS LatNo.. -4,91- Mwockt o.24 ,dores AIl 'DAT L=P1 W-rk, tU DA7TE WELL STARTED.J .7 J _DATE WELL COMPLETED-.J.l-.I..3 TYPE OF WELL (as per-Weil Penrit CQtegories) Rleguatory Progmrn Requiring Well -Case LD.0 -CONSULliNG FIRMIIEWD SUPERVISOR (11 appjlicabt) Tele. #._____-TOW depthdr~Ied Z .Wet fainuahed Wo 3,Q A WOP was flnis~id: l~abve*It llriniged abu7vt grade, C-Wsir hAiW1 (s$ct U~P) abu land A&Mee.2~f Ws olt¶ rwaercwe uoftVerG WattW "w. was nfasuie~d usingM t(r Well w" developed tbr -Z ha.,n at- na M , NoW. iessura il depth& Dqr~~to, Depti o DaJwpwdw aeta W9LJiEatlg-from land 3urfac 7ro (ft.) 601tom #QL (Inches) _ _ _ _ __ I outer Casing Open Hole or Screen (No. Uaed \BakCuslnp (No. Used__ _ _ _ _ _Tel PWWc Grawal Pack % 7 ~ ~-~~~ ~Neat Gemel n cjt;-Be~telaC-method of devopmerv 4Idk~W36 pormarwnt pwiming equorieiW wt d o'lcpNo Purwnp Mg6 -C Groubng Method DOIInng Medlod..DOrftn Fhd Type o(Fri I Health and Saety Plan subrtftad? 0 Yas'R No Laevel CA PrOtdion Used an $ftu (Oisi. one) NonCi) C B A I cvfly dn1l I have constud00 ft abmv wtsfrenced
- W In acciardance wtMz aff wdUpernift rvquftnwmenfs and &PPI/bae&stH flies and raputcriof6.
Oniling Company jk.e. -r nc WeflDrt~erQ(Pnfn-(- CQb5 R~egirsbrton No. 15%lSLn Date J~~NOWe eah depth whome water W&W encvxruieed In conoruxaed f~maslom.A54BUIIZ WRMLL WCTOq CNAD 83 140MWZNTAL DATUB)NJ SLU-F. PLANE CoORDNAEaf-IqUs SUORVY ixFM NOR7m4G~ --S-T --0 OR$ 0 COPM WMe -AEP co~i~s ~V~e- DEP Canary -D04e0 Pink -OWnef G~ew elh0 GoOeftrod ks)ih Dept New Jersey Department of Env'ronmentai, rutretiui 8.-7 Water Supply Element -Bureau of Water Allocation WELL ABANDONMENT REPORT I "T Bureau of Water Allocation oL weMI 3ea6 ed PO Box 426 .of well sealed Trenton, NJ 08625-0426 DATE WELL SEALED 613/03 PROPERTY OWNER PSE&G Services Corp ADDRESS 80 Park Place Newark, NJ 07102 WELL LOCATION Artificial Island Lower Alloway Twp., NJ Salem Street & No., Township, County.. WeI ..4.01 26.WeII No. .. Lot No.- -Block.No.USE OF WELL PRIOR TO ABANDONMENT: Monitoring REASON FOR ABANDONMENT: Decomumission WAS A NEW WELL DRILLED? E&YES 0 NO PERMIT # OF NEW WELL 3400006991 Cross-section Draw a sketch showing distance and relations of well site to TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL 20' of sealed well nearest roads, buildings, etc.DIAMETER V CASING LENGTH 10 *SCREEN LENGTH 10'NUMBER OF CASINGS "1 O MATERIAL USED TO DECOMMISSION WELL: ,'1. "-NA Gallons of Water Lbs. of Cement Lbs. of Bentonite ' )o. l 'Lbs. ol Sand/Gravel kO16, (none if well is contaminated) .w,- -q, w H -IJlpo v rlo.FORIMATION: Consolidated Cr-iWdII_Unconsolidated +N To permit adequate grouting, the casing should remain in place, but ungrouted liner pipes or any other obstructions mustbe removed. Pressure grouting is the only accepted method.WAS CASING LEFT IN PLACE? 0 YES N NO CASING MATERIAL:_.._ _ _ _WERE OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS LEFT IN WELL? DYES O NO WHAT WERE THE OBSTRUCTIONS:____ IF "YES", AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY_ __ON (NJDEP Official) (Date)Was an alternative decommissioning method used? [3 YES DNO IF 'YES", authorization granted by ON (NJDEP Official) (Date)I certify that this well was sealed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:9-9.1 et seq.NihlsA.Fluc PO Box 423 West Creek, NJ 6/26/03 Performing Work (Print or Type)5 Mailing Dat Name of NJ Certified Well Sealer ._
- _ _1526-Signature of NJ Certified Well Sealer Registration
- Performing Work COPIES. White. Water Allocation Yellow -Owner Pink -Health Dept. Goldenrod-Driller Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006991 Atlas Sheet Coordinates OWNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp 3401635 A-"-Ss SOParkPlace Newark State New JerseY Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. Well R County Salem Municipality Lower Alloway Twp. Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring WELL..SE.M.n.....g....
DATE WELL STARTED -6/3/03'.... DATE WELL COMPLETED_ 63/03 WELL CONSTRUCTION Total-Depth Drilled 20 ft.Finished Well Depth 20, ft.Borehole Diameter: Top 6 M.Bottom 6 M.Well was finished: .0.above grade[]flush mounted If finished above grade, casing height (stick up) above land surface 3 ft.Steel protective casing installed? I Yes []No ic Water Level after drilling 6 ft.Note: Measure all depths ]j Depth to I Depthto Diameter 1W I t./Ratin fron land surface dsu Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) -(inches) II Material ttII I'I 3rfc (lbgslsch no.l)Singlnner Casing IJ PVC ji Middle Casing (for triple cased wells only))..Outer Casing(largest diameter) __,_ _Open Hole or Screen (No Ued 7 T-1 _____J- 0 PVC/s's. sc4 Blank Casings Pie1 ! II P e II*Gravel Pack 1t*7.5' 206 I # I well grave 1**200 lbsIia iec /I ..Gr t200 lbs 0... o.5 L nteo tI l Water Level was Measured Using Tape Well was developed for I hours at 3/4 gpm Method of development Peristoltic Pump.Pump Capacity gprn Pump Type Drilling Fluid Type of Rig Geoprobe 66DT Health and Safety Plan Submitted? 0Yes QNo Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None @ C B A Grouting Method Trer Drilling Method HSA nie GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated tormatiow 0-20' fine to med orange sand, trace gravel* 1" PVC w/stainless steel meshwrap (2.5" OD sand pack)k** install sand pack around pre-packed screen 1 certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.Well Driller (Print) Nicholas A. Fallucca DilrsSignatureQgistration No. 11526 Date 3550 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLE'R 0 WArER HEALTH DEPARTMENT Bureau of Water Allocation M ONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006995 IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp 3401635 s 90 Park Place Newark State New Jersey Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. GM-1 (Well S)County Salem Municipality Lower Alloway Twp. Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED 5/29/03 DATE WELL COMPLETED 530/03.WELL CONSTRUCTION Total Depth Drilled 35 ft.Finished Well Depth 35 ft.Borehole Diameter: Top 8 in m.Bottom 8 in M.Well was finished: 0 above grade Ljflush mounted If finished above grade, casing height (stick up) above land surface. 2.5 ft.,MIWl protective casing installed? t er []tNo"K cWater Level after drilling 9 ft.Note: Meassr all depths iF Depth to Deptlh to ~Diameter WgU atn frnrný(lt lnsufc ITPd."Bottom
- f. i.1nhs Material ~ ~ ain frml'deudaiI T f)1 ice llet h. Ir Singlellnner Casing +2~.5~ 25 2 IL Pvc-I sch 40 Middle Casing -(for triplecased wells only) _ _ _ _ _ i_'*Outer Ciasing (largest dianieter)
____ ______ _____Open Role or Screen, I (No. Used .010 ) I 25 " 35 2 Jl PVC ___sh40 Blank Casings I (No. Used______ ____ ______ _______ ____Tal Piece .* ____.. II _Gravel Pack II 35 sand 1 s1 Grout ii ____ 40U lbs S0rout 23 f 8 Cement/bentornte 10 l..I bs Water Level was Measured Using Tape Well was developed for 1/2 hours at 2 gpm Method of development .Pump Pump Capacity .5 gpm Pump Type Submersible Drilling Fluid -Type of Rig Mobile B-61 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? MYes f"No Level ofProtection used oil site (circle one) None 0 C B A I certify that I have constructed theLabove referenced ivell in accordance with all wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print)_ Marc Hauge hrlleies Signature 12373_istration No. J23173 Date Grouting Method Tremie Drilling Metlhod HSA GEOLOGIC LOGNote each depth where water was encountered in consolidated foraliorm 0-10' fill 10-34' black silt& sand 34-35' grey med sand OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3550 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER MONITORI]NG WELL RECORD 3WMM:R E .MJFCAjfON PSE&O Sevice, Corp Wdren 0 Paik PtIat City Newazk Staft New jczevsl.CATION -It not the same as owner ple4S give. address It~nty Salem Municipality .Lower Allow3y Twp.Address Artici Island WELL SW mroitoin1 A SM S t C~ordiaf-3401633 -I I II I I Im I I Zip Code 07102 O tnoes We.lNo. S2+/-L We1S)Lot No. 4.01 )lco. 26~ ~DATE WELL STAR1 5jZ3 DATE WELL COMfL.,TED 51/3Q$WE OONSIUCTRtON Nott: Measure dl~deptktiF TOtal Deh Drilled 35 ft fromland s O Fiznihcd Well DePth 3 .5 ft. Singlefinuar Cusing.Borehole DimnmtV .MiddleCCiugin S(for triple tased Vdllis only) :-Top gj " i -o,.,i" I TOP 8 in MOter Casing E Bottom. S ia _". (larget ditt) 3L Well was finisbtd- [Nabove trade 0pe Cg or Screen.[noti d s"eU .010 ) I (Sx*UP a-Vlade~ lsefehwL (No. Used" sted protucve icasing installed? 2d -Static WaterLevel afttr dritling 9 t Ou I develope f hor 1c 3oaveopma deve lo pument Pui PUmp CapacitY __________pm P=uP Type 5rxubm~be Drilling Fuid _Type otRig Mobile B-61 Hcal& eand Safetty Plan Snboilutd? Oye QNo Levd of PrOUmeonutd on site (cimk om) None § C B A I cerri* Lwc I hwey construcetd the ab&ove rqferenced well in Ordance with dl wellperd remruirenqtr ad applicuib State rules and regdatiau D CoMy CT& E gENIVONNNTAL SERVICES Well Irmler (Prin) 1vdse Hauge .tegisftrtioft No. 123173. Date IL &Q(I) [Bcwon(kL) (inches) (lbs/Sck no.)tt i I_______" L5 35 PV w 4_Wn__I 23 = I "6h GO,.ting Tw~n rkis tx ESRA 0-10o90 10-34 black sat& said 34-39" RLE med said 3550 SGIjVZAL" DEP COP=-S, DMrLLE"7.HFULTH DEPA J?7UFAr Bureau of Water Allocation 3400006992 MONITORING WELL RECORD Atlas Sheet Coordinates 'R IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Sen,ices Corp 3401635 80 Park Place___ _ _ __Newark State New Jersey Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION-If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. GM-3 (Well T)County Salem Municipality Lower Alloway Twp. Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring .DATE WELL STARTED 6/5/03 DATE WELL COMPLETED 6/5/03 WELL CONSTRUCTION Total Depth Drilled 35 ft.Finished Well Depth 35 ft.Borehole Diameter: Top 8 in m.Bottom 8 in M.-Well was finished:- above grade[]flush mounted If finished above grade, casing height (stick up) above land surface 2.5 ft.eel protective casing installed?
- Yes ONO tic Water Level after drill ing .9 ft.ONt:Ws ets ett iameter Maera Wt /Ratoin from land surface Top (ft) Bottom (ft.) h a(il bs/sch nEo.) i single/inner casing 1+ 2.5 25 C M~iddle Casing.i[(for triple cased wells only) ._._.:_..Outer Casing (largest~diamteter)
____ _____Open.-Hole..or Screen (No. Used .010 ) .25 .35 2 PVC sch40 Blank Casings(No. Used -_ _ II " _ _ ... ... II ]1 "~ __________ 31 ______________ ______ _________ II ____d 1i __b_Gravel Pack JE23 -#I sand Grout \ 0 ] 278. ICement/bentonitell 10lts I Water Level was Measured Using Tape Well was developed for 1/2 hours at 2 gpm Method of development Pump Pump Capacity .5 gpm Pump Type Submersible Drilling Fluid Type of Rig Mobile B-61 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None @ C B A Grouting Method TICflhic Drilling Method HSA GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth Where water was encountered in consolidated formations 0-10 fill 10-33' black silt & sand 3 3-35' grey med sand k I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print) Marc Hauge Driller's Signature No. _J23173 _Date___ _ 1 haistration No. J23173 Dat I6 10/31 3550 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HF-A L TH DEPA R TMEN 7 Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006994 Atlas Sheet Coordinates OWNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp i'IU1Oi**ss 80 Park Place Newark State New Jersey Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not tlesarne as o,.vn ei" 1lese- give- address Owner's Well No. GM2 (WellU)County Salem Municipality Lower Alloway Twp. Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths D Total Depth Drilled 32 ft. :from land surface T Finished Well Depth 32 ft. Si g Casing Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing (for tri le cased wells only) I Top 8 in m. Oiuter Casing Bottom 8 in M. (largest diameter).:Well-i-iafinished-__ above grade Open Hole.or.Screen jLflush mounted (No. Used .010 If finished above grade, casing height Blank Casings (stick up) above land surface 2.5 ft. No. Used 2. t Tail Piece Steel protective casing installedT __ Gavil Piece , 9 a WYes QeNo isallen? 8Gravel Pack 8 t 4 1tcWtrLv1after dril .ling 8 ft.Gru DATE WELL STARTED --5/28/03 DATE WELL COMPLETED 5/29/03 epth to Depthto Diameter Material Wgt./Rating op (ft.) IBottom (ft.) I (inches) .lbs/sch no.)+2.5I 27 2 PVC 1,, ~__27- 32 L---I--PVC -sh4 1 25
- II ..... j #1sand j I 25 :I.- 32 8, ......nd .... 0-lb-II I '1Il 0 Il 25 8 IlCement/bentoniteI 10 lbs, Water Level was Measured Using TapeWell was developed for 1/2 hours at 2 gpm Method of development PumpPump Capacity 5 gpmnPump Type Submersible Drilling Fluid Type of Rig Mobile B-61Health and Safety Plan Submitted?
0Yes ONo Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None @ C BGrouting Method-Drilling Method -Tremie v GELOICLO I GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formation,0-10' fill 10-28' black silt & sand 28-32' grey med sand I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all wellpertnit requirements and applicable Staterules and regulations.Drilling Company C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print) Marc HaugeDriller's Signature 7 IC,,,<t &(ff:A
- gistration No. J23173 Date / L.S 3550 ORIGINAL:
DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWERHALHDEATMN 0OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENf-M(JN1TORIIN(i,- Wr-" AWLUMU Atls Sb Cooxdies 3401635 OWNER 1DENTM~CATION PSE&G Seivices -Corp, Address 0 Paik Place I Newmc state Ncvw Jersew Zip C~de 07101 LOCAM01N -If not tbhe saMe ar. owner please ZiVe address Owxteies Well No. GC(-2 (Weliti 9'e 0 C3 es flnty We Municipality Lower Alloway LRX. Lot No. 4.01 Bljok&W 26 Address .A~itific slan nnvie-s~ A- LA~~ I M0 WVELT. USE lfntorting DATE WELL $TARTSD 5/shoo3 MATE. VWEL COMPLETED sW103 WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all p Dl Total Depth Drilled 32 ft. from land s[ofac Fluinibd Well Depth 32 -ft Single/Inner Casing Borehole Diaratern Middle Casixg Top, & i M. for tripIt cased wells .oaly)STop S in 1. Outer Casing Bottom S in zN (largest diamstfr)Well Nwa finished: fffabove grade Opf oe rSre ojflush mounte d If finished ahove grade, casing beight Blank Casings (sti&pObVr la~n4 ,d srfc+ t St~e4 ptetve eas;=innu Tail Pit=YeGravel Pk StatiC -W~ Lr 4aftra &Min g r tr ,wa= Lx%,d Wa NMeasd 'Usg Tape gwas developed for 112 hours'W 2 gpin Method of dev le w puaat p PuMp Capacity 5 gpm PMp Type Subnmsible Drilling Fluid Typc of Rig Mobile B-61 Health and Safety Plan SabmiDUcd? 0ys ONO Level of( PVOsM Wed OXI site (onkel oam) None C S I cerrjfy that I hcrve constructed the. above referenced well in ac=cxtnce with all'wellpermit requirements and applicable S ett rules and regulatioia Drilling ComayC EýIO'MNTLSRIE Well Driller (Pain) Marc H.Aug Driller's Signaturo 2.a '-Registaton No. 323173 Date r Qvninice MTrml Drillig Nthod HSA GEOLOGIC LOG, 1NcE tead~ wbom -= e s Me A~ i~d n conpubda~d iamtaLONf 0-1w fil 10-29' bl aslt &sand-7.-3r miyned sand 3550",010IL- DEP COPIES- DRILLER 0 WNER 1ELHDPRMN HEALTH DEPARTMMff Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006993 Atlas Sheet Coordinates OWNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp 3401635 S ress 80 Park Plaza Newark State New Jersey Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. GM-2D (Well V)County Salem Mu nicipality Lower Alloway Twp Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring DT ELSATD650 DATE WELL STARTED 6/5/03 DATE WELL COMPLETED 6/12/03 WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths j Dep Total Depth Drilled 90 ft. I irorn land surface Finished Well Depth .80 ft. Single/Inner Casing Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing Tfor triple cased wells only)Top 10 in m. Outer Casing Bottom 6 in M.. (largest diameter) C Well was finished: Iabove grade Open Hole or Screen-flush mounted (No. Used .010.Iffinished above grade, casing height BlNo. Casie g (stick up) above land surface 2.5 ft. (No. Used_)TFail Piece Steel protective casing installed? ck Yes flNo GaeIPc@ atic Water Level after drilling 16 ft. Grout * .Water Level was Measured Using Mscope Well was developed for 1/2 hours at 3 gpm Method of development Pump Pump Capacity 5 gpm Pump Type Submersible Pump Drilling Fluid Quick Gel Type of Rig Mobile B-61 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? 0Yes [No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) No'e @ C B ffiI Depth to Diameter Material (ft.)_IL Botom (.- es)- (bsch no.70 II 2PC I 11. PVC, ____,o 70 80 2 -PVC--,o 67 II _ _ II _ _ _ _ Ii _67 80 6 1 #1 sand j 350 lbs 0/ ~ 36 j 06 met/entoWmte 149lbo.x Tremi U-.3 Trernie%.Rout 2 e DrilliGg Method Mud RotaIy GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated torinaiio 0-10' Fill 10-33' Black silt & sand 33-36' Grey med sand 36-54' Grey clay 54-80' Green & black sand I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all *wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drillhig Company-C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print) Marc Hauge Drile'si NSignature OitainNo. J23173 Date /x io1)3550 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER 0 WNER HF-4LTHDEPARTMEJVT MONITORING WFLL RECORD Atlas Sbed Coodiae 3401635 OW"M MENTLwATIoN PMF&G Servicies Corp Ad&=e -SOParkPlmz New Jerovm 1 ( LOC AION -If not the sam as owner please zive address rty UMMunicipality Lower Alowxy'Twp Address AnifiCj Jjd Zip Code 07102 owneeSWell No. C -M (Wenv) 4.SeA LotNo. 4.01 BlockNo, 26 WELL USE )&ndtng DATE WE.LL STARTED &MSR03 DATE WVELL COMLETEI 6n=~3WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all dept Dep Total Depth Drilled so f. from land sirfacc Top Finished Well Det f Singleflnser CWag Borehole Diameter. Middleit Coiag Top 10 in m. for l icl1 cased Well only)outer Casilgi~ttom .6 in i.. (laretst diameter)Well 'W* finish&dZ Mabove grade Open Hole or Sersen U (No. Used 01o If finisind absove grad,-, casing beiga lnkCsig( $. U
- ix,) b , t l a d a w c -2 ; & ( o .U s i, ..staci Prtb ai s~d Tail Pitee I "yes IxNo Ii PackStatic Water Level a drilling 16 &f. Grout Watcr Level W= Mmared Using r ! p ,wats d~veloped for 112 bourng Spin Medkod Gf&dVeloC t Pump Capacity.
5 gpm Pump Type Sbfmersible Pmp Drilling Rauid _ uckC Type of Rig Mobile B_61 Heailth azn5 Safety Pla Submitted? 0Yes Q, Lev4o, P",00to mUd On site (oir+c one) Note C B A I cetz tizaL I ted the above referenced well In Ckrd= with lfrwlpennlpt requiremnts 'and applicable kSae nRest and reguladoi.. Drilling Com~panyCT&F &lO MTLS R 1 Wenl Driller (print) pMai HMO~Dzille~s Signztaare /~ ~PRsiraulonNo-J23173 Date /x 103e If t DepdtxI Diwtmfe )at I(ft.) Botin (ft-) (iches) iLA-in 1- ir i X!! 70 2Sch 40 53 16 __ 4 67 so 6 1snd 30f OJ53/677 10__7Va x&wue1ft. q A, 1 14 *lss Driling M*IdW MWpx k GEOLOPGIC LOG Nme euh &pch d wbet W hn w1i cousolliat IuýMt 10-33' Black salt & sand 36-54' Gre day 54WGre. & bhe* send 3550 COPIES., DRILLER O WMER HEA~LTH DE-PARTMEAT C Bureau of Water Allocation IM ONITORING WELL RECORD 3400006999 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401635)WNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G Services Corp o 80 Paik Place JWP Newark State New Jersey Zip Code 07102 N1ELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. GM4 (Well W)County Salem Municipality Lower Alloway Twp. Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address Artificial Island WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED rmiwz DATE WELL COMPLETED 6/3/03 WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths Total Depth Drilled 35 ft. from land surface Finished Well Depth 35 SingleInner Casing Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing (for triple cased wells onl Tfop gin M.Outer Casing Bottom gin M. (largest diameler)Well was finished: IMabove grade Open Hole or Screen fflush mounted (No, Used .010 If finished above grade, casing height Blano Casings (stick up) above land surface 2.5 ft. (No. Used Tail -Piece..~eel protective casing installed?. M ELs -[No Gravel Pack"!tic Water Level after drilling 8 ft. Grout Water Level was Measured Using Tape Well was developed for 1/2 hours at 2 gpm Method of development Pump Pump Capacity 5 gpiI Pump Type Submersible Pump Drilling Fluid Type of Rig Mobile B-61 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? 11Yes fNo Level of Protection used On site (circle one) None © Cv...DATE WELLCOMPLETED 6/3/03 .Depth Dep Depth to Diameter Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) (inches) II material "1 Wgt-/Rating (lbs/sch no.)ff25 PVC __ sc]1 23 II 35 8 #iwelgravel '45Olbs II -, ii olbs 0 O-IF23 -I 78 ICement/bentoitle 10O lbs, Grouting Method Tremie Drilling Method HSA GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formatlos 0-10' Fill 10-33' Black silt and sand 33-35' Grey sand A I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all wellpermit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company C T & E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Well Driller (Print) Marc Hauge% Driller's Signature ___________________ istration No. J23 173 0 Date I z-4-1 0 3 3550 ORIGINAL: DEP CO'IES. DRILL)0 'ERHALHDEATMN FR 0 PVAIER HEALTH DEPARTMENT IViJrJI I A 'JKL ku'NY Wi IIiIyA.K Alias Shee Cord 3401635 ODWNE ThF.NTMFCATION PSE&G Seivi=e Corp Address 80 Paik 1'ha Qk Neva& tafI m I I IIIII I Nmemyeae F L OCAMON -if not the sa= as ow=e please give addrmS W nty Salem Municipality Lower AlloWy TWP.-Address Axfc am WXLLIUSE, Mrloring zip C4od. 710 owznoes wai io. Gh&44(WeU) Y(Cuwsed(Lo o 4.01 Balo& No. 26 I.DATE WELL STAXTZ3D 6&W10 SAITZ NWLL COMPL22TE 6/3j3 Wm-L. CONSTRUCniON Note: Mwzure 4l depth& i c TOWa Decpth Driled 35 ft.rm a mac Fiihd W el)l Depth.- 35 ft. SinglelnanerCasig ~ok~iaiet--mid4idle -cuing.Top gn m- for iii Ia cased welkoly)c To pt o Sa i ..tef C asdag *I Well was firnisbcd: bovt grade ps .,eo Sre If6ibe aov gad, asng height Blank Casinps i (strkizP) above lad sufm (No. Used St Prutv -tisisald Tail Piaec Bredproecfve asin intaledGravel Pack Sac WaterLcydafterdrining S ; Grout Va~ Lezd Was Masuared Usin Tap wsdeveloped for In~ hams rmip CSeit pin P=uP TYP6 Submrmble POUP Duilling Pluid _________1 f R1ig Mobile B-41 HEfth med Saf&W Plan Santiited? Jaye$ a*1 Lcvel Q(rFo&tkcn Umsd Ca 2ke (cir* ame) None @ C 8 A WC 25 21 W1_4 L5 35 2 1 FVC sII sd40 35 a wen 450 log .0 23 a deilS IMA GEOXXOGIC LOG 1;Aft each dc;6 ubwe wsw VMS emmimed m conmo[Mmud TRUtMan 0_1WFm 10-33* BlsK* sW and =nd 33-35' Grey md I cetz4 that I have CMnzfruvwld the above refere Inced well fin aC~Zaiyue -with anl -WeIpermit regquirmqts amd appli cable Sm~e runII and redailoai DA~ing Cakav T&EH O ~ T L SaRV1CE well Drlla (Prna) U=ar Hauag Dailer's Signatmie___________________ Regi'stmtiou No. 3231-73 Dst d, /U/o t 35SO 0 GINAL COP]ES- DRILLER 0 WNER IEA.LTH DEPAR73aENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007078 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401635 WNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP ss 80 PARK PLACE City Newark State 4ew Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION.WELL USE Monitoring _ Zip Code 07102 Owner's Well No.Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 DATE WELL STARTED DATE WELL COMPLET ED j$"i, WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths [Dept Total Depth Drilled o ft.m land surface Top Finished Well Depth Mid lft. iSigl Casing ]+/-Borehole Diameter: (for triple cased wells only)Top " l. in, Outer Casing Bott~ -C~ in. (largest diaetrWell was finished: Babove grade Open Hole or Screen["1 flush mounted (No. Used ( )flu h ounedBlank Casings 1 If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used )(stick up) above land surface ý ft. I Tail Piece 1..W el protective casing installed? Gravel Pack 11 Ys No GroutI Static Water Level after drillingji. ft. *Water Level was Measured Using ., Well was developed for j, hours at gpm , Method of development JL ', , t Pump Capacity , gpm Pump Type /I -/ A./- / -j) .Drilling Fluid ._,.______TypeofRig (./E- 2 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? .EaYes []NO Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None (D) C B A Grouting Method -- f:-e / ,1., Drilling Method p S 1-41 GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations q L~7 71te AV-.. ,-3,-';4 /- ,71' -C(, Ae v" Lt/ -9ig -Z ,.q5,, I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Print) (3 f-- A ,( ý ' Al/b iller's Signature __Registration No. ,) 71-, (-, Date _ ___/.- _/, ~~~Ciq-c'-,- )-ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD R IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP 80 PARK PLACE Well Permit Number 3400007079 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401635 City Newark State New Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address OW County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Zip Code 07102'ner's Well No. Z Lot No.. 4.01. Block No. 26 WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED V ,/ 1 1 z DATE WELL. WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: M teaure all depths IDe Total Depth Drilled -. 2 f. from land surface o Finished Well Depth -7, ' .[ SnlefiiCasing Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing i Borehole Din.eter] (for triple eased wells only)Top in. Outer Casing in LOrasig V Bottom G in. ii rgest diameter) 41 Well was finished: M"above grade Open Hole or Screen 0 flush mounted (No. Used If finished above grade, casing height Blank Casings, (stick up) above land surface TPft.aP e I protective casing installed? G Tail Piece _Yes " No' Grou Static Water Level after drilling i(, ft.Water Level was Measured Using L ,v Well was developed for / hours at "- gpm Method of development ,? t, IY] P,'V&-Pump Capacity ..gpm PumpType , .jOgya5 Drilling Fluid /" 1 Type of Rig ( 7 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? 13yes []No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None & C B Be,,onite o ,.Grouting Method -m, ,-v .Drilling Method i-/ S s, GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations i0"-> ,- rr -e,. sA ,-.- V SAA,'O w S'Lr L,'i "e,j,t-I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INCell Driller (Print) CA Ii " l A 8 /V" t iller's Signature ,5 Registration No. /1.,'/ -j7 Date /A- 3!,-/jj.'jC: i- q ORIGINAL. DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEA L TH DEPA R THENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD W ER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP s80 PARK PLACE City Newark State New Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well N County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Lot No. 4-Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Well Permit Number 3400007080 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401635Zip Code 07102.o. A 1.01 Block No. 26, WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED i C'- " 0 3 DATE WELL COMPLETED .'Q---WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure-all depths Deptl Total Depth Drilled 3. z. ft from land surface j ITop Finished Well Depth -3 ft. [IS in CinIi T Middle Casing i Borehole Diameter: (for triple cased wells only)Top _____in. Outer Casing i Bottom C in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: t~above grade Ope HoIo cen I.Q-flush mounted (No. Used / )L-If finished above grade, casing height olank Casings (stick up) above land surface -T!.l Pftie" "- I Tail Piece.]O el protective casing installed? Gravel Pack Yes ]No GProutStatic Water Level after drilling__LLL ft. Io.Water Level was Measured Using .§, cS L Well was developed for ! hours at -,. gpm Method of development .'Y 12 -",1-Pump Capacity C gpm Pump Type C-6t1;MPj tt' ,'Drilling Fluid .' A Type of Rig C r: --.,L Health and Safety Plan Submitted? faYes "No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None C B Atol Depth to Diameter (ft.) Bottom (ft.) (inches)Grouting Method .!7 rt,-t. , <f Drilling Method #. , GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations 7m -t--" 4/ $ A- g X/L.Z7'-, SoL-(.. -, _2 S. ,t7 " Ys.11, ,, ix /s t_ 7- , I certfy that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permnit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Print) A r, -RP-'tA//iller's Signature j T,..J Registration No. /7kI) -G .Date Id 13 I F. flc~ (1 2 p 0 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT ilurzau 01 water A1i0m1Von MONIlTORING WVELL RECORD OWNER II)NMUCATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP 8"re 0 PARK PIACE 3401635 Newaik WLL LOCATION -If not the same as owner County Salem, Mumicipality Addis ARTIC[MtAL ISLAND SALEM G WELL USE Monitorlng tae New jersey Zip Code 07102 please give awlrew QwneeJs wen N&A- f Lo~ flwascreek LctNo. 4-01 Bko& No 26ýTM1N STA-Ioa STDA.Lt--) DATE.WEILLCOMPLETED 10'-t-0 WEL3L CONSTRUC17ION TOWa Deptb Drile ILk ~Finished Well Dep& 3! IL Botebole DM.eter.TOP in.Well was flnishc&it finise "Mv gae casing heigh (sbc& uip) above land smnceýýft Stpe prtecivecasinkg lasmtaled_M le .-I No Static Water Level after &iflingjfLD Note Men=e aldpts FDcpth to Dqpch 10 Diumucla.&= land saurface31 TOP MI) 11 soga MI) 11(indxs)11 Material (for triple Cased Well onl)open Hole or screen.~ I- I (No. U04 __ __Beanit Cae c-LevrA was Measurcd Using ~clulwas dvveloped fr / omr Method o'f development ' Y Pumap Caowei __ _ __ Mu PUMP TYe 6- Ujjve,4 P_ 6 Driling Fluid /-V Typc oflkig CI' 2 e~alth and Safety Plan Submited? raes O3No Lavel of Protection used on site (circle ane) None (OD C 'B A Grouezig Mediod Ddrmtm Method o -- , " -... .N= *a 6cp vde n vow wna omind in awschdmaed S4f CPA,4S 4A4PP 4rp-- -5L7X At I cc~tyf that I have conrtrudted tize above referenced well in accordance with all weil perm it requiremnr and applicable State ndes and ragulaution Drllir~g COMPOW~ A C SCHULThS INC Well Dniller (Print) C PL z 'eP Drille's siatnu LA.L t 4 R4gi=vtion No. J J5 (, Dat6 Id /31~~qq = cb DEJP SCOPIES: DR£iLLER ., ORV'R4A BF-4MIDEPAKTMENT New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007081Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401635"ER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP
- s 80 PARK PLACE City Newark State New Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Ow County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Zip Code 07102 ner's Well No. A ,1 Lot No.- 4.01 BlockNo. 26 WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED /Q -.-DATE WELL COMPLETED/ -I t)WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure alldepths Dep, Total Depth Drilled .. ft. f land surface Top Finished Well Depth ft. S[n.le Sin, Borehole Diameter:
Middle Casing (for triple cased wells only)Top C- in.. .Outer Casing If Bottom in. (largest diameter). Well was fmished: f~above grade(Open Hole or Screen :" 0] flush mounted(. ed E, Blank Casings If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used )(stick up) above land surface -ft. Tail Piece# 1 protective casing installed? Gravel Pack Yes Q'No GroutStatic Water Level after drilling ft.Water Level was Measured Using Well was developed for , hours at _ gpm Method of development .ýY : /,-Pump Capacity ( gpm PumpType -tC,./ su't Drilling Fluid /^/ .Type of Rig C P'hx r= -7 ., Health and Safety Plan Submitted? BYes []No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None (D) C B AGrouting Method "7, -tL " Drilling Method /W ..z k GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated. formations /4-17' 1- 74'1V r S A40 , -1.-C 7-j.-v 7-4Z' -rr I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC jl ell Driller (Print) 6 1-4 -( 5 \ -'4. r N'iller's Signature (-ij I ) -Registration No. /;'.r9 -. -(" Date e } / 3 1 6: OR LiGAL: C- DEP ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTHDEPARTMENT
- ~ -...w&3.400007091 MONITORING WELL RECORD Sboa C,0o:i OWNER M)r-MiCAT'ON PSE&G SERVICES COP 341635 PAK0 PAR PLACE N_ _ _ _ _ S= New Jersey, Zip Coe 07102 LOCATION -If not the sae as owner plese g&e s " " A.iI u Cowmay Sa1 Mu nicip aly Creek Lot ao. 4k.0x1§ Bl/dc. 26 Address ARTIFICLAL ISLAND SALEM G;ENERAI-NG STATION nad WELL USE Mouhoring]DT 1URD DATE WELL C OMPLE"M_.
3 WFII CONSTRUCTON Nocm Mcasurt Il de VSiepc Tol Depth Dr d " Methohd Weld .epomtb itCm ."L L i" Middlec Caing Bo..oel Diarmeteo tra onsr *l ne) None a ..s Cel B ,y)TOP__ in. Oi~Csn Well was finished: lhaove grade o p " (0wr awthll b Irmontend (No. Used _(up) abend nfac (No. Used Stel protective asiAg installed? C ,9Yes. , RNo Static Waro L-vel after Lervel was Measurcd UzibM Ms x-1 ,1was defeloped 1ix I hours Mediod of dcryclo 1 ,mcai 4~/,rr /.n 'L Pump C~ack (71, winu Drillig Fluid ~4 Typ. offRi C eh, C- -7.Health mid Safety Plan Suhnitted? IRYes .[]No Level of Protection used on site (coircl one) Non. ~ C B A I cerri5 dud I have conn red Me above refere wcdi hi accordm=c with all Wel pm7nmi requiravzanls and appllaable Sat-t Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC We~llDriller (Pri) A11 sY E Drilling Metodod H.GEOLOGICLOG Nom nc 6@p& mm -rced ima onwmd L- -V. -.Z SA4-0-- ' rofn-v i 0ýu 9,ýq'c'GINAZ-' PEP COPfFS: DRILLER OWNErRE OFALTHIM-MATMOff New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007082 ER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP Wss 80 PARK PLACE Atlas Sheet Coordinates .3401635 City Newark State New Jersey. Zip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No.County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION WELL USE Monitoring WELL CONSTRUCTION DATE WELL STAR-TED / 7 -" DATE WELL COMPLETED /6 -Note: all depths 'F-Depth to II :Depth to°j Diameter Material if Wgt'Rating from land surface rTop(ft.) Bottom(fi. (inches)]l 11 (Ibs/seh no.)Total Depth Drilled .&; .ft.Finished Well Depth ___'__- ft.Borehole Diameter: Top C in.Bottom --__-__-in.Well was finished: El above grade 0-flush mounted If finished above grade, casing height (stick up) above land surface " I-. ft.'I protective casing installed? Yes ONo Static Water Level after drilling i ft.Middle Casing if i f (for triple cased wells only) ..Outer Casing (largest diameter) i ______U_________ _______ 1____________ ________Open Hole or Screen -" (No. Used. f i I i Blank Casings Tail Piece II _ t_ ii if _GravelPack I " II -: ;Wts i !l f. l I -.-1-Grout Neat Cement oie l bs (* /.;l~II ] Bentonte c-i lbsWater Level was Measured Using .-r\-..Well was developed for I hours at _ gpm Method of development ." .', ." -Pump Capacity 9 gpm Pump Type Cj-y c,"., r_-o0 .Drilling Fluid ,-!'- Type of Rig C M,65 -7 Health and Safety Plan Submitted? MYes []No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None (9 C B A I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Print) C t- f -i .b i I/ A a ' iV iller's Signature ,/ A /, .Registration No. ,/, "j- t,'5-7 -. Date /Q- I .1 0)Grouting Method .,y .e. : t-Drilling Method ..i-4'.S 4 GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations 0 r .A,,vC-/ q'.- ".. -,i 4.ý 15A,,. "V-0 ,., sk a OR1G11VAL: DEP I W COPIES: DRILLER 0 WNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT MONrTORING WELL RECORD 3400007082 AaS vcCooxdbnats OWNE PSE&G .SERVICES CORP AA~ipm 80 PARK PLACE 3401635 Newark Newilrk St New Jersey'WWI LOCATION -It not the same as ownier please &ce addren coCoAiY Salem Mimiipeihy Lower Alloways Creek Addnes AXTTYICIAL ISLAND SALEM GTNERATING STATION Wf.L US Moiilwiing ZipCode 07102 Owmers Wdl No. LIec Lo. NoN 4.01 BbOx*N. 26 DATE WELL. MLARTED "-4 DATE WELL CONW LEXQTIS WELL CONSTRUCTIOP4 ToWa Depd& Duifed -4 A.Borehole Diamieter. Top n U.d Bottom ___ i'wenl was finished ~above grade Efhush mounmted-ftihed aboe de, casbiag eig (suck up) above land suorfce St4 provoctve casing Lsthlned?Yes tNo Noe:MSI u kt ctb to ,Dpht .Ds ia ~ ~ f rom bud O) 1i .*JaftiJE Middk Cain(No.L U.*t an---=1L 3 W Level was Measgued USinghý& c'-,w" devloped for I howr$at Method of deveippment PL /'1f A, I, Pum~p Cad 'ity Cw PType rP-P..rt,=o,o S', Vtl,',vi flrI1Th Fluid ~ Type of Rig* rl~-Health and Safety Pla Submiltd? 03Yeas []No Lev1l offtecdon used on she (ircle e) None 9-C B A Mcc,-danc. with al well permit reqfsnuwcm
d qT&.abl ate ndes andregdahv
Dr6ing Compmy A C SCHUL7BS INC]DnImt'sSintr RtttiosNo ) -f..5 D.= LLI e2 , tDOJ44 _ -o Grouti.g Method Drilling Medsod e YN y I e-&GEOLOCIC OAG Noft cocb deph 4wbm ,woug conwia easeU 0 4-.-- .,4 ,9,t ' S-,-0-_q * ~ t-e I _L_,,'17 al j8A'--DEP COPIE&S: DRiR OWNERH RFAUHI DFEPAR77'MiENTI New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007083 Atlas Sheet Coordinates '3401635 AWER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP Vss 80 PARK PLACE City Newark State 3401635 4ew Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Ow County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Address ARTIFICIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Zip Code 07102 ner's Well No. A b LotNo. 4.01 BlockNo. 26 WELL USE MonitoringDATE WELL STARTED /(; ic-DATE WELL COMPLETED 'C' 1 WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all-depths I1 Del urac Tor: Total Depth Drilled from land surface l Finished Well Depth "2L ft. [ gle/C 4 Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing -(for triple cased wells only)Top [ in. Outer Casing I 'Bottom i in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: 0 above grade Open Hole or Screen'rflush mounted (No. Used j )Blank Casings If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used )(stick up) above land surface ft.Tail Piece q protective casing installed? Gravel Pack Yes ONo Grout Static Water Level after drilling 'ý ft. i Water Level was Measured Using 1jf,-A .Well was developed for .hours at gpm Method of development J-"'f./ P/ .i L-v Pump Capacity C gpm Pump Type & -vty/ , .'i.Drilling Fluid Type of Rig P..,_-2 -Health and Safety Plan Submitted?,J.Yes []No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None C B A II -~Neat Cement 11 ..: C I i nI BentoniteI Grouting Method ,, r7 2 .,.rt ! ve Drilling Method ; /.'.GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations A,.:A -rV+I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Print) (H (, (5 iA/I .I iller's Signature C , ..RegistrationNo. j1. i -( '/- ( Date i 0- 5 to7 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT nuz-lr'Au YVA TV OUQ& rý ýMON1TO1MNG WVELL RECORD 3400=0803*Aths SbcC49rainues 3401635 OWNER IDE.NTIFICATION PSE&G SERLVICES CORP Wtw Sotai New 3eMc ILOCATION -if not the same as owner please give addren Couty~ Salem Mmnieipa1ly Lower A~oways.Creek Addr= AknMCIAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION /V WELL USE Monittorlng DAMi WELLCONSihVCTIom oe =t Hdp Total Depth Drilledfrmln zt Fbinisd Will Det& t Borehle Dlmeta(for triple cased 'wcU only)Top Oue in Bottom j3QW (rcStdn)Well wa finished: j~above Vade Ope Hol orSree Jflusb mounted (N.Ue -)If fmishd above Wrade, m-ig Blaflk (No. Use Taud Piece -IF.Steel Prowdcive casin insmlkd? __vl~x WYes 14 NO " StatiC Water Level 41We drili~ngt ft.________
- Zip Code 07102 ihIs WeillNo. Ui L i's e 0 loa No. 4.01 Bkwk Wo 26 SWEKLLCOblimfZK cV4?bq~l to i3ýWZJRaihig som=b~ Mno.)es IIG CJz lb~s 11.- r I1 1 D"am Core W Level was Measured Using M 1 ,iwa devetoped for :5) hows at gPiu Meddof developmecnt
ý& , r/,4 Y26PnnpCaaiy _ _ _ _Dril luinied TypeofRig CfA-'5 HeaAt aud safety Plan Subm&KV Ye []No Level of Protection used an shte (circle one) None (9 C B A Grouting Method t,.,t p~E 4'Drillig Melbod Ns d~ga-Il -75 ~ j #/n 7-P-ft1 C -i .*4.$ As*I Cert*5 that rIhow comtruaeddth above refrei=ad well in aco,-doxe with aUwll ~permit rgfrements and appicable State rrdes and regdadoms Diifliug Coenpeny A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Priit) uf(i lagtAie.&Driuces signature 4L~c, 4 1 -Rqgisuzd= No. /'1/Y(1;131 O-P UVAL. DEP rN4L~ DEP COPIEY2 DRILLE" OTERNHAZ~DPRTLV HEALTH.D"AMWENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007084 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3403535 ,9 R IDENTIFICATION PSE&G CORP.ss" 80 PARK PLACE Zity. Newark tate New JerseyWELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Ow County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Address ARTIFICAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Zip Code 07102 Lners Well No. i 2 )LotNo. 4.01i Block No. 26 WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED DATE WELL COMPLETED / &//.,. / WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths Fu1" p from land surfaceI Total Depth Drilled 9 , S ft.Finished Well Depth 97.5,5 ft. __nglrj-r Casing Borehole Diameter: (for triple cased s only)Top G. in. outer Casing, E Bottom C( in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: Qabove grade pen o rCree[Qflush mounted. =-E If finished above grade, casing height ! :Ifank-Casmgsick up) above land surface } 1 Usft.d)protective casing installed? TilPieceZ i) -F raelPack ~* es No Grout Static Water Level after drilling ft.Water Level was Measured Using M Well was developed for ., hours at / gpm" Method of development __"____",.' ___._.___/__________- Pump Capacity _ ,_ _gpm Pump Type C_ r,.,-t .3. Drilling Fluid ./ Type of Rig C'r.-*f Health and Safety Plan 4ubmitted? QYes NINo Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None 0 C B A Grouting Method "'\ 4 -Drilling Method .GEOLOGIC LOG s, formations q 17' P~.A/ & e 'I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A Well Driller (Print)Willer's Signature C SCHULTES INCRegistration No. /1\ i j .I -...4.4, Ka (-I 3 V nRfrlNAL:- DEPCOPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation S R IDENTIFICATION PSE&G CO]ss 80PARK PLACE MONITORING WELL RECORD 3400007085 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3403535 City Newark State New Jersey WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owi County Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek , Address ARTIFICAL ISLAND SALEM GENERATING STATION Zip Code 07102 ner's Well No. A LJ/Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 WELL USE Monitoring WELL- CONSTRUCTION -Note:-Measure all deptlio Total Depth Drlle& ft. f lsurfc To;Finished Well Depth 9 t [Lsi~~"Miaiddle 'i -" Borehole Diameter: (for triple cased wells only)Top C .~J _Top /"b:-" inOuter C.asing -Bottom in. (largest diameter)Well was finished. Babove grade -~pfi~eo cen i[]flush mounted Bno. ;-se 7 If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used ns (stick up) above land surface -ft T*lel protective casing installed? Yes INo 7Uraout Static Water Level after drilling ((ift.*Water Level was Measured Using 9>~*Well was developed for
- hours at gpm Method of development
_ e vi , c.'Pump Capacity .__ ,.... __ gprn Pump Type. -5 L"-,'Drilling Fluid ___________TypeofRig C rj -- 2" Health and Safety Plan ; ubmitted? []Yes I]No Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None (_,D: C B A DATE WELL STARTED L DATE WELL COMPLETED
- ________ U ________________
.11 ______________ It ________________________ U _________________ iF ii Grouting Method Drilling Method k GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated l'forations O- (¢, /=- 7-,, A- -Xd ,9 1 -.3 -7 7 '3q t'!'m VLL,,, -r 114 3q' j/:: I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in accordance with all well perm it requirements and applicable State rules and regulations. Drilling Company A C SCHULTES INC Well Driller (Print) " /C, N f 12 ler's Signature Registration No. r)) , 7 , 7 -A P-' L , ?, (/4.-V~iA '"I-. A m Date J, _1C1 ORIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT P4GW JCLiVy MIAUp LI1.IiA4LI U1 L.AlyllVil 1-1-f!~*4 &1 --Vi!Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD)WNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP tjfts 80 PARK PLACE AtUa rC[heet CoUodinaes 3400007135 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 Newark State New JerseyZip Code 07102 WELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give-address Owner's Well No. -f- " .LO C C (0 xounty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Lot No.. 4.01 BlockNo. 26 kddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATION At WELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED .- I" iC-DATE WELL COMPLETED -" WELL CONSTRUCTION rotal Depth Drilled _.- ft.Finished Well Depth f.__ t*Note: Measure all depths Depth to Depth to .' Diaceer Mateial Wgt./Rating -from land-surface ... .Top (ft.) inh (lbs/sch no.)Single/Inner i-- j1 P .c I[ i 'ýo Borehole Diameter: Middle Casing * .i.To p in. (for triple cased wells only) " " *I" _Outer Casing 0 Bottom _ ._ in. (largest diameter) 0- ,'. , Well was finished: r above grade Open Hole or Screen " )*(No. Used tOi()., )' ___,__I I'...['flush mounted Blank Casings I [If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used ings ." ___._____:stick up) above land surface Tai Pe ....-" TailPiece ._ l i .i ..'.-."...--....... ii_ __'teyrotective casing installed?
- Grael Pack II =11DE lb.. .~ONo ------ I etCement i Water Level after drilling .1 -A._f_.__ " _ -._B nI b-, * "-__ I _ _...__ .. / ...... ..... .. .._.,-Water Level was Measured Using -- (, Well was developed for .hours tt '4ethod of development
__'___.________. lump Capacity -gpm?ump Type)rilling Fluid ______ Type of Rig 'At .(AX.-iealth and Safety Plan Submitted? es []No.evel of Protection used on site (circle one) None C B Grouting Method Drilling Method-rh~rn~ c~. ____A GEOLOGIC LOG Nole each depth whcrc wimcr was encountcred in consolidated formations AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTIIING: EASTING: OR LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 0 .0 *certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in iccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State vies and regulations.)rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO Well Driller (Print)___)rillers Signature .., tion No. ~Date /I IRIGINAL:- DEP COPIES: DRILLER .OWNER HF-4LTHDEPARTAfENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 34000IJ7153 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 L IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP.80 PARK PLACE Newark State New Jersey IELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address ounty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek.ddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATIO r Zip Code 07102 Owner's Well No. 4.01n BlckN. 6 Lot No. 4.01 Block 14n 26 rVELL USE Monitoring. DATE WELL STARTED .qj I DATE WELL COMPLETED a /q/0'YELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths Dept 7otal Depth Drilled t ..from land surface Top' ~ ~~Single/lnnerCsng("'inished Well Depth C f... .--'lorehole Diameter: ~ ideCsn loreole iameer:(for triple cased wells only) II: Top i_ in. Outer Casing Bottom in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: aIlbove grade ole or scen '0"flush mounted (No. Used 0/C) ) L F Blank Casings'f finished above grade, casing height l(No. Used n stick up) above land surface _I_ .R.* Tail Piece casing installed? _ _ONo r .. reac Ii W atr L e after drilling -j --ft-,Water Level was Measured Using Well was developed .for { :hours it .gpm.4ethod of development .____.___'ump Capacity
- gpm'ump Type "__)rilling Fluid T type of Rig cup"ealth and Safety Plan Submitted?
[Qes []No.evel of Protection used on site (circle one) None C B A certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in rccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State ules and regulations.)rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO Vell Driller (Print) J -,"_k ia's Signature I ation No. /Y5 mLILJN .f O'I ToII Depthto o .F Di~et7r M aterial wg./R-ating (1) .1 Bottom (ft.)I(inches) L(Ibs/sch no.)3oi 50LAp _CiKschoi DII 111* Iit____ IL CLJiSjiq6 I ______ fflýrrET, Neat Ceement7f E s: Bentonite -_='s Grouting Method .The.4)"l t.Drilling Method 10113 ý4&m GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated fornations 0-t0 rJ 1 f ao- o' en6orW-C* rid, v, AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTHING: EASTING: OR LATITUDE-LONGITUDE:
- 0 0 I ORIGINAL:
DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HF-4LTH DEPARTMENT i-cw icrscy Lepartment ot l rrotecuon Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well permit Number 3400007136 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 IWNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP 80 PARK PLACE o Newark State New Jersey VELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Own'0unty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek L Wddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATION Al 3401634 Zip Code 07102 er's Well No.ot No. 4.01 BlockNo. 26 VELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED a I sl/oq DATE WELL COMPLETED WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths De rotal Depth Drilled " ft. from land surface Toi Finished Well Depth _ ft Single/Inner Casing [4-Borehole Diameter.( Middle Casing oro r triple cased wells only)*Top "_ in. Outer Casing Bottom
- in. (largest diameter)
I Well was finished: [gaove grade Open Hole or S~crecen if" flush mounted No. Used i -)Tf finished above grade, casing height Blank Cas )stick up) above land surface ft. .. Use Iprotective casing installed? GrTail Piece ,* -'No [ Gravel Fack 7771 W at-r Leel ater rillng-q ft.GroutE Water Level was Measured Using Well was developed for I hours tt t gpm dethod of development ... ( 4 bump Capacity gpm'ump Type)rilling Fluid _Type of Rig lealth and Safety Plan Submitted? E[ s .[]No ,evel of Protection used on site (circle one) None E) C B A p-thto] Depth !to [D-ia-met~er M~aterial jfWgt.Ra-tin~g p (ft.) ottom (inches) (Ibs/sch no.)-2, I L-J1 P c- ii i i ______ I t _____ III _ ________ _____ II________ _____ II 1I_ _ _ _______II _ _ _ _ _II __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ II A 0 II jI Neat Cement !5 13...-.. lbs -Bentonite c lbs W Grouting Method "c r" Drilling Method GEOLOGIC LOG Note each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations k to -., ýT .Cd k klel rlf-AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION(NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in ccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State tdes and regulations. wrilling Company TALON DRILLING CO/ell Driller (Print) .2 ."'riller's Signature tion No. 42 Date 3 /t 'NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTHING: EASTING: OR L-ONGII'UIE: LATITUDE: 0 t0 .RIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEAL T7- DEPARTMENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007154 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP.80 PARK PLACE Newark State New Jersey ILL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address ounty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek ddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATIO Zip Code 07102 Owner's Well No. @N [ r_ j k )n4OWn Cs Lot No. 4.01 Block 1ko. 26 , "40 VELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED aL 1 (OLA DATE, WELL Iq IL')L NELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths 1 De rotal Depth Drilled " , .from land surface Top'inished Well Depth & Single/InnerCasing I{ " Borehole Diameter: (for"Middle Casing .t(for ýiple cased wells only) ft ToP " in". Outer Casing I Bottom in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: 0 above grade Open Hole or Scrn 9lush mounted (No.Used If finished above grade, casing height ( Bln k Used ):stick up) above land surface BLln Cairotective casing installed? Tail- Piie r No d g f Gravel Pack;3#taic Water Level after dr[illingi ifL.G Water Level was Measured Using , Well was developed for _ ... hours It gpm V4ethod of development ..LL prlI?ump Capacity gpm?ump Type Xrilling Fluid Type ofRig 9" j 3.ilealth and Safety Plan Submitted? Q 'es []No 2evel of Protection used onsite (circle one) None 9 C B A ibt(Deth to iameter Material 1[ WgtdRating!(ft.) Bottom(ft.L) (inches) IP( bs/sch no.)-I _______ ______ __________ II __________ II -_ I _I 1 1111 ________1 ______ 11 ________i .]IJLVC l(4A ~ kOx~VIC 1 &Jo-n c tos Neat Cement 0 3L. lbs Bentonite l ,bs Grouting Method "T- IC.-Drilling Method 6,1. 4 G.(k certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in iccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State ules and regulations.)rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO Wiell Driller (Print) C- c %4 mjIM s Signature~ation No. 0 kDt GEOLOGIC LOG Noit each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations -..'-0-1c" .V' nck, LiP.&i AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTH ING: EASTING: OR LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 0
- 0 , I rF33Dý)RIGINAL:
DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT N~ew JrSey sVCPd1UnetA~Ui r.IIViI UjU1iQ1ILa1 r I VQuuuL Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD ,WNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP g 80 PARK PLACE weu rerMILL 3400067137 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 Newark State New Jersey VELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Own'ounty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek L Wddress ALLOW" CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATION AT Zip Code 07102 er's Well No.ot No. 4.01 BlockNo. 26 NtELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED II j.- O 10 DATE WELL COMPLETED [j,(O1QtO WELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths Del total Depth Drilled .f. from land surface Top minished Well Depth & -f SingledInner Casing 3orehole Diameter: .Middle Casing i (for triple cased wells only) IL Outer Casing Bottom I in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: 0 above grade Open Hole or Screen I lrflush mounted (No. Used 010 ) Ii f finished above grade, casing height Blank Casing s*stick up) above land surface ft. I Use TailPiece7 Et i rotective casing installed? Gavl Pack ONo Grout ac Water Level after drilling Cj ft.W'ater Level was Measured Using W'ell was developed for .. hours tt gpm dethod of development .()LLr14 .lump Capacity gpm lump Type)rilling Fluid ._ _ Type of Rig'Iealth and Safety Plan Submitted?) F Yes []No ,evel of Protection used on site (circle one) None CD C B A certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in!ccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State ules and regulations.)rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO Veil Driller 1t 1 .llr~ Signature '~r 4.f /-tion No. _ ________ Date /.0/ 0 ,(L) Bottom (ft.) -/(inches) (I hno.)I~~~~~~ wo '4i wr fc~~NeatCemnt Z'4lbsý0 ~ IC Bentnit .~LJ. lbs Grouting Method "Ire_4/ C...Drilling Method ,-I-W Akfli 17 1 -GEOLOGIC LOGNote each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations (0 4 ,;AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTHING: EASTING:_OR LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 0 t** 0 t'RIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORD Well Permit Number 3400007140 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP 80 PARK PLACE Newark State I lew Jersey Zip Code 07102 VELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owner's Well No. _ _ _ _ _a.0unty salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek Lot No. 4.01 Block No. 26 ,ddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATION A..VELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED I L." DATE WELL COMPLETED I k.-1 1. L..ELL CONSTRUCTION Note-:Measure Ua-depths ]IDep rotal Depth Drilled ft. from land surface Top'inished Well Depth f 1" Singledlnner Casingg l.-3orehole Diameter: Middle Casing (for triple cased wells only)TOP P in. OuterCasing Ei Bottom I in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: [I above grade Open Hole or Screen Q ush mounted Used C) I) ) LL If finished above grade, casing height B(No k Used i*stick up) above landsurface ft.I Tail~iece 1 -3tQ rotective casing installed? Grail Pice 3-foaterLev after driling ft Gve Pack Wtater Level was Measured Using, Well was developed for " -. hours it _ gptn vAethod of development _: _iz-','ump Capacity .. gpm lump Type)rilling Fluid .Type of Rigand Safety Plan Submitted? Q'es "[]No.evel of Protection used on site (circle one) None C B A S(f1) Bottom (ft.) (inches) (lbs/sch no.)IiL~tIP ~vrc ___Grouting Method iem, i e-Drilling Method "H7)1W__A , 1 GEOLOGIC LOGNote each depth whcrec water was encountered in consolidated. formations /1)-a7E' ý atyf nd ' /#6 'a (5 k I certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in iccordance with all well permit requirements and applicable Slate iles and regulations.
- )rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO WCell Driller (Print) ja.ob 8.A'-\ et , Signature
_o_,_______Dae _____ation No. ~L L(3IDate kL P i,0 cct.Q.- @.-AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTHING: EASTING: OR LATITUDE: 0 'I LONGITUDE: 0 * .0 0)RIGINAL: DEP COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation MONITORING WELL RECORDWell Permit Number 3400007141 Atlas Sheet Coordinates 3401634 VNER IDENTIFICATION PSE&G SERVICES CORP P 80 PARK PLACE Newark State 11 0 qew Jersey Zip Code 07102 ELL LOCATION -If not the same as owner please give address Owni runty Salem Municipality Lower Alloways Creek L ddress ALLOWAY CREEK NECK RD SALEM GENERATING STATION AF er's Well No. Pr M ot No. 4.01 Block No. 26/ELL USE Monitoring DATE WELL STARTED -IT j 10A DATE WELL COMPLETED I!1 in 4 YELL CONSTRUCTION Note: Measure all depths iDep total Depth Drilled o I from land surface Top:inished Well Depth jj ft. IingeInner Casingi jf -3orehole Diameter: (frMiddle Casing (for triple cased wells only) -Top _... in. [ Outer Casing Bottom IJCD in. (largest diameter)Well was finished: [ above grade O pen Hole or Screen 9ilush mounted (No. Used 0 ) 0 If finished above grade, casing height (No. Used)(stick up) above land surface BnC g , rotctive casing installed? Z Tail Piece[ ONo IIGravel Pack Static Water Level after drillingj ft.u Water Level was Measured Using Well was developed for 3 hours it gpm Method of development -p Pump Capacity. gpm Pump Type Drilling Fluid " Type of Rig c-" Health and Safety Plan Submitted? "Kes []No 0 Level of Protection used on site (circle one) None D C B A IfaDepthroMateDiaeter WgtRating (t) Bottomii(fto I (inches) j(b/c no.)__ __ __K __ __ _ __ __ _11 1u~eie~1 ~.lbs~jI ~s J to Bentonite j[=jjW Grouting Method -Ffl&'-l V, Drilling Method 4ED I I OW fkw n& au~~~'I GEOLOGIC LOG Note.each depth where water was encountered in consolidated formations q- ra e-j , Is_ -7 /I AS-BUILT WELL LOCATION (NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM)NJ STATE PLANE COORDINATE IN US SURVEY FEET NORTHING: EASTING: OR certify that I have constructed the above referenced well in Xcordance with all well permit requirements and applicable State"ules and regulations.)rilling Company TALON DRILLING CO Well Driller (Print) _- _ _ _ _ _a tignMo S Dature 'a-9 w t'ion No. LDt ý0 0 3 331)RIGINAL: DEP LATITUDE: 0 *'LONGITUDE: 0 COPIES: DRILLER OWNER HEALTH DEPARTMENT Appendix D Tidal Evaluation.Results 0 0 4-G)-J a)4-4 3 2 0-1--2-3-4-5I I I II I I I I I I I I I I
- I I
- I I* II I I I I LI I-6-4I I12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan Date/Time ZD 0 FIGURE Water Level In Well K ARCA 15 Tidal Assessment
-1/12 to 1/20 D-1 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY F Lu H 0 CL Lii 0L M: 4I I I 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I11 .1 .1 1 1 4.'4--J I....4-'Cu 3 2 1-0-1--2-3--4-5*0 z z-6 tji~.12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan Date/Time.u H3 0 Water Level In Well L FIGURE ARCAD1S; Tidal Assessment -1/12 to 1/20 D-2 PSEG NUCLEAR, [[C SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 'I-.0)-J a...0)'U 4 3 2 0-1--2-3-4-5' ' I I I ; ; I ; ; ; I i ; ; I ; ; ; I I................................I -6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan Date/Time 19-Jan 20-Jan w I-(S a FIGURE Water Level In Well P ARCAD1S; Tidal Assessment -1/12 to 1/20 D-3 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY V)z Lu 0 0: (L Lu L)'Li a: C-, 4 3 2L .1 I I I I I I I I *1 ~ ~ I I -1'p 0-J I-0 0-1-2-0 r z 0~z (L-3-4-5-_P: C., I I I I " I ' "1 ' I ' I I ' ' I ' " I ' ' I I I ' I 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan Date/Time Lu I-0 FIGURE Water Level In Well Q ARCAD1S Assessment -1/12 to 1/20 D-4 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY_________________________________________ -C 0 CL b uJ 0 w-I-0 a)-J 1..a)4 3 2 1-0-2-3-4-5.............. 0 z-6I I II I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0~z I-0_a-12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan Date/Time LI)I-0 0 0 Water Level In Well V FIGURE , ARCAD STidal Assessment -1/12 to 1/20 D-5 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY @1 Lu i-0 z 0 0~C-LI-0 a-0 w z 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan 4 I ; .1 ; ; I -I'4-a,-J 1..a, 1-0-1--2-3-4-5-6I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan Date/Time uj I-0 CS 0 0 FIGURE Tide Water Level ARCADIS Tidal Assessment -1/12 to 1/20 D-6 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY Appendix E Evaluation of Water Levels in the Vincentown Formation tz 0 Tidal Evaluation Reedy Point< Well L w Well M~0 01 0 ' ' I' ' ' I- ...I ' ' I' ' I ' ' ' I ...'9 8 U.) 9 S u.- 4 IIt t 00 C; -2* .-3.o 28-J u129-J ulg0-J u131 -Jul 1 -Aug 2-Aug 3-Aug 4-Aug 5-Aug-" .) "9 9 9 9 ~ 9 99 DDate LU)'"' Tidal Evaluation oCM IS;2i 6-Aug 7-Aug 8-Aug PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY Appendix F Slug Test Results I 10.Obs. Wells , o Well 0 (F)Aquifer Model Confined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 3.624 ft/day yO = 1.36 ft I ;c a)0 0 z LU z LU 0.1 0.01 0.2. 4. 6. 8.10.Time (min)0 0 0 z 6i Slug Test Analysis Well 0 FIGURE Falling Test F-i PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 10.1.Obs. Wells o Well 0 (R)Aquifer Model Confined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 4.257ft/day yO = 1.375 ft EF 0-C')0.1 0.01 0.001 0. 2. 4. 6. 8.Time (min)10.5 z C-, a Slug Test Analysis Well 0 FIGURE Rising Test F-2 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 0 C-, w w C-, 10.Obs. Wells.o Well N (f)Aquifer Model Confined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 0.1439ft/day yO = 0.834 ft E C)1..0 z z I 0.1 0.6. 12. 18. 24. 30.Time (min)0 S z C., a w I-0 0* di 0 Slug Test Analysis Well N FIGURE Falling Test F-3 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 10.Obs. Wells 1 Well N (r)Aquifer Model Confined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 0.1896ft/day y0 = 1.024 ft E C.T CU 1.0 0.1 0. 8. 16. 24. 32.Time (min)40.0 z LU 6H Slug Test Analysis Well N LA ý , 3&Rising Test PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY P, LU 0 LU 0 0U 0U 0 Lii 0 L4*10.1.Obs. Wells n Well U (F)Aquifer Model Confined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 2.947 ft/day yO = 0.881 ft U)2 U)U U)U, 0.1 0.01 0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.Time (min)0 0 z 6C I-L0 H-,'CD 0 Slug Test Analysis Well U FIGURE ARCADIS Falling Test F-5 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY Appendix G Pumping Test Results wU LU 0 Z 0 100.Obs. Wells o Well AB Aquifer Model Confined Solution.Theis 0 0ýC')Parameters T = 27.67ft2/day S = 0.0001249 KzKr = 0.1 b = lO.ft 10.0 LU LU Ij M-, a, E 1.s 5 z LU 0.1 1.10.100.1000.1.OE+4 1.OE+5 Time (sec)co 0 8n 0 z o LU I-0 CD 0 I ARCADIS Aquifer Pumping Te Well AB st Analysis PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 0 4.3.2 2.4 0 1.6 0.8 0.Obs. Wells o Well AB Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 22.69ft2/day S/S' = 0.3217 1.10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time, t/t'1.OE+5 co 0 z Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis FIGURE ADiS Well AB G-2 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY S p-wm o 0 w 0 Of (L Obs. Wells o Well AC Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 12.63ft 2/day S = 0.0004371 Kz/Kr = 0.1 b =10.ft c,.L w y C-, E 0, d 0 z uJ 1.10.100.1000.1.0E+4 1.OE+5 Time (sec)o 8 0-0 z 9 w F-0 CD 0 ARCADI!,5`4 Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis Well AC PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY U)U 20.16.Obs. Wells o Well AC Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 1.672 ft 2/day S/S' = 14.27 C 0 Cu 0 (12 0 12.8.4.0.1.10. 100. 1000.Time, t/t'1.OE+4 1.OE+5 0~z Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis FIGURE Well AC ARCADISG-4 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY S ij~0 0w 0~x CL C-)uLJ 0 z H 0~100.10.Obs. Wells 13 Well AD Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 0.942ft 2/day S = 0.3757 Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 10.ft E a)co a 0, 1.0.1 0.01 1.10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time (sec)1.0E+5* EARLY DRAWDOWN WAS EXCESSIVE DUE TO EFFECTS FROM DEVELOPMENT OF WELL AJ DURING AQUIFER PUMPING TEST.'T 0 U',, 03 0L Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis FIGURE Well AD G-5 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY C,0 I-0 20.16.12.0 Z8 Obs. Wells.0 Well ADAquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 0.937ft 2/day SIS'= 1.323 i0 4.0.1.10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time, t/t'1.0E+5 co 0~z C-)6i Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis Well AD PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY LU H-0 LU 0 O~100.Obs. Wells a Well Al Aquifer Model Confined 10.Solution Theis-1-LU E C-, Parameters T = 7.97 ft 2/day S = 0.01104 Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 10.ft 1.0.1 f 0.01 1.10. 100: 1000.1.0E+4 1.OE+5-Time (sec)8 0 z CC CC 0 0 w H 0 0 0 ARCADIS Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis Well Al PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 20.16.12.0 a 8.4.Obs. Wells 0 Well Al Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 2.101ft 2/day SIS' = 5.308 0.1.-10. 100: 1000. 1.OE+4 Time, t/t'1.0E+5 0 z 0~6j Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis FIGURE A ADC 1 Well Al G-8 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY E 0 0~C, w C-)uJ Obs. Wells 0 Well AJ Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 1.73ft2/day S = 0.2521 KzIKr = 0.1 b = 20. ft a)E 0.8)2 0 z U-.,"L 0.01 1.. 10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time (sec)1.OE+5 0 co a.0 z I-0 0 wJ I-Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis FIGURE Well AJ G-9 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY I" A r 30.24.Obs. Wellso Well AJAquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 0.5596ftI2/day SIS'= 1.519 18.0 0 12.6.0.S 1 .10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time, t/t'1.OE+5.9;31 0 Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis FIGURE 7 Well AJ G-10O PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY S 0 LU 6i 100.Obs. Wells a Well AM Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 1.403ft 2/day S =0.515 KzIKr = 0.1 b = 10.ft 9 a)E 0 0 z U-C LL 00 0 z o-z.r.0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.OE+4 Time (sec)1.0E+5 C C 6 I-C C CD C Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis FIGURE SARCADiS Well AM -Step Drawdown Test G-1 1 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION ,HANCOCKS BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 20.16.12.0 8o8 .Obs. Wells o Well AMAquifer Model Confined SolutionTheis (Recovery) Parameters T = 0.5716ft 2/day SIS' = 2.005 S t z 4.0O 1. 10. 100. 1000.Time, t/t'1.0E+4 C 0 0~6 z I-C, 00~C C C" I-0 CD 0 Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis FIGURE ARCADIS Well AM -Step Drawdown Test G-1 2 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE. NEW JERSEY a w CL 0 w 0 0z L4 Obs. Wells a Well AMAquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 1 .079ft2/day S = 0.029 Kz/Kr= 0.1 b , =10.ft E.E'0 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.Time (sec)1.OE+4 8 C co 0~z 0 a tC i* EARLY DRAWDOWN WAS GREATER THAN EXPECTED BECAUSE THE WELL HAD NOT RECOVERED COMPLETELY AT THE START OF THIS TEST.Aquifer Pumping Test Analysis FIGURE Well AM -Constant Rate Test G-1 3 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY r-I Co 0 IL: LU 0 0~0ýfin.0 z uJ S Obs. Wells ,o Well AM Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 0.3375ft 2/day S/S' = 1.806 9:6.0 6.4 0.10. 100. 1000.Time, t/t'1.OE+4 C C C 6 z 0 0~C 0)C C I-0 cri C Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis A cA iS Well AM .- Constant Rate Test PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY U, E Z w 0~Obs. Wells o Well S Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis Parameters T = 1.701 ft 2/day S = 0.06051 Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 10.ft C 0~C,)C E L'C 0 z w 10.100.1000.1.0E+4 1.0E+5 Time (sec)w I-C CD C Aquifer ARCADUS Pumping Well Test S Analysis PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY U, H C.,&u-C3 U)2 w 0 20.Obs. Wells 0 Well S Aquifer Model Confined Solution Theis (Recovery) Parameters T = 1.096ft9/day SIS' = 4.723'I L LU LU"l-I 0 C Co a 0 C,,I z wU 1.10.100.1000.1.OE+4 1.0E+5Time, t/'00 0~z di 0, (ARCADIS Aquifer Recovery Test Analysis Well S.PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY Appendix H Dissolved Gas, Technetium-99 and Groundwater Age Determination Results for the PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station 0 Dissolved Gas, Technetium-99 and Groundwater Age Determination Results for the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Prepared by Dr. Robert Poreda, University of Rochester This report details the results of the dissolved gas, technetium-99 (Tc-99), and groundwater age determination performed on groundwater samples collected through November 2003 from the monitoring well network at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station (the "Station"). The analyses were performed in accordance with the attached procedures (Attachment 1 -Groundwater Age Determination and Attachment 2-Tc-99). Analytical results for the groundwater samples, which are summarized in the attached table, are evaluated based on the water-bearing zone where the monitoring wells are screened. The three primary water-bearing zones investigated beneath the Station are: 1) the Vincentown Formation;
- 2) the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam; and, 3) the shallow, water-bearing unit outside the limits of the cofferdam.
Hydrogeologic and geochemical data indicate that the zones of the shallow, water-bearingunit within and outside the limits of the cofferdam are hydraulically connected, but the zones are evaluated as separate units because of their relative proximity to the facility structures.
- 1. Summary of the Vincentown Formation> Well K -The groundwater age analysis of samples from Well K indicates that tritiated water containing between 3,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) to 5,000 pCi/L of tritium recharged approximately 19 years ago and has, traveled to the upper part of the Vincentown Formation (70 to 80 feet below ground surface).The upper limit of 5,000 pCi/L is estimated by assuming dispersion of a slug oftritiated water over 20 years and is based on measured dispersion for non-nuclear waters from the 1963 bomb pulse at other sites (Solomon et al 1993). The most likely location for the recharge is east of Well K based on groundwater flow. Tc-99 was detected in the groundwater sample collected from this well at a concentration of 0.8 pCi/L, which is consistent with post-nuclear precipitation (i.e., background) for the eastern United States 25 years ago.> Well L -The groundwater age analysis of Well L indicates that groundwater adjacent to this well recharged approximately 21 years ago with tritium concentrations (measured at 45 pCi/L) equivalent to local precipitation 20 to 25 years ago (based on the Szabo et al measurements at Gloucester).
The background tritium concentrations indicated by Well L demonstrate that the release of tritium 20 years ago as indicated by Well K was relatively minor and did not extend over a wide area in the Vincentown Formation. Well L is located to the west and downgradient of the Station near the brackish/fresh water interface. Thebackground concentrations of tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from Well L indicate that theclay confining-unit of the Kirkwood Formation has Weffectively segregated the Vincentown Formation from the overlying shallow, water-bearing unit.Well P -The groundwater age, analysis of Well P indicates that precipitation withbackground concentrations of tritium (60 pCi/L -equivalent to local precipitation 20 to 25 years ago, based on the Szabo et al measurements: at Gloucester) recharged approximately 13 years ago.. The methane concentration indicated by groundwater samples collected from Well P (1 cubic centimeter per kilogram[cc/kg]) suggests that the recharge area for Well P is likely in or near the marshes to the east of the Station or that a small amount of methane has been generated within the Vincentown Formation. As with Well L, the background concentrations of tritium detected in groundwater samples collected from Well P indicate that the clay confining-unit of the Kirkwood Formation has effectively segregated the Vincentown Formation from the overlying shallow, water-bearing unit.Well Q -The low-level analysis for tritium in the groundwater sample from Well Q indicates a tritium concentration close to the method detection limit (1.5 pCi/L).This low concentration of tritium suggests that groundwater in the vicinity of this well recharged close to the onset of the nuclear era (circa 1950). Dissolvedmethane concentrations' in groundwater samples collected from WellQ (38 :cc/kg or 1.7 millimoles/kg [mm0l/kg]) and levels of argon and nitrogen below solubilitylimits indicate that the likely point of recharge is the marshes that border the* Station tothe east.Well V -The results of the groundwater age analysis of Well V are consistent with the results of Well K. Groundwater samplescollected from Well V. indicate aslightly elevated tritium concentration (549 pCi/L) relative to background (local precipitation). The initial tritium level in the recharge water is estimated to be approximately 3,000 pCi/L. The results of the groundwater age analysis for Well V indicate a slightly younger age relative to Well L and Well K, but the age iswithin the range observed for these wells (13 to 22 years). The relatively high concentration of dissolved methane detected in the groundwater sample collected from Well V indicates that the groundwater either recharged in the marshes to' the east of the Station, or is from in situ biological production. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened in the Vincentown Formation (Wells K, L,P, Q, and V) do not indicate that tritium from the Station has migrated beyond the shallow, water-bearing unit above theKirkwood Formation and into the deeper Vincentown Formation. Tc-99 concentrations indicated by groundwater samples collected from Well K and Well V (0.5 pCi/L and 0.8 pCi/L, respectively) are consistent with the suspected ambient concentration in precipitation recharged during the 1970s. The Tc-99 concentrations indicated by Well K and Well V are approximately 10 parts per million (100,000 times below) of Spent Fuel Pool water (based on data from Ginna station). 'At this concentration, Tc:99 is not an effective 0 indicator of Spent Fuel Pool water due to the combined effects of ambient Tc-99 and a concentration of Tc-99 near the method detection limit.2.0 Summary for the Shallow, Water-Bearing Formation Within the Limits of the Cofferdam. > Well M -The groundwater age analysis of Well M indicates a relatively young age for this groundwater since it became isolated from the atmosphere (less than 0.1 years). The young age suggests that preferential pathways for fluid flow may exist in the subsurface near the plant and/or that elevated dissolved atmospherichelium concentrations have resulted in skewed age determination results. Elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations could be the result of increased gas exchange between the atmosphere and the structural fill within, the cofferdam or from the introduction of atmospheric gases during the monitoring well installation activities. The Tc-99 concentration indicated by the groundwater sample collected from this well is at or near the regional background concentration of 0.5 pCi/L.The ratio of tritium/Tc-99 at Well M (280,000) is more than 100 times the estimated ratio of 2000 for the Salem Spent Fuel Pool (based on data from Ginnastation). The absence of Tc-99 in groundwater from Well M indicates that the tritium detected in this well may have a source other than the Spent Fuel Pool, orthat tritium migrated to Well M by aqueous diffusion. The diffusion coefficient of tritium is approximately 0.04 square meters per year (m 2/yr) (mean diffusion length is about 0.1 m/yr), relative to an approximate Tc-99 diffusion coefficient that maybe as much as an order of magnitude lower than tritium (accurate Tc-99 diffusiondata does not exist). Diffusion of tritium would be several times more rapid than Tc-99 because of the smaller size of the molecule and the lack of interaction with soil (i.e., sorption).) Well N -The groundwater age determination of the sample from Well N suggests a recharge age of approximately one year. The young age suggests that preferential pathways for fluid flow may exist in the subsurface near the plantand/or that elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations have resulted in skewed age determination results. Elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations could be the result of increased gas exchange between the atmosphere and the structural fill within the cofferdam or from the introduction of atmospheric gases during the monitoring well installation activities. The Tc-99 concentration for this well is at or near the regional background concentration of 0.5 pCi/L of less than 10 ppm of Spent Fuel Pool levels. The absence of Tc-99 in groundwater from Well N indicates that the tritium detected in this well may have a source other than the Spent Fuel Pool, or that tritium migrated to Well N by aqueous diffusion similar to Well M.Well 0 -The groundwater age determination of the sample from Well 0 indicates a relatively young age of approximately 0.22 years. The young age suggests that preferential pathways for fluid flow may exist in the subsurface near the plant Wand/or that elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations have resulted in skewed age determination results. The Tc-99 concentration for this well is at or near the regional background concentration of 0.5 pCi/L.Well R -Groundwater age results from Well R suggest an age of approximately 1.2 years. This age. is consistent with the location of Well R at the maximum in hydraulic head Wherethe flow path is almost vertical; the age is a lower limit because of loss of He-3 by diffusion and possible exchange with the atmosphere. The Tc-99 concentration for this well is at or near the regional background concentration of 0.5 pCi/L (see discussion for Wells M and N).Well AC- Groundwater samples from Well AC were not submitted for analysis for dissolved gases, Tc-99, or groundwater age determination at the University of Rochester because of the elevated concentration of tritium detected in this sample by Salem Chemistry. Station protocols prohibited the transport of this sample off site.Well AE -The analytical result of the groundwater sample collected from Monitoring Well AE indicate a tritium concentration of 8,500 pCi/L. The groundwater age determination of the sample from Well R indicates a relatively young age of approximately 0.33 years. The recent groundwater age againsuggests that preferential pathways for fluid flow may exist in the subsurface near the plant and/or that elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations have resulted in skewed age determination results. The Tc-99 concentration for the sample from Well AE is at or near the regional backgroundconcentration of 0.5 pCi/L.Analytical results of groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam (Wells M, N, 0, R, AC, and AE) indicate groundwater ages of less than 0.1 years to approximately 1.2 years. The recent groundwater age again suggests that preferential pathways for fluid flow may exist in the subsurface near the plant and/or that elevated dissolved atmospheric helium concentrations have resulted in skewed age determination results. Tc-99 concentrations indicated by groundwater samples collected from wells screened in this unit are consistent with the regional background concentration for this constituent. The absence of Tc-99 indicates that the tritium detected in these wells may have a source other than the Spent Fuel Pool, or that tritium migrated to the wells by aqueous diffusion 0
3.0 Summary
for the Shallow, Water-Bearing Formation Outside of the Limits of the Cofferdam. Well S -The groundwater age determination of the sample from Well S indicates a relatively young age (less than one year). The recent age of this water is consistent with other shallow wells close to the plant and inside of the cofferdam. The Tc-99 concentration for this well is at or near the regional background concentration of 0.5 pCi/L.Well T -Analytical results of the low-level tritium analysis of the sample from Well T indicate a tritium concentration of 257 pCi/L. The groundwater age analysis for this sample indicates an age of approximately 1.6 years, which is consistent with the ages of other samples collected from this zone. The analytical results of thegroundwater sample collected from Well T indicate a methane concentration and low concentrations of dissolved atmospheric gases (15% of solubility) consistent with recharge in the marshes to the east of the Station (similar to Wells Q and U). The Tc-99 concentration for the sample from Well T is at regional background concentration. Well U -Analytical results of the low-level tritium analysis of the sample from Well U indicate a tritium concentration of 78 pCi/L. The groundwater age analysisfor this sample indicates an age of approximately 4.1 years, which is consistent with the ages of other groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells screened in this zone. The analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Well U indicate a methane concentration and low concentrations of dissolved atmospheric gases (15% of solubility) consistent with recharge in the marshes to the east of the Station (similar to Well T). The Tc-99 concentration for the sample from Well T is at regional background concentration. Well W -Analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Monitoring Well W indicate a tritium concentration of 11,300 pCi/L, and the groundwater age determination for this well indicates an age of four years. The analytical results for the groundwater sample from Well W also indicate an elevated concentration of dissolved methane, which suggests that groundwater at Well W is a mixture of groundwater with characteristics similar to groundwater from Well T (or Well Z)with tritiated water from plant activity. Well W is located at or near the boundary between methane-rich water flowing from east to the south and west, and tritiated, methane free water that recharges to the south of Salem Unit #1. The Tc-99 concentration for the sample from Well W is approximately 4 pCi/L, which is above the regional background concentration (0.5 pCi/L). The ratio of tritium to Tc-99 (2700) is very close to the ratio in the Spent Fuel Pool (Tc-99 data from Ginna which has similar tritium and Spent Fuel Pool characteristics to Salem).Although Well W is located X feet from the center of the plume, it is only a fewmeters outside of the cofferdam. W WELL Z -Analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Well Z indicate a tritium concentration of 730 pCi/L. Although the tritium concentration indicated by the groundwater sample collected from Well Z is slightly elevated relative to regional precipitation (i.e., background), there is no indication that the release of water from the Spent Fuel Pool has migrated to Well Z. The relatively high concentration of dissolved methane (24 cc/kg or 1.1 mmoles/kg) detected in the groundwater sample from Well Z indicates that the groundwater recharged in the marshes to the east of the Station. Results of the groundwater age determination indicate an age of 3.2 years, which is consistent with the other wells screened in this zone (e.g., Wells U, T, and W). The relatively low concentrations of dissolved methane indicated by monitoring wells installed near the facility and the elevated tritium concentrations indicated by groundwater samples collectedfrom Wells S and AB contrast with the methane-rich, low tritium water indicated by Well Z.WELL AA -Analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Well AA indicate a tritium concentration of 734 pCi/L, which is similar to Well Z. A dissolved methane concentration of 0.22 cc/kg indicates that the site of recharge for groundwater at. Well AA is likely in the vicinity of the cofferdam on the southwest side of the facility rather than the marshes to the east. Although Well AA is directly downgradient from Well S, it is apparent that groundwater with the characteristics of Spent Fuel Pool water has not migrated this far south (Well AA is located about 50 meters southwest of the cofferdam). The groundwater age analysis of the sample collected from Well AA indicates an age of 2.1 years.WELL AB -Analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Well AB indicate a tritium concentration of 321,000 pCi/L. The groundwater age result for this well is 1.4 years.WELL AF -Analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from Well AF indicate a tritium concentration of 256 pCi!L. Groundwater age estimates for this well are about 10 years, indicating a relatively long/slow flow path (perhapsstagnant conditions) and little or no connection to contaminated waters seen close to the plant (e.g., S or AB). The groundwater at AF is methane-rich, suggesting a recharge location in the marshes to the east of the plant and similar to Wells U, T, and Z.0 Corrected For Excess Air Sample #Tc-99 4 He Ne N 2 Ar pCi/liter [tcc/kg ptcc/kg cc/kg cc/kg R Methane 4 He 4 Herad He-3* pCi/L H-3 pCi/L Age (yr)Ra cc/kg pcc/kg p cc/kg Salem L-80 Salem K-80b Salem Q-80 Salem P-80 Salem 0-20 43.11 190.4 0.8 51.90 204.3 29.69 90.7 48.10 197.4 59.83 228.6 13.8 0.351 2.253 0.19 43.11 15.2 0.333 22.475 0.46 46.08 6.6 0.169 0.745 37.91 47.55-1.39 99 2.18 1792.6.53 45 955 1.6 21.03 19.23 13.6 0.316 1.718 14.4 0.361 1.321 14.9 0.329 22.19 12.4 0.359 0.175 16.5 0.501 0.062 1.03 43.30 -0.26 57 58 12.46 49.29 3.84 30 6000 0.09 Salem K-80 Salem Well 3 PSEG Well 6 42.55 146.0 337.42 281.3 1920.21 294.60.33 43.3 5.01 309.5 264.9 0.05 1898.0 1849.9 1662 955 18.35<0.5 >100<0.5 >100 Salem Well T Salem Well U Salem Well N Salem Well W Salem Well M Salem Well 0 Salem Well S Salem Well R Salem Well V 0.7 0.5 0.4*.***4.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 4.18 7.57 55.48 307.50 53.69 59.06 45.00 59.37 14.9 26.7 239.8 1354.7 215.3 216.5 210.0 25.92 1.7 1.5 13.2 26.6 15.0 14.4 14.0 14.5 0.041 0.041 0.329 0.390 0.368 0.310 0.340 0.320 1.273 31.92 23 257 1.59 1.226 8.16 20 78 4.10 0.02 37.778 -5.525 24.2 5194 0.08 4.225 17.26 263.9 13062 0.36 2.344 0.39 46.788 2.197 132.1 142696 0.02 2.010 0.01 48.627 4.320 109.6 12963 0.15 1564 0.01 126900 3480000 0.65 3.103 37.38 -6.67 227.6 3447 1.16 549 Salem Well Z 0.4 Salem Well AA 0.5 Salem Well AB 0.4 Salem Well AE 0.7 Salem Well AF 0.2 Salem Well V 0.5 Salem Well W 2.5 Salem Well Y LOST 19.18 86.60 58.20 62.13 25.60 24.75 20.12 95.65 393.81 236.08 253.56 97.14 90.60 80.97 6.18 21.23 19.61 15.64 7.17 7.57 7.98 0.133 0.424 0.377 0.310 0.169 0.166 0.166 5.08 24.06 1.55 0.22 240.79 2.65 2.36 0.02 4.83 20.98 17.25 15.36 80.36 28.02 142 729 3.24 88 734 2.06 25261 321000 1.38 155 8558 0.33 178 256 9.61 729 549 15.37 2891 11305 4.14 0 Appendix H Attachment I Research Laboratory Procedures Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating ,Station, Salem, New Jersey Item Title 1 Hydrology of the Salem Generating Station, Proposal, 26 February 2003 2 Standard Operating Procedure, Tritium-Helium Dating of Groundwater In the event of a conflict between the Standard Operating Procedure and the Hydrology of the Salem Generating Station proposal, the Hydrology of the Salem Generating Station proposal will be followed.0 g:\aprogeetpae&g~sa~em -tnftiunttnal reports'april 2004- ri0appendices~.appendix h -rochester resuhsaftachmrent 1-age0 datiegknhttement I -cover.doc Hydrology of the Salem Generating Station Proposal prepared for PSEG by Robert J. Poreda Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Rochester February 26, 2003 The proposed investigation will examine the potential for radionuclide migration in groundwater at the PSEG Salem Power Station. Specifically, the investigation addressed the source of the contamination, the magnitude of the release to the environment and the best methods to address long term monitoring at Salem. Standard monitoring by PSEG scientists had detected tritium at levels above environmental concentrations at several sites surrounding Salem#1 .Of particular concern is the possibility that water from the spent fuel pool has leaked or is leaking into the groundwater that surrounds the containment building.1. Sites that contained elevated tritium levels would also be analyzed for 1291 (a long-lived radionuclide produced by uranium fission). The AcceleratorMass Spectrometry method has a detection limit of 106 atoms of 129 I/liter of water. 1291 measurements have several distinct characteristics that make it a suitable tracer for identifying sources of radionuclide release: a). 1291 displays "conservative" behavior in groundwater (as F) so that it migrates with the flowing water rather than adsorbing on particles .(as is the case for 137 Cs). b)Because 129I is a long-lived radio-isotope, it can be used to detect anypast as well as present leakage of 129 1-bearing waters into the environment (the other iodine radio-isotopes decay to background levels in less than one month and hence are only useful in assessing very recent leaks): c) Elevated levels of 1291 should be characteristic of water leaking from the spent fuel pool because of the proximity to the large amount of.fissionable uranium, Water that leaks from other sources (e.g. the turbine drains or steamreleases) should have low 1291 because the water that is used to generate the steam has extremely low concentration of dissolved ions.2. Determine the residence time of groundwater in the vicinity of thecontainment building and the rate of possible shallow groundwater flow to thesouthwest (i.e. toward the river).Evaluate flow in the upper Vincetown Formation (50 to 80') to determine:
- 1. flow direction and recharge estimates;
- 2. Evidence for or against tritium migration from the surface fill into the Vincetown Formation;
- 3. the "age" of any tritium release. To accomplish this task, we used the 3 He/3 H groundwater age dating method. The validity ofthis method has been established in a series of papers by Poreda, Solomon, and Schlosser (with co-authors) (see references and appended papers). The technique makes use of the fact that groundwater, once it has been isolated from the atmosphere begins to accumulate 3 He from the decay of tritium..
Because tritium levels in this region are elevated relative to environmental levels, the technique is extremely sensitive in establishing rates of groundwater flow. We applied this method to the "down gradient" environmentalmonitoring wells and to the wells that (based on hydraulic heads) flow back to a basementsumps for processing. The goal will be to establish if the rates of groundwater flow away from and toward the facility from the age dating and simple mass balance calculation (residence time = volume of water/flux) .3. From this preliminary investigation and a review of the initial site survey, we will propose to PSEG an environmental well monitoring program that will provide for rapid and effective detection of the migration of any radionuclides off-site.Tritium -Helium-3 Age Dating We can estimate the transit time of the tritium in the subsurface by measuring the amount (%)of the tritium that has decayed to 3 He [see the analytical methods section and the attached reference articles for complete procedures]. The tritium levels near the plant are typically 10 to 100 timesaverage rainfall (1.0 vs. 0.1 pCi/g) and the likely source of the tritium is from activities at Salem (a major component is thought to have come from "events" (such as steam release into thesystem), To calculate a transit time for the tritium, we assume that once the water is isolated from the atmosphere (vadose zone) it begins to accumulate 3 He. Thus the ratio of 3 He*/3 H can be used to assess the subsurface transit time by the following equation: time = (1/k) In [(3 He*/3 H) + 1]where k = 0.0555yr-1 Because a certain percentage of the 3 He is from atmospheric solubility, we use the ratio of 3 He/Ne in "air-saturated" water to subtract the atmospheric 3 He from the total. The tritium values from the University of Rochester Lab will be compared with the estimates made by PSEG's direct counting techniques. Iodine-129 and the Iodine -Tritium Correlation To investigate the potential sources of contamination at Salem, we extend the use of radioactive tracers to include the long-lived radioactive isotope of iodine, 1291 (15.7 million year half life), a product of U fission. The ratios of129 1 / 3 H will help us to identify the release paths forthe radionuclides. Todineand tritium behave as "conservative" (non-reactive) tracers in groundwater. Different sources (secondary water, air-fall, spent fuel pool, natural groundwater) will have distinct ratios of 129j / 3 H. The 12 9 Imeasurement by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry can detect 1291 at levels of 106 atoms and a 1291/I ratio of 10714. Thus, this represents an extremely sensitive and long-lived tracer for radionuclide release.Steam is thought to have extremely low 1291 concentrations (1000 atoms/g), presumably because of the procedures used to remove ions from solution to ensure the integrity of the steam generation process. Any leakage of water between the primaiy and secondary systems leaks mainly tritium (1000 pCi/g) and is not a major release mechanism for other radionuclides. The Turbine Drain sample wilI serve as an analogue for the water that could.leak during any steam release. Only the Spent Fuel Pool contains significant levels of 1291 ( approximately equivalent tothe natural creeks that drain the West Valley, NY facility) although there is no evidence that significant amounts of water have leaked from the pool into the environment. There is a factor of 10000 difference between the ambient 1291 concentration in precipitation (1000 atoms/g) and Spent Fuel Pool water (10,000,000 atoms/g). A similar factor of about a million exists for tritium in precipitation (0.05pCi/g) and spent fuel water(50,000 pCi/g). From this simple comparison, one can estimate the percentage of Spent Fuel Pool water finds its way into any of the groundwater monitoring wells. Other sources of significant 129I, may come from the combined effects of "wash down" from the containment building and seepage into the Moat This washdown should be collected by the drainage system that surrounds the plant but must be evaluated as a potential source. A simple model would propose three potential "end-member" compositions for water at Salem the Spent.Fuel Pool water (high in tritium and high in 1291), Turbine Drain Water (relatively high in tritium but very low in 1291.) and local precipitation (very low in tritium and "29 1 .0 ANAL YTICAL PROCED URES for IODINE Water samples were prepared for 1291 /1 ratio measurement by an adaptation of the method described in Fehn et al., 1992. Approximately 100 mL of water was used as starting material for sample preparation except for the two samples with the highest expected ratios where 1 mL and 0.1 mL were used. Since samples were expected to have high 1291 /1 ratios and. low iodine concentrations, carrier iodine with low 129I content was added to each sample prior to extraction. Addition of carrier serves the dual purpose of increasing sample bulk to facilitate measurement, as well as preventing cross-contamination in the source from "hot" samples, i.e., samples high in 1291, during Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) measurements. To achieve isotopic equilibrium between the sample and carrier KI which is added, samples and carrier were converted to 104 Iodine in the samples was then extracted into CCh, and back-extracted into the aqueous phase, followed by precipitation as AgI powder, following standard procedures. The silver iodide was pressed into stainless steel sample holders and loaded on a sample wheel for AMS measurement. 1291 -to-stable iodine ratios (1291 /1) were determined by AMS at the PRIME lab facility at Purdue University. AMS uses a tandem accelerator in conjunction with an ion source, several magnets and suitable detectors to sensitively measure atoms of choice with detection limits of one atom in 1015 stable atoms, with associated removal of interfering atoms (see Elmore et al. (1984a and 1984b), Kubik et al. (1987) for a detailed description of AMS techniques). (This facility is the only one currently in operation in the U.S that can perform the analysis at the required levels of precision). The 129 I/1 ratios were normalized to a known standard during AMS measurement. AMS has a theoretical detection limit of 129 1/ ratio = lIx .10-5 although practical detection limits areabout 50 x 10-15, due to the lack of natural materials with lower 1291 /1 ratios.Chemical blanks and carrier iodine had 1291 /1 ratios of 80 x 10-15 during that AMS run. I-content in the carrier solution was measured by ion chromatography. with errors of +/- 5%. Analytical Methods for Tritium and Helium Shallow wells will be sampled using a dedicated "micro-purge" bladder pump to lift the water.. Care will be taken to place the purge tube near the top of the standing water column to ensure that the well was flushed completely and that the well screen is not exposed to air.* Dissolved gas samples were collected in 3/8" o.d. Cu tubing sealed with refrigeration clamps in accordance with standard procedures. Water is collected in 500ml glass bottles fitted with ploy-seal caps.Gases are extracted from -25 g of water on a high vacuum line constructed of stainless steel and Corning-1724 glass to minimize helium diffusion. The non-condensable gases (He, Ne, Ar, N 2 , CH 4) plus water vapor are transferred into a 1724 glass ampoule for subsequentanalysis. The amount of non-condensable gas was measured using a calibrated gas volume fitted with a capacitance manometer. Gas ratios (N 2 , Ar, CH 4) were analyzed on a Dycor Quadropole mass spectrometer fitted with a variable leak valve. The results are combined with the capacitance manometer measurement to obtain gas concentrations (cc STP/Kg of water (+2%). Prior to helium isotope analyses, N 2 and 02 are removed by reaction with Zr-Al alloy (SAES-ST707), Ar and Ne are adsorbed on activatedcharcoal at 770 K and at 400 K, respectively. SAES-ST-10 1 Getters (one in the inlet line and 2 in the mass spectrometer)reduce the HD+ background to -100 ions/sec.Helium isotope ratios and concentrations were analyzed on a VG 5400 Rare Gas Mass Spectrometer fitted with a Faraday cup (resolution of 200) and a Johnston electron multiplier (resolution of 600) for sequential analyses of the 4 He (F-cup) and 3He (multiplier) beams. On the axial collector (resolution of 600) 3He+ is completely. separated from HiD+ with a baseline separation of < 2% of the HD+ peak. The contribution of iD+ to the 3 He peak if< 0.1 ion/sec at 1,000 ions/sec of 1ID+. For 2.0 ucc of He with an air ratio (sensitivity of 2 x 1074 Amps/torr), the 3He signal averaged 2,000 ions/sec with a background signal of-15 cps, due to either. scattered 4 He ions or the formation of 4 He ions at lowervoltage potentials within the source of the mass spectrometer. All 3 He/4 He ratios are reported relative to the atmospheric ratio (RA), using air helium as the absolute standard. Errors* *in the 3 He/4 He ratios result from the precision of the sample measurement (0.2%) and variation in the ratio measurement in air (0.2%) and give a total error of 0.3% at 2a for the W reported helium isotope value. Helium concentrations (cc STP/Kg of water) are derived from comparison of a known split of the total sample to a standard of known size. The value, as measured by peak height comparison, is accurate to 2% (2a).Tritium values are analyzed using the 3He "in-growth" technique. 150 g of water are degassed of all He on a high vacuum line and sealed in a 3" O.D. 1724 glass ampoule for a period of 30 to 50 days (because of the high tritium levels , with respect to typical precipitation). Glass ampoules had been baked at 2500 C in a helium-free nitrogen gas to minimize the solubility of helium in the glass. After sealing, the ampoules are stored at -20' C to limit diffusion of helium into the bulb during sample storage. During this interval, 3 He produced from the decay of tritium accumulates in the flask. Typical sample blanks are -10" 9 cc of 4 He and 10-15 cc of 3 He. Blank corrections to 3 He are made using the 4 He content and assuming that the blank has the air 3 He/4 He ratio. The 3 He content of the storage ampoule is measured on the VG 5400 using the above procedures and compared to the 3 He content of air standard. Typical 3 He signals for a sample, containing 10 T.U. and stored for 90 days are 0-8x10 5 atoms (+/- 2%) and a blank of 3 lxl 04 atoms of 3 He. Errors in the reported tritium value are dependent on the amount of tritium and are 2% (2c) at 10 T.U. Higher precision can be achieved with larger samples and longer storage times. Sampling Strategy 1. Determine the age and rate of groundwater flow in the 4 existing shallow (20 foot) near-field wells O,M,N,R. and 2 to 4 proposed shallow wells. It is hypothesized that this water should drain toward the containment building (based on hydraulic head distribution). Tritium (by PSEG) / Helium-3 (by U of Rochester) can determine this flow to +1- 20%.The flow will be compared to the tritium inventory estimates for the building sumps (pump.rate x tritium level) to evaluate the flow of tritiated water back toward the containment building (cost $1500 -2000 @$300 per sample)) (analysis time 1 month)2. Measure tritium and 3 He in 4 existing far field wells that penetrate into the Vincetown Formation Aquifer: K (80), L (80), P (,80), Q(80) (both measurements to be made at.Rochester). The goals are to estimate the travel times for natural groundwater in the Vincetown Fromation, determine if any significant tritium release has migrated away from containment and to determine the groundwater age of any discovered tritium release.Possible enhanced pathways for migration may exist along piping or "footings" pounded to depth. The method does not require knowledge of the tritium input function because the ratio of tritium to helium-3 establishes the age. (cost ($2400 @ 4 X$300 for tritium and 4 x $300 for.3 He) (analysis time 3 months)3. Measure trtium and dissolved gases in three to five existing deep wells (300 to 800 feet)that tap two drinking water aquifers (Mt Laurel-Wenonah at -300 feet and the Upper Raritan at 800 feet). The water at depth is most likely pre-nuclear with tritium at background levels (0.3 pCi/liter). Any potential leakage of surface water can be evaluated at the lppm level based on the significant tritium levels found in Turbine steam (1,000,000 pCi/liter) and Spent fuel pool water (100,000,000 pCi/liter) (cost $2000 -3000 at $600/sample) (analysis time 3 months)4. Measure 1-129 in two background samples (precipitation and far field groundwater) and six to eight wells that contain elevated tritium (4-5 shallow (20') and 2-3 wells from 80 feet). The ratio of 1291 to 3 He will be used to evaluate whether the source is steam (low"9I) or spent fuel pool water (high 1291). (cost $7000 @ $700 per sample) (analysis time 6 months) References Andrews, J. N., I. S. Giles, R. L. F. Kay, and D. J. Lee, Radioelements, radiogenic helium, and age relationships for groundwaters from the granites at Stripa, Sweden, Geochim.Cosmochim. Acta, 46, 1533-1543, 1982.Elmore, D, PW Kubik, N Conard and J. Fabrika -Martin, Computer controlled isotope ratio.measurements and data analysis. Nuclear Instruments and Methods. 83, 233-237, 1984.Fehn, U, and GR Holdren, Determination of natural and anthropogenic 1291 in marine sediments, Geophysical Research Letters 13, 137-139, 1986.Kubik, PW, D. Elmore, T.K. Hemick, H.E. Gove, U. Fehn, R.T.D. Teng, S. Jiang and S. Tullai Accelerator Mass spectrometry at the University of Rochester, Nuclear Instruments and.Methods B29, 138-142, 1987.Marine, 1. W., The use of naturally occurring helium to estimate groundwater velocities for studies of geologic storage of radioactive waste, Water Resources Res., 15, 1130-1136, 1979.Mazor, E., and A. Bosch, Helium as a semi-quantitative tool for groundwater dating in the range of 104-108 years, Consultants meeting on isotopes of noble gases as tracers in environmental studies, Vienna, May 29-June 2, Panel Proceedings Series InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, p. 163-178, 1989.Mazor, E. and A. Bosch, Dynamics of groundwater in deep basins 4 He dating, hydraulic discontinuities, and rates of drainage, Proceedings of the International conference on groundwater in large sedimentary basins, Australian Water Resources Council Conference Series, 20, 380-389, 1990.Poreda, R. J., T..E. Cerling, and D. K. Solomon, Use of tritium and helium isotopes as hydrologic tracers in a shallow unconfined aquifer. J Hydrology, 103: 1-9, 1988.Poreda, R.J., and K. A. Farley, Rare gases in Samoan Xenoliths, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 113, 129-144, 1992.Saunders, M, R. J., Cross, H. A. Jimenez-Vasquez, and R. J. Poreda, Stable compounds of helium and neon: He:@C60 and Ne@C60, Science, 259, 1428-1429, 1993.Schlosser, P., M. Stute, H. Db5rr, I. Levin, and K. 0. Mannich, Tritium/3He dating of shallow groundwater. EPSL, 89: 353-362, 1988.Solomon, D. K., R. J. Poreda, S. L. Schiff, and J. A. Cherry, Tritium and helium-3 as groundwater age tracers in the Borden aquifer. Water Res. Res. 28: 741-755, 1992.Solomon, D. K., S. L. Schiff, R. J. Poreda, and W. B. Clarke, A validation of the 3 H/3 He method for determining groundwater recharge, Water Resour. Res., 29 (9), 2951-2962, 1993.Solomon, D. K., R. J. Poreda, P. G. Cook, and A. Hunt, Site characterization using 3 H/3 He ground water ages, Cape Cod MA, Ground Water, 33, 988-996, 1995.Stute, M, C. Sonntag, J. Dedk, and P. Schlosser, Helium in deep circulating groundwater in the Great Hungarian Plain: Flow dynamics and crustal and mantle helium fluxes, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56, 2051-2067, 1992. W Standard Operating Procedure Tritium-Helium Dating of Groundwater Samples of groundwater from the Site will be provided to the noble gas laboratory at the.University of Rochester. The helium samples (about 30 grams of water) will be collected in copper tubing according to standard methods (see attached instructions). Tritium samples will be collected in 0.5 liter glass bottles that are sealed with polyethylene caps. The helium and tritium samples will be analyzed at the University of Rochester according to standard methods*(see Solomon et al., 1992 and references therein). All contracted work will be performed at University of Rochester facilities. Analytical precision for the measurements are as follows:.1) Tritium: detection limit of0.t TU with a maximum uncertainty of +/- 0.1 TU.2) Helium-4 concentration: Detection limit of I cc/kg with a maximum uncertainty of +-1 cc/kg.3) 3 He/4 He ratios (relative to. an air helium standard) with a precision of 0.3% for samples containing 40 grams of water. (Smaller volume samples will have lower precision).
- 4) Dissolved nitrogen concentrations (detection limit of 1cc/kg) with a maximum uncertainty of +I- 1 cc/kg.Air standards are used to calibrate the mass spectrometer with the standard procedure of one standard repeated every two samples. High vacuum blanks will be analyzed at a rate of one blank per five samples.The results of the analyses will be synthesized and provided in tabular format. In addition, groundwater ages based on the tritium and 3 He contents of the samples will be calculated and a written report will provide the details of such calculations.
Analytical Methods for Tritium and Helium Wells are sampled using a Waterra "lift" pump or a "downhole sampler"(a length of Cu tubing fitted with a check valve) to minimize formation of bubbles in the water stream. Eachwell had been recently purged by extracting more than three well volumes from the.standing water in the well prior to sampling. Care was taken to place the purge tube near the top of the standing water column to ensure that the well was flushed completely. During sampling, the Waterra pump was lowered to within 30cm of the bottom of the well. Samples were collected in 3/8" o.d. Cu tubing sealed with refrigeration clamps in accordance with standard oceanographic procedures. Gases are extracted from -25 g of water on a high vacuum line constructed of stainless steel and Coming-1724 glass to minimize helium diffusion. The non-condensable gases (He, Ne, O Ar, N 2 , CH 4). are transferred to a 1724-glass ampoule, filled with activated charcoal, by the use of a "water vapor pump" .Water vapor streams off the sample from the actions of ultrasonic agitation and condenses in the ampoule which is held at -1 95TC. A 2mm constriction in the sample ampoule limits the "back-streaming" of gases. After removal of H 2 0 vapor and CO 2 at.-900 C and -1950 C respectively, the non-condensable gas was measured using a calibrated gas splitter fitted with a capacitance manometer. Gas ratios (N 2 , Ar, CH 4) were analyzed on a Dycor Quadropole mass spectrometer fitted with a variable leak valve. The results are combined with the capacitance manometer measurement to obtain gas concentrations (cc STP/Kg of water (+ 2%). Prior to helium isotope analyses, N 2 and 02 are removed by reaction with Zr-Al alloy (SAES-ST707), Ar and Ne are adsorbed on activated charcoal at 770 K and at 400 K, respectively. SAES-ST-101 Getters (one inthe inlet line and 2 in the mass spectrometer) reduce the HD+ background to -1,000 ions/sec.Helium isotope ratios and concentrations were analyzed on a VG 5400 Rare Gas Mass Spectrometer fitted with a Faraday cup (resolution of 200) and a Johnston electron multiplier (resolution of 600) for sequential analyses of -the 4He (F-cup) and 3He (multiplier) beams. On the axial collector (resolution of 600) 3He+ is completely separated from HD+ with a baseline separation of < 2% of the HD+ peak. The contribution of iD+ to the 3 He peak if< 0.1 ion/sec at 1,000 ions/sec of HiD+. For 2.0 ucc of He with an air ratio (sensitivity of 2 x 10-4 Amps/torr), the 3He signal averaged 2,500 ions/sec with a background signal of -15 cps, due to either scattered 4 He ions or the formation of 4 He ions at lower voltage potentials within the source of the mass spectrometer. All 3 He/4 He ratios are reported relative to the atmospheric ratio (RA), using air helium as the absolute standard. Errors in the 3 He/4 He ratios result from the precision of the sample measurement (0.2%) and variation in the ratio measurement in air (0.2%) and give a total error of 0.3% at 2CT for the reported helium isotope value. Helium concentrations (cc STP/Kg of water) are derived from comparison of a known split of the total sample to a standard of known size. The value, as measured by peak height comparison, is accurate to 2% (2a).Tritium values are analyzed using the 3He "in-growth" technique. 150 g of water are.degassed of all He on a high vacuum line and sealed in a 3" O.D. 1724 glass ampoule for a period of 60 to 90 days. Glass ampoules had been baked at 2500 C in a helium-free nitrogen gas to minimize the solubility of helium in the glass. After sealing, the ampoules are stored at-20° C to limit diffusion of helium into the bulb during sample storage. During this interval, 3 He produced from the decay of tritium accumulates in the flask. Typical sample blanks are 9 cc of 4He and 10-15 cc of 3 He. Blank corrections to 3 He are made using the 4 He content and assuming that the blank has the air 3 He/4He ratio. The 3 He content of the storage ampoule is measured on the VG 5400 using the above procedures and compared to the 3 He content of air standard. Typical 3He signals for a sample containing 10 T.U. and stored for 90 days are -8xl0 5 atoms (+/- 2%) and a blanklof 3 +/- 1xl0 4 atoms of 3 He.* Errors in the reported tritium value are dependent on the amount of tritium and are 2% (2a) at 10 T.U. Higherprecision can be achieved with larger samples and longer storage times. Sampling Procedure for Dissolved Gas (Helium) and 3H (Tritium)Pre-Sampling ProceduresPurge the well completely prior to sampling. Purging procedures should insure complete purging of the well and allow for minimal agitation of the water column in the well annulus. Do not expose the well screen to air (i.e. do not evacuate low yielding wells to dryness). Pumps utilized for purging and sampling should not introduce gas into the well annulus, preferred are submersible pumps, peristaltic pumps and foot valve (waterra type) pumps.A slow steady water flow during sampling produces the best results by minimizing cavitation. Cavitation occurs when flow separation forms a partial vacuum on a swiftly moving solid objectsuch as a propeller. The partial vacuum generated strips dissolved gas from the surrounding fluid, generating small bubbles. These bubbles will corrupt the sample by concentrating helium within the bubbles and depleting the water of dissolved helium. Cavitation may occur in both submersible pumps and footvalve pumps, care should be taken for the rate at which the pumps run.Pumps should not utilize Teflon hosing, helium diffuses very rapidly through Teflon hosing, Teflon in general should be avoided as much as possible, PVC, poly-propylene and tygon are preferred, materials. Care should be taken in purging a deep, low yielding well, purging too quickly causes a rapid pressure change on the deeper water in the well. This may cause the dissolved gas within the deep water to come out of solution and cause bubbles to form within the annulus. These bubbles will strip the water of helium generating a bad sample. Samples from a residential/ household systems should be taken prior to any treatment system and prior to the pressure tank. If possible it is better to take the sample directly fromthe.well annulus using an external pump. If a sample point is post pressure tank please make note in sample chain of custody.Procedure for Dissolved Gas Sample (Helium) Attach two segments of tygon tubing to the ends of the copper sample tube and place the open pinch clamps on the tygon tubes. Select two refrigeration clamps,. making sure that they have a suitable "gap" in the fully closed position (1 -2 mm). Do not use clamps that have no gap (<1mm) or a spacing greater than 2 mm. Lightly tighten the refrigerator clamps to the outside of the copper sampling tube, leaving 1.5 inches of tubing on both ends. Attach the intake of the sample apparatus to the pumping source (for waterra or submersible pumps) and carefully elevate the sample tube above the pump outlet. (If a peristaltic pump is used, it should be downstream of the Cu tube) Angle the tube at 45 degrees so that the flow of water moves upward through the sampler, carefully chase any air bubbles throughthe sampler so that no air bubbles are noted within the pump/sampler assembly. Continue pumping, keeping a close eye on the downstream tygon tubing for bubbles, gently tap the copper sample tube, held in the "angled" position, with a metal wrench in order to release any bubbles that may be stuck to the side of the sampler. Continue pumping until several tube volumes have flushed through the copper tube and NO bubbles of gas are noted in the tygon lines and sample tube. A slow steady stream of water works best ( about 100 -400 cc/min)Note: This step can sometimes be very difficult, be patient, if it doesn't work after numerous attempts just do the best you can and make note of the problemContinue pumping and slowly close off the upstream pinch clamp on the tygon tubing, then quickly close off the downstream pinch clamp after the upstream is closed. Start to tighten the refrigerator clamps on the copper sample tube by holding the clamp with one hand and tightening the clamp nuts with the other. Tighten the clamp evenly to avoid "scissoring " of thecopper tube. The clamp should be tightened to the point where the maximum force is applied to the head of the wrench while holding the clamp tight. Over tightening will breach the sample tube while under tightening will allow the sample to leak. Sometimes there will be a small gap (1-2 mm) in the clamp when it is closed, clamp gaps will vary.Carefully remove both tygon hoses and check to see if the crimped ends are either wiggly (over tightened) or leak (under tightened), re-sample if necessary. Check that the clamps are secure by giving them a final tightening (torque of about 30 ft.lbs -force applied with a 4 to 6 inch lever ann- e.g. a box end wrench). If theends are sealed properly, fill the ends of the copper sample tube with water and cap, keep as little headspace in the ends as possible. If possible it is a 0 good idea to take a duplicate sample, just in case. Label the sample tube with the date, time of sampling, and sample number on a sample tag as well as directly on the copper tube with a marking pen.Procedures For 3H Sample After taking the dissolved gas sample, simply fill a 500 ml glass sample bottle from the pump discharge and cap with a poly-propylene cap, leaving no headspace within the bottle.Label the bottle with date, time, and sample number. Make sure the sample cap is tight, you can tape the cap to the bottle to prevent loosening with simple electrical tape. Shipping the Samples Back to the LabStore the copper sampling tubes in a horizontal position packed in either foam rubber on their own or encased within piece of aluminum channel stock, packed in foam rubber, pay careful attention to the sample ends, they must be protected from bumps and jars. Either package for shipping very securely or hand carry, bent tubes, mangled ends, and breached tubes are often unextractable back in the lab. As for the tritium sample bottles, pack very tight so that the glass of one bottle cannot contact the glass of another bottle. They should not be able to move or shift within the packing container, usually double boxed sample bottles fair better than single boxed samples. Again some samples have ended up on the floor of UPS due to poor packing, OverPacking Works Ship samples back with sample identification and sampling dates and times on a separate sheet of paper. Ship to: Dr. R. J. Poreda Dept. of Earthand Environmental Sciences Hutchinson Hall Rm. 227 University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627.Phone 716-275-8691 (lab) Appendix H Attachment 2 Research Laboratory Procedures Remedial Investigation Report PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Salem, New Jersey Item Title I Technetium-99 Analysis 9 ~aprojecftpse~ggsalem -tr~tur~fina I reports~ap; 12004 -rAappendices~append,, h rochester resultstatachment 2- tc-ggtaftachment2 2-cover~doc Appendix H Technetium-99 Analysis Prepared for PSEG by Robert J. Poreda Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Rochester September 15, 2003 Appendix H This project will use state-of-the-art methods to determine the abundance and distribution of Technetium-99 in the Salem I plant environment. Technetium-99 (99Tc) is a radioactive by-product of nuclear power generation (in addition to other mostly "nuclear" sources). Recent analytical advances in inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) make it possible to detect sub-picogram (less than 1010 atoms) quantities of 99Tc. We will apply these methods to understanding the migration of 99 Tc in the environment. 99Tc levels have not been accurately monitored in low-level radioactive settings because of difficulties in detection nor have the pathways of migration in the environment been determined. One major focus of the research plan is to understand the migration of radionuclides (especially 99 Tc and "291) through the groundwater/soil environment. At Rochester, Professor Udo Fehn and his students have developed and tested the state of the art methods for the determination of 1291. These analyses were successfully used at Ginna to establish the integrity of the containment system that minimized the radionuclide migration from the site. The behavior of Tc in groundwater and its interaction with soils suggests that the mobility of Tc-99 is nearly equivalent to 1-129 and tritium. The geochemistry of Tc is such that it exists as an oxyanion, TcO 4 , and has limited adsorption onto soils. Thus Tc-99 could be readily adopted as a fingerprint for spent fuel pool water with the added benefit of lower analytical costs and more rapid sample throughput than 1-129 (only the Purdue accelerator can achieve the LLDs necessary forthis investigation). Technetium (Tc) was detected in 1937 by C. Perrier and E. Segre in a deuteron-irradiated molybdenum sample in the cyclotron of E.O. Lawrence in California. Minute quantities of 99 Tc (half life = 2.14 x 10 5 yr.) are found to occur naturally as a result of spontaneous fission of uranium in uranium ore bodies. However, the largest source of the weakly radioactive isotope, 9 9 Tc, is from the fission of uranium in nuclear reactors. Technetium from nuclear power generating stations makes up about 6 percent of uranium fission products (Peacock, 1973), and together with 129, represents the major long-lived radio-isotopes generated in the nuclear industry. Federal regulations (IOCFR61 ...) specify the99 Tc and 1291 activity levels for disposal in low-level radioactive burial sites, although most waste shipments over-estimate the activity (by as much as 100x) and simply report the 99 Tc and 1291 levels as "upper limit values".Technetium differs from most of the radionuclides associated with the nuclear industry (9 0 Sr, 1 3 7 Cs, 6 0 Co, 63 Ni) that have half lives of 30 years or less and decay to less than 0.01 percent of their original activity in 300 years (the monitoring/evaluation interval). Because of the long half life, 9 9 Tc in environmental samples is not easily measured by conventional low level counting techniques. Typical detection limit for 9 9 Tc, obtained by I .Appendix H counting, is about 20 pCi/L of water (or 1013 atoms of 99 Tc). ICP-MS techniques should push this limit down by more than I 000x. The technetium from 1000 ml of water is collected on a TEVA disc specifically designed to adsorb Tc. The Tc is eluted from the disc with ultra-pure 2N HCI and 18 MQ -water to a total volume of 10 ml. At a conservative sensitivity of 100,000 cps/ppb, a signal of 100 cps is equivalent to a concentration in the water of.0.01ppt or about 0.2 pCi/L.The University.of Rochester has established a world-class facility for the detection of extremely low levels of.environmental metals, including.99 Tc, using plasma source mass spectrometry. In the 1990s, the, commercialization of mass spectrometers with ICP sources and quadrupole analyzers has revolutionized the study of trace element geochemistry and environmental chemistry. These instruments have extremely low detection limits (ppt or better) due to the efficiency of the ICP source in ionizing transition metals. In addition, sample preparation is simplified compared to other analytical methods because samples are introduced to the instrument as aqueous solutions. The plasma source mass spectrometry laboratory at the University of Rochester includes a new generation Thermo X-7 instrument, and a VG Plasma 54. The X-7 is a..workhorse quadrupole mass spectrometer with exceptional sensitivity and stability for trace metal detection at the ppt level.2 Appendix I Tritium Trend Plots for the Station Monitoring Wells. 100,000,000 F~10,000,000 -1,000,000 -100,000 I II I I I C)0.I-C.0 E NJ GW Quality Criterion 10,000 1,000, -Further Investigation Criterion---------------------
100 103 7 I 3/17/03 I I I I I I I I I I I 1/1/03 5/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 C-0 z Date Well Summary_: Installation Date Feb-2003 Monitored Unit Vincentown Top of Screen 70.0 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 80.0 ft bgs FIGURE ARCAD1 , Tritium Concentration in Well K PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATI1N HANOX'S BRIDGE, NEO JERSEY 0..E 100,000,000
- 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000o' ' I ' ', I ' ' I ' ' I NJ GWf Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 100, 10 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 z c5 z 6H Date Well Surmmry Installation Date May-2003 Monitored Unit Cofferdam Top of Screen 10.Oftbgs Bottom of Screen: 20.0 ft bgs FIGURE ARCADIS, Tritium Concentration in Well M I-2 PSEG NUCLEAR LIC SALEM GENERA1ING STA11CN HPANCCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY r*1 0 C0 b 0U U)0U L)w 0 w z 0~F-L)100,000,000 10,000,000
[NJ G\QualityCriterion -0~Cu E 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1-------------- Further Investigation Criterion/1 I 3/7I 5/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03' I ' ' .8/14/03 10/28/0 1" Date 1/11/04 Well Summary: Installation Date Jan-2003 Monitored Unit Cofferdam Top of Screen : 10.Oftbgs Bottom of Screen: 20.0 ft bgs Lii I-0 (S 0 0 FIGURE ARCA S, Tritium Concentration in Well N 1-3PSEG NUCLEAR LLC SALEM GENERATN STAIICN ICOC('S BRIDGE NEW JERSEY C.)0.0 Eu 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 II .NJ GW Quality Criterion Furth Investigation Criterion.......... 3/17/03 1/1/03 5/31/03 (L5 z 0 z w 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 Date Well Summary: Installation Date Jan-2003 Monitored Unit Cofferdam Top of Screen 10.0ftbgs Bottom of Screen: 20.0 ft bgs FIGURE ARCAD 5'1 Tritium Concentration in Well 0 1-4 PSEG NUCLEAR LLC SALED CENERATING STAIlCN HNCOCK'S BRIDCE, NEW JERSEY IF C., 0.0 L.)E a.2 100,000,000 .10,000,000 1,000,000 -100,000 10,000 1,000.100 10 NJ GW Quality Criterion Frh -nvestigation -.-Further Investigation"" I., I.' I I 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 C-z L zd I-C-,"C 0 8/14/03 10/28/03 Date 1/11/04 Well Summary: Installation Date Jun-2003 Monitored Unit Cofferdam Top of Screen 9.0 ft bgs-Bottom of.Screen: 19.0 ft bgs FIGURE ARC D S Tritium Concentration in Well R 1-5 PSEG NUCLEAR LLC SALEM GENERAliNG STATCONHANCOCK'S BRIDGI, NEW JERSEY 0 100,000,000 10,000,000 -0.0 E 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000... .I ' ' I j NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 05 z 100 4-..I .I I .I I I I 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 IL z 0 z C-)8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 Date Well Summary;Installation Date May-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 24.7 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 34.7 ft bgs 6i FIGURE SARCAD1S' Tritium Concentration in Well S 1-6 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERAllNG STAllON HANCOCK'S BRIDEl, NEW JERSEY 00 i-0 0 0 w C-)Lu I 0 z 6 z z z C-)100,000,000 10,000,000 2D 0.2 E-1,000,000 100,000'I I I ' I I ¸ I ' I" NJ GWQuality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 10,000 1,000 1001 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 I I I ' ' I 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 Date Well Summary: Installation Date May-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 27.2 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 32.2 ft bgs uJ H-°FIGURE~ ARCAD1S, Tritium Concentration in Well U PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERAliNG STAnCNHANOR'OXS BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY .-)[..CL 0 0 0 E I-100,000,000
- 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10' 1 ' ..' ' I 'NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 0 z w 1/1/03.3/17/03 5/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 z 0 z I-C-Date Well Summa: Installation Date Jun-2003 Monitored Unit Vincentown Top of Screen 69.5 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 79.5 ft bgs wJ I-0 FIGURE ARCAD1S, Tritium Concentration in Well V 1-8 PSEG NUCLEAR LLC SALEM CENERA1lNG STA1CEN HANOXX'S BRIE, NEW JERSEY C-,.4-100,000,000
.10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 I ' 'II NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 1,000 100 10 I I ' ' I ' ' I I 1/1/033/17/035/31/03 EL z z F-8/14/03 Date .10/28/03 1/11/04 Well Summary: Installation Date Jun-2003 Monitored Unit : Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 25.0 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 35.0ft bgs 6-0 FIGURE As; Tritium Concentration in Well W 1-9 PSEG NJCLEA. LLC SALEM GENERAllNG STA]IEN HN'a"'S BRIDGE. NEW JERSEY r 100,000,000 10,000,000 C., Cu 0 0 E...1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1/: ' I ' ' I ' ' I '*'NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 1/03I 'I3/17/035/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 C.z z I-Date Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 61.3 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 71.3 ft bgsI-FIGUREA A m Tritium Concentration in Well Z 1-10 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STAn]CN I-COCX'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 0!Cn w 0 o 0 a L)0 (.L w 0 C, W y-C,)0U w CL9 100,000,000 10,000,000 CL 0 0 E 11-1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion.
-100 10 I 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 a z 0 z L-Date Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen : 63.2 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 73.2 ft bgs FIGURE ARCAD1S; Tritium Concentration in Well AA PSEG NUCLFEAR LLC SALEM GENERATING STA1n0N HAECCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY or 100,000,000 10,000,000 C.)0..16-0 E.2~1,000,000 NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 100,000 1,000 100 10+' I ., II I I' ' I 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 z 0 z 6j)8/14/03 Date 10/28/03 1/11/04 Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen : 57.1 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 67.1 ft bqs FIGURE~ ARCADiS; Tritium Concentration in Well AB I-i2 PSEG NUCLEAR UC SALEM GENERATING STATMON HAN(X'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY z.0 iL EL (0 LU Lii LUJ m: C-)0 0.0..E 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 0 0 z L9 I *' i *' i 1/1/033/17/035/31/03 0 z L LU 8/14/03 Date 10/28/03 1/11/04 Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Cofferdam Top of Screen 74.0 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 84.0 ft bgs FIGURE ARCAD1S, Tritium Concentration in Well AC I-13 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATICN HAAM.K'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY C., 0.16.4)0 C.)E 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 3/17/03 5/31/03 I I II I I I I I 1/1/038/14/0310/28/03 1/11/04 z 0 z C-, 6i Date Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 57.1 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 67.1 ft bgs FIGURE ARCADiS; Tritium Concentration in Well AD I' 4 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STAT1CN I-PROCC'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY r U)0 0 w 0 w 0 L)LU 0-Q 0.0.0 E4-100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 0 z Lu 100 10.1/1/033/17/035/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 (L z.0 z (L Date Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit
- Cofferdam Top of Screen 71.8 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 81.8 ft bgs FIGURE ARC ADI Tritium Concentration in Well AE 1-15 PSEG NUCLEAR. LLC SALEM GENERATING STAT1N
..ANOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY CL C)0 E.2 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000.1,000 100 10." ' I ' " I ..I ' I NJ GW Quality Criterion Further Investigation Criterion 0 z w9*1-I '/' I ' I 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 1/1/03 3/17/03 5/31/03 0~z ci Date Well Summary: Installation Date Oct-2003 Monitored Unit Shallow, outside Cofferdam Top of Screen 54.2 ft bgs Bottom of Screen: 64.2 ftbgs I-0 c,FIGURE Tritium Concentration in Well AF 1-16 PSEG NUCLEAR, UC SALEM GENERAlING STATICN HANCOCK'S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY uLJ W.0 LL 0~0 (n 0U LU C..0 E 100,000,000 =10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1/1/03 0 z LU 0z z 3/17/03 5/31/03 8/14/03 10/28/03 1/11/04 Date Wells in Vincentown Formation Wells inside the cofferdam--Wells outside the cofferdam Monitoring Wells L, P, Q and T are not shown as tritium concentrations are non detect0 C, 0 Comparison of Tritium Concentration FIGURE in All Site Monitoring Wells 1-17 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERA1nNG STA1TC:N HPlCCK S BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 0 Appendix J A Perspective on Radiation Doses *and Health Risks from Ingestion of Tritium in Drinking Water and Potential Impacts on Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota A PERSPECTIVE ON RADIATION DOSES AND HEALTH RISKS FROM INGESTION OF TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL BIOTA David C. KocherSENES Oak Ridge, Inc.102 Donner Drive, Oak Ridge, TN 37830The main purpose of this discussion is to consider radiation doses and health risks to the public resulting from ingestion .of tritium in drinking water. We begin by comparing the dose resulting from ingestion of a unit activity of tritium with the dose per unit activity of other radionuclides ingested to provide an indication of the radiotoxicity of tritium. We then present a simple method of estimating doses and cancer risks from ingestion of drinking water containing a known concentration of tritium. This method is illustrated by estimating the dose and risk associated with the current drinking water standard for tritium. This discussion also considers current guidance on radiation dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota and levels of tritium in water that would be required to potentially impact populations of species.Dose Per Unit Activity Intake of Tritium and Other Radionuclides Of all the radionuclides of potential concern in radiation dose and risk assessments for workers and the public, tritium is among the least radiotoxic, meaning that the dose per unit activity intake by ingestion (or inhalation) is among the lowest of all man-made or naturally occurring radionuclides. This conclusion is illustrated by current estimates of doses to adults per unit activity intake of radionuclides by ingestion given in Table 1.1 Doses are given in millirem (mrem), or one-thousandth of a rem, and the assumed unit activity is I picocurie (pCi), which corresponds to 0.037 disintegrations per second, or approximately 130 per hour.2 Doses to adults per unit activity intake of radionuclides by ingestion given in Table I are values currently recommended for use in radiation protection of the public by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).' In addition to tritium, radionuclides listed in Table 1 include several fission and activation products of importance at nuclear reactors, isotopes'.A few radionuclides not listed in Table 1 have estimated doses per unit activity intake by ingestion slightly lower than the value for tritium. However, these radionuclides are rarely, if ever, encountered in significant quantities in the workplace or the environment. 2 Doses per unit activity intake by an adult in Table I represent an effective dose to the wholebody over a period of 50 years following an intake. They are based on considerations of doses to different organs and the period of time after an intake over which radionuclides are retained in the body and continue to deliver a dose even with no further intakes; this time is many decades in some cases. 3 The ICRP has been the leading international authority on radiation protection since the late 1920's, and ICRP recommendations have formed the basis for radiation protection standards and programs throughout the world. However, many current ICRP recommendations, including doses per unit activity intake of radionuclides by ingestion or inhalation, have not yet been formally adopted by regulatory authorities in the U.S., although these authorities may accept their use in many cases.I
- of uranium found in nuclear fuel, the most important isotopes of plutonium and americium produced in reactors, and naturally occurring isotopes of potassium, radium, and thorium.The dose per unitactivity of a radionuclide ingested depends on several factors including the half-life of the radionuclide, the types and energies of radiations emitted by the radionuclide, the extent of absorption from the GI tract, the organs of the body in which the radionuclide is deposited and the extent of deposition in those organs, and the rate of elimination from the body by. biological processes.
The low dose per unit activity intake of tritium, compared with values for other radionuclides, is due to two factors. First, most tritium taken into the body in the form of water behaves as normal body water and is rapidly eliminated from the body with a biological half-time of about 10 days in adults, and this biological half-time is much less than values for the other radionuclides listed in Table 1. Second, the beta radiations (electrons) emitted in tritium decay have very low energies and, thus, the energy deposited in tissue, which determines the dose from decay of tritium in the body, is much lower than the energy deposited by radiations emitted by other radionuclides. Conversely, doses per unit activity intake of isotopes of radium, thorium, uranium, plutonium, and americium listed in Table 1 are relatively high because, first,. these radionuclides have relatively long retention half-times in the body, taking into account radioactive decay and biological elimination, and, second, they (or their radioactive decay products) decay by emission of alpha particles, which deposit relatively large amounts of energy per unit mass of tissue. In addition, alpha particles are biologically more effective than gamma rays and beta particles in producing health effects (cancers). That is, for the same amount of energy deposited per unit mass of tissue (absorbed dose), the probability of a health effect is much higher for alpha particles than for other radiations.' The increased biological effectiveness of alpha particles is taken into account in radiation protection by multiplying absorbed dose in rads by a factor of 20 to calculate dose equivalent in rem.There is an additional consideration for tritium that is not taken into account in the dose per unit activity intake of 6.7 x 10-8 mrem per pCi currently recommended by the ICRP and given in Table 1. This value assumes that the biological effectiveness of low-energy beta particles in tritium decay is the same as that of gamma rays and higher-energy beta particles, such as those emitted in decay of Sr-90 and its decay product Y-90. However, many studies in a variety of organisms have indicated that tritium beta particles are biologically more effective than gamma rays and higher-energy beta particles. A representative factor to describe this effect that we have developed for use in human health risk assessments is about 2.4;. this modification 4 The biological effectiveness of ionizing radiations is believed to depend on the density of ionization in tissue (i.e., the amount of energy deposited per unit path length in passing through matter), and alpha particles have a much higher density of ionization than gamma rays and beta particles, due to their high energies and very short ranges in matter.5 The increased biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles has been incorporated, for example, in the methodology developed by SENES Oak Ridge for the National Institute of OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) for use in estimating probability of causation of cancers for the purpose of evaluating claims for compensation by workers at U.S. Department of Energy facilities who develop radiogenic cancers.2 Wof absorbed dose from exposure to tritium is analogous to the factor of 20 for alpha particles used in radiation protection, as described above.6'. Taking into account the. increased biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles, the dose to an adult per unit activity intake by ingestion would be 1.6 x 10-7 mrem per pCi; this is the second value listed in Table 1.*Doses per unit activity intake given in Table 1 apply to adults. However, the general population consists of younger age groups aswell as adults. Doses per unit activity intake of radionuclides by younger age groups generally are higher than values for adults, due primarily to the smaller masses of body organs and, in many cases (but not for tritium), the higher absorption of ingested radionuclides in the GI tract at younger ages. For ingestion of tritium in the form of water, doses per unit activity intake at different ages currently recommended by the ICRP are given in Table 2.' At age 1 year or less, for example, we see that doses per unit activity intake of tritium are about a factor of 3 to 4 higher than the value .for adults. However, in assessing doses to the public resulting from ingestion oftritium in water, the increased dose per unit activityintake at younger ages is compensated to some extent by the generally lower intake rates of.water at those ages. Therefore, the dose per unit intake is not, by itself, indicative of doses to younger age groups from intakes of water containing a known concentration of tritium compared with the dose to adults.Even though the dose per unit activity intake of tritium (and other radionuclides) is higher at younger ages than in adults, it is nonetheless reasonable to focus on assessing exposures of adults if the objective of the assessment is to gain a general understanding of doses and risks tothe public from exposure to known concentrations of radionuclides in the environment. This approach can be justified based on the consideration that if intakes over a normal lifetime of about 70 years are assumed, as is often the case in dose assessments for routine exposures of the public, the total dose and associated lifetime cancer risk usually will be dominated by the dose and risk resulting from intakes during adult years. More refined calculations that take into account the age-dependence of intakes and dose per unit activity intake do not change estimates of lifetime dose and risk by a large amount, as is illustrated by calculations of the risk from ingestion of tritium in drinking water over a lifetime in a later section. Many dose assessments for the public performed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) assume exposure of adults only.Estimation of Dose from Ingestion of Tritium in Drinking Water Estimation of dose from ingestion of drinking water containing a known activity concentration of tritium (or any other radionuclide) is a straightforward procedure. The dose frequently calculated in an assessment of radiological impacts on workers or the public is the 6 In early ICRP recommendations issued in 1960, a modifying factor of 1.7 was used to calculate dose equivalent from exposure to tritium, to account for the increased biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles, but this factor has not been retained in recommendations since 1977.7 Doses per unit activity intake in Table 2 represent an effective dose to the whole body over a period from the age at intake to age 70; intakes by adults are assumed to occur at age 20.3 dose resulting from one year's intakes of a radionuclide. 8 The annual dose from a known concentration of a radionuclide in drinking water is given by Dose (mrem per year) = Concentration (pCi per liter) x Intake rate (liters per day)x Exposure frequency (days per year) x Dose per unit intake (mrem per pCi).As an example, consider the annual dose to an adult corresponding to.the EPA's current drinking water standard for tritium; this standard is a concentration limit of 20,000 pCi per liter.'For purposes of estimating dose and risk corresponding to drinking water standards, an intake rate of 2 liters (L) per day often is assumed; this intake rate is a reasonable value for an adult who consumes above-average amounts of drinking water. The annual dose to an adult corresponding to 20,000 pCi/L of tritium in water then is given by Dose = (20,000 pCi/L)(2 L/day)(365 days/year)(1.6 x 10-7 mrem/pCi) = 2.3 mrem/year.This calculation assumes the higher dose per unit activity intake of tritium in Table 1, which incorporates an assumption of a higher biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles. If this assumption were not included, as is presently the case in dose assessments performed by the EPA and NRC, the annual dose would be a factor of 2.4 lower, or about I mrem per year.To put the annual dose associated with the drinking water standard for tritium into perspective, we note that the average dose to a member of the public from exposure to natural background radiation, excluding the dose from indoor radon, is about 100 mrem per year, and that the average dose from indoor radon is about 200 mrem per year. Thus, the drinking water standard for tritium corresponds to a dose that is about 1% of the total dose from natural background. This comparison is not intended to trivialize potential exposures to tritium in groundwater, or to convince the public that they should not be concerned about such exposures. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate that limits on acceptable exposures of the public to man-made sources of radiation often are set at a small fraction of unavoidable exposures to natural background radiation.The procedure given above also can be used to estimate annual doses to other age groups using doses per unit activity intake given in Table 2, increased by a factor of 2.4 to account for.the greater biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles. However, especially at the youngestages, a substantially lower intake rate of water should be assumed. For example, during the first'Calculation of an annual dose is particularly appropriate when the purpose of the assessment is to demonstrate compliance with a limit on dose in any year. Many radiation standards for workers and the public, in the U.S. are expressed in terms of limits on annual dose.9 The EPA's drinking water standards strictly apply at the tap (i.e., after treatment by a municipal water supply), rather than the source. However, the EPA often applies these standards to protection of groundwater resources, regardless of whether groundwater is being used to supply drinking water; see, for example, the report on Protecting the Nation's GroundWater:.EPA's Strategy for the 1990s (1991), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9200.4-18 (1997), which applied to cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites under CERCLA (Superfund), standards for hazardous waste disposal facilities regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Part 264), and standards for disposal of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and transuranic waste (40 CFR Parts 191 and 197).4 Wyear of life, a reasonable maximum intake rate of water is about 1 L/day. Based on doses per unit activity intake by a 3-month-old and 1-year-old in Table 2, the dose during the first year of life would be between 11 and 15 mrem.Estimation of Lifetime Cancer Risk from Ingestion of Tritium in Drinking Water Once the annual dose from ingestion of tritium in drinking water is estimated, it is a straightforward procedure .to obtain an estimate of the risk of cancer incidence that would result'from exposure over a lifetime. The lifetime cancer risk is given by Risk = Annual dose (mrerm per year) x Exposure duration (years) x Risk per unit dose.As an example, radiation risk assessments for hypothetical and prospective exposures ofthe public often assume that exposure occurs over a 70-year lifetime. Then, using a standard assumption developed by the EPA that the risk of cancer incidence per unit dose in the general population is 7.6 x 10-7 per mrem, 1 I the lifetime risk of cancer incidence corresponding to the drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium is Risk (2.3 mrem/y)(70 years)(7.6 x 10-7 per mrem) =1.2 x 104.That is, there would be slightly more than one chance in 10,000 of a radiation-induced cancer from a lifetime's exposure to tritium in water at the drinking water standard.The calculated lifetime risk given above is highly simplistic in that it assumes that the concentration of tritium in drinking water remains constant over 70 years. More realistically, if there were no further releases of tritium to the source of drinking water, the concentration would decrease substantially over time as a result of radioactive decay and dilution by inflow from uncontaminated sources, such as rainwater. For example, taking only radioactive decay into account, the average concentration of tritium over 70 years would be about 25% of the initial concentration, and the same reduction in lifetime risk resulting from exposure over 70 years would occur. On the other hand, the concentration could remain fairly constant or even increase over time if there were continuing releases of tritium.The calculated lifetime risk of slightly above I in 10,000 corresponding to the drinking water standard for tritium is at the upper end of the range of acceptable risks of 1 in 10,000 (10-4)to I in 1,000,000 (106) used by the EPA to establish preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) at contaminated sites subject to cleanup under CERCLA (Superfund)." A limit on acceptable risk of about I in 10,000 also is incorporated in other EPA regulations that apply to releases of l"The risk of cancer incidence per unit dose estimated by the EPA is an average value in a population of all ages, and it takes into account that the risk per. unit dose depends on age at time of exposure and is generally highest at the youngest ages."Risks corresponding to drinking water standards for radionuclides generally fall in the acceptable risk range under CERCLA when an exposure time of 70 years is assumed and risks of cancer incidence to the public per unit activity of radionuclides in drinking water are estimated in accordance with current federal guidance.05 radionuclides to the environment or radioactive waste disposal.' 2 We also note that risk assessments at Superfund sites often assume a shorter exposure duration of 30 years. This assumption would reduce estimates of lifetime cancer risk from ingestion of radionuclides in drinking water, assuming also that the concentration remains constant, by a factor of 0.43. To put risks .corresponding to the drinking water standard for tritium in perspective, we note that the lifetime risk of cancer incidence from exposure to natural background radiation at an average dose of about 300 mrem per year, including the dose from indoor radon, is nearly 2 in 100.The calculation of lifetime cancer risk described above ignores the age-dependence of intake rates of drinking water and doses per unit activity intake of tritium. More refined calculations that incorporate the age-dependence of intakes and dose are given in the EPA'sFederal Guidance Report No. 13, Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. For ingestion of tritium in drinking water, the EPA has estimated a lifetime risk of cancer incidence per unit activity intake in the whole population of 5.1 x 10-14 per pCi. This calculation does not incorporate an enhanced biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles by a factor of about 2.4; if this factor were included as in the dose calculations given above, the risk per unit activity intake would increase to 1.2 x 10-13 per pCi. For example, if the tritium concentration in water is at the drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L, the activity, intake over a 70-year lifetime, assuming a water intake of 2 L/day, would be 1.0 x 109 pCi, and the resulting lifetime risk of cancer incidence would be 1.2 x 10 4, or slightly above I in 10,000. Thus, for tritium, the refined calculation of risk that accounts for age-dependent effects gives essentially the same answer as our calculation based on an assumption of intakes by adults only.3 Finally, we note that the calculations of dose and risk described above involve substantial uncertainty. The uncertainty in the dose per unit activity intake of tritium recommended by the.ICRP is believed to be about a factor of 2, meaning that the true value could be as much as a factor of 2 above or below the recommended values in Table I and 2, the uncertainty in the biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles (the factor of 2.4) used in our dose calculations is also about a factor of 2, and the uncertainty in the risk per unit dose is believed to.be about a factor of 3. In addition, .the uncertainty in the intake rate of drinking water by an individual is about a factor of 2 to 3, depending on age. These uncertainties generally are not taken into account in radiation protection or in dose assessments for hypothetical and prospective exposure situations. However, they are important when the purpose of an assessment is to estimate, doses, cancer risks, or probability of causation of cancers in identifiable individuals. Effects of Tritium on Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota In addition to potential effects on human health arising from the presence of tritium (andother radionuclides) in groundwater, potential impacts on aquatic and terrestrial biota are of12 See, for example, standards for airborne emissions of radionuclides developed under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 61) and the standards for radioactive waste disposal identified in footnote 9.13 For many radionuclides, there are differences in the two approaches to calculating risk from ingestion, although the differences usually are not large and do not exceed a factor of about 5 in the worst case. When there are differences, the refined calculations that account for the age-dependence of intakes and doses per unit activity intake generally give lower risks. 6 concern. Approaches to radiation protection of biota differ from approaches to radiation protection of humans in two important ways.First, a basic premise of radiation protection of humans is that all individuals should be afforded adequate protection. This objective is reflected in requirements that are intended to limit doses and health risks to individuals who could receive the highest doses. In contrast, standards for protection of biota normally focus on protection of populations of species, including species that are the most sensitive to radiation.'. 4 The basic premise is that the ability of all species to reproduce and maintain viable populations, which allows them to serve their functions in an ecosystem, should not, be impaired, although it is .recognized that individual members of a species may be harmed.Second, the fundamental concern in radiation protection of humans is to limit the risk of cancer in exposed individuals and populations, and the approach to limiting cancer risks is based on an assumption that there is some probability of aradiation-induced cancer at any dose." 5 Incontrast, based on studies of radiation effects in many organisms, the critical biological effects on populations of species, that involve impairment of reproductive capability (i.e., the effects that occur at the lowest doses) are found to occur only at doses and dose rates above a threshold. 16 Therefore, biota are considered to be protected as long as the dose and dose rate is maintained below the threshold for impairment of reproductive capability in the most sensitive species.Other effects on populations of species, such as a significant increase in mortality, occur only at substantially higher doses.Although there is no formal system of radiation protection of biota similar to the system of radiation protection for humans, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have developed recommendations on dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota, and the U.S. Department of Energy is applying these limits at its facilities. Specifically, it is generally considered that populations of the most sensitive species of terrestrial animals will be protected if the absorbed dose is limited to less than 0.1 rad/day, and that the absorbed dose to aquatic animals and terrestrial plants should be limited .to less than 1 radlday.17 The recommended dose limits for" 4 Exceptions can occur when potential exposures of individual members of threatened or endangered species are of concern."'Radiation protection of humans also is concerned with limiting the risk of severe hereditary (genetic) effects in an exposed individual's offspring, and these effects also are assumed to occur with some probability at any dose. However, the risk of radiation-induced hereditary effects in humans is believed to be much less than the risk of cancer.1 6 The threshold doses and dose rates for impairment of reproductive'capability can vary greatly (e.g., by a factor of 100 to 1,000) depending on the particular species of concern.' Although there are exceptions, threshold doses and dose rates tend to be lowest in mammals and birds, intermediate in higher plants, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and crustaceans, and highest in insects, primitive plants, mollusks, and simple life forms (bacteria, protozoans, and viruses)."TImplicit in these daily dose limits is an assumption that exposures are occurring over a lobg time period (on the order of months or more), rather than over short periods of time. If exposures occur only over short time periods, species generally can tolerate higher dose rates without significant impairment of reproductive capability. 7 biota are much higher than the current dose limit for members of the public from all controlled sources combined, which is 0.1 rem per year.8 It should be noted that dose limits for biota are expressed in terms of absorbed dose, rather than dose equivalent as-in standards for humans. The question of the biological effectiveness of such radiations as alpha particles and low-energy tritium beta particles in inducing threshold effects that impair reproductive capabilities of biota is controversial and unresolved at the present time. One view to which we subscribe is that if there is an increased biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles in inducing threshold effects in biota, it should be less than the value that applies to induction of cancers in humans.19 Thus, the biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles in biota should be less than a factor; of two and probablycan be ignored.Levels of tritium in water that could result in impacts on aquatic or terrestrial biota can be estimated in the followingway. Since more than half of the mass of many organisms is water, it is reasonable to assume that the concentration of tritium in an organism is the same as the concentration in water to which the organism is exposed; the average concentration in all tissues of an organism generally would be lower. Then, based on the known average energy of tritiumbeta particles, the absorbed dose rate per unit activity concentration of tritium can be calculated;the result is 2.9 x 10-7 rad/day per pCi/gram. Since the density of water is 1,000 grams (g) per liter, the concentration of tritium in water corresponding to the dose limit for terrestrial animals of 0.1 rad/day is Concentration= [(0. lrad/day)/(2.9 x 107 rad/day per pCi/g)] x (103 g/L) -3.4 x 108 pCi/L.The concentration of tritium in water corresponding to the dose limit for aquatic animals and terrestrial plants of 1 rad/day is a factor of 10 higher, or 3.4 x 10i pCi/L. Based on this simple analysis, it is evident that concentrations of tritium in water would need to be more than a factor of 10,000 higher than the drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L for there to be any potential for deleterious effects on populations of terrestrial biota, and that the difference would need to bemore than a factor of 100,000 to potentially affect populations of aquatic biota.18 The public dose limit of 0.1 rem per year is included in the NRC's radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20. Although the public dose limit is intended to be applied to the total dose from all controlled sources combined, the NRC applies this dose limit to individual licensees, withoutregard for doses due to other controlled sources. However, other EPA regulations that apply to the Salem facility, including standards for operations of nuclear fuel-cycle facilities (40 CFR Part 190) and standards for airborne releases of radionuclides (40 CFR Part 61), limit doses to the public due to releases from the facility to a small fraction of the dose limit of 0.1 rem per year. The NRC also requires that releases of radionuclides -to the environment be maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and application of the ALARA requirement generally reduces doses to the public from operations atnuclear power plants to a very small fraction of the dose limit." 9 This view is based on the notion that.radiation effects on biota occur only at high doses where the density of ionization is high for any radiation type (including gamma rays) and, therefore, that there should be less difference in the biological effectiveness of different radiations at high doses than at the much lower doses of concern in assessing cancer risks in humans.8 Summary These discussions have sought to establish the following points.° Tritium has a substantially lower dose per unit activity intake than other radionuclides, either man-made or naturally occurring, to which workers and members of the public normally could be exposed.Based on many studies, of the effects of tritium in various organisms, we believethat calculations of radiation doses to humans from ingestion (or inhalation) of tritium, should take into account an increased biological effectiveness of beta particles emitted in tritium decay of a factor of about 2.4, even though this effect is not yet incorporated in estimates of dose per unit activity intake recommended by the ICRP or used by the EPA and NRC.'The dose per unit activity intake of tritium is higher in younger age groups than in adults, with the increase being the highest in infants. However, when the lowerintake rates of water by younger age groups are taken into account, the dose per unit activity concentration of tritium in water is less than a factor of 2 higher for infants than adults, and the total dose and cancer risk resulting from intakes of water over a lifetime are dominated by the dose from intakes during adult years. Doses and health risks to the public that would result from consumption of ,drinking water that contains tritium at concentrations equal tosthe EPA's drinkingwater standard of 20,000 pCi/L are low and are only a small fraction of the..unavoidable doses and risks from exposure to natural background radiation. The lowest concentrations of tritium in water that could be of concern in regard toensuring protection of populations of the most sensitive species of aquatic andterrestrial biota are more than a factor of 10,000 higher than the drinking water.standard of 20,000 pCi/L.9 Table 1. Doses to adults per unit activity intake of radionuclides by ingestiona Radionuclide Radioactive half-life Dose per activity intake (mrem per pCi)H-3 (tritium) 12.33 years 6.7 x 10-8 (1.6 x 10-7)b K-40 1.277 x 10 9 years 2.3 x 10-'Mn-54 312.11 days 2.6 x 10-6 Co-58 70.86 days 2.7x 10-6 Co-60 5.27 years 1.3 x 10-'Sr-90 28.79 years 1.0 x 10-4 Sb-125 2.75856 years 4.1 x 1076 1-129 1.57 x 10 7 years 4.1 x 10-4 1-131 8.0207 days 8.1 x 107 5 Cs-134 2.07 years 7.0 x 10-'Cs-137 30.07 years 4.8 x 10-5 Ra-226 1600 years 1.0 x 10-3*Ra-228 5.75 years 2.6 x 10 3 Th-228 1.9116 years 2.7 x 104 Th-232 1.405 x 1010 years 8.5 4x 10 1.8 x 104 U-234 2.455 x 105 years 1.8 x 10'U-235 7.038 x 108 years 1.7 x 10-4 U-238 4.468 x 109 years 1.7 x 10-4 Pu-239 24,110 years 9.3 x 10-4 Am-241 432.2 years 7.4 x 10'4 aExcept as noted, values are current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiololical Protection (ICRP) for exposure of adults in the general population (see footnote 2 in text).Value in parentheses takes into account an assumption of an increased biological effectiveness of low-energy beta particles emitted in tritium decay by a factor of 2.4 (see text).10 Table 2. Doses to individuals of various ages per unit activityintake of tritium by ingestion' Age at time of intakeDose per activity intake (mrem per pCi)3 months 2.4 x 10-7 1 year 1.8 x l0-7 5 years 1.1 x 10-7 10 years 8.5 x 101 15 years 6.7 x 10-8 Adult 6.7 x 10-8 aValues are current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for exposures of members ofthe general population (see footnotes 2 and 7 in text). If an increased biological effectiveness of tritium beta particles is assumed, values should be increased by a factor of about 2.4 (see text).11}}